Matt Yglesias:

If reconciliation could be revived, things might look different. There’s a good case for not doing this legislation through reconciliation. The product that emerged from the parliamentarian’s wringer could be sub-optimal in various ways. But the product that emerges from Lieberman’s wringer will also be sub-optimal. So given a viable threat of reconciliation, it seems to me that both sides would have some incentive to compromise.

NOW he writes this? Sheesh. This was the point when a lot of us were writing this 6 months ago. The worst political bargainers in the history of political bargaining.

Speaking for me only

I'll reignite them right now:

It remains the most prescient statement of the primaries.

Speaking for me only

What now? As if "now" was different than 6 months ago. Here's the dirty little secret the Village Bloggers won't tell you - there were never 60 votes for "health care reform." This ridiculous dance that began when Max Baucus did not deliver his crappy proposal on time was just part of the process to try and kill any health insurance bill. The 11 Dimensional Chess players got played - by Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, and the rest. Remember the absurd "Gang of Six?" We were always where we are "now." They pretended otherwise in order to run out the clock.

In the end, the question was always about reconciliation and what could pass under reconciliation. Or do you REALLY think if you capitulated on "everything," they would not dream up new objections?

And now we have the results of the Post-Partisan Unity Schtick. The Theory of Change. It lies smoldering in a rubble of ruins. The Village Wonks will tell you this means that "the country is ungovernable." What it REALLY means is that it is ungovernable by wimpy, timid, "post partisan" Democrats who will not exert their power. It's not just an Impotent President. It is an Impotent Democratic Party.

Speaking for me only

Sen. Joe Lieberman says the Medicare buy-in and public option mean he's voting against the health care bill.

A Senate Democratic aide, flummoxed by Mr. Lieberman’s stance, said, “It was a total flip-flop and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.”

What would it take for Lieberman to change his mind?

“You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in,” he said. “You’ve got to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the Class Act [long term care provisions], which was a whole new entitlement program that will, in future years, put us further into deficit.”

Bump and Update: The Senate passed the $447 government funding bills as part of a $1.1 trillion total appropriations package. Some highlights are here.

***

Sat. 12/12/09: The last hurdle was cleared today and the Senate will vote tomorrow on the $447 billion 2010 appropriations bill. The bill is composed of six separate measures.

Here's the one on crime funding. While there is prevention money in the bill, there's also a lot of funding for the War on Drugs.

Combating Illegal Drugs: $2 billion, $81 million above 2009, to combat illegal drugs through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These funds will provide for 128 new DEA positions to help stop the flow of illegal drugs across the Southwest border and to investigate, disrupt and dismantle major Mexican drug cartels.

The FBI does pretty well too, including lots of money for surveillance: [More...]

Scott Fenstermaker is the habeas lawyer for Ammar al-Baluchi, the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and one of the detainees accused of participation in the September 11th attacks. A. Scott Piraino of The Populist has a three part interview with him on the anticipated upcoming federal trials. Here's Part I, Part II and Part III, and some background on the lawyer[whose] " persistence in securing the legal rights of detainees led to his suspension, and even drove him to sue several members of the Bush administration, including the President.."

From Part II, on the soon-to-be defendants' chances for acquittal at trial: [More...]

It was six years ago today that Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a spider hole. Mark Green, an Army physician assigned the duty of sitting him, provides his recollections. More from Dr. Green in an interview here.

Matt Taibbi's new article in Rolling Stone castigating Obama for his choice of economic advisors and handling of the economy is creating a big buzz. Here's Digby and Kevin Drum. Taibbi ends his extremely long article with:

What's most troubling is that we don't know if Obama has changed, or if the influence of Wall Street is simply a fundamental and ineradicable element of our electoral system. What we do know is that Barack Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different.

I don't see why anyone is surprised that Obama is a moderate -- or not progressive on many issues the left cares about most. [More...]

From Bill Simmons' Mailbag:

Q: With the Woods mess in the news, I am reminded of how I feel about him -- amazed at his skill, but not a fan. He has modeled his life and career after his hero, Michael Jordan, and I felt the same way about him. It got me to thinking about what Jordan has created, the mega-sports star with huge endorsement clout that we marvel at but don't necessarily like. At the very least we are indifferent to many of sports' biggest stars. Think about this list: Jordan, Woods, Kobe, Federer, Jimmie Johnson, Beckham. All worldwide money machines, but how do we really feel about them? Indifferent. Arnold Palmer was the first modern-day mega-star and paved the way in the endorsement business for an athlete who was real AND likeable. Who is today's Arnie? Do we have one? -- Matt, Phoenix

SG: Well, LeBron isn't quite ready yet. I think it will be him soon. But for now … right now … I mean … this kills me to say it … but isn't it Peyton Manning?

(Emphasis supplied.) Simmons is wrong about LeBron. He is the newest version of Jordan. Manning is likeable but Arnold Palmer "root for him" likeable? Nah. Palmer was from Latrobe, Pennsylvania and projected a working class image that made him a natural to root for against the "country club" types. Derek Jeter is our version of Joe DiMaggio. The closest we came to a Palmer type was Brett Favre -- before he left the Packers. He was our Arnold Palmer - projecting "realness" and "every guyness" and people all over rooted for him. More . . .

I'll pick some football games a little later.

This is an Open Thread.

My football picks - Colts (-6.5) over Broncs. Vikes (-6.5) over Bengals. Bucs (+4) over Jets. Chiefs (+2) over Bills. Bears (+4) over Packers. Falcons (+10) over Saints. Lions (+14) over Ravens. Fish (+2) over Jags. Pats (-13) over Panthers. Seahawks (+7) over Texans. Titans (-13) over Rams. Raiders (+1) over Washington. Chargers (+3.5) over Cowboys. And finally, painfully, Iggles (-1) over Giants.

Matt Yglesias:

The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.

You see? The Village (or the Obamabot part of it anyway) has decided it is NOT Obama's fault! He is impotent! I suppose this is all a set up for a Truman-like "Do Nothing Republican Congress" campaign in 2012 by Obama. Of course that will require the Democrats lose the Congress in 2010. Hey, wait a minute . . .

Speaking for me only

Via Jon Walker, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports:

The tax would be 40 pecent of the excess benefit value above these thresholds. We estimate that, in aggregate, affected employers would reduce their benefit packages in such a way as to eliminate about three-quarters of the current excess benefit value. The resulting higher cost-sharing requirements for employees would have an initial, significant impact on the overall level of health expenditures. Moreover, because health care costs would generally increase faster than the CPI plus 1 percent, we anticipate additional, incremental benefit coverage reductions in future years to prevent an increase in the share of employer coverage subject to the excise tax. These further adjustments would contribute to a small reduction in the growth in health care expenditures for affected employees through at least 2019.16 In 2019, these impacts would reduce total NHE by an estimated 0.3 percent.

(Emphasis supplied.) There's your "reform."

Speaking for me only