The Senate held the final vote needed to pass the health care bill or H.R. 3590.  The vote was 60 - 39 .  The total cost of the bill is $871 billion.  Democrats with Vice President Biden presiding over the Senate passed the bill along party lines as expected.  All Senators voted from their seats in the Senate.  There were a couple moments of levity when Sen. Reid of Nevada was asked for his vote Reid gave an exasperated gesture that indicated of course and the entire Senate broke into laughter as if there was a chance that the Leader would vote anything other than “Aye” or yes.  Also, Bernie Sanders of Vermont gave a very enthusiastic “AYE” sending the Senate into laughter a second time. 

Now they go to conference and hopefully this bill will be drastically improved.   Right now the bill does not make health insurance affordable and that needs major adjustmances that will hopefully be accomplished during reconciliation.  Three major points of contention: 1) public option 2) removal of the antitrust exemption enjoyed by the insurance industry 3) an immediate implementation date.

The Senate health care bill covers Americans over the age of 54 and Americans 27 and under in that college students can say on their parents insurance until age 27 but what about those between the age of 28 and 54?  These people will be mandated to buy insurance from Big Insurance through a federal exchange being proposed.  Because no one knows exactly what is in the plan it is being reported that there is some language in the bill that limits what Big Insurance does with premiums collected through the exchange.  Apparently, 90 percent of the premiums collected must go to paying doctors and hospitals for health care delivery to policyholders.  In the early 90’s 95 percent of premiums went to actual health care delivery cost.  Today a mere 81 percent of premiums go to health care delivery by doctors and hospitals.  The remainder is used to pay obscene executive salaries, growing profits, outrageous administrative expenses, and finding ways to increase profits.  The important number for Wall Street when investing in Big Insurance is its Medical Loss Ratio (MLR).  The lower that number (81 percent average) the happier Wall Street.  The higher the MLR (90 percent) the unhappier Wall Street. Lets make Wall Street unhappy shall we?  This also may address the problem of providing affordable, high quality, health insurance for 28-54 year olds.  Of course no one knows if this will actually be included in the health care reform bill.

Senator Harry Reid has finally managed to get a consensus on a health care reform bill.  The newly proposed Senate bill costs a mere $849 billion ($51B less than President’s mandate of $900B), reduces the deficit by $127 billion in 10 years, covers 94 percent of Americans (31 million more Americans), includes a public option with a state opt out provision, and contains a much weaker Stupak (anti-abortion) amendment.   

New Stupak compromise is as follows:

The Senate version would require at least one plan within the health insurance exchange that the bill sets up to offer a plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t. It would also authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to audit plans to make certain that abortion isn’t being paid for with federal dollars.

Read the health care bill (PDF) (Abortion amendment starts at 116, Community Health Insurance Option  (Public option)  and opt out provision begins on p. 182  (Sec, 1323)

In addition, according to a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press, 52 percent of Americans favor a public option while only 38 percent oppose a public plan.  The majority of Americans have spoken and delivered a mandate to Congress that the health care reform bill must include a public option.  Participants were also asked if they would favor the public option being available nationally or whether states should be able to opt out resulting in the following:

Poll participants were asked whether government insurance should be available to all, or whether state governments should be able to decide not to offer it. Seventy percent favored making it available nationally while 25 percent said state governments should be able to decide.

The bill obviously needs a bit more work when it comes to the opt out provision.

The United States Senate officially apologized Thursday for the enslavement and segregation of millions of African-Americans and “the fundamental injustice, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws.”  The body passed the resolution sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa by way of voice vote.  The resolution now goes to the House of Representatives. 

One small point of contention.  The Congressional Black Caucus may not endorse the resolution due to the inclusion of a sentence that reads  ”nothing in this resolution authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”   A few members of the CBC have voiced concerns regarding the inclusion of  such “restrictive” additional language.

One  member of the CBC noted that the 1988 government apology issued to Japanese-Americans held in internment camps during World War II did not have a disclaimer nor did it include any language preventing them from receiving compensation.  Other CBC members said the following:

“Putting in a disclaimer takes away from the meaning of an apology,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. “A number of us are prepared to vote against it in its present form. There are several members of the Progressive Caucus who feel the same way.”

“The language is unacceptable,” said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., “I’m a reparations man – how else do you repair the damage?”

The Credit Card Bill of Rights bill is up for vote today by the Senate.  This bill will, among many other things, prevent credit card companies from increasing interest rates four-fold without notice or justification.  Here are a few things to think about while you’re calling your Senator.

- People who have ALWAYS paid their credit card debt 100% on-time are now seeing
 their standard interest rates raised from 7.5% (avg) to 27% or more.

- Even debit cards, which have always been billed as “same as cash”, are seeing new fees added on by banks and card companies. 

- The average credit card debt for American households is $10,000.00.

- 80,000 new credit cards were solicited last year, many to students and people  
 without ongoing employment security.

Call your Senator and tell him to vote for this bill.

UPDATE:  The bill is on its way back to the House and should be signed into law by the end of the week depending on the President’s schedule.  Woohoo!  The bill gives credit card companies nine months to comply with the new rules.  Such companies will be required to post all agreements online and allow consumers to make payments via phone or Internet free of charge.  In addition, lenders must provide consumers with a 45-day notice and an explanation before increasing interest rates.  Good job everyone for reaching out to your Senators……90-5 WOW!!!!

The Senate version of the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights hits the Senate floor today and now is time to call your Senator to make sure that he/she knows that you support this bill.    If you care about the fact that Credit Card companies are taking taxpayer funded TARP money and then arbitrarily hiking up your interest rates regardless of your payment history but just because they can then today is the day to call your Senator and tell him/her to vote for this bill.   Credit card companies are gouging consumers in the name of the bad economy and its up to the consumers to do something about it.  Contact Your Senator .   See the details of the Senate version of the bill below.

Contact Your Senator

THE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT

Prevents Unfair Increases in Interest Rates and Changes in Terms
• Prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases and universal default on existing balances;
• Requires a credit card issuer who increases a cardholder’s interest rate to periodically review and decrease the rate if indicated by the review;
• Prohibits credit card issuers from increasing rates on a cardholder in the first year after a credit card account is opened;
• Requires promotional rates to last at least 6 months.

Prohibits Exorbitant and Unnecessary Fees
• Prohibits issuers from charging a fee to pay a credit card debt, whether by mail, telephone, or electronic transfer, except for live services to make expedited payments;
• Prohibits issuers from charging over-limit fees unless the cardholder elects to allow the issuer to complete over-limit transactions;
• Requires penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation;
• Enhances protections against excessive fees on low-credit, high-fee credit cards.

Requires Fairness in Application and Timing of Card Payments
• Requires payments in excess of the minimum to be applied first to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest;
• Prohibits issuers from setting early morning deadlines for credit card payments;
• Requires credit card statements to be mailed 21 days before the bill is due rather than the current 14.

Protects the Rights of Financially Responsible Credit Card Users
• Prohibits interest charges on debt paid on time (double-cycle billing ban);
• Prohibits late fees if the card issuer delayed crediting the payment;
• Requires that payment at local branches be credited same-day.

Provides Enhanced Disclosures of Card Terms and Conditions
• Requires cardholders to be given 45 days notice of interest rate, fee and finance charge increases;
• Requires issuers to provide disclosures to consumers upon card renewal when the card terms have changed;
• Requires issuers to provide individual consumer account information and to disclose the period of time and total interest it will take to pay off the card balance if only minimum monthly payments are made;
• Requires full disclosure in billing statements of payment due dates and applicable late payment penalties.

Strengthens Oversight of Credit Card Industry Practices
• Requires each credit card issuer to post its credit card agreements on the Internet, and provide those agreements to the Federal Reserve Board to post on its website;
• Requires the Federal Reserve Board to review the consumer credit card market, including the terms of credit card agreements and the practices of credit card issuers and the cost and availability of credit to consumers.

Ensures Adequate Safeguards for Young People
• Requires issuers extending credit to young consumers under the age of 21 to obtain an application that contains: the signature of a parent, guardian, or other individual 21 years or older who will take responsibility for the debt; or proof that the applicant has an independent means of repaying any credit extended;
• Limits prescreened offers of credit to young consumers;
• Prohibits increases in the credit limit on accounts where a parent, legal guardian, spouse or other individual is jointly liable unless the individual who is jointly liable approves the increase in writing.Enhanced Penalties
• Increases existing penalties for companies that violate the Truth in Lending Act for credit card customers.

Gift Card Protections
• Protects recipients of gift cards by requiring all gift cards to have at least a five-year life span, and eliminates the practice of declining values and hidden fees for those cards not used within a reasonable period of time.

Encourages Transparency in Credit Card Pricing
• Requires the GAO to study the impact of interchange fees on consumers and merchants, specifically their disclosure, pricing, fee and cost structure.

Contact Your Senator

It is very easy for someone to say that a plan will not work and criticize it excessively.  It is much more difficult to offer sound alternative solutions in the light of such criticism.  Every time I hear the President speak I walk away feeling completely confident of our eventual recovery.  So I pull up my bootstraps and head out to do my part by using a small amount of purchasing power to help in the cause.  Just as I’m about to head for the door, I hear someone from the GOP screaming ‘oh my goodness…..the sky is falling….the sky is falling.’  So what do I do instead….I go out and buy an umbrella. 

The GOP has been all over the Sunday shows and the political spectrum shouting that the budget proposed by President Obama spends too much and will impose insurmountable debt on future generations.  Such an argument confuses the immediate priorities.  Who amongst us would forgo an opportunity to provide our starving child with food knowing that it will result in a larger credit card bill next month even if there was a possibility that the grocer may not accept credit and you may walk away empty handed.  In times of emergency all reasonably viable opportunities must be pursued.  Besides, give a child a fish and he/she will eat for a day. Teach a child to fish and he/she will eat for a lifetime. It is a much better proposition to sacrifice the funds now and clean up the ocean so that future generations can eat for a lifetime.

Unfortunately, the GOP have failed miserably at offering any plausible alternatives to the president’s budget that have not already been tried during the eight years of the Bush administration.  In spite of the fact that the GOP has all of a sudden got fiscal religion, lets revisit history for a moment in terms of its fiscal track record.  The budget was balanced for the first time in 30 years under President Bill Clinton.  That means that the four Republican presidents preceding Clinton (Reagan, Bush 41, Nixon, Ford) and the single democratic president (Carter) could not balance the budget.  Lets also remember that President Bush and a republican controlled Congress entered office with a 86.4 billion dollar surplus.  President Bush, with the help of a GOP controlled Congress six out of his eight years in office, left the presidency and the country with a staggering $638 billion dollar deficit.  One wonders if on the Titanic the GOP were the ones bailing water into the ship. Needless to say, the Republican party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to debt left to future generations or fiscal discipline in general.

The President proposes that the best way to bring down our deficit is to have a budget that leads to broad economic growth. It also makes sense that the president’s budget is inseparable from our economic recovery because it lays the necessary foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.  The administration plans to create a new foundation for the economy by creating a new health care system, new energy technology, and achieving great progress in education so that it will enable us to become a much stronger competitor in the global economy.  There is an enormous need to counter the incredible drop in demand currently plaguing the nation and pull us out of this crisis.  The only sector with money to do so is the government.  That means that the government is the liquidity source of last resort right now. It must spend to stimulate demand and prevent us from sinking into a depression. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan body, says that the adoption of the Reinvestment and Recovery Act will help to end the recession by fall of this year. 

We must make the necessary investments in education, health care, and renewable energy infrastructure now in order to equip future generations for future and sustained prosperity.  So instead of just putting a band-aid on the broken economy this administration has opted to confront it, operate, and heal it.  The biggest drain on future funds is health care.  More specifically, Medicare and Medicaid.  Therefore, investing in an information technology system to make the health care industry more efficient will also contribute significantly to decreasing our deficit. Now that all the relevant players in the health care industry now recognize that the industry must be reformed including the majority of the GOP, twelve years later, but at least they are on board now, now in the time to do it.  We must face the fact that we as a people must make a tectonic shift in how we move throughout or day to day lives.  During this challenging time it will be inconvenient and we will have to make sacrifices now in order to secure a prosperous future.

Other obstructionist arguments offered by the GOP.

 The GOP argues that the small businesses will be hurt most by a tax increase on Americans making over $250,000 a year.

According to Politifact, a small business would have to ”make” $250,000 in net profit after deducting all his expenses (employees pay, supplies, and other legitimate business expenses) to be subject to the tax increase.  The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that only two percent of small businesses will be subject to the tax increase.  Which means that 98 percent will more than likely receive a tax cut.

Charities will lose by a decrease in the deductions allowed for charitable giving by the wealthy.  There will be a cap on such deductions for those earning $250,000 or more a year.

The best way to encourage and enable charitable giving is to have a flourishing economy. When the economy is booming people are much more charitable. In addition, a significant amount of charitable giving comes from low income people through religious institutions etc.

Requires a Cap and Trade or energy tax on all Americans.  

The cap and trade plan is designed to reduce green house emissions and address climate change in addition to investing in necessary infrastructure building. Further, building such infrastructure will enable us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.  The plan will also move toward providing us with alternative sources of energy and provide millions of green jobs in the process.  Not to mention that it will help us to become an energy producing rather than an energy consuming economy.  This part of the president’s budget is a necessary investment in our infrastructure, by way of updating the electric grid among other things, for the jobs of the future.  Our outdated electricity grid is costing the U.S. over $100 billion dollars a year.  It wastes twice as much energy as it did thirty years ago.  We need to update and modernize our energy grid.  The GOP has criticized this part of the budget by referring to it as an energy tax. Why you ask? Because the GOP is significantly dependent on oil company money and it is not in the interest of the oil industry for the U.S. to become less oil dependent.  Why you ask?  Because the cap and trade plan will result in consumers using less energy (driving less)which cuts into oil industry profits.

Repealing tax credits to the oil and gas industry that may result in putting the industry at a competitive disadvantage.

Exxon Mobil shatters U.S. records in January 2009 by reporting profits of 45.2 billion for 2008.   Nuff said.

Where is the GOP’s budget you ask? They don’t have one.

The second stimulus package has been approved by the House and the Senate and both bodies will be voting on it in the next few days hoping for the President to sign it by Monday.  The package consists of $507 billion in spending programs and $282 billion in tax relief and is designed to save or creat 3.5 million jobs.  Much of the education funding was put back into the package.  Stimulus checks to individuals were cut back from $500 per individual, $1000 per family to $400 per individual and $800 per family.  The package will also include a one time payment of $250 to social security and disability recipients.  The bill will extend unemployment benefits by 20 weeks and boost such benefits by $25. Further, the bill expands the subsidy that helps the unemployed continue to buy health insurance from their employer. A one time tax credit for  buyers purchasing a home in 2009 was included but was reduced to $8000 tax credit for first-time buyers only instead of the initial $15,000 for all home buyers.  In addition, tax breaks for new car buyers to write off interest for their loans. Not sure if that tax credit will be retroactive to include January and and the first part of February of 2009. There are significant amounts for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and energy. The total amount of the package is $789 billion.  Hopefully the full details of the new package will be released in the coming days.  Read the full text of the FINAL bill here .

There has been a great deal of hoopla made about Representative Bobby Rush’s comments accusing the United states senate efforts to block Blogojevich’s appointment of Ron Burris to Pres-elect Obama’s vacant Illinois senate seat to that of a “lynching” and comparing such efforts to the segregationist actions of Orval Faubus, George Wallace and Bull Connor blocking the progress of integration and civil rights.  Rush’s exact comment was:”You know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where schoolchildren — where you have officials standing in the doorway of schoolchildren,” Rush said. “You know, I’m talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Ark. I’m talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I’m sure that the U.S. Senate don’t want to see themselves placed in the same position.”

Rep. Rush, all of a sudden, seems to be very concerned about the fact that there are no African-Americans remaining in the United States senate since Pres-elect Obama’s recent departure.  As a matter of fact, Rep. Rush says that ”[w]e need to have not just one African American in the U.S. Senate. We need to have many African Americans in the U.S. Senate.”  However, in the 2004 senate primary when then United States senate candidate for Illinois Barack Obama and another fellow African-American, Joyce Washington, needed Rep. Rush’s support for their candidacy, Rep. Rush supported the millionaire white candidate Blair Hull in the 2004 democratic senate primary.  Where was Rep. Rush’s concern for African-American representation in the United States senate at that time?  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there needs to be more female, African-American, and minority representation in the senate.  After all, the senate should reflect the electorate with every group having a seat at the table and needs to be much more diverse than it is at the moment.  However, it does not have to be this African-American/minority that fills the spot.  Not to mention the fact that Rep. Rush, Blagojevich, and every person involved in the Burris appointment, motives are seriously questioned. 

Most would agree that the electorate wants effective representation in the Senate. As written about in a previous post, after running and becoming the Illinois Comptroller in 1979, Roland Burris has ran for public office five additional times in the state of Illinois.  Three times for governor, once for the United States Senate, and once for Mayor.  Burris has lost everytime.  I, as a non-Illinoisian, am willing to accept the people of Illinois verdict on Roland Burris, they do not want him representing them in such a powerful position.  Now Burris has seized on a tainted opportunity to gain a senate seat by not having to actually get elected.  He has seized on such opportunity after it was turned down by other ELECTED officials.  Be clear, Burris wants this seat so that he can add United States Senator to his Chicago cemetary monument that he has built to himself in recognition, if he does say so himself, of all his accomplishments.  (He really has built a very elaborate monument headed “Trailblazer” to himself, see it here, with room left for his senate title).  Burris has two children which he named Rolanda and Roland.  He also has a grandson named Roland.  Senator Barack Obama worked very hard for that Senate seat and he was ELECTED by the state of Illinois because such electorate believed that he would be the person to best represent them in the United States Senate.  Somehow, giving this seat to Burris just does not sit right with me as an African-American.  Further, did we mention that Burris and Rush were calling for Blagojevich’s resignation two weeks ago?

Granted, Governor Blogojevich does have the right to appoint whomever he wants to the senate seat (however briefly he may retain such right).  However, the United States Senate has a right (arguably) under Article 1, section 5 to judge the qualifications of its members.  Thus, arguably, the Senate has the right to question a credential given by Blagojevich to Burris to enter the United States senate.  Arguably, the senate can question credentials of an appointee given by a Governor charged with selling the exact senate seat to which an appointee claims to have been appointed.  Granted, this may be a case of first impression for the federal courts (meaning it has never been ajudicated before) but cases of first impression are won by plaintiffs and defendants all the time. 

Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of the Burris appointment going through because it increases their chances of getting a Republican elected to the Illinois seat in 2010 because Burris has all but assured democrats that he would not be running to keep the seat.  (Update) Burris has changed his mind and said that he will run in 2010.  Great (snark).  As mentioned before, Democrats are concerned about retaining the Illinois senate seat in the 2010 election.  Thus, it is important that the person appointed will be able to maintain the seat and actually get elected in 2010.  Burris has demonstrated time and time again that he is incapable of doing that.  Of course the GOP are pushing for the appointment.

My reason for writing this post is to address the issue that African-Americans will be up in arms about Roland Burris being denied a seat in the senate.  Give me a break.  This African-American will not be bothered if Roland Burris is denied entry.  I’m also insulted that a few African-American and main stream media pundits are playing along with this blatant race baiting and claiming to speak for me.  Do they honestly think that I will be persuaded to back someone simply because he/she is black?  I actually heard Roland Martin dare the United States senate not to seat Burris because of what he believes will be an African-American backlash.  Here is an example of such backlash when Burris held a rally with all his Illinois senate seat supporters, all 20 of them, in Chicago last week.  Backlash…we think NOT!!!   Seriously, did we not learn anything from this past election?

After the bailout bill passed in the House by a significant margin there were high hopes by for the bill’s passage.  However, in a vote of 52-35, the automobile bailout deal died in the Senate last night.  GM and Chrysler were seeking a $14 billion dollar loan.  Ford is not seeking funds at this time.  The proponents of the bailout needed 60 senate votes for the bill to pass.  The White House was adamantly against using any of the $700 billion dollar TARP (Troubled Asset Rescue Plan) money to give to the automobile makers.  Looks like the White House will have to reverse itself and use part of the TARP money afterall because W doesn’t want to see the automobile industry fail on his watch.  The Democrats advocated the use of the TARP money to begin with but was immediately shut down by the White House.  One of Sen. Harry Reid final statements ”I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow….it’s not going to be a pleasant sight.”   Japan’s Nikkei index and Hong Kong’s HANG SANG lost more than 5% overnight.

UPDATE:  Twenty minutes before the Wall Street rings its opening bell the White House signals that it would be willing to consider using the TARP money for the auto bailout.  No indication if many of the strings negotiated within Congress for the last couple of days will be part of a TARP package.  Lets hope that this news makes a difference to Wall Street.

Sen.  Barack Obama is pro-choice.  Sen. John McCain is pro-life.  Sen. McCain would like to abolish Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  Sen. Obama would like to uphold Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  This is important because whomever walks into the White House in January 2009 will most likely be responsible for choosing two new Supreme Court Justices who will decide whether to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade.

The right-wing pundits are going on and on about a vote Sen. Obama made as a state senator.  Lets revisit the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act shall we.  It is a piece of legislation that was introduced by an Illinois GOP state senator in 2003 when Sen. Obama was a state senator.  The legislation required hospitals to provide a fetus that survived an unsuccessful abortion with medical care.  Sen. Obama voted against the bill.  Sen. Obama and other democrats and opponents believed the bill to be a thinly veiled attempt by Illinois senate Republicans to undermine Roe v. Wade by interfering with a woman’s right to choose. Legally speaking, if a woman chooses to have an abortion as authorized by Roe v. Wade and a hospital is then required to provide medical care to the non-viable fetus if the abortion is not completely successful, doesn’t that defeat the woman’s choice to have an abortion in the first place?  Illinois abortion opponents tried repeatedly to pass laws that define a fetus (viable or non-viable) surviving an abortion as a person with full rights thereby requiring a second doctor to be present to provide medical care and creating a right to sue on behalf of the infant.  There are real and complicated legal questions that such a bill would pose to Roe v. Wade.  At the time there was already an existing Illinois law that insured life-saving treatment would be given to infants.  However, sponsors of the BAIPA said that the law did not go far enough.  This is a ploy used by Illinois abortion opponents to implement their ultimate agenda of overturning Roe v. Wade.  In 2002, a similar federal Born Alive bill was passed and signed into law by Pres. Bush.  Sen. Obama said that he would have supported the federal bill. Why?  Because the federal bill did not encroach on the rights granted by Roe v. Wade as there is no federal abortion law. Therefore, the state concerns regarding a woman’s right to choose do not exist at the federal level.  In 2005, a Born Alive bill was signed into law by the Illinois Senate but the bill specifically provides that it does not affect any existing federal or state laws regarding abortion. That means that it does not encroach upon any of the rights granted under Roe v. Wade. Obama said he would have supported the 2005 version of the Illinois Born Alive bill. This is a nuanced argument that only lawyers have the time to appreciate. But it is a legitimate legal point and the fact that the bill only passed after the Roe v. Wade exclusion was added lends substantial credibility to Obama’s argument. These are the facts, regardless of how a certain nurse who writes a weekly column for a right wing website describes her experience testifying in front of a state senator Obama.

Sen. Edward Kennedy surprised his colleagues today when he showed up to the Senate floor for the Medicare cloture vote.  This is the first time that Sen. Kennedy has been to the Senate floor since he began his cancer treatment.  His colleagues gave him a standing ovation.  A truly amazing development!

Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley announced today that he would be supporting Barack Obama.   Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) also announced her support for Obama today.  Indiana Rep. Baron Hill will endorse Obama tonight.  One Senator also says that Obama has dozens of superdelegates lined up.  Hillary Clinton recently received superdelegate and North Carolina Governor Mark Easley’s endorsement yesterday.   Bill George of Pennsylvania also just announced his support for Clinton.  Obama is leading among committed superdelegates in the Senate 18-13, while Clinton leads in House superdelegates 77-74.

An enlightening article in the New York Times regarding Obama’s “present” votes in the New York Senate.  The Op-Ed piece was written by Abner Mikva, an informal contributor to the Obama campaign, as well as a former Illinois state legislator, Unites States Congressman, and former White House counsel for the Clinton administration. 

February 16, 2008  Op-Ed Contributor

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.  Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.   In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.  In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. Read the rest of this entry »

Expect your refund checks in the mail.  Many believe that this may be too little too late.  However, I wonder if the government expects many of us to spend the refund check long before we receive it in the mail. Therefore, the effect of the Stimulus Package will be felt immediately or at least much sooner than the media is predicting.  The bill is now expected to go the Senate for it’s approval tomorrow.  The Senate has hinted that it may have issues with the current version of the bill.