Nancy Pelosi, American Hero

As we bid farewell to Nancy Pelosi's Speakership, let's pause a moment to realise that the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives - the most powerful woman ever to serve in elected office in the USA - was also the most effective leader the Democrats have had in Congress for many generations.

Progressive, feminist, climate change hawk, child advocate, and proud San Fransican, Nancy was never a politician to win elections or legislative battles by selling out her beliefs. But win them she did.

Her term as Speaker was relatively short, but her accomplishments outrank most of her predecessors by a long way.

By any measure, Pelosi has been one of the most effective House speakers in American history, especially given her relatively short tenure. At Salon, Steve Kornacki offers a helpful recollection of her many accomplishments, from health care to student loan reform to the credit card bill of rights to cap and trade. Pelosi consistently delivered legislation that became law, as well as legislation that the Senate then stalled on and failed to pass. As Kornacki writes, Pelosi is unpopular less because of what the House has done or failed to do — most Americans have little idea of those particulars — but because the economy is bad and voters wanted someone to blame.

But there’s another factor that makes Pelosi that much easier to scapegoat: She is a woman — the highest-ranked woman ever to hold elective office in the United States. In January 2007, Pelosi gaveled in her first legislative session as speaker while cradling her newborn grandson (one of seven grandchildren) and surrounded by other legislators’ offspring, whom she had invited to the dais to celebrate. She spoke about her own journey from “kitchen to Congress” and promised that the Democratic Party would govern on behalf of children, and their mothers, too — a vow she fulfilled by collecting the votes to pass the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which insures 11 million kids, and the Lily Ledbetter Act, which made it easier for victims of gender- and race-based pay discrimination to file civil rights complaints and collect back pay.

Thanks.

Get Angrier

Last night, the Republicans appear to have won over 60 seats in the US House of Representatives, taking back majority control of that body, while at the same time picking up at least 6 seats in the Senate. Democrats will retain a majority in the Senate and were relieved to hold onto some critical seats there that looked like they would be hard to hold - most notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held onto his seat in Nevada against all odds.

So... that was a pretty crappy night for us, really. No two ways about it. The defeat of (sorry Mom) batshit crazy non-Witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and baseball bat wielding loon Carl Paladino in New York by substantial double digits won't stop the so called Tea Party from tightening their stranglehold on the Republican party. They now own it. They've proved in this election cycle that they can take down in the primary any Republican who shows any hint of an interest in actually solving the nation's problems. Climate change doesn't exist, immigration should be punished (and screw the law abiding Latinos who get caught up their dragnet), the only acceptable way to even attempt to fix the economy is with more tax breaks for the rich. Welcome to the new rules.

Well I say screw that.

President Obama's going to make a speech pretty soon, and I'm sure that as usual his words will be wise, reasonable and right. But I wanted to post before he speaks to tell you that, from my point of view, election 2012 starts today.

I'm incredibly proud of the Democrats accomplishments of the past two year. Against resistance from every faction of the Republican party we've salvaged the economy, rescued the auto industry (which, amazingly, is now restored to full profitibility), delivered a stimulus package that economists agree is responsible for keeping or creating between 1.5 and 3.3 million jobs, and passed health care reform that will cover 95% of the population and will serve as our lasting legacy for generations to come.

It was the most successful Congress of the past hundred years, and seems to have started to but it wasn't enough - not nearly enough to solve the deep and lasting damage that has been done to the economy by 8 years of Republican mismanagement. And people angry. I don't blame them

The problem is that people have lashed out, in their anger, at the only people they could knowck down - the overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress. We were in their sites, so they took us down.

I think the voters weren't nearly angry enough. I know I wasn't.

Republicans now say they want to spend the next two years obstructing, blocking, investigating and holding hearings on the Democrats. For instance,

The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged "scientific fraud" behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.

Now that they have the reigns of power in the House, what are they hoping to accomplish with it? Well, nothing actually,

"If you put too much of the actual official power in the hands of the Republicans, it makes them responsible. Right now, I think they're in perfect position tactically. Control the House, object, propose stuff that Obama may veto and run on that against him in 2012.”

While the country has a 9.6% unemployment rate? Does this sound to you like a party that has any interest in, oh, I don't know, fixing things?

Me neither.

The 2012 election campaign starts RIGHT NOW. And I say, bring it on. This is a fight we have to win.

Obama Appoints Solicitor General Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

Kagan is a former Dean of Harvard Law School, and has been the Obama Administration's Solicitor General for over a year. She has had a varied career in law, working in the Clinto Administration, as an advisor to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a Law Professor. She clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and worked on Michael Dukakis' Presidential campaign.

If approved by the Senate, she will be the first Supreme Court appointee since 1972 not to have prior experience as a Federal judge.

I'll post more information and updates as the process goes on - but in the meantime my generic advice is: Read SCOTUSBlog.

They know more about this stuff than almost anyone, and they do a good job keeping up to date. Here for instance is their detailed summary of Kagan's experience, positives and negatives, and the perception of her by fellow lawyers and jurists.

Kagan is uniformly regarded as extremely smart, having risen to two of the most prestigious positions in all of law: dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General.


In government and academia, she has shown a special capacity to bring together people with deeply held, conflicting views. On a closely divided Supreme Court, that is an especially important skill.

Conservatives who she has dealt with respectfully (for example, Charles Fried and former Solicitors General to Republican Presidents) will likely come forward to rebut the claim that she is an extreme liberal.

She would also be only the fourth woman named to the Court in history, and President Obama would have named two. At age 50, she may serve for a quarter century or more, which would likely make her the President’s longest lasting legacy.


As with John Roberts, her service in a previous presidential Administration exposed her to a number of decisionmakers, who have confidence in her approach to legal questions.

The fact that she lacks a significant paper trail means that there is little basis on which to launch attacks against her, and no risk of a bruising Senate fight, much less a filibuster.

And finally, one point is often overlooked: Kagan had some experience on Capitol Hill and significant experience in the Executive Branch, not only as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, but also as an important official dealing with domestic affairs. She has thus worked in the process of governing and does not merely come from what has recently been criticized (unfairly, in my view) as the “judicial monastery.”

Obama Administration Celebrates UK Labour Day by Protecting US Workers

Here in the UK, we're enjoying a long weekend in celebration of the international movement to protect workers rights. The Labour movement (as distinct from Labour, the political party) has had a massive impact on working conditions across the industrialised world, from regulating an 8 hour working day to restrictions on child labour to minimum wage and the right to unionise. Workers can no longer be discriminated against, in many places, on the basis of race, age, gender or (more recently) sexuality.

In the USA, Labour day doesn't happy until the first Monday of September. I guess the good people of America felt a little uncomforable celebrating their freedoms on the day appointed by the Second International in protest against the slaughter of pro-Labour protesters in Chicago. But in any case, President Obama has honoured the true spirit of International Workers day by the simple expedient of taking concrete steps to ensure companies comply with existing labor laws.

In a move that will affect most American corporations, the Labor Department plans to require companies to prepare and adopt compliance plans aimed at ensuring they do not violate wage, job safety and equal employment laws.

The effort, aimed in part at reducing the incidence of employers not paying overtime and improperly classifying workers as independent contractors, will require them to document many of their decisions and share that information with their workers and the government.

In announcing the department’s intentions on Thursday, Deputy Labor Secretary Seth Harris said his department wanted to foster a culture of compliance among employers to replace what he described as a “catch me if you can” system in which too many companies violated employment laws.

This is important to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because I think that people in general focus too much on imposing new legislation or regulation, and not quite enough on using the existing ones well. The Bush administration managed to do a lot of damage, in particular to environmental protection and worker's rights not by overturning laws protecting them, but by a kind of malign neglect. That kind of think - non-enforcement of longstanding laws - doesn't often make the news, but it can radically transform the landscape in insidious ways.

And secondly because I think that some of the tactics this reform is aimed at, for instance, treating people who are essentially full time, permanent workers as contractors to avoid offering them benefits, are a small part of the reason why the recovery has so far been slow to result in much job creation. If employers genuinely don't feel ready to hire again, and feel nervous of commitment in an unstable economy that's perhaps understandable - but it isn't a license to ignore the law.

Republicans Unify to Ensure Banks are Not Regulated

I'm so glad the Republican party has operated in lockstep to vote against Financial Reform. In recent years, our struggling banks have been the only salvation of the global economy, with their cautious and morally upright behaviour preventing us from falling into a cataclysmic financial crisis in 2008. Thank heavens the Republicans are unified to ensure that they can keep operating in exactly the same way. Shame on the Democrats for seeking to reign in these paragons of fiscal rectitude.

[Yes, it's OPPOSITE DAY here on the Obama London blog!]

The Liberal Democrat Surge...

So all of Britain has gone Lib Demtastic following Nick Clegg's good performance in last Thursday's leaders debate here.

Wondering who these upstarts are? Perhaps you'd be interested in the series of articles I wrote last year when I was introducing myself to the party.

Here's a short intro to the party.

Here's some info on the panel discussion I did at their conference.

And here's my "Beer Fuelled Rant" in which I gave the party a good talking to about their relative lack of ambition.

For the record - I can't vote in this election, but if I could I would probably vote for different parties locally and nationally. So I wouldn't classify myself as partisan in a UK context - although I'm sceptical of the Tories.

The Facts Show (and Businessweek Agrees) Obama Plan is Working

A lot has happened this week, both locally (a great Democrats Abroad health care celebration!) and back home (Justice Stevens is retiring!) but I wanted to take a moment now to write about the economy. Specifically, the improvement in the economy.

Businessweek magazine, hardly a bastion of economic populism, has just published an interesting article about how not only are the markets recovering, but they are doing so because there appears to be a solid grounding of underlying economic improvement. And they attribute this to directly to Obama's efforts:

Little more than a year ago, financial markets were in turmoil, major auto companies were on the verge of collapse and economists such as Paul Krugman were worried about the U.S. slumbering through a Japan-like Lost Decade. While no one would claim that all the pain is past or the danger gone, the economy is growing again, jumping to a 5.6% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses finally restocked their inventories. The consensus view now calls for 3% growth this year, significantly higher than the 2.1 % estimate for 2010 that economists surveyed by Bloomberg News saw coming when Obama first moved into the Oval Office. The U.S. manufacturing sector has expanded for eight straight months, the Business Roundtable's measure of CEO optimism reached its highest level since early 2006, and in March the economy added 162,000 jobs—more than it had during any month in the past three years. "There is more business confidence out there," says Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney. "This Administration deserves significant credit."

It is worth stepping back to consider, in cool-headed policy terms, how all of this came to be—and whether the Obama team's approach amounts to a set of successful emergency measures or a new economic philosophy: Obamanomics.

But this doesn't need to be a question of  interpretation. The facts on the ground are very clear - on almost every measure, bar unembployment - which is only just starting to recover, with our first month of positive jobs news just reported - the economic situation has grown better under Obama's presidency.

I'm going to just flagrantly steal some charts from Ezra Klein's blog, but as usual you really should read it yourself.

Here's a chart showing job growth:

And yes, the blue bits are the Obama Presidency and the Red bits are Bushville. Spotted a pattern? Hmmm....


Here's a chart showing house prices. (Hint, remember Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009...)

Here's a chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial average under the Obama Presidency:

This is fun. I could do this all day.

Here's one showing GDP growth under Obama - remember, the first quarter of his Presidency would have been reported in April 2009, so that's the first point of measure the chart uses:

 Now, the news is not all unmixed joy. It's true that in order to achieve these results, Obama has allowed the deficit to continue to rise (worth noting that the biggest chunk of the deficit still came under Bush - but also worth noting that Obama CHOSE to let it continue going up).

Ezra, and most professional economists, argue convincingly that it was this counter-cyclical spending and the increased deficits that they caused which made it possible for the other measures to go up. They further argue

that the deficit would also have continued to go up if the economy (e.g., GDP growth) had failed to grow, since tax revenues would have continued to plummet. I find all that convincing.

There's another point as well - it's possible Obama was just plain lucky. Maybe he just happened to be inaugurated at the peak moment of the recession and it would have naturally turned around even if he had done nothing. I don't think that's the case, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the direct job creation and protection (a lot of firefighters and teachers were due to be laid off without the stimulus) led to real growth. But it's theoretically possible.

What I DON'T think you can now argue, even as a hypothetical, is that anything Obama and his team did in any way slowed down of prevented a recovery. So the source of the anger and economic populism that springs from much of the right appears tome (how shall I put this delicately) to spring from factors other than a purely fact-based analysis.

UK Elections Will be on May 6th...

Gordon Brown meets with the Queen tomorrow to ask for a general election to be called. Yes, that's really how this works, the mad compromise with history that is political life in Britain remains as entertaining as it is, oddly, more or less effective.

As a non voter, with friends in all three British parties (and some Green party-ites as well, now I think of it), I'll largely be watching these elections as a keen and interested observer. Good luck to all of you who will be hitting the campaign trail for one

But in the competition to determine who our next Prime Minister will be, may I only issue a fervent and heartfelt: May the best man win.

In terms of our relationship with America, I feel confident in saying that Obama's relationship with a future PM will be the same as his dealings with the current one; a warm and close association in which we don't always agree but most often find ourselves on the same side. Call it a Special Relationship if you like - and the British Media love to check the pulse and temperature of the Specialness in our relationship, viewing it apparently as a very poorly patient. For me the point is that in the BEST of all possible ways America doesn't usually need to worry about Britain. We rarely worry that they will stockpile nuclear weapons, or crack down in totalitarian oppression against their own people. We don't worry that they'll mass troops against their neighbours, or intentionally destabilize global currencies. If Obama often doesn't spend as much time on the relationship with Britain as the British press would like, it's because there are a lot of countries out there for whom one or more of those descriptions apply.

That the UK is so often proudly unproblematic is something that (fortunately) is unlikely to change no matter which of the candidates becomes our next PM. So I don't expect Barack will be rushing to endorse any of them, whereas I do expect he'll be quick to congratulate whoever should come out ahead.

Which doesn't mean there won't be offices in the White House - including the Oval one - watching the forthcoming show with great interest.

Faces of Change...

Today Health Care Reform became the law of the land.

Still work to do. But a lot of good work now complete. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama and the millions of others who worked to make this day happen.

Thinking of Ted Kennedy and wishing he could have lived to see this.

David Axelrod says that Obama was more excited the moment health care reform passed than he was when he became President. I think that's as it should be - winning the election gave him the chance to do this. But he might still have failed. His Presidency might not have been successful

Now, he has something more important than a victory. He has a legacy.

This is what change looks like....

Last night, by a 219-212* vote, the House passed historic health care reform that will provide cover to more than 32 Million more Americans and make every single American more secure - noone can now be denied care because they are sick, or because they are too middle class for medicaid but denied coverage by their employer. We are all better off today than we were yesterday, including the people who right now oppose this effort.

I believe that, like Medicare and Social security, this reform will become a proud bedrock of American social protection, and will make us both healthier and more economically competitive.

This is what I and more than 52% of Americans voted for in November 2008.

* Unfortunate typo corrected....

"If it be now, 'tis not to come...

if it be not to come, it will be now;
if it be not now, yet it will come:
the readiness is all."

Hamlet, Act 5 Scene II

The House votes today on final passage of health care reform. MSNBC reports that Democrats DO have the votes to pass this bill. Passage would occur in two votes - one to pass the Senate bill as passed on Christmas Eve 2009, and the second on a package of amendments agreed with the Senate.

The United States is alone among developed nations in not offering its citizens comprehensive health care, with nearly 50 million Americans uninsured.

Although the bill before Congress does not provide universal health care, it should expand coverage to about 95 percent of Americans. It would require most Americans to carry insurance with subsidies for those who can't afford it, expand the government-run Medicaid program for the poor, and create new places to buy health care.

Even so, the reform is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of presidents and Congress in domestic affairs. While national health care has long been a goal of politicians and presidents stretching back decades, it has proved elusive

The readiness is all....

Republicans Raising Money off Britain's Own David Cameron?

And wacky hijinks ensue....

Republicans are hoping to raise $80,000 (£53,000) from donors by offering them the chance to meet David Cameron, according to a leaked party document... Attractions beside Mr Cameron also include an Ultimate Fighting Championship bout in Las Vegas and a "professional bull riding event", planned to net $60,000 and $50,000 respectively.

I expect the Cameron people to commence distancing themselves from this with blinding speed. However, worth saying that I attended the Republicans Abroad drinks do at the last Conservative Conference (as an interested outsider, obviously) and heard a surprising amount of "here here's" to the "let's shrink government down to bathtub drowning size" rumbling there.

I'm not taking a (public) position on the British election, so enjoying this purely as spectacle...

Deep Thought: What being a Democrat means to me.

Today at the Democrats Abroad International meeting, one lovely young woman from France said that she was interested him hearing what being a Democrat means to us - why do we do it?

The next speaker after her complimented the presenation that had just been given, saying that having attended the earlier meeting to discuss it, which had apparently been lively, he felt that the final presentation was (probably not an exact quote): "A beautiful synthesis of complaint and argument into something really great."

I responded that that's what being a Democrat means to me.

A beautiful synthesis of complaint and argument.

Discuss.

Yes. We (still) can.

Hello sports fans! So maybe you’ve been hearing that health care reform has gone the way of the dodo. That it’s pushing up daisies. It’s deceased, snuffed it. Has shuffled off this mortal coil. That THIS is an EX-bill!



Nonsense.

Folks like to get overexcited. Folks are excitable. But, a month on from the Dems unfortunate loss in Massachusetts, the President is uncreasingly ungently urging Congress to go just what I told you they should do.

(Yeah, Rahm’s on the phone to me all the time. “What do you think, Karin? What’s your legislative strategy, Karin? Oh help me, great guru.” It’s so annoying.)

The House is preparing to pass the Senate bill, unamended. After its passage, the Senate will pass a package of amendments to the bill that will reconcile it with the House legislation on key points.

After which, the President signs both bills into law, making for the most comprehensive reform of our health care system since, well... ever. Actually.

Every single health care bill that has ever been passed in the USA until now has failed to address the whole of the population or the whole of the industry. Don’t get me wrong, there’s been some good work done – from the creation of Medicare aimed at Seniors, to Medicaid for the poor, and SCHIP for children.

But frankly, as a childless working age adult I don’t see why I should be excluded from any improvement in the problems that affect me. (Awake, silent majority!)

Right now, if I lived in the USA I would currently be without health insurance. OR, I would be paying over $1,000 per month for basic cover as a self employed person. My mom, who is currently uninsured, was quoted $1,000 per person per month for catastrophic care only. Yeesh. Frankly, considering that I would like to keep some of my income and maybe even, heavens, buy myself frivolous luxuries – a washer dryer! A car! Imagine the luxury! – I’d rather not do this.

But fortunately, I don’t have this problem. For instead, I pay £38 per quarter as my self employed contribution towards the National Health Service, for which I get – well, whatever I need. I don’t get what I WANT, friendly and attractive staff, music pumped through the waiting rooms, unlimited on demand tests and optional services. But I guess if the NHS were willing to run up costs more than twice what they currently spend (i.e., something approximating what the US pays) they might be able to provide some of that stuff too. Meh.

I digress. Obama’s plan is utterly unlike the NHS. It’s a moderate, minimalist BEGINNING that probably won’t be enough to solve the whole problem.

What it WILL do is:

• Insure 30 million more Americans than are currently insured.

• Ban the insurance companies from denying care to the sick or at risk.

• Provide a choice of insurance plans to every American who needs it

• End“job lock” allowing people to make career decisions based on their ambitions rather than their fears.

Just, yah know. Pass. The. Damn. Bill.