At the “House Call” tea party protest on Capitol Hill this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) pledged to the right-wing activists: “Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill.” Cao’s vote must have surprised Cantor.

Cao has previously been touted by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) once as “the future” of the GOP. The White House had reportedly “been in constant contact” with him prior to the vote. “Rahm is going all in to get him,” one aide told Roll Call, referring to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The House also approved, by a vote of 240-194, an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), which imposed tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. A GOP substitute failed in a vote of 178-258, with a single Republican, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) voting against the legislation.

Stupak had agreed to keep the amendment from the floor if it received a hearing in the rules committee. But, once the Conference of Catholic Bishops refused to endorse the bill unless the amendment was accepted, Stupak and his colleagues demanded a vote on the floor and threatened to derail the bill. Unable to muster enough opposition to Stupak’s ‘gang of 40,’ the Democratic majority agreed to move the the amendment to the floor and vote for the full bill if the amendment passed.The Conference of Catholic Bishops has since endorsed the bill and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) will all vote “yes” on the Stupak amendment.

Today, during the Democratic press conference that followed the caucus’ meeting with the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she recommended that the Stupak amendment be voted on the floor. The amendment is expected to pass.

Democrats have been trying to broker a compromise on abortion coverage by offering up Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) less restrictive amendment to segregate public funds from abortion funding and hire “a private contractor to pay abortion providers, thus avoiding direct federal payments.” But that agreement “fell apart,” Stupak reported.

“We came to the point where we actually an agreement tonight, but unfortunately it fell apart. So that’s why we had to scramble to be here. I regret that the agreement fell apart, I think everyone meant well and I’m not trying to place blame,” he said at midnight:

First, our amendment does not prevent any private insurer from selling a policy which covers abortion. This ensures that those who want abortion coverage have access to it without forcing anyone or anyone else to pay for another one’s abortion with their tax dollars of with their private funds. Second, our amendment does not prevent any individual from purchasing a plan that covers abortion as long as their coverage is not subsidized with affordability credits….Our amendment does not prevent an insurer participating in the Exchange from selling health plans in the Exchange…Our amendment simply applies the current law, Hyde Amendment to the public health insurance option and the private policies purchased using affordability credits.

Watch it:

But Stupak is misrepresenting the House legislation and the existing federal restrictions on abortion funding. Currently, the House bill contains what’s called the Capps Amendment — a compromise that maintains Hyde Amendment restrictions. The arrangement protects Hyde by specifying that subsidy dollars could only be used to abort pregnancies that threaten the life of mother or result from rape or incest (Hyde allows for this). Other kinds of abortions would have to be funded with private premiums. The provision also requires that at least one plan in each market area offer abortion services and one plan not. No abortion services—even those allowed by the Hyde Amendment — can be mandated as part of a minimum benefits package.

Stupak and his allies want to go beyond Hyde. Under their amendment, women who purchase comprehensive private insurance packages — that include abortion services — would have to pay for the entire cost of the package (even if they qualify for subsidies).

They’re arguing that the current firewall between public and private money is inadequate. If a woman uses federal subsidies to pay for a basic benefit, she would have more private money available to fund her abortion, they claim. Or, alternatively, “premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.” It’s the equivalent of arguing that women who receive abortions should not use public buses or highways to travel to the abortion clinic.

The amendment won the endorsement of the Conference of Catholic Bishops but sparked criticism from several pro-choice groups. “This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in a late-night release. “Women won’t stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

Transcript:

We came to the point where we actually an agreement tonight, but unfortunately it fell apart. So that’s why we had to scramble to be here. I regret that the agreement fell apart, I think everyone meant well and I’m not trying to place blame. So we’re to the point now where we’re back to where we started back in July when we came before the Energy and Commerce Committee….So let me begin by clearly articulating what this amendment does not do. First, our amendment does not prevent any private insurer from selling a policy which covers abortion. This ensure that those who want abortion coverage have access to it without forcing anyone or anyone else to pay for another one’s abortion with their tax dollars of with their private funds. Second, our amendment does not prevent any individual from purchasing a plan that covers abortion as long as their coverage is not subsidized with affordability credits. Third, and I stress this point because it is a common misconception about our amendment. Our amendment does not prevent an insurer participating in the Exchange from selling health plans in the Exchange that include elective abortions so long as no subsidies are used to purchase their policy and an insurer offers an identical plan without elective abortion coverage to subsidize purchasers. Our amendment simply applies the current law, Hyde Amendment to the public health insurance option and the private policies purchased using affordability credits.

The public option operator in the US Department Health and Human Services, in the same way as Medicare will draw funds from the Federal treasury account authorized under section 322 of this bill. Regardless of h ow they’re collected, these funds are paid from the U.S. treasury are federal funds. Allowing funding for abortion through the public option as the bill currently does represents a clear departure from long-standing policy by authorizing federal government to pay for elective abortion first time in decades. Members of this committee, all we’re asking, on behalf of the majority of the House that supports the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment is an opportunity for our voices to be heard. If you do not allow our amendment to even be voted on during the floor consideration, you’re silencing a considerable member, probably the majority of the members of this body who have deep convictions on this issue.

We had on a guy on the show, Steve Levitt — Freakonomics — whose science was, according to actual people who know climate science, not good, but it seemed like the tone of the book was, “Why don’t we just think about these other things?” People came at him hard.

Watch it (Stewart mentions SuperFreakonomics at 4:20):

Levitt and Dubner have now admitted, begrudgingly, that they misportrayed climate scientist Ken Caldeira’s own views about his research. To be more precise, they have announced they will change the sentence that claimed Caldeira believes carbon dioxide “is not the right villain in this fight” to omit Caldeira’s name. Despite this one welcome change, the book continues to be a farrago of errors, personal attacks, and unfounded conclusions.

Stewart, however, continues to not understand why the book came under such withering criticism. In his interviews that touch upon global warming — with EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, global warming denier Chris Horner, journalist Bob Woodruff — Stewart has consistently acted bemused, which is often a good interview technique. But it also seems that Stewart’s bafflement is genuine, failing to understand that billions of dollars have been spent by polluters and their political allies for decades to distort the clear need for decisive action. He does not seem to know that greenhouse gases are already reshaping the world we live in, destroying ecosystems and economies.

At least Stewart is just a comic. Our nation’s journalists have no such excuse.

WILSON: I am sorry to report that the Polosi take-over bill has loopholes in it which actually is even worse than H.R. 3200. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the number of illegal aliens who would benefit from receiving health care benefits in this country would increase by 2.5 million. From 6 million to 8.5 million people [undocumented immigrants] would be able to receive health care benefits. It would cost the American taxpayer 30.5 billion dollars for people who have illegally come to this country.

Watch it:

The CBO estimate actually doesn’t say anything about 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants receiving health care benefits. What it does say is that about half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who would remain uninsured if H.R. 3200 passed would be “unauthorized immigrants” (8.5 million) and approximately one third of the 18 million who would remain uninsured under H.R. 3962 would be unauthorized (6 million). The CBO’s analysis does not reference the undocumented population other than to point out that the percentage of the uninsured population increases if undocumented immigrants are included in its estimates. There is no reference as to how many undocumented immigrants would be covered by the proposed health care bill because both CBO analyses were essentially written under the assumption that undocumented immigrants will not be eligible.

When it comes down to it, it’s hard to say how many undocumented immigrants would remain uninsured because there is so little information on the population. In a recent blog post, the CBO explained:

The use of the terms “about one-third” and “nearly half” was meant to convey the uncertainty and imprecision surrounding our estimates of the characteristics of the remaining uninsured population. Because of that uncertainty and imprecision, we cannot provide a specific figure for coverage of unauthorized immigrants under any of the proposals. Despite the difference in wording, we would not expect any significant differences between the two bills in the number of uninsured who are unauthorized immigrants, because the relevant features of the two proposals are similar.

The CBO does not discuss how many undocumented immigrants will be insured if health care reform passes, but it’s unlikely that their insurance will be tax-payer funded. Under both House bills, undocumented immigrants are permitted to participate in the health exchange and purchase insurance at full cost with their own money. They do not qualify for subsidies. Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants avoid interacting with the US government and it’s improbable that any large number will risk getting deported just to pay lower premiums. Wilson’s claim that undocumented immigrants will cost taxpayers $30.5 billion is either misinformed or downright deceitful.

The merged House bill requires US citizens to be verified against Social Security Administration data and non-citizens to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program which was designed to help benefit-granting agencies ensure that only entitled applicants receive benefits.

Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) joined Wilson. FAIR has been listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2007.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) responded, “I thank the gentlelady for making the case for keeping more people in this country uninsured. And I guess if that’s the Republican position, then fine”:

MCGOVERN: If you don’t have insurance then you have no choice but to go to the emergency room. But what we’re also trying to do is to put in place kind of a system, as Mr. Rangel said, that encourage prevention, and preventative care, so that people can actually not get sick and not end up in emergency rooms. So if you want to make the case that more and more people in this country should be uninsured, fine. I just disagree with you.

Watch the exchange:

“I’m making the case that your bill doesn’t insure anywhere near what our bill does, and I think that is unacceptable and is wrong in this country,” McGovern said, hinting that under the Republican alternative, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) explained that “one of the things that this bill does is make major increase in the reimbursement rate so that it gets up to the Medicare level, and even beyond, and that means that doctors will now take these Medicaid patients, they’ll get primary care, they’ll get to see a doctor on a regular basis and they won’t go to the emergency room.”

Speaking at the symposium After the 2009 Elections: Domestic, Regional, and International Dimensions, Stanford University professor Abbas Milani said that that the Islamic Republic is currently dealing with “the most serious crisis in thirty years,” and “is more divided than it has ever been.” Milani said that “Two pillars of the regime” — Khamenei and Rafsanjani — “are at each others’ throats.” More importantly, Abbas said, not do people no longer believe in the regime, but many of the people “now believe that the regime is afraid of them.”

At the same time, according to Milani,”The international situation has never been as dangerous for [Iran] as it is now.” After significantly increasing its political reach and influence as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, post-election repression has caused the regime to lose legitimacy not only in the eyes of much of the international community, but also in the eyes of many Islamists throughout the Middle East who had previously looked to Iran as a standard bearer of resistance against the West.

Milani referred to a recent paper by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the seminal Islamist organization in the Middle East, which he said described the Brotherhood’s shifting view. “Before June 12,” Milani said, “the view among the Muslim Brotherhood was to support Iran against the West’s bullying.” But now “Brotherhood leaders are finding it more difficult to defend Iran.’

Groups like Hezbollah and Iraq’s Shia parties, Milani said, are also “hedging their bets, [and] are no longer assured that their future lies in an alliance with the Islamic Republic.

Assessing Iran’s appeal to the Arab Middle East, Panelist Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace quipped that “Iran is to the Middle East what Rush Limbaugh is to the US.” They appeal to “the alienated and downtrodden.” Iran’s “Death to America” propaganda resonates most “when people are outraged over U.S. and Israeli behavior”.

UMD’s Shibley Telhami noted the divergence between how Arab governments view Iran and how Arab publics view Iran. “Many Arab regimes are unpopular for their own corruption,” Telhami said “but also, in the case of Egypt and Jordan, because of the Israeli issue.” It is the continuing importance of the Israeli-Palestinian issue to their publics, and anger at regional governments for not having donw more to help the Palestinians, Telhami said, that compels states like Egypt and Jordan to hype the threat from Shiite Iran.

Iran’s loss of appeal could have negative short-term consequences for the region, however. Sadjadpour said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is now “essentially running Iranian foreign policy in the region, [while] the foereign ministry been sidelined.” Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaqi “is basically a spokesperson, [and] not deciding policy,” according to Sadjadpour.

The recent seizure by Israel of what Israel claims were Iranian arms headed for Hezbollah could be an ominous sign of what’s to come, as the Iranian regime may look to regain some of its lost resistance bona fides by drawing from the well that never runs dry: The Israel-Palestine conflict.

Yesterday, 20 members of the Hispanic Caucus threatened to vote against a bill that prevented undocumented immigrants from purchasing coverage in the exchange with their own money and it’s unclear if ongoing negotiations have satisfied enough of the 40 pro-life Democrats unhappy with the bill’s restrictions on abortion funding. Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) have offered stronger abortion language that the caucus is currently considering.

Assuming that every Republican votes against the measure, Democrats have to peel away approximately 22 unsatisfied caucus members to pass the bill in the House. President Obama is expected to officially endorse the legislation later today and personally rally support for the measure during a visit to the Capitol on Saturday. Still, major policy disagreements could delay a House vote. Below is a table laying out the areas of disagreement:

Abortion:

Immigration:

Democrats would also have to defray likely Republican efforts to use the the motion to recommit “as an opportunity to insert a social issue poison pill, likely on abortion or immigration, that would peel off enough moderate Democrats to pass.” Republicans “could craft an abortion measure that gives pro-life Democrats little choice but to vote with the minority to change the bill. That change could make the final bill unpalatable enough for most Dems that its passage would be put in jeopardy,” Politico speculates.

Today, the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate has hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, after employers shed 190,000 jobs in October. The wider U-6 measure of underemployment also ticked up to 17.5 percent, from 17 percent last month. The Labor Department also revised September’s losses down to 219,000 from 263,000. At the same time that joblessness continues to increase, productivity — output per hour worked — has soared (as employers make do with fewer employees).

Economist Dean Baker said that he did not expect declining unemployment rates until next spring. “We may be looking at very high levels,” Baker said, “barring a policy response, for several years into the future.” So as Brad DeLong asked “if you had told everyone last election day what would happen, economically, in 2009, what policies would they have adopted then to stem this disaster? And why aren’t we implementing those policies now?”

Indeed, there are positive steps that can be taken, now, that would support the labor market. As Matt Yglesias pointed out, we should probably be deploying more aid to state and local governments, to prevent layoffs and keep infrastructure projects up and running. (Let’s not forget that state aid was significantly reduced during negotiations over the stimulus package.) Paul Krugman, for his part, is advocating a WPA-style direct jobs program — “think of it as the stimulus equivalent of getting the middlemen out of the student loan program.”

Instead, as Steven Pearlstein wrote, “what [lawmakers are] proposing to do is to spend a lot of money that they don’t have in ways that won’t work to help too many people who are neither desperate nor deserving.” These ideas take the form of the badly misguided homebuyer tax credit, and the politically brilliant but economically pointless $250 payment to seniors.

Already, the response that we’ve seen from Congress has been fearmongering about deficits or using the unemployment rate as a nonsensical reason to kill health care reform. Neither of those provide much hope for some productive policy emerging. But if nothing is done, it’s going to be a long, painful slog back to a positive employment situation.

Over at MYDD, Bruce Webb, calls the provision, “Sweatshop Insurance.” “This bill goes far beyond that in stripping states of power over insurance rates and conditions,” he notes. It “explicitly expands the definition of ‘State’ to include not just D.C. and Puerto Rico, which makes some sense in context, but adds BY NAME the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Jack Abramoff’s favorite client-the Northern Marianas home of the ‘Made in the USA’ Chinese-owned close to slave labor sweatshops.” From pages 121-122 of the bill:

As Webb goes on to explain, “companies can simply designate the Northern Marianas as the ‘primary State’ for their plan, or since it is closer the Virgin Islands and then have those governments be the sole regulator. And given the record of corruption in the N. Marianas and the willingness of various Caribbean and Atlantic Island nations to let themselves be used as off-shore banking and tax shelter entities you can bet Aetna and WellPoint are slavering at the prospect of ‘basing’ their plans out of a PO Box on some tropical nation.”

The Wonk Room tried to identify if any of the islands regulated individual insurance policies. We contacted several lobbying firm representing the N. Marianas but only reached Donna Christensen, the non-voting Delegate from the United States Virgin Islands to the United States House of Representatives. Her office did not know if the Virgin Islands had any consumer protections for policies sold in the individual market.

It’s absolutely mind-boggling to me — some of the statements that have been made about it…the Majority Leader called my amendment “anti-immigrant”…Senator Reid said my effort is akin to the activities in the 1950s and 1960s to intimidate Black citizens and try to get them to stay away from voting in the voting booth. I take personal offense to that. I think there’s no reasonable comparison and I ask Senator Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement on the Senate floor…

It’s interesting in this debate that the other side has been flailing around for an argument against my amendment. It’s interesting that nobody’s argued — that I’ve heard — that reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens. That that’s more consistent with the notion of Congress being the representative body of citizens of the United States.

Watch it:

If Vitter were asking for nothing more than a “simple citizenship question,” as he repeatedly claimed throughout his floor speech, Reid’s remarks may have been out of line. However, Vitter consistently justified his amendment by claiming that states with many immigrants would steal the representatives of states with few immigrants if non-citizens aren’t excluded from congressional apportionment decisions. Considering the fact that Vitter’s amendment didn’t contain any language stipulating a change in the way representatives are apportioned, it can only be assumed that he was hoping to limit the enumeration of non-citizens by discouraging them from participating.

Deliberately discouraging non-citizens from participating in the Census and deterring African Americans from voting have one major aspect in common: the violation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment made African American slaves citizens with voting rights and also stipulated that representatives would be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each State.” Along those lines, Vitter’s critics actually have suggested that “reapportionment should be done counting citizens and non-citizens” because the Constitution says so.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) called Vitter’s amendment a “transparent political stunt” that would’ve cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Senate Republicans are demanding lengthy economic analyses of progressive clean energy policy, despite having spent careers voting for and against major energy legislation without such delay. This week the Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted its debate on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the economic impacts was not sufficiently thorough. Before they launched their boycott, committee ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) demanded a “full analysis” that satisfied their particular requirements:

As we’ve noted in previous letters and requests, getting a thorough, comprehensive economic analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill is an essential component of a meaningful legislative process. To accomplish that, EPA needs to do a series of model runs examining key provisions in the bill, with a number of sensitivity analyses on critical issues, including, among others, the availability of offsets, potential growth in nuclear power, and the extent of emissions reductions by developing countries. Anything less than a full analysis of this kind will be unacceptable.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chair of the Senate Republican Conference, piled on: “We want to participate in any clean energy bill, but we’re not willing to do that until we know what it costs.”

“It undermines the credibility of the process,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). “It’s not constructive to the process to proceed without knowing what it costs.”

On Monday, senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) joined Inhofe to demand a “complete and substantive analysis of any bill that attempts to address this issue” and “complete data and a thorough vetting” before the EPW Committee took action.

Yesterday, senators Gregg, Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent a letter to the EPA saying, “We cannot support legislation” without “a clear picture of the bill’s impacts on our economy,” saying the EPA analysis needs to be completed “prior to any action in EPW.”

Their arguments fall flat, however, because these and other senators routinely voted on energy and global warming bills without any analysis. Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations. In several cases, there was no full analysis before the bill was voted on by the entire Senate:

– Energy Policy Act of 2002 (H.R. 4): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after both committee passage and full Senate consideration.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139): EIA analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 4/S. 1005): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after committee passage. Limited CBO analysis completed before full Senate consideration, EIA analysis after.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (S. 342): No analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2005 (S. 10): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191): EIA and EPA analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462): CBO analysis completed after committee passage.

Sen. Murkowski notably had no problem voting for the American Clean Energy Leadership Act this June, even though CBO analysis was only completed in September.

The fact that these and other bills moved through committees without any analysis sharply contrasts with the mountain of assessments of this year’s clean energy legislation. Full EPA, EIA, and CBO analyses were conducted of the House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), and the EPA has conducted additional analysis of the Senate legislation. The Republicans’ interest in analysis is little more than an excuse for delay and defeat of clean energy legislation. In one of the boycotted hearings this week, Sen. Boxer noted that the “EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation” about the related House bill. Environmental Protection Agency Director of Congressional Affairs David McIntosh appeared before the Committee to reiterate that S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 were very similar:

[EPA economic] models are not designed to detect fine-grain details in this kind of legislation. So changes in the legislation at that level of detail will not even show up in the economic computer model. Second, it costs the EPA at least $135,000 and 1600 man-hours of time to run a bill through the agency’s full suite of economic computer models.

Nonetheless, Republican boycotters wanted EPA to spend five weeks and $135,000 of taxpayer money to conduct a redundant analysis before they would agree to a vote.

Today, the committee approved the Clean Energy Jobs Act on an 11-1 vote. Every Republican was absent without leave.

With an apparent consensus on the need to train more Afghan security personnel more rapidly, it’s instructive to take a look at the United States’ smaller scale efforts to build security forces elsewhere in the Middle East. On Tuesday, I attended an event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Yezid Sayigh’s report on security sector reform in Palestine, Lebanon and Yemen. Sayigh’s presentation made several interesting points that should have a direct impact on U.S. decision makers and the implementers, most likely in the military, as they prepare for a larger train-and-equip effort in Afghanistan.

First, Sayigh noted that U.S. and EU efforts tend to have competing priorities — in the cases of Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen, embedding security forces in a democratic rule of law framework versus building an effective counterterrorism force. In the cases he studied, Sayigh found that U.S. and EU efforts tend to focus on creating special counterterrorism units to the detriment of the rest of the security sector, and these new CT units are then prime targets for capture by political factions. Nicole Ball, a panelist at the event, later made the point that even solely CT-focused efforts wind up unsuccessful at achieving CT objective.

Second, success in building and reforming security sectors is possible when there is local ownership of the overall effort. As Sayigh told the attendees, “no amount of external coercion or bribery will work without local ownership.” He cites the relative success in reforming the Palestinian Authority’s security sector under Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad in 2007 and 2008.

These two main points have important implications for an expanded training effort in Afghanistan. The most important in my view is the need to get buy-in for the expanded effort from President Hamid Karzai and his new government, especially the defense ministry. Current Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak has long argued for a bigger Afghan army, and should he remain defense minister it’s likely he and his ministry will be on board with an expanded training mission. U.S. and NATO country diplomats should also work to make sure the opposition to Karzai, such as Abdullah Abdullah’s political faction, also support the new training program.

After buy-in is obtained, the United States will have to avoid Karzai politicizing the security sector. While Karzai has so far avoided overly politicizing Afghanistan’s national security forces, leaders with dubious legitimacy will always face the temptation to create regime protection forces loyal to themselves rather than professional security forces loyal to the state. U.S. and NATO diplomats and military trainers will have to work in tandem to ensure Karzai does not go down the path of security force politicization. Such politicization has occurred in Iraq, where former mayor Najim Abed al-Jabouri has stated entire divisions of the Iraqi army are beholden to the various political parties there. In addition, the United States needs to be careful to not let elite units like the ANA’s commando force become pawns in political jockeying in Kabul.

These largely political issues need to be considered by decision-makers here in Washington and implementers in the military as they embark on an expanded training effort. The key takeaway from our much smaller-scale efforts in Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen is that these political issues can make or break a training effort, and are therefore integral to success. Fortunately, Afghans regard the ANP and ANA generally positively, and Karzai has shown little inclination toward politicizing them so far. The key for the United States is to keep its eyes open for signs of politicization and make sure Karzai and other Afghan government and political figures stay bought-in to the expanded training program. This task may be difficult, but it’s not insurmountable.

But now that the National Mediation Board (NMB) — which oversees labor-management relations for the airline and railroad industries under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) — wants to issue a rule change making unionization elections in those two industries more democratic, Kline and WFI are singing a different tune.

Currently, under the RLA, employees who choose not to vote in a union election are counted as “no” votes, while under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees who don’t vote simply aren’t counted at all. So, in practice, this means that employees under RLA must get a majority of employees to vote affirmatively, while those under NLRA must get a majority of voting members to do so, just like in an election for a political office.

The NMB wants to change the RLA’s rules, to equalize the two processes. Kline and WFI reacted like this:

Republican Reps. John Kline (Minn.) and John Mica (Fla.) issued a release that called it a radical proposal that adds “to a troubling perception that federal agencies have embraced a culture of union favoritism.” [...] The Workforce Fairness Institute issued a press release titled “Forced Unionization” in response to the proposed rule change, and criticized the NMB for providing a “bailout” to the AFL-CIO.

The NMB has opened its proposed change up to a 60-day comment period, and with their respective responses, Kline and WFI reveal that their opposition has nothing to do with democracy. It’s about preventing unions from gaining more members, at all costs. After all, in what other election do people who don’t vote get counted for one side or the other?

Much like the push in Congress to bring truck drivers for FedEx under the NLRA, this rule change would eliminate an odd inequity in the system that is the product of the antiquated RLA, which was written in 1934. There is no reason to have the deck stacked against railway and airline workers, simply because they are pulled under an older law. But to Kline and WFI, it seems, whichever rules make it harder to form a union are those that epitomize democracy.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)

Under Kanjorski’s proposal, “the power to restructure a company could go to the systemic-risk council and involve the Treasury secretary, with a final decision made by the president.” This goes much further than the legislation proposed by either the administration or House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA).

The bill has already “set off alarms across K Street.” “That was a little unexpected,” one bank lobbyist told The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber. “It sort of…threw people for a loop.” However, Kanjorski has at least piqued the interest of one prominent player in the regulatory reform debate: Senate Banking Committee ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL):

Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said today he liked the idea. “I don’t think anything is too-big-to-fail,” said Shelby, of Alabama. “We ought to be looking at legislation to deal with a bank beforehand if we can, or an institution that would cause systemic risk, to make it stronger, or make it smaller.”

Now, Shelby has already toyed with the Democrats, saying that he might be able to support creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), only to characterize such a move as “folly and dangerous” when legislation started to move.

However, back in 1999, Shelby was the only Republican who voted against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment banking from traditional banking. And with the UK beginning to break up large, bailed-out financial institutions and more and more people talking about enacting some sort of wall between depository and investment banking, this seems like an issue that is not going to go away. For his part, Kanjorski said that he’s “getting some good feedback” on his measure. “Most people are coming up to me and saying we should have done this originally, why didn’t we?” he said.

It’s too soon to tell how this will all shake out, especially since Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) has yet to release his version of regulatory reform legislation. But Dodd is already planning to deviate from the House and the administration’s reform vision in significant ways. Will Shelby’s willingness to at least talk about breaking up the big banks push Dodd to go even further? And if he does, will Shelby be able to bring any other Republicans along?

The Palestinians are weak and divided. The Israelis have been difficult, as always: whenever Mitchell raises East Jerusalem in talks with the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli stands up and walks out of the room. Despite Netanyahu’s momentary, tactical enthusiasm for peace talks, his Likud Party has always favored the de facto incorporation of Palestinian lands into the state of Israel.

This is how Israel treats the guarantor of its security? It seems to me that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was actually serious about getting the U.S. to move with greater urgency on Iran — instead of just using the Iran threat (and the Goldstone Report, and whatever else is at hand at any given moment) to forestall serious 2-state negotiations — he might instruct his foreign minister not to behave this way toward the president’s special envoy. That he does not tells you a lot about what the current Israeli government’s actual priorities are.

Klein’s point about the Likud Party’s policy toward the taking of Palestinian lands is also important, and far too little reported. The Likud Party constitution states that “The government headed by the Likud will keep Jerusalem the unified capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty.” Understanding the importance of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, saying that Netanyahu supports a negotiated solution but won’t allow for Palestinian sovereignty of Palestinian areas of Jerusalem is like saying that Abbas supports a Jewish state as long as it’s in Burma. It’s a non-starter.

In the face of protests by the United States and the international community, under Netanyahu the Israelis have in fact been ramping up efforts to preclude any division of Jerusalem by strengthening the Jewish presence in Palestinian areas. A new study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation found that, since 1967, “Israel has expropriated some 35 per cent of East Jerusalem’s territory, over 24,000 dunums of land, from its Palestinian owners”:

The study by the Germany-based organisation examined the building policies in Jerusalem intended to change the facts on the ground and ensure a solid Jewish majority in the city, said a statement e-mailed to The Jordan Times yesterday.

“The study highlights that since 1967, Israeli governments developed building and planning policies that were designed primarily according to the current struggle occurring in Jerusalem. The central tool used by the Israeli governments was the expropriation of land from private hands,” the press release said, adding: “Since 1967, Israel has expropriated over 24,000 dunums, mostly from their Palestinian owners.”

The report, which was prepared in partnership with the Macro Centre for Political Economics, indicated that about 50,000 housing units were built exclusively for the Jewish Israeli population within the framework of new neighbourhoods/settlements, while for the Palestinian population, Israel has built fewer than 600 housing units since 1967 in the scope of government assistance, the most recent of which was built over 30 years ago.

To be fair, this isn’t just a problem of the Likud. All Israeli governments since 1967 are implicated in the attempt to change the demographic character of Jerusalem in order to diminish the Palestinian’s claim to it. The latest report only confirms work done by other organizations like Israel’s B’Tselem, who report that “the government of Israel’s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city.” Israel’s policy, according to B’Tselem, “gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law.”

In March, an EU report accused the Israeli government “of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of ‘actively pursuing the illegal annexation’ of East Jerusalem.”

The document says Israel has accelerated its plans for East Jerusalem, and is undermining the Palestinian Authority’s credibility and weakening support for peace talks. “Israel’s actions in and around Jerusalem constitute one of the most acute challenges to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making,” says the document, EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem.

Probably shouldn’t hold your breath for Congress to jump on this. On a GOP delegation to Israel in August, Rep. Eric Cantor spoke out strongly in favor of Israel’s right to evict Palestinian families to make way for Jewish settlers.

Americans for Peace Now’s Noam Shelef writes “Rising tensions in Jerusalem can be a matter of life and death. Past Israeli actions that were perceived as efforts to change the status quo in the Old City — such as the opening of the Hasmonean Tunnel in 1996 or the visit to the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon in 2000 — triggered riots that caused many casualties.” In the event that continuing Israeli provocations in East Jerusalem result in a violent Palestinian response — as many increasingly fear they might — you can bet Congress will hop to it to sign another AIPAC-penned resolution blaming the Palestinians for everything.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that under the $61 billion Republican amendment to the House health care bill, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019, but deficits would decrease by $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The bill could slightly reduce premiums for Americans who purchase coverage independently.

Millions of Americans would remain uninsured and continue to pay higher premiums. In fact it’s unlikely that any of the members of the Republican House Leadership would be able to find affordable insurance under their own proposal, should they chose to give up their government-sponsored plans.

The six men and one woman in the Republican House leadership have an average age of 52 and, as a group, are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, different cancers, high blood pressure, and host of other chronic diseases. The Republican health alternative would allow insurers to discriminate against these conditions and price the Republican leaders out of the market:

1. Leadership would not find coverage in the individual market:

Republicans hope to increase access to coverage in the individual market by giving individuals the opportunity to purchase insurance licensed in different states. But it’s unlikely that any of the House Republicans would be able to find an affordable coverage option. Insurers that sell policies in the individual market-place usually deny coverage to older Americans with pre-existing conditions or those at risk of developing chronic disease. In fact, over the last three years, “nearly three-quarters of people who tried to buy coverage in this market never actually purchased a plan, either because they could not find one that fit their needs or that they could afford, or because they were turned down due to a preexisting condition.”

2. Leadership would not find adequate coverage in high-risk pools:

When the Republican leaders are denied coverage in the individual market, they could apply for insurance in expanded state-based high risk pools, which typically provide very expensive coverage for the so-called “uninsurables.” But their legislation does not adequately fund these pools and would compel states to limit services, deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and impose high cost sharing.

3. Leadership would not find stable coverage in association health plans:

If Republican leaders can’t purchase affordable coverage from state-run high risk pool, they could join an association-sponsored plan. Unfortunately, under their own legislation, associations are not required to provide a standard package of benefits and have an incentive to craft skimpy policies that attract healthier applicants.

The Republican legislation lowers costs for younger and healthier Americans by segregating risk pools and offering individuals who rarely use their health insurance cheaper premiums — so long as they remain healthy. The legislation doesn’t offer new choices or lower costs for the majority of the population.

In a Huffington Post column posted today, political strategist Robert Creamer offered Democrats four pieces of invaluable advice in preparation for next year’s midterm elections. Yellow-bellied Democrats should apply some of Creamer’s “lessons learned” to the immigration debate before passing up a golden opportunity to craft and pass progressive immigration reform in a Democratic-controlled Congress:

1. “First and foremost, the results show that it is critical that the Democratic message be framed in populist terms.”

Creamer explains that yesterday’s election results represent a referendum on incumbents — or candidates from the incumbent party — who failed to present themselves as populist “agents of change who will return economic power to average Americans.”

Backing away from the immigration issue isn’t going to do anything but reinforce the status quo. Democrats can and should talk about immigration reform in economic terms. For example, they could mention that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 would have generated $66 billion in new revenue during 2007-2016 if right-wingers hadn’t blocked it. Legalizing undocumented immigrants wouldn’t just generate more tax revenue, it would also level the playing field for all workers and improve wages and working conditions in industries that currently exploit immigrant labor. Meanwhile, shutting the door on high-skilled immigrants could drive the world’s best and brightest away from contributing to and growing the US economy.

2. “Independent voters will demand that Democrats deliver on our promise of change.”

Creamer points out that independents are impatient and need to see “some serious evidence” of change. He specifically lists immigration reform as one of the battles Democrats are going to have to win in addition to passing legislation that stimulates the economy. The nation’s immigration system has been broken for a long time and Democrats could win a lot of points for being the Party that finally fixes it.

3). “Democrats must inspire the base.”

Latino and immigrant voters make up a growing and powerful voting bloc that in 2008 came out in droves to support Obama and helped flip red states blue. Latinos overwhelmingly favored Democrats in hopes of seeing major improvements in their communities. Much of the political success of the current Congress and administration hinges on its ability to deliver comprehensive immigration reform and in turn make life-long Democrats out of Latino and immigrant voters.

4. “Our not-so-secret weapon in 2010 is the Republican circular firing squad.”

The right-wing’s self-destructive tendency is especially evident in the immigration debate. Right-wing anti-immigrant demagoguery tarnished the Republican brand during the 2007 immigration debate. The GOP is now viewed amongst Latino and immigrant voters as having created a climate of undeterred public immigrant-bashing that brought nativism into the mainstream. Some Republicans are trying to clean up the Party’s image, but one doesn’t have to look very far to realize that it’s probably going to be a while before the GOP is able to purge itself of its nativist fringe. Old habits die hard, and right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric will probably lose hardline Republicans some votes without any Democratic interference.

But Creamer warns that Democrats can’t count on it. Actions speak louder than words and despite the fact that it’s progressives who created the “deep well of desire for real change in America,” their majority is by no means guaranteed if they don’t have the guts to go after it.