Congress has damaged America's international reputation badly already

There is talk that the Congressional idiots are getting close to a solution to the fake debt crisis, but as Reuters reports it is already too late to protect America's reputation as a reliable nation that can get things done.

The base-case scenario is, still, that the debt ceiling will be raised, somehow. But already an enormous amount of damage has been done: the US Congress has demonstrated clearly that it can’t be trusted to govern the country in a responsible manner. And the tail-risk implications for markets are huge. Think of the speed with which the Egyptian government collapsed earlier this year, or the incredible downward velocity of News Corporation right now. When you build up large stocks of mistrust and ill will, nothing can happen for a very long time. But when something does happen, it’s much quicker and much worse than anybody could have anticipated. The markets might not be punishing the US government at the moment. But the mistrust and ill will is there, believe me. And when it appears, it will appear with a vengeance.

This fiasco, created by Republican intransigence over what is really a routine Congressional non-event (raising the debt ceiling) is going to come back and bite America big time and all the idiots in the Republican Party are going to be saying "No one could have predicted this outcome!"

But as usual, anything a Republican politician says is a lie. They screw stuff up out of ignorance and venality and then blame others for the outcome. It's happening again. Plan on it.

Speechless in the face of shameless Republicans

This is good!



[h/t Digby]

A band of stupid criminals has taken control of the House and is looting America

The Republicans in the US Congress have proposed H.R. 1255, a bill which states that once it is passed, if the Senate does not also pass it then the bill becomes law without Senate passage and without the President's signature. Since the Republican House Majority established the rule that every bill proposed in the House had to include a clear statement of what part of the US Constitution permits the House to pass such legislation, naturally they will have included the statement in H.R. 1255. I wonder where? I seem to have missed it.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Stood on the House floor yesterday and congratulated the GOP on its April Fool's day joke. Boehner, Cantor and the tea baggers have stated very clearly in this matter what utter fools they are. Whoever is pulling their strings should be quite proud of how his underlings will abase themselves in public for a few dollars under the table.

Include Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) in the list of fools currently pretending to act like legislators in the U.S. Congress. He's the idiot who, upon being awakened and made aware that Obama had established a no-fly zone in Libya responded by wondering if that action means America might even go into Africa next. Jay Leno pointed out that it is clear why Marino is not on the Intelligence committee.

To add to the stupidity, the Republican-dominated House has passed a bill that permits Agribusiness polluters to dump pesticides into public waterways. No doubt those Representatives have enough bottled water available so they don't have to drink any of the polluted water - and they are probably too crazy to bother bathing.

They have also just passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) which will gut the regulations designed to ensure that pilots have enough sleep to safely fly their aircraft. The amendment tailors rules applying to a variety of segments of the aviation industry and exempts other segments. Those rules are the direct result of lessons learned after crashes caused by pilot fatigue. No doubt an idiot Congressman from Pennsylvania has no need to get on a plane to travel, so what does he care?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)is a crook. Here's more proof. In the same Republican dominated House that raised such an objection to the budget-busting nature of ear-marks, brother Darrell has earmarked some $2 million in taxpayer funds to provide street improvements and parking for a commercial building he owns.

But it's not all at the federal level.

An idiot Montana State Representative who runs a bar in Basin, Montana, is complaining that the DUI laws are damaging small businesses. "They are destroying a way of life that his been in Montana for years and years." Yeah, just because drunks on the highway kill people we certainly don't want to make it more difficult for bar owners to sell liquor to drunks, do we? We don't want to damage the "way of life" of people like Louis Nieves, do we?

Louis Nieves, 23, the driver of a 1996 red Ford pickup that slammed into the fully loaded fuel tanker while headed the wrong way on I-30, is under arrest on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and intoxication manslaughter, Fort Worth police said.

I'm sure the bar-owner who sold Louis his drinks before Louis went the wrong way down the freeway, struck a loaded fuel truck and killed the driver wouldn't want to interfere with Louis' way of life. It has been around for a long time in both Montana and in Texas.

And as "ways of life" we wouldn't want to interfere with, in Maine the Republicans don't want to interfere with sending children out to work at a young age. Not only is it important to get children in the work force and out of school at a very young age, the Maine Republicans also want the children paid sub-minimum wages so that they can take jobs away from adult workers. Naturally the sub-minimum wages will stop when the children become 18 so that their employers will fire them and replace them with more low-cost children.

It's not just paying workers the lowest possible wage and working them the longest hours possible. The Republicans also don't want corporations to pay any taxes. GOP Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) responded to a caller who complained that Exxon paid no income taxes with the statement 'We need the lowest corporate tax rate we can get.' Gee. That means that when the US sends American troops into the Middle East to defend the exploitation of American oil companies then the companies themselves want to shift all the taxes to pay for the wars there to the America middle class and the workers. No doubt that is why they are trying to get the entry age for Social Security retirement jacked up to age 69. The FICA tax can then be siphoned off to pay for the Pentagon the corporations are using around the world and the workers will pay for it. Mind you, the Social Security Retirement system is in no danger of running short of money until at least 2037 and that estimate it a worst case prediction. The Social Security System has never met the worst case estimate in its 7 decades of existence.

The Republicans aren't just stealing the money from American working people. They also want to force radical religion down our throats. This is what Mike Huckabee is trying to sell.

While many of the GOP 2012 presidential hopefuls graced both stages, only at Rediscover God in America did they offer Americans two revealing facts: “America should be governed by biblical law,” and that discredited historian David Barton is a genius.

A former Texas GOP official, David Barton is a “Christian historical revisionist” who contends that “the United States of America is a Christian nation” and the separation of church and state is a “liberal myth.” He is also one of the most radical Tenthers in the country who believes the federal highway system is unconstitutional. So radical was his view that even the Tenth Amendment Center disavowed his federal highway theory.

Though he “holds no advanced degrees and does not teach at any legitimate institution,” Barton is no small figure in conservative politics. He was invited by Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to teach as a “scholar” on American history. At the conference, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that “every time he hears Barton speak, he learns something new.” But Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla captured the most outrageous endorsement yet. Introduced by Barton, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) insisted that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:

HUCKABEE: I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator [than David Barton.] I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

So America has a band of thieves, bankers and radically ignorant preachers taking over the governments at both the state and federal levels. They want our money and our children working their mines and businesses. And they are allied with the most repressive and backwards-looking types of religious fools (Terry Jones, anyone? to take control of America while they loot the money and ship America's jobs to China.

If there is anything positive about the conservatives (who also caused the Great Recession and forced Americans to bail our the Wall Street banks) I don't see it. These are people whose ideas and attitudes were rejected during the Great Depression in the 1930's. They need to be forced back into their caves and buried there.

111th Congress: Democrats paid a high price, but they chose wisely

Steve Benen, evaluating the recent two years of the 111th Congress, quoted the following from Rachel Maddow:

"Democrats had a choice when they became the governing party. When they won those last two elections and they took control of the two branches of government that are subject to partisan control in our country, they could have governed in a way that was about accumulating political capital with the primary goal of winning the next election. They could have governed in constant campaign mode. Or they could have governed in a way that was about using their political capital, not accumulating more of it, about spending the political capital they had to get a legislative agenda done, to tackle big, complex, longstanding problems that had languished."

The Democrats have really gotten a lot of stuff done that has languished for a long time. The Affordable Care Act is only one element, and it was a really big one. And the process has really exposed the warts of the American political system. (I strongly suggest that the U.S. Senate be simply abolished.)

But America is going to look back at what the Democrats did in the most recent Congress with pride. Republicans are going to whine, cry and lie.

Republicans have panicked over Democratic control of Congress and the White House

The Republican party has stepped away from civility and tradition in Congress and gone to the extreme. They are the minority party now and they are doing whatever it takes to regain control of the federal government. Because of this they are subverting the traditional rules and civility of Congress and desperately trying to stop the Democrats from doing what they were elected to do. You have to wonder why they have become so obviously desperate. First, look at how they have been acting in Congress. No minority party has acted this desperate since the Southern States before teh Civil War felt their "peculiar institution" (slavery) was under direct attack. First look at what are some examples of Republican desperation, then look at why might they feel so desperate.

Jonathon Cohn at The New Republic points out the extreme and unusual ways the Republicans have been working to stop the majority party from doing what it was elected to do. There has been a history in Congress that certain rules were used sparingly and only in rare circumstances. No more.

1. The Senate minority always could filibuster every vote and kill anything that did not have a supermajority. But before now this has never been done. Now the Republicans are setting records for the number of filibusters they conduct.
   
2. The Senate hold has always been a tool that the minority party could use to shut down the process of the Senate, but it was used only in rare cases when a Senator had a really important issue he or she wanted the Senate to attend to. Never before has a Senator used a blanket hold on all appointments to demand $billions in ransom be given to his state as Sen. Richard Shelby is now doing.
   
3. It has always been possible for Senators and Representatives to pass a bill through both bodies, then take it into conference add completely new provisions to the bill in conference. This was frequently done when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate under the Bush regime.

These are not politics as usual. These are the actions of a political party that feels under pressure, afraid and powerless. Because they feel powerless they are willing to reach out at use any tool they can find, and because of their fear and lack of trust they feel justified in using those tools even when they are being applied in an extreme way.

So what indications are there that the Republicans feel attacked and afraid? Marcos Moulitsas commissioned a Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll to answer some of those questions. It was conducted January 20, 2011, so it provides the latest information. The results are illuminating.

Health care reform looks more likely to include the public option

Steve Benen writes of favorable signs towards the passage of health care with a public option built in. He provides two articles, one on health care reform in the Senate and one on health care reform in the House.

Most of the recent news has been on the movement of health care reform through the Senate where the Blue Dogs have been building on the intransigent refusal to deal on health care in any way to shift the bill to the right and kill or water down the public option. What is beginning to happen now, though, is that Nancy Pelosi is beginning to set up the health care reform bill in the House so that it becomes a stronger platform to negotiate with the Senate when committees from the two houses get together to reconcile the different bills before sending the joint bill to the President for signature.

The public option has recovered from the days in August when it appeared nearly dead. It is now a lot more likely that it will be included in the final bill.go read the two articles. Start with the one on health care reform in the House.

Private health insurance is desperate to kill the "public Option".

Want to know why the public health care option is desired by 76% of the polled population and under major attack by the Congressional well-bribed and heavily lobbied minions of the health insurance industry? Paul Waldman explains:

[Here is ]... one thing private insurance companies will never offer.

The single-payer and hybrid systems in place in every other country in the developed world have many admirable features: lower costs, universal coverage, and better health outcomes. But what ought to make us most envious is their security -- it's what they have and we desperately need. If you live in Canada or Germany or France or Japan, there are some things you need never fear. You need never fear that your insurance company will tell you it won't cover treatment for your asthma because you had asthma before they signed you up. You need never fear that you will bankrupt your family because of expensive treatments for a serious illness. You need never fear that you will find yourself without coverage after your insurer dropped you or you lost your job. You might fear getting sick, but you won't fear that your life will be destroyed by not being able to pay for getting sick.

In the United States, unless you're over 65, extremely poor, or a veteran -- thus, already covered by a government health insurance plan -- you do have to fear all that. That's because the central pathology of our deeply pathological health-care system is that most of us have no choice but to get health coverage from an entity whose sole reason for being is to take our money and then try to avoid paying for our care when we get sick.

That may sound harsh, but let's be realistic: The purpose of a private insurance company is to make money, as much money as possible. In this, it's like any other business. But insurance is fundamentally different from other businesses. When you buy a soda, you know exactly how much you're paying for it. And when you take your first sip, you know whether you like it or not. If the soda company wanted to give you the shaft, it would only have two ways to do it: It could give you a bad-tasting product or charge you lots of money for it. Either way, you'd only end up buying it once.

But when you buy insurance, you enter into a complex relationship with a company that promises to pay for services you haven't yet used. You start paying it substantial amounts of money right away, but you don't actually use its service until some time in the future. You're also required to sign lengthy, intricate documents full of conditions and exclusions and legalese that few people are equipped to understand. You are at the company's mercy, which makes its incentives and inclinations so important.

The private health insurance market is dominated by four gigantic insurers: UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, and Cigna. In the last five years, these companies have combined to earn over $44 billion in profits; UnitedHealth alone has made over $17 billion in profits over that period. "On Wall Street," the Los Angeles Times has noted, these companies "showcase their efforts to hold down expenses and maximize shareholder returns by excluding customers likely to need expensive care, including those with chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. The companies lobby governments to take over responsibility for their sickest customers so they can reserve the healthiest (and most profitable) for themselves."

[Highlighting mine - editor]

One reason why health care costs are skyrocketing is that the "insured" are willing to pay higher and higher fees to get some improved security from their health care insurance. The insurers spread this around to health care suppliers so that they, too, have a major stake in avoiding the competition provided by an efficiently provided public health insurance that anyone can get.

Remember, if you don't like the public health insurance offering, you can always buy a supplemental policy of the type already sold to supplement Medicare. But then the health insurance companies would have to face competition to provide that. As it is today, most major health insurers have no effective competition in their service areas.

America desperately needs universal health care with assured coverage by a government plan. We've needed it since before the FDR era, and the private insurers and the AMA have been about to play the Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt card and overpriced lobbyists.Right now they are spending $1.2 million per day to kill national health care and the only arguments you hear against a government provided health care plan are fear based and mostly lies.

Girding for the health care fight to come

In the House, Pelosi is setting up for the fight to pass health care. Where as recently as January the major health care supporters were not meeting with each other or with outsiders, this has changed. Now they are holding roundtables and hearings. Speaker Pelosi has gotten behind the effort to organize and pass health care this year, and it shows. According to Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

The three committees with jurisdiction--Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, Ways and Means--are working together at both the staff and membership levels. They say they will work together on passing one, unified bill--and doing so by July 31, assuming the Senate can pass its bill by then as well. (If not, I'm told, the House will slow things down, figuring it makes no sense to create a target for critics before the Senate has passed its version.)

But it's not without opposition, even this early.

Last week, the Blue Dogs protested that they weren't having enough influence over the process. Bigger fights will erupt, perhaps in the very near future, particularly given the huge issues still to be decided--how to pay for reform, how to build a public plan, how to assist people struggling to afford coverage, and so on.

But the House has already taken this common effort farther than it did in 1994. Credit the favorable political environment and a more chastened Democratic caucus. Credit, too, the committee chairmen and their staffs, who are working overtime to produce legislation this summer. (That's particularly true in Henry Waxman's office, where they're also cranking out a climate change bill.) But don't forget to credit the leadership, starting with Pelosi.

Cohn's article may look like a Paean to Nancy Pelosi, but if health care gets passed this year then it is going to be as much the responsibility Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as it is of Barack Obama. Obama is responsible for the public opinion; Reid and Pelosi are responsible for 99 and 434 members of their respective Houses. It's going to take all three.

An uninformed mob is practicing McCarthy-style guilt by association, abetted by a failure to report on the AIG Bonuses.

Guilt by association without any shred of evidence is as wrong coming from the online Progressive netroots community as it was from "Tail gunner" Joe McCarthy or is today from Rush Limbaugh and effectively the whole damned House Congressional delegation. It is especially prevalent in the TV so-called news community and in most talk radio, left or right. I find it suffuses everything in discussion on Talking points Memo, too. Something that surprises and saddens me. It's time for it to stop, and for a little real reporting on AIG as it is today along with a lot more logic to begin to appear in the discussions of AIG and the totally mischaracterized "bonus issue!"

I consider myself part of the Progressive online community, a member who generally but not always supports the positions of the Democratic Party because nothing I have seen from Conservatives is either rational or useful. My key issue is the critical need in this nation for universal healthcare, but my training has been in economics, business, military and mostly political history. When Edward Liddy testified to Congress on the AIG mess, I was initially ready to come down on AIG Chairman Liddy as though he were another overpaid over privileged Tobacco Executive selling poison and refusing to admit wrongdoing because it would hurt his pocket book. Instead, I saw a capable, quiet rational man who had come out of retirement to try to deal with the disaster created at and through AIG by others. As Liddy tried to make his explanation to the posturing, uncomprehending louts on the Hearing committee I found that it was Congress that deserves opprobrium. No one listened to Liddy when he told them that the individuals responsible for the Credit default Swaps mess were gone.

Yet I saw, and still see, no evidence that he was lying. Nor can I see that he had any reason to. He was retired, for Christ's sake. He is getting $1 a year for taking the abuse.

I have also watched the distrusting online Progressive community attacking Chairman Edward Liddy as untruthful and untrustworthy with great vigor, and when I earlier posted a TPM cafe blog to defend his testimony it was ignored in favor of Liddy-bashing. Yet,

I saw and still see no evidence to support the assumption that Chairman Liddy was not telling the complete truth in his Congressional testimony.

I see nothing but incomprehension, anger and distrust either online or in the media.

When do we get a little real reporting into what the Executives at AIGFP really do, and what they were actually involved in the Credit Default Swap fiasco? Has anyone bothered to actually report on what the bonuses were supposed to reward the recipients for doing? Every piece of (limited) information I have seen says they were NOT BEING REWARDED FOR SALES. AIGFP is not selling product any more, and hasn't since January 2008 at least. I have written AIG's Public Relations department and gotten no response. Probably they are in a bunker mentality and trust no one now. I don't blame them.

The same kinds of questions applies to the executives like Jake DeSantis who remain at AIGFP and are helping to wind it down by maintaining the investments that are the only asset of that organization. I see no evidence that those individuals had anything at all to do with creating those assets. I don't even see anyone bothering to try to report on the current AIGFP. Everyone there now is just assumed to be Evil! They are being punished simply for working in the same office as Joe Cossano and his Michael Milken acolytes as they took their poisonous work to AIG and trashed a great insurance company.

Now one of them, Jake DeSantis, has gotten tired of being bashed for stuff others did and being demonized as the American public and the general media are doing to all individuals from AIG who carry or carried the job title "Executive." He has resigned from AIG and the New York Times has published his letter yesterday. It is very much worth reading. Here is the beginning:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

He accuses government officials of persecuting him, and he is right. But I have listened to radio and TV "news" personalities stating the common wisdom of the media as though it were reporting doing exactly the same thing.

When does the mob back off and let someone speak of reality? Is there still any reporting function going on in America? I have seen no evidence of it. Just blowhards on TV and people spewing what they seem to think is their rightful anger on line. Even the NPR reporters speak only gossip from the reporting community - a community which has now sunk into uselessness.

I was used to much better when major newspapers existed and TV was just an admitted provider of headlines and images instead of claiming to report news. Our society lost a lot when CBS fired its last newsman, Dan Rather, abandoned the news business and replaced him with an over aged entertainer who still has no clue regarding what news is or should be.

It’s time to stop kicking people for associating with failure. Someone do some real reporting, or tell me how to get the information out of AIG. I used to delegate that kind of work to reporters, but I guess there are none any more.

The hearings today with AIG's Liddy

Today Congress had AIG's Chairman Liddy in front of them to explain why he approved and permitted the payment of $165 million dollars to executives of the AIGFP division out of taxpayer funds. There is a great deal of public outrage at the appearance made by giving the bonuses, called retention bonuses, on March 15th. Some of the multimillion dollar bonuses were paid to individuals who have already left the job. The video of Liddy's testimony can be found here.

My reaction to his testimony started with disgust at Liddy's initial evasiveness (as I had expected), but then became more sympathetic to the problems Liddy was dealing with. I'd have to say that by the end of his testimony I feel that the media simply has not given the AIG situation a fair break. My reaction frankly surprised me, and it is NOT one I was inclined to make for him. But Liddy is not a tobacco executive.

Liddy was at the beginning evasive on whether he would comply with NY State AG Cuomo's subpoena for the names and amounts of the bonuses which were paid. He seems to feel that the employees have privacy rights that might override AG Cuomo's subpoenas, so Liddy cannot right now commit to compliance with the subpoena. When pressed for a yes or no answer to the question of whether he would comply with the subpoena that NY State AG Cuomo had sent asking for the names and amounts of bonus of individuals getting the payments Liddy would not say either way. He does not seem to believe that is a decision he can make without his attorneys. Upon reflection, I think I would agree with him. That's a Congressman's PR-hungry trap question.

Liddy is not a PR expert, and I have to have sympathy for him. He has neither the training nor the experience in putting public lipstick on a pig to pretty is up when it is already hated by the mob. He is sitting in front of Congress trying to defend actions that he felt were critical to the continued survival of AIG but which run counter to the current wave of public and Congressional outrage.Let me explain that.

The bonuses were apparently contracted for back in January 2008, and it is my reading of Liddy's responses that the retention bonuses were contracted to guarantee that the individuals would work out highly complex books of derivative contracts which require daily evaluation and manipulation until those books could be shut down and closed out without going into default along the way. That would mean that the reference retention was completed in the year 2008, not on-going. Liddy also makes the point that those contracts were written long before he came on the scene last September, and that he would not have written the contracts that way. While the payment of the bonuses occurred this year, the decision to pay them was made in January 2008 upon completion of the work contracted for. These were not performance bonuses in the sense of being for successful sales. They were for completion (performance) of services contracted for in January 2008. They were contracts to get individuals to shut the books of derivatives down without loss of great sums that default would have involved.

Liddy said that he knew making those payments was going to lead to public outrage, but he felt that the work had been contracted for at a price and performed as contracted for so he was committed to making those payments.

That's no doubt what Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and Chair of the Economic Advisers Summers saw when they let it pass without blocking it.

I'm glad that I didn't have to make the decision to make those payments and then have to defend my decision before Congress. Liddy's job has been to parachute in after the credit crunch of last Fall, take over AIG, isolate the destructive CDS and shut them and the derivative books down without losing any more money than necessary (a complex process easily screwed up at extreme cost in case of default), and then sell off the various parts of AIG to pay the Treasury back for the funds that were put into it. The assets are there, and given time and effort to maintain them until the end of the contract, can permit full recovery of their value for the taxpayers. Default would destroy their value and instead create massive losses. The guys getting the bonuses were doing the daily maintenance and shut down. Apparently the crooks who created those contracts were removed in September.

When anticipating the public outrage the bonus payments made, Liddy, top AIG managers, and US government officials were anticipating normal public outrage. The ability and intent of the ignorant Washington media to blow the issue up to "Terry Shiavo" levels to feed to a ravening, angry public was not anticipated.

That's what I gleaned from Liddy's testimony. It's also an explanation that would explain why Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner (grudgingly) approved of the bonus payments before the "loyal opposition" and the Washington Media looking for a scandal blew it up into a media firestorm.

I guess I'll have to shelve my earlier, more paranoid conclusion that the payment of the bonuses was the result of a scam by holdover Financial Products executives. I sort of regret that. My crooks-running-a-massive-scam over non-lawyers was more fun. But Liddy's explanation fits the facts better and requires a lot less criminality.

Josh Marshall, however, is looking into the possible criminal fraud that occurred in AIGFP. He seems to think that there is a RICO investigaion going on. The previous head of AIGFP, Joseph Cassano, was a protege of crooked bond trader Micheal Milken who went to prison for his junk bond dealings.

---

Note:

The division that has caused all of AIG's problem, AIGFP, is a separate apparenlty wholly-owned organization called AIG Financial Products.

Republican attorney Anh “Joseph” Cao defeated New Orleans incumbent Democrat William Jefferson yesterday

To my great delight, the little known Republican immigration attorney Anh “Joseph” Cao defeated incumbent Democratic Congressman William Jefferson to represent Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district. Cokie Roberts pointed out this morning that this was the district her father and mother represented for fifty years.

Josh Kraushaar at Politico provides the details.

It is very interesting that this district only gave George Bush 24 percent of the vote in 2004 and reelected William Jefferson in 2006 in spite of his indictment for bribery. That indictment remains unresolved at present.

Because of the unresolved indictment, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declined to even endorse Jefferson, while the National Republican Congressional Committee also spent $58,500 for get-out-the-vote efforts in the last week before the election. The election had been delayed from the normal date in November because of Hurricane Hugo, which led to light turnout yesterday when it was finally held. Cao still only won 50% to 47%.

There's going to be serious money spent in this district in 2010 unless somehow Jefferson runs for reelection.

"Real reform now - or nothing!

What happens to the Paulson Proposal in Congress depends on trust. But there isn't any. First, listen to Marcy Kapture.



Paulson has walked in to Congress and dropped the Paulson proposal and demanded that they pass a bill that gives the Secretary of the Treasury $700 billion dollars to spend as he wishes with no oversight. But they don't trust him.

Supposedly Paulson is going to buy the bad mortgages from the banks so that they can recapitalize themselves and start lending again. This won't work unless the government overpays for the mortgages, of course, and if it is done, then the bankers go right back to getting richer than before. The taxpayers lose by paying higher taxes. A major problem is how much the government pays for the toxic loans that the bankers created and which are now preventing the banks from lending them more money.

Here's the problem with buying the loans The economists call it information asymmetry. Again, Congress quite rightly doesn't trust the Wall Street banks that have caused the current credit crisis.

Whether it is true or not that the banks themselves cannot tell right now which mortgages are the bad ones and which are the good ones, I will guarantee that by the time they start selling mortgages to the government they will be able to tell the difference. Data mining? Some other computer technique? The data is sitting there in their computers and the profit is all the incentive they need. The government buyers will not have access to the information, of course.

Once the banks can tell which mortgages are toxic and which profitable, guess which ones they will be selling to the government? Call it a "Gresham’s Law of mortgage sales." Bad mortgages will drive out good. Those will be the only ones the government buys.

The government is going to get screwed out of a lot of taxpayer money and a lot of Republican bankers will make millions, just as happened with the Resolution Trust Corporation.

We taxpayers don't trust Congress any more than we do the Bush administration. We taxpayers are going to be taxed so that the money can be handed to some of the wealthiest individuals in America. As David Kay Johnston stated in his very revealing book, Free Lunch, that's not new. What is new is the scale of the fraud and the way it is being perpetuated in the last months of the extremely crooked Bush administration.

In the meantime, Congress totally distrusts the Bush administration. Every time they tried to trust the administration they have gotten screwed. The Iraq war is only one of many such events. But there there is the way the Bush Secretary of the Treasury presented the skimpy Paulson Proposal. The phrase to remember is "This is a limited time offer. You have to buy it now!" The Paulson Proposal is a scam you have to decide on now or Paulson claims he will not be responsible for the disaster your delay will cause.

Anyone who has ever been scammed can see this one coming. The Bush administration is no better than the Wall Street banker, the Gypsy or the beggar when any of them tell a sad story and asks for money. It's a scam designed to tax our money out of our pockets and put it into the pockets of some of the wealthiest and most immoral men in the U.S. - Wall Street Bankers.

This lack of trust also effect Senator McCain. The story I have heard is that this lack of trust puts John McCain into the position of determining what Congress does. If Congress presents a bailout bill and he votes for it then the Democrats can also vote for it because he will not be able to use their vote against them in the November election. If McCain votes against a bailout bill, then so will the Democrats because of the election. No one trusts what McCain says. They will vote whichever way he does so he cannot use their vote against them in the upcoming election.

One thing that the Marcy Kaptur video that started this article made very clear - the Democrats are very aware of where the power of Congress comes from. It's not from the power of logical debate or from the vote of the sovereign people. It comes from Congress' ability to say no to the Executive when the Executive is in a hurt and asking them for help. That means Right Now, not next year.

Right now the Congress cannot trust the executive, so the Paulson Proposal is dead. No one can trust anyone to make a deal now that they will honer later. So Marcy Kapture has it right - it's either real reform now, or nothing now.

It all comes down to distrust.

Here's the only real power Congress has

The Bush administration and Secretary Paulson has thrown the Paulson proposal into the maw of Congress and demanded that they pass it as written because the financial crisis that we are currently experiencing demands they do. Andrew Sahl over at the Reality-Based Community explains why this is the only time Congress has any real power over the executive.

The history of England's parliament is the history of "supply"--a constitutional term familiar in Commonwealth countries but largely forgotten in the U.S. (and that's a problem). When kings needed more money than their own lands could provide, they had to ask the nobles. When they got tired of asking the nobles, they started to rely on newfangled things called cities and rising social classes called burgesses and knights. Members of these groups were easier to negotiate with collectively than individually. The rest is history: the history of the House of Commons.

The process, as told in Volume II of David Hume's History of England, wasn't pretty. It was a matter of the Commons' slowly finding--and infuriated monarchs gradually admitting--that its position gave it the power of "bargaining with the prince"--precisely in times of war or other crises when the monarch really needed the money. Placing conditions on demands for emergency funds isn't an abuse of Congress' power. It's the whole foundation of Congress' power.

[Highlighting added by editor WTF-o]

It's nice to see someone with historical training explaining the real power of the legislative branch.

Ignore the Republicans. The routinely get things wrong. They are confidence men. As usual they are just trying to steamroll their opponents and further damage America.

Federal Judge appointed by Bush 43 denies claims of immunity to subpoenas

Glenn Greenwald discusses the slap-down that Federal District Judge, John D. Bates of the District of Columbia District Court gave to the Bush administration's clearly illegal assertion that Presidential aides have absolute immunity to Congressional subpoenas. That's a rare win for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

In the Judge's 93 page ruling (.pdf) the claims of immunity to subpoena claimed by the Bush administration for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton were declared to be totally without foundation in either law or case law. Apparently King Bush and his court jester Dick Cheney can't reliably control the lawyers they appoint as federal judges.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

As part of its investigation, the Judiciary Committee issued Subpoenas to Miers and Bolten in an effort to find out, among other things, who actually made the decision for those U.S. attorneys to be fired. The subpoenas ordered Miers to appear before the Committee in order to testify, and ordered both to produce documents to the Committee. Both Miers and Bolten refused to comply with the Subpoenas. Miers simply failed to show up for her hearing, while Bolten refused to produce the demanded documents. They did so in reliance on the Bush administration‘s claim that both of them, as top-level aides to the President, enjoyed absolute immunity from Congressional subpoenas. It was that extremist theory which the court today rejected -- and rejected decisively and unequivocally.

In unusually strong language, the court pointed out that the President's claim that his aides enjoyed absolute immunity from Congressional investigations was "unprecedented" and "without any support in case law" (p. 3).

Karl Rove's refusal to appear before Congress and answer questions about his role in the railroading of Democratic Governor Don Siegelman is an identical situation to that of Miers and Bolton.

The 109th Congress - corrupt, corrupt, corrupt

Propublica reports that there are 21 Congress persons from the 109th Congress who have been under investigation for corruption. That's the Congress that ended in 2006. Here's the list:

Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats. This total, based on prosecutorial filings and unambiguous news reports, does not include at least three reported federal investigations of lawmakers for matters other than corruption, including Ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL).

Two of those investigations resulted in convictions:

• Ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from two defense contractors in 2005. He's currently serving a sentence of eight years, four months in prison.

• Ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff and his associates in September of 2006 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. After serving one year, he was released to a halfway house, which he's likely to leave at the end of the summer.

Two lawmakers have been charged:

• Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was indicted last June on bribery charges, but extensive litigation stemming from an FBI raid of his Congressional office has delayed the trial.

• Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was indicted in February on extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges. He has also yet to go to trial and has said he will not seek reelection.

Four current and former lawmakers appear to still be under investigation related to the Abramoff scandal:

• A grand jury has issued a number of subpoenas regarding ex-Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) and his wife's relationship with Abramoff. Two of his former aides have pleaded guilty to corruption charges, but DeLay has not been charged.

• FBI agents raided the Virginia home of Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and his wife in April of 2007 as part of the Abramoff investigation. But he also still hasn't been charged. He's not seeking reelection.

• Ex-Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) appeared as "Representative #4" in guilty plea documents of his former aide John Albaugh. The filing describes a 2003 conversation between Istook and Abramoff, during which the lawmaker thanked the lobbyist for providing a skybox at FedEx Field for a fundraiser and then asked what appropriations Abramoff's clients could use. Istook says he's met with investigators and has been told he's not "a target" of the investigation. However, prosecutors typically only issue a "target letter" as a warning that they are moving toward filing charges. Albaugh has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for a reduction in sentence. Istook did not seek reelection in 2006, instead making a failed gubernatorial bid.

• In the spring of 2007, FBI agents sought emails and other documents related to Rep. Tom Feeney's (R-FL) participation in a 2003 Scotland trip organized and paid for by Jack Abramoff. Feeney has started a legal defense fund to cover fees related to the investigation.

Eight lawmakers are apparently under investigation for other matters:

• Grand jury subpoenas issued in the Ex-Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) investigation reportedly focus on earmarks he obtained for clients of a lobbying firm that employed his wife. The New York Times reports the investigation is also part of the Abramoff investigation, but it's unclear how precisely.

• Ex-Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) lost re-election in 2006 after the FBI raided his daughter's home and office, among other locations. The investigation reportedly centers on his advocacy for his daughter’s lobbying clients. A former aide has pleaded guilty to accepting corrupt payments from a Russian non-profit.

• A federal grand jury in Washington has been investigating whether Ex-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) accepted illegal gifts from a defense contractor.

• Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has spent over $1 million on criminal defense lawyers, but has refused to discuss the nature of the allegations. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that federal investigators were examining whether Young had accepted bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifts from VECO Corp., an Alaska energy company.

• The FBI is also investigating whether Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) accepted such payments or gifts from Veco. The FBI searched his home last summer.

• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has paid more than $1 million in legal fees since June of 2006 in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Los Angeles. The probe reportedly centers on Lewis’ earmarks for clients of his longtime friend, lobbyist Bill Lowery.

• Federal grand jury subpoenas issued in September of 2006 focused on Sen. Robert Menendez's (D-NJ) relationship with a publically funded nonprofit group to whom he'd rented office space. In August 2007 the grand jury shifted focus to the lobbying work of his former chief of staff Kay LiCausi. No charges have been filed. Both Menendez and LiCausi have retained lawyers.

• Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) has been under investigation since May 2006 for earmarks to nonprofits he created. The grand jury subpoenaed at least one witness, in June 2007, to testify about his finances. According to Roll Call, he spent about $80,000 on legal fees in the second half of 2007.

There have been no reported developments in two investigations for 18 months:

• The FBI interviewed a number of Ex-Rep. Katherine Harris' (R-FL) aides as part of investigation into her relationship with defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who's pleaded guilty to bribing Duke Cunningham. There have been no reported developments in the case since late 2006, when she made a failed bid for the Senate.

• Federal agents interviewed officials in Monrovia and Fontana about several of Rep. Gary Miller’s (R-CA) land deals with the California cities. The Los Angeles Times reported in the summer of 2006 that Miller may have improperly avoided paying millions in capital gains taxes by mischaracterizing the sales as forced by eminent domain. The scope of that investigation, which involved the FBI, was always unclear, and there have been no reported developments since early 2007. Miller has consistently and vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

Three investigations have either been closed or gone dormant:

• Ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who was the second largest congressional recipient of gifts from Jack Abramoff and his associates, says his lawyers were told by investigators in December of 2007 that the investigation of his relationship with Abramoff had been closed.

• Ex-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) was similarly notified around the same time. Both Hayworth and Burns lost reelection in 2006, in large part because of the Abramoff scandal.

• A Justice Department probe in 2005 centered on whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) had sought to aid the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in return for AIPAC's help in persuading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to appoint Harman chair of the intelligence committee. The probe had found no evidence of wrongdoing and and was considered dormant, the Washington Post reported in late 2006.

This was the Republican Congress - remember when they were given control of the House in 1994 complaining about the corrupt Democrats after 40 years in control? It sure didn't take the Republicans long to find their way to the hog trough, did it? Twenty-one Congresspersons is 4.8% of the entire House. That's one in 20 being investigated, removed or in prison during the Republican control of Congress. But Republicans have no reputation for being able to control the organizations they run except to rip people off, do they?

Ten of the 21 are gone now. Eleven left to remove.

---

Add this to the clear misogeny (hatred of women) demonstrated by the media in its political reporting. Digby has an excellent article on the subject.

Updated Congressional resignations, retirements

I last posted a list of the Congressional resignations and retirements on January 25, 2008 and there are another three Congresspersons who have bailed out since then. So I am updating the list again.

Each list is sorted first by party, then alphabetically by last name.

House

1	Allen, Tom	D	ME-01	Run for Senate	D+12
2	Carson, Julia	D	IN-07	Died	D+16
3	McNulty, Michael R	D	NY-21	Retire	D+13
4	Udall, Tom	D	NM-03	Run for Senate	D+9
5	Udal, Mark	D	CO-02	Run for Senate	D+17
6 ##	Baker, Richard	R	LA-06	Become lobbiest	R+19
7	Cubin, Barbara	R	WY-At lg	Retire	R+40
8	Davis, Jo Ann	R	VA-01	Died	R+21
9	Davis, Tom	R	VA-11		R+9
10	Dolittle, John	R	CA-04	Retire	R+24
11	Everett, Terry	R	AL-02	Retire	R+34
12	Ferguson, Mike	R	NJ-07	Retire	R+6
13	Gilmore, Paul	R	OH-05	Died	R+22
14	Hastert, Dennis	R	IL-14	Resigned	R+11
15	Hobson, Dave	R	OH-07	Retire	R+14
16	Hunter, Duncan	R	CA-52	Retire	R+23
17	Hulshof, Kenny	R	MO-09	Run for Gov.	R+18
18	LaHood, Ray	R	IL-18	Retire	R+16
19	Lewis, Ron	R	KY-02	Retire	R+31
20	McCrery, Jim	R	LA-04	Retire	R+19
21	Pickering, Chip	R	MS-03	Retire	R+31
22	Pryce, Deborah	R	OH-15	Retire	D+0 *
23	Ramstad, Jim	R	MN-03	Retire	R+3 *
24	Regula, Ralph	R	OH-16	Retire	R+8
25###	Reynolds, Tom	R	NY-26	Retire	R+12
26	Renzi, Rick	R	AZ-01	Retire	R+8
27	Saxton, Jim	R	NJ-03	Retire	R+2 *
28 #	Shadegg, John	R	CO-03	Retire	R+17
29	Tancredo, Tom	R	CO-06	Retire	R+21
30	Walsh, Jim	R	NY-25	Retire	R+2 *
31	Weldon, Dave	R	FL-15	Retire	R+14
32	Weller, Jerry	R	IL-11	Retire	R+7
33	Wilson, Heather	R	NM-01	Run for Senate	R+3

Senate

1	Allard, Wayne	R	CO	Retiring	R+5 *
2	Craig, Larry	R	ID	Retiring	R+38
3	Domenici, Pete	R	NM	Retiring	R+1 *
4	Hagel, Chuck	R	NB	Retiring	R+33
5	Lott, Trent	R	MS	Resigning	R+19
6	Warner, John	R	VA	Retiring	R+9

"Retiring" means serving to end of term. Will not run for reelection.
"Resigning" means announced resignation and intends to leave before end of term.
"Resigned" means has already officially left office during this term.
"At Lg" means the only congress person in the state.

The final column reflects the Presidential vote in 2004. D+13 means Kerry received 13% more of the vote than Bush did. Districts or states in which the difference was 5% or less are indicated by an asterisk (*) because they will be likely change, particularly if the winning presidential candidate has "coattails". Deborah Pryce's Ohio 15th district was effectively tie in the 2004 Presidential race, so it is shown as D+0. The score there is only an indicator and reflects political conditions three years ago, so while Virginia is listed a R+9, in 2006 Virginia elected Democrat Jim Webb as Senator so it is probably a tossup state.

In the House, 25 (12.4%) of the 202 Republicans have resigned, died, or announced they are not running for reelection. Of those 25, only Heather Wilson of New Mexico is running for higher office (the Senate in her case) and Kenny Hulshuf is running for Governor. The other 23 Congress people are leaving politics.

Of the 233 Democrats, 5 (2.1%) have announced that they are not running for reelection, and three are running for Senate seats. Tom Udall is running for the same New Mexico Senate seat that Heather Wilson is, so one of them is gone from Congress after November.

Clearly Republican turnover is much higher than that of the Democrats, which suggests that the Republicans expect to remain in the minority after the 2008 election.

Bush and Gen Petreaus have greatly lowered American casualties in Iraq so that Iraq has moved out of the news. It will thus have less influence on the November 2008 election than expected unless something changes sharply. The Recession that is currently building will clearly have an effect, with voters being more likely to vote against incumbents and particularly Republicans. Because the Primaries have been moved to such early dates, the latest information on the coming Recession will not permit many intra-party challenges of incumbents. That's unfortunate, because there are a lot of Blue Dog Democrats who need to be challenged and removed from office.

If you are curious about the changes, my two previous lists of retirements and resignations are found at

• Friday, January 25, 2008
  and
• Saturday, December 08, 2007

.

---

Addendum February 12, 2008
# Adding John Shadegg as another retiree, announced yesterday.
This is 26 of the current 202 Congressional Republicans who are leaving or have left office this year. That is 12.9% of the current incumbents.

## Adding Richard Baker, announced about three weeks ago. This makes 27 Republicans leaving the House, which is 13.3 % of the Republican incumbents.

NPR today said there were 29 Republicans leaving, so I am looking for two others.

---

Addendum March 20, 2008
### Adding Tom Reynolds to the list of those who have announced that they are retiring from the House and will not run for reelection.

Congressional Resignations - Retirements, updated

I last posted a list of the Congressional resignations and retirements on December 8, 2007 and there are three more Congresspersons who have bailed out since then. So I am updating the list, and also adding the difference in the 2004 Presidential vote as a final column to show what the Democratic vs. Republican tendency is for each District or State.

I am also correcting an error in the earlier list. I had listed Michael R. McNulty of New York's 21st congressional district as a Republican. I sincerely apologize for insulting a good Democrat.

Each list is sorted first by party, then alphabetically by last name.

House

1	Allen, Tom	D	ME-01	Run for Senate	D+12
2	Carson, Julia	D	IN-07	Died	D+16
3	McNulty, Michael R	D	NY-21	Retire	D+13
4	Udall, Tom	D	NM-03	Run for Senate	D+9
5	Udal, Mark	D	CO-02	Run for Senate	D+17
6	Cubin, Barbara	R	WY-At lg	Retire	R+40
7	Davis, Jo Ann	R	VA-01	Died	R+21
8	Dolittle, John	R	CA-04	Retire	R+24
9	Everett, Terry	R	AL-02	Retire	R+34
10	Ferguson, Mike	R	NJ-07	Retire	R+6
11	Gilmore, Paul	R	OH-05	Died	R+22
12	Hastert, Dennis	R	IL-14	Resigned	R+11
13	Hobson, Dave	R	OH-07	Retire	R+14
14	Hunter, Duncan	R	CA-52	Retire	R+23
15	LaHood, Ray	R	IL-18	Retire	R+16
16	McCrery, Jim	R	LA-04	Retire	R+19
17	Pickering, Chip	R	MS-03	Retire	R+31
18	Pryce, Deborah	R	OH-15	Retire	D+0 *
19	Ramstad, Jim	R	MN-03	Retire	R+3 *
20	Regula, Ralph	R	OH-16	Retire	R+8
21	Renzi, Rick	R	AZ-01	Retire	R+8
22	Saxton, Jim	R	NJ-03	Retire	R+2 *
23	Tancredo, Tom	R	CO-06	Retire	R+21
24	Walsh, Jim	R	NY-25	Retire	R+2 *
25	Weldon, Dave	R	FL-15	Retire	R+14
26	Weller, Jerry	R	IL-11	Retire	R+7
27	Wilson, Heather	R	NM-01	Run for Senate	R+3

Senate

1	Allard, Wayne	R	CO	Retiring	R+5 *
2	Craig, Larry	R	ID	Retiring	R+38
3	Domenici, Pete	R	NM	Retiring	R+1 *
4	Hagel, Chuck	R	NB	Retiring	R+33
5	Lott, Trent	R	MS	Resigning	R+19
6	Warner, John	R	VA	Retiring	R+9

"Retiring" means serving to end of term. Will not run for reelection.
"Resigning" means announced resignation and intends to leave before end of term.
"Resigned" means has already officially left office during this term.
"At Lg" means the only congress person in the state.

The final column reflects the Presidential vote in 2004. D+13 means Kerry received 13% more of the vote than Bush did. Districts or states in which the difference was 5% or less are indicated by an asterisk (*) because they will be likely change, particularly if the winning presidential candidate has "coattails". Deborah Pryce's Ohio 15th district was effectively tie in the 2004 Presidential race, so it is shown as D+0. The score there is only an indicator and reflects political conditions three years ago, so while Virginia is listed a R+9, in 2006 Virginia elected Democrat Jim Webb as Senator so it is probably a tossup state.

In the House, 22 (10.9%) of the 202 Republicans have resigned, died, or announced they are not running for reelection. Of those 22, only Heather Wilson of New Mexico is running for higher office (the Senate in her case.) The other 21 Congress people are leaving politics.

Of the 233 Democrats, 5 (2.1%) have announced that they are not running for reelection, and three are running for Senate seats. Tom Udall is running for the same New Mexico Senate seat that Heather Wilson is, so one of them is gone from Congress after November.

Clearly Republican turnover is much higher than that of the Democrats, which suggests that the Republicans expect to remain in the minority after the 2008 election.

Bush and Gen Petreaus have greatly lowered American casualties in Iraq so that Iraq has moved out of the news. It will thus have less influence on the November 2008 election than expected unless something changes sharply. The Recession that is currently building will clearly have an effect, with voters being more likely to vote against incumbents and particularly Republicans. Because the Primaries have been moved to such early dates, the latest information on the coming Recession will not permit many intra-party challenges of incumbents. That's unfortunate, because there are a lot of Blue Dog Democrats who need to be challenged and removed from office.

Congress had approved torture for interrogation

Laura Rozen points out that although Congress has been quick to have hearings on the destruction of the interrogation-by-torture tapes in Thailand, the focus has been on the destruction of the tapes, not what was on them. Why?

Because Congress knew that torture was being used to interrogate prisoners, and approved of it. They're as guilty as the the Bush administration. Investigating torture would mean that Congress would have to investigate itself as well as the Republican administration.

That's sick. Our government, in its entirety, has abandoned American principles. The Republicans led the way, but the Democrats have gone quietly along with the crowd.

Roll Call reports Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) vulnerable to Republican challenger

The one Democratic Senator whose seat is vulnerable to a Republican challenger is Louisiana Senator May Landrieu.

In the Republican Party’s one real shot at knocking off an incumbent Senate Democrat, Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy is running almost even with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), according to a new poll conducted exclusively for Roll Call.

Louisiana has been pretty evenly split between the North Louisiana Republicans and the South Louisiana Democrats. Katrina's destruction of the Democratic bastion of New Orleans forced over most of the previous residents of the city to leave Louisiana, and over 200,000 have not returned. This may be enough to shift the balance of power in Louisiana statewide to the Republicans.

Any incumbent who polls even with the challenger this far ahead of the election is highly vulnerable.

See also my earlier post Congressional resignations - retirements to see how the loss of the Democratic seat in the Senate will effect the Senate.

Congressional resignations - retirements

I keep seeing announcements that one or another House or Senate member is retiring or resigning his seat, but I haven't seen the total numbers by name. So I guess I need to do it myself. Here it is.

Each list is sorted first by party, then alphabetically by last name.

House

1	Allen, Tom	D	ME-01	Run for Senate
2	* Carson, Julia	D	IN-07	Died
3	Udall, Tom	D	NM-03	Run for Senate
4	Udal, Mark	D	CO-02	Run for Senate
5	Cubin, Barbara	R	WY-At lg	Retire
6	Davis, Jo Ann	R	VA-01	Died
7	Everett, Terry	R	AL-02	Retire
8	Ferguson, Mike	R	NJ-07	Retire
9	Gilmore, Paul	R	OH-05	Died
10	Hastert, Dennis	R	IL-14	Resigned
11	Hobson, Dave	R	OH-07	Retire
12	Hunter, Duncan	R	CA-52	Retire
13	LaHood, Ray	R	IL-18	Retire
14	McCrery, Jim	R	LA-04	Retire
15	McNulty, Michael R	R	NY-21	Retire
16	Pryce, Deborah	R	OH-15	Retire
17	Ramstad, Jim	R	MN-03	Retire
18	Regula, Ralph	R	OH-16	Retire
19	Renzi, Rick	R	AZ-01	Retire
20	Saxton, Jim	R	NJ-03	Retire
21	Tancredo, Tom	R	CO-06	Retire
22	Weller, Jerry	R	IL-11	Retire
23	Wilson, Heather	R	NM-01	Run for Senate

Senate

1	Allard, Wayne	R	CO	Retiring
2	Craig, Larry	R	ID	Retiring
3	Domenici, Pete	R	NM	Retiring
4	Hagel, Chuck	R	NB	Retiring
5	Lott, Trent	R	MS	Resigning
6	Warner, John	R	VA	Retiring

"Retiring" means serving to end of term. Will not run for reelection.
"Resigning" means announced resignation and intends to leave before end of term.
"Resigned" means has already officially left office during this term.
"At Lg" means the only congress person in the state.

As we know, the Democrats already have majorities in both houses. It is the Republicans who are leaving a lot of vacant seats that Democrats might pick up. Also, the incumbent Republican Senators in both Maine and Colorado are considered vulnerable.

For the Senate, It looks like it will be generally a Democratic year. However, Idaho, Nebraska, and Mississippi are all very strong Republican states. So my bet right now is that the Democrats pick up the other three open Senate seats along with the one in Maine for a net gain of four Senate seats. Since I am looking primarily at the strength Bush showed over Kerry in those states with open Senate seats, local conditions that I am unaware of could make that bet a bad one in individual races.

I sure would love to see the Democrats bump off Sen. John Cornyn here in Texas. He has "won" polls as the most disliked Senator in the Senate, but if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President every Hillary-hater in Texas will be out to vote against her and they'll vote for Cornyn at the same time. Of course, if Obama is nominated by the Democrats, every racist in Texas will come out of the woodwork to beat him, and since those two groups of Republicans are much the same, who the Democratic nominee for President won't make much difference to the Senate race here.

---

Addendum December 11, 2007 6:05 PM CST
Jo Ann Davis, Representative for Virginia CD 01 was added to the list above. She died 10/06/2007 of cancer, and the special elections for her district, VA-01 and for OH-05 are being held today.

As far as I know this all the deaths, resignations and announced retirements in Congress as of today.

---

Addendum 02 December 14, 2007 7:29 PM CST
See also A list of 2008 state primaries and caucuses published Thursday, December 13, 2007.

---

Addendum 03 December 15, 2007 2:29 PM CST
* The Hill reported This morning that Rep. Julia Carson (IN-07) previously listed as "Retire" died today of lung cancer. She had announced her plans to retire when she learned that she had lung cancer.

---

Addendum 04 January 26, 2008
See an updated list including three new members leaving Congress here.