Why am I not surprised? The Republicans have stalled consideration of the DREAM Act and the repeal of DADT.

Here's CBS on what's next.

No need for regulatory capture:

Faced with the need to review insurance rates and enforce a panoply of new rights granted to consumers, states are scrambling to make sure they have the necessary legal authority to carry out the responsibilities being placed on them by President Obama’s health care law. Insurance commissioners in about half the states say they do not have clear authority to enforce consumer protection standards that take effect next month.

Federal and state officials are searching for ways to plug the gap. Otherwise, they say, the ability of consumers to secure the benefits of the new law could vary widely, depending on where they live. [. . .] States have the primary role in enforcing many of the new standards. If a state fails to enforce a standard, the federal government will step in to do so — as it did in several states after passage of a health insurance law in 1996.

The fundamental problem with the regulatory reform framework favored by the Obama Administration and championed by Beltway Bloggers, like Ezra Klein and Jon Cohn, is the dependence on a regulatory framework that has always failed in this area and that, imo, will fail again.

What the critics of the "Professional Left" always fail to acknowledge is that while much of the legislation passed in the past years fit their wildest dreams, for many progressives, the belief is that the legislation simply will not work. Let's hope the Beltway Bloggers are right. I think they will not be on the health bill.

Speaking for me only

President Obama today signed into law the $600 million bill enhancing law enforcement and surveillance along the Mexico border.

Obama did this backwards. Republicans aren't likely to support comprehensive immigration reform, particularly a path to legalization, because he caved on border security. As I've opined before, he should told the Republicans, "Hey, you want money for border security, then pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill and the Dream Act and then we'll talk."

This is another example of Obama's tendency to compromise core Democratic principles in his eternal quest for bi-partisanship. He's the President, the Dems still hold a majority in Congress. He should know when it comes to power, you either use it or lose it.

The House of Representatives has passed S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. It reduces the disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties from 100:1 to 18:1. It also eliminates the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and provides for higher sentencing guidelines for all drugs in some cases.

The bill, a compromise between Sen. Richard Durbin and Jeff Sessions, has already passed the Senate. It will now go to President Barack Obama for his signature. Here's a copy, as introduced in March, 2010.

What about retroactivity? The bill does not provide retroactive relief for those already serving long crack sentences. But I'm not seeing anything in the text prohibiting it, it seems to be silent on the issue. Does the silence mean the Sentencing Commission can decide to apply it to those already in prison? And would it?

The House Floor website says: [More...]

The Washington Post has called on the House to pass a watered down crack cocaine reform bill, introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin and drug warrior Sen. Jeff Sessions and negotiated with Sen. Sessions, Lindsay Graham and Orrin Hatch.

Rather than equalizing crack cocaine and powder cocaine penalties, it would reduce the disparity so that crack is still punished 18 times more severely than powder. The bill also adds sentencing enhancements for some drug crimes. Worst of all, the bill specifically states it is not retroactive, meaning it will not help those already serving unfair draconian sentences.

The bill that the full House (and then the Senate) needs to pass is H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, by Rep. Bobby Scott. The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee in July, 2009 and has seen no action since. [More...]

Uh-oh. Now that the full House has voted to approve DADT and the defense funding bill, there may be a monkey wrench in the works.

The House also approved funding for an alternative engine that Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to eliminate. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it's not removed. At issue is "an amendment providing $500 million to continue developing a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." The Senate version didn't include the engine funding.

The White House warned again on Friday that the president's advisors would push for a veto if the money for the second engine remained in the bill.

What needs to happen: When the bills go to reconciliation, the House engine amendment needs to be dropped.

Also, Secretary Gates told upset members of the military today not to worry, DADT's repeal won't result in changes right away.

"The legislation involved is a deferred repeal," he said. "It would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' but only after — I repeat after — the ongoing Department of Defense high-level review is completed."

[More...]

the House Homeland Security Agency (Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism) will hold a hearing on President Obama's plan to extend the Merida Initiative with Mexico, began under President Bush, with a plan to spend 1.3 billion on the war on drugs.

The heaering is called "“U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation: Next Steps for the Merida Initiative.

You can watch the live feed here.

Testimony at Hearing will be provided by: [more...]

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis deserves some praise taking on Attorney General Eric Holder on medical marijuana at the House Judiciary Committee hearing this week. It's not the first time Polis has confronted Holder on the issue, he did so back in February when he wrote Holder this letter (pdf.)

Polis has signed on as co-sponsor of three marijuana bills pending in Congress. Two of the bills were introduced by Rep. Barney Frank. (He introduces them every year, and every year they go nowhere.) The question now, is can Polis do anything to get the bills heard and voted on?
[More...]

Via mcjoan, Byron Dorgan rips the FinReg proposal as is:

I stopped writing on FinReg when I realized it was basically a charade (like the silly one time audit of the Fed for actions in the past and the pointless Franken Amendment.) As Dorgan puts it:

"If we don't fix" the bill, said Dorgan, "and we leave this chamber and this Congress and claim to have fixed it and have not done it, then shame on us. We have a responsibility here."

Speaking for me only

What is Harry Reid trying to pull? The details of the Democrats' immigration bill are coming out, and it's a head-fake. Congress needs to "just say no" to this turkey of a bill.

The bill is a border enhancement bill and not what we need. It's "path to legalization" is 8 years. It's more money for cops and the war on drugs.

It creates biometric national id cards -- today for immigrants. As if they aren't planning them for all of us soon after:

The legislation would require the Social Security Administration to oversee a new system of biometric cards that could be used to prevent hiring of illegal immigrants. It would replace existing verification systems six years after they were enacted.

Then there's this: [more...]

Oklahoma has enacted two bills intended to restrict abortions, overriding the Governor's vetos. The bills become effective immediately.

Under one law, women must listen to an ultrasound and hear a spiel describing the fetus.

Oklahoma’s law goes further [than those in other states] requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second law exempts doctors from malpractice suits for failing to tell prospective parents their fetus has birth defects.

Maybe Oklahama and Arizona can secede from the union. They deserve each other. We deserve better than both of them.

The Senate has passed a bill eliminating their cost of living increase for the year. They did the same last year.

The Senate on Thursday passed legislation to scrap its $1600 cost-of-living pay raise for 2011. Lawmakers automatically receive the pay hike unless they vote each year to stop it. The bill was introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who has adamantly protested the the annual pay raise since his election in 1992.

Sen. Mark Udall says:

“Coloradans have been fighting to keep their heads above water in a tough economy. Members of Congress shouldn’t get a raise while the constituents who put us into office are struggling to find jobs and afford to pay their bills. This is about doing what is right for the people and the country.”