SOTU: What I want to hear tonight

-Admit that some mistakes have been made, but that now is not the time for retreat. There have been challenges and roadblocks along the way, but commitment to meaningful change will continue in earnest. Will not let the ways of Washington or the special interests block what needs to be done in order to improve our economy and set our nation on a firmer foundation moving forward.

-Call out Republicans for their utter obstruction in Congress and for their mischaracterizations and falsehoods. Challenge Democrats to rise to the challenge and govern.

-Continue to make the case for health care reform; challenge congress to work together to pass reform soon; tie health care reform to economy at large and deficit reduction; speak of the tangible benefits to millions of people--in the form of increased consumer protections; quell fears.

-Explain how the current economic situation has come about; outline why your policies--although unpopular--were necessary in preventing the worst case scenario; admit that there is much work left to be done.

-Focus on the working and middle classes; outline what policies you will be proposing in the weeks and months ahead to improve the lives of the middle class in tangible and meaningful ways while at the same time laying the groundwork for a more prosperous, equitable, and secure future.

-Call Republicans out for recalcitrant posture toward financial reform/regulation. Explain why financial reform is needed and how new regulations will protect consumers and aid in preventing a recurrence of the 2008 financial crisis.

-Make the case for why effective, bold government is needed; encourage Congress and the American people to rise to the challenge.

*Note: I plan on posting initial reaction to the speech either later tonight or tomorrow.

Why America has become ungovernable

Writing in Newsweek, Michael Cohen presents a succinct and clear commentary on why America has been so utterly ungovernable the past year. According to Cohen, there are three main causes: (1) A Republican strategy of complete obstructionism, consisting of what Cohen calls "an agenda of pure nihilism for naked political gain"; (2) the spinelessness of the Democratic majority in the face of adversity (read: Massachusetts); and (3) the schizophrenic nature of the electorate (i.e. demanding stronger government action to spur economic recovery while at the same time deriding the expanding role of government).

One possible route for health care reform passage

If health care reform is to pass, a compromise will need to be reached between the Senate and House. Before Scott Brown became the 41st Republican senator last week, the way forward was for the House and Senate to reconcile their respective bills, compromising on the most contentious issues, in order to produce a single, final bill to be sent to both the House and Senate for final passage. No longer having a 60 seat majority in the Senate, Democrats are now forced to explore other options.

One such option, as mentioned in an earlier post, is for the House to pass the Senate's bill outright, bypassing the need to muster a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Such an option is fraught with difficulties as House liberals have shown much reluctance to pass the Senate bill without specific changes. House liberals want a higher excise tax threshold, increased subsidies, and a national--rather than state-based--health care exchange. It will not be possible to pass a bill with such features unless the Senate votes again.

Another option that is gaining traction is the idea of the House passing the Senate's bill, but only after the above concerns--higher subsidies, lower excise tax, national exchange--are passed by the Senate via the reconciliation process where only 51 votes would be needed. This route seems possible, but a lot will depend on how broadly the Senate parliamentarian interprets the reconciliation procedural rules. For more info on this development: here, here, and here.

Oh, and by the way, the contentious "Nebraska deal" that was struck with Sen. Ben Nelson could also be removed from the bill via the reconciliation process, removing what has become a symbol of closed-door, special interest legislating.

Obama blasts Supreme Court Ruling

Pass the Senate bill

Here's Krugman's take on why the Democrats must pass health care reform and why it cannot be "pared down". Failing to pass health care, contrary to much conventional wisdom, would be absolute political suicide for Democrats. And paring down the bill would be terrible policy, as each major aspect of the legislation--outlawing discrimination due to preexisting conditions, an individual mandate, and subsidies to those who cannot afford to purchase insurance outright--is closely interconnected.

How the Democrats should approach yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling yesterday, overturning a century-long ban on direct corporate political contributions, will have a devastating effect on American democracy. Corporate treasuries will be used to flood the airwaves with ads favoring candidates most closely aligned with corporate interests, including Wall Street, big oil, and all the rest. Of course, corporate interests already have immense power and influence over American politics, but there were long standing safeguards against total plutocratic control over the system, dating back to 1907. After yesterday's decision, those safeguards and limits have been removed. Let the floodgates open!

Democrats clearly are the obvious short-term losers. But longer-term, it is our very democracy that is at stake. Whether one leans to the left, right, or center, the prospects of a political system completely in the hands of corporate money is a frightening prospect.

As Democrats face an onslaught of populist rage over a growing government, bank bailouts, and insider deals, they would be very wise to center their platform in 2010 on passing legislation that will limit the reach of corporate money, as far as is legally possible, and on passing a constitutional amendment restoring previous legal precedent, for the longer term.

Such a strategy is a political no-brainer. Democrats clearly have the most to lose if corporate money is allowed free reign in electoral politics. Republicans clearly have the most to gain. But how will voters view Republican resistance to legislative and/or constitutional overturning of yesterday's ruling? How could Republicans possibly run on a populist anti-government, anti-big business platform, if they are seen as the party aiding and abetting the corporate takeover of our democratic political system.

It's truly a win-win for Democrats--if they're smart enough to run on it. Either Republicans come on board in an effort to restore the democratic balance in place since 1907, or they oppose legislation and a constitutional convention, exposing them as the populist frauds they truly are.

A return to robber-baron era politics

The New York Times:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.