GOP OPPOSES MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... I was under the impression that the emergency teams who responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are considered American heroes. The nation's support for these men and women is unequivocal and unending.

At least, that was my impression. I guess I underestimated congressional Republicans again.

House Republican leadership is advising its members to vote against a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, bolster medical support to Sept. 11 victims.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, sponsored by New York City Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D), provides medical monitoring to those exposed to toxins at Ground Zero, bolsters treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11 and reopens a compensation fund to provide economic loss to New Yorkers.

And it's all paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries, Democrats say.

A policy statement from the House GOP leadership believes a victims' compensation fund is too large, and would remain open too long, which in turn creates a "massive new entitlement program" -- and Republicans hate entitlement programs.

As for financing, because the right pretends to care about the deficit, Dems made sure that every penny of the proposal is paid for. This, too, outraged House Republicans, because tax increases, even on foreign companies, even to benefit 9/11 victims, are always evil.

We're left with Republicans, in an election year, taking a bold stand against funding for medical care for 9/11 heroes.

Amazing.

DEMS EYE A TEA PARTY WEDGE.... As you may have heard, the Democratic National Committee launched a new message campaign yesterday, called the "Republican-Tea Party Contract With America." The point is probably obvious: Dems intend to remind voters that when it comes to issues, priorities, and agendas, the Republican Party and the Tea Party zealots are effectively "one and the same."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and several Democratic House members today unveiled the new Democratic midterm attack plan against Republicans: GOP = Tea Party.

In an effort to demonstrate what they see as the dangers of Republican Congressional control, Democrats will spend the next few months until Election Day trying to tie all Republicans to policies advocated by some members of the Tea Party, including repealing the health care and Wall Street reform laws, abolishing the Departments of Labor and Education and the EPA, and ending Medicare.

Kaine said the DNC has an "aggressive" plan, along with the White House "to make sure the American people know what the Republicans really believe what their blueprint for governing is," tracking candidates' comments on the campaign trail, distributing research, and airing commercials nationwide.

The initiative included the unveiling of a new video, highlighting the kind of specific policy efforts the country can expect from the "Republican-Tea Party Contract."

At first, I was a little skeptical about this tack. To be sure, the charge is accurate. My skepticism, though, has to do with public awareness -- do enough Americans even know about Tea Partiers' extremism? Or are we still at a point where Americans hear "Tea Party," and think of Boston colonists in 1773?

Presumably, the DNC has extensive polling data on this, which likely shows the American mainstream -- especially self-described "independents" and swing voters -- turned off by Tea Partiers' radicalism. Which leads to the stronger part of the Democrats' plan: it puts Republicans on the defensive.

Indeed, yesterday, GOP leaders were quick to denounce, and sometimes even mock, the new Democratic effort. But when reporters asked if the DNC's charges are true -- in other words, whether Republicans and Tea Partiers really are one and the same, with an identical right-wing agenda -- those same GOP leaders suddenly felt shy.

An RNC spokesperson "would not say whether the RNC disagrees with any of the 10 agenda items." A wide variety of Republican officials were quick to respond to the DNC's initiative, but not one was prepared to "refute specific points."

That's not surprising. When Dems insist Republicans and Tea Partiers are identical, GOP officials can either (a) disagree, and offend their base; or (b) embrace the criticism, and risk turning off everyone else.

Looking at the big picture, Dems have struggled to settle on a specific campaign theme. "Party of No" was dubious, in part because Republicans seem to like it. The ideal for the DNC, then, is to figure out how to characterize Republicans as the "party of crazy." Equating them with anti-government zealots and wild-eyed conspiracy cranks might just do the trick.

Marc Ambinder explained the strategy this way: "The Republicans want to be mayors of crazy-town. They've embraced a fringe and proto-racist isolationist and ignorant conservative populism that has no solutions for fixing anything and the collective intelligence of a wine flask."

A CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.... At the height of the debate over health care reform, a certain set of political assumptions set in -- the Democratic proposal was unpopular, thanks to a scathing misinformation campaign. Republicans would base much of their midterm strategy on running against the new law, while Democrats hoped to see the law's popularity grow as the right-wing lies faded.

We're not yet near the point at which the Affordable Care Act could be characterized as "popular," but Dems are likely pleased with the recent trend.

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Since April, the tracking poll has found support for the health care reform law go up four points, while opposition has gone down five points. Less encouraging were results that showed more than a third of seniors still believe made-up "death panels" are real -- zombie lies are surprisingly hard to kill -- but overall, proponents of the ACA who predicted that blind hatred for reform would fade over time appear to be correct.

In fairness, not every recent poll offers such encouragement. A recent Pew Forum/National Journal survey (pdf) still showed opponents outnumbering supporters by a fairly wide margin.

On the other hand, last month, a national Associated Press-GfK poll found that support for the Affordable Care Act was not only on the rise, but had reached new heights -- health care reform's supporters outnumbered opponents, 45% to 42%. A week later, a Gallup poll found 49% of respondents agreeing that passage of the law is a "good thing," while 46% think it's a "bad thing."

The point isn't that all the recent data offers good news for ACA backers; the point is that assumptions that Americans hate the new law are wrong. House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office argued recently that "the American people remain squarely opposed" to health care reform, and pointed to "the rising public backlash against the new law."

The evidence to support such observations is still lacking.

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Beige Book disappoints a bit: "The economic expansion has proceeded unevenly this summer, according to a new Federal Reserve report, with new pockets of weakness emerging in parts of the country."

* On a related note: "The latest report on orders to factory for big-ticket items on Wednesday offered another sign that the United States economy was losing strength in the second half the year."

* The oil from the disaster in the Gulf "appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected." This does not, however, "end the many problems and scientific uncertainties associated with the spill."

* President Obama talks up the Democrats' small-business-incentives bill in New Jersey: "The provisions of this bill are things that the Republican Party has supported for years," Obama said. "This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are central to our identity as a nation.... I expect us to get this done."

* U.S. troops continue to return home from Iraq.

* Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced today she will vote for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation. She's the fourth Senate Republican to announce her support for the nominee.

* Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is starting to lose some of his Democratic friends.

* A worthwhile first for the VA: "The Under Secretary of Health at the Veterans Administration issued a little-noticed directive to VA medical facilities recently, informing facilities that patients who legally use medical marijuana may not be denied access to health services because of their outside prescription."

* The sooner the Senate acts, the better: "The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday approved the nomination of three new members to the Federal Reserve's powerful board, including Janet Yellen for vice chairman, clearing the way for a final vote by the whole Senate."

* Is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) obsessed with gutting the EPA? Yep.

* Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), still mad as a hatter.

* Not good: "There's not going to be enough money to fully fund Pell Grants, the government program that provides money to help low-income students to attend college."

* Jeffrey Lord just can't bring himself to shut up.

* Bill O'Reilly joins the rest of the sensible universe in opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

* Glenn Beck's Goldline scheme, illustrated.

* I intended to highlight the pathetic op-ed from Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen in the Wall Street Journal today, but just didn't have the stomach for it. Thankfully, Alex Pareene was on the case.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SOMEONE BUY THUNE A CALCULATOR.... Politico reported this week that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is trying to "build up his policy credentials," in advance of a possible presidential campaign in 2012. With that in mind, the conservative, unaccomplished senator intends to "make a name for himself on budgetary matters."

He's off to a rough start.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) -- the fifth highest ranking Republican in the Senate -- has a new plan for lowering deficits, and as you might expect from GOP leadership, it involves zero tax hikes. It does however, involve math and, if his appearance on Fox News last night is any indication, Thune finds math rather difficult. There's really no other way to explain his utter failure to remember the law of diminishing returns when he talked about the benefits of his deficit reduction plan.

Appearing on Fox News, Thune and host Greta Van Susteren discussed the bill's call for the creation of a Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with reducing the deficit 10 percent year over year.

"It would be required to find 10% in savings -- 10% of the deficit in savings every budget cycle," Thune said.

"So in 10 years we wouldn't have a deficit?" van Sustern asked.

"Theoretically, yes," Thune replied.

Mathematically, no.

Let's say the government starts with a $1 trillion budget deficit. If Thune's committee reduces it by 10%, it would be a $900 billion deficit a year later. The next year, it cuts another 10%. Would that bring it down to $800 billion? No, it'd be $810 billion ($900 billion - 10% = $810 billion). A year later it would be $729 billion, followed by $656 billion, and so on.

Thune thinks this approach would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, but he forgot to do the math, so he's off by an entire decade*. It's understandable for van Sustern to mess this up -- she's a Fox News personality -- but this is the senator's own plan, intended to give him credibility in advance of a national campaign.

Someone couldn't let him borrow a calculator?

Arithmetic aside, if Thune's idea is part of a larger effort to "build up his policy credentials," the senator might need a back-up plan. His scheme seems like a pretty thin gimmick -- task some committee with coming up with ideas to reduce the deficit without raising taxes. At that point, Congress would be free to ignore the committee's ideas.

The reason it's hard to take Thune's national ambitions seriously is that he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Think back over the last couple of years -- when was the last time you remember Thune saying or doing something noteworthy? There was that time a year ago when he urged President Obama not to pick a gay Supreme Court nominee, which came soon after his argument that economic recovery efforts are bad because $1 trillion, if stacked by $100 bills, would make a very tall pile.

When Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pushed a measure to protect victims of sexual assault who work for defense contractors -- the Jamie Leigh Jones effort -- Thune dismissed it as a "Daily Kos-inspired amendment." Soon after, Thune said a colleague often disagrees with Republicans because he understands policy details.

This guy has presidential ambitions? Please.

* Update: Brian Beutler emails to note that he had a minor math error of his own, and that Thune was off by far more than a decade. Using Thune's model, it would take 43 years to get deficits down to 1% of current levels, making his observation that much more incorrect. (And as some of you have also noted, if one reduces a debt by 10% a year indefinitely, it's impossible to ever eliminate the total altogether.)

CLOSER TO SENTENCING SANITY.... Sentencing disparities when it comes to cocaine have been a national embarrassment for nearly a quarter-century. We've been dealing with an indefensible 100-to-1 ratio established in 1986 -- a person caught selling five grams of crack will face the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as someone selling 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Because the majority of crack convictions involve African Americans, while powder cocaine convictions tend to involve whites, there's also an obvious racial component to the sentencing disparity.

The Obama administration strongly endorsed changing the law and ending the disparity altogether. Regrettably, Congress wouldn't oblige. Lawmakers did, however, take a step in the right direction today, making the disparity less ridiculous.

Congress has changed a quarter-century-old law that has sent tens of thousands of blacks to prison for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the same amount of the drug in powder form.

House passage of what was called the "fair sentencing act" sends the legislation to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The sentencing disparity has been a 100-to-1 ratio. Now, it will be 18-to-1. The House was prepared to go further, but ending the disparity ran into trouble -- where else? -- in the Senate. As a result, the law will be vastly improved, though the disparity will remain a problem.

Let's not, however, brush past how significant this is. The AP noted that the success of the Fair Sentencing Act marks "the first time in 40 years that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence."

That, alone, is pretty amazing. For over a generation, a vote like this would have been the subject of shameless "soft on crime" demagoguery. Instead, the Obama White House pressed hard for the change, with no real fear of political pushback, and Congress approved a significant improvement -- in an election year -- with no qualms about how this might be twisted into an attack ad.

David Dayen added, "[Y]ou know what we don't so a lot of in this country? Reduce sentences. Check out the makeup of the world's largest prison population and you'll see what I mean. 'Law 'n' Order' and 'Tough on Crime' remain shibboleths used by politicians to hammer away at criminal sentencing reformists. So ANY change in a positive direction takes a ridiculous amount of work and struggle. This is a small step, but it's a step in the right direction."

It is, indeed. And the fact that the right isn't running around screaming about "Democrats love drug addicts" this afternoon also reflects meaningful progress when it comes to our public discourse on this issue.

Here's some additional background on the details of the bill.

QUANTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESCUE OF THE ECONOMY.... In politics, perceptions arguably matter more than anything, and when it comes to the federal government intervening to rescue the economy, the perceptions are less than kind.

If polls are any indication, the efforts launched by federal officials in 2008 and 2009, when the economy was teetering on the brink of wholesale collapse, were unacceptable. The financial industry bailout seems to be universally reviled, and last year's Recovery Act is only marginally more popular. (In fact, in many instances, the public thinks both efforts are the same thing.)

President Obama and Democrats routinely, if not explicitly, argue to voters that "it would have been worse." But is there way to prove that empirically? Two respected economists gave it a shot.

In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program, the nation's gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year.

In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation.

The paper, by Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, represents a first stab at comprehensively estimating the effects of the economic policy responses of the last few years.

"While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective," they write.

Zandi, by the way, was an advisor on economic policy to the McCain/Palin presidential campaign.

The two looked at the totality of the federal response -- TARP, stimulus, auto industry rescue, intervention from the Federal Reserve -- and concluded that the collected efforts prevented an economic catastrophe.

"When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policy makers had not acted at all," they write.

The economists didn't measure what would have happened if policymakers had followed the right's recommendations -- no TARP, no auto industry rescue, and a five-year spending freeze -- but the word "cataclysmic" comes to mind.

Indeed, the Zandi/Blinder paper concluded, "[I]t is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government's fiscal situation in far graver condition. We conclude that [Federal Reserve Chairman] Ben Bernanke was probably right when he said that "We came very close in October [2008] to Depression 2.0."

ARIZONA ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW PUT ON HOLD.... Today's the day that Arizona's odious S.B. 1070 -- the notorious anti-immigrant law -- takes effect, but thanks to a court order today, the most problematic provisions of the law are now on hold. The Associated Press reports this afternoon:

A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

Until the court resolves the legality of these issues, the provisions will not take effect.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) will no doubt appeal, and the New York Times noted that "legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court."

Update: CNN posted the entire ruling here (pdf).

HALPERIN ON 'THE MEDIA SPIRAL'.... At first blush, Mark Halperin's latest piece in Time deals with subjects I'm not inclined to read more about: O.J. Simpson's criminal trial and the media's handling of the Shirley Sherrod story. But there are actually some noteworthy observations in the piece, with real merit. (via Adam Serwer)

[T]he coverage of both sagas -- Simpson's, literally, for years; Sherrod's for the better part of a week -- was insanely overblown. The Sherrod story is a reminder -- much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media. In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.

Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention. Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.

So the news-and-information conveyor belt moves stories like the Sherrod case from Point A to Point Z without any of the standards or norms of traditional journalism, not only resulting in grievous harm to the apparently blameless, such as Sherrod, but also crowding out news about virtually anything else.

I take issue, from time to time, with Halperin's coverage of the political world, but on this, he couldn't be more right. It's an observation that usually goes overlooked, which makes it all the more encouraging that it's coming from Halperin -- who enjoys enormous credibility with the political media establishment.

He concludes that last week's obsession was a "low point" for political reporting, which should lead the media to "start climbing out of the pit."

Halperin doesn't explicitly call himself out on this -- The Page was complicit with last week's coverage -- and the piece brushes past the racial component of both stories. Nevertheless, he deserves a lot of credit for making plain how that conveyor belt operates, and highlighting why it's not working.

Here's hoping Halperin's piece is taken seriously by his colleagues.

A POLL TAX FOR A NEW GENERATION.... One of the most amusing aspects of "Fox & Friends" is their habit of phrasing ridiculous points as questions. It's a classic cop-out -- they're not making an insulting point; they're just posing a question for debate. ("Are liberal Democrats more likely to hurt puppies? We're not saying they are; we're just asking a question.")

This morning, host/activist Steve Doocy posed a "controversial" question: "With 47% of Americans not paying taxes -- 47% -- should those who don't pay be allowed to vote?"

As is always the case, he's not necessarily saying they should be denied the ability to vote; Doocy was just posing a question.

Well, it's a stupid question. For one thing, Doocy's simply wrong on the facts. When he expresses amazement that 47% of Americans are "not paying taxes," he's making a deliberately misleading claim. Yes, many middle- and lower-class families get a break on their federal income taxes, but what Doocy neglects to mention is that these same folks still pay sales taxes, state taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes.

To suggest, as Doocy does, that 47% are somehow getting away with something is crazy.

For another, does Doocy think it's a bad thing that so many Americans get a break on their federal income taxes? As a Republican, wouldn't it be odd for him to support tax increases on nearly half the country?

And finally, even if Doocy's bogus claim were accurate -- it's not, but let's say it is for the sake of conversation -- in what universe would we deny Americans the right to vote based on the size of their tax burden?

Tune into "Fox & Friends," where you'll get a glimpse of Jim Crow laws for a new generation.

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* In California, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) building on her earlier lead, and now has a nine-point advantage over fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), 49% to 40%.

* On a related note, PPP also found that state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) leads former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) in California's gubernatorial race, but the leading is shrinking. Brown is now up by six, 46% to 40%.

* In New York, a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) continuing to enjoy huge leads in his gubernatorial race, leading former Rep. Rick Lazio (R) by 30 points, 56% to 26%,

* Oklahoma will have its first woman governor next year, after yesterday's gubernatorial primaries. Rep. Mary Fallin, as expected, won the Republican nomination, and in a bit of a surprise, Lt. Gov. Jari Askins edged state Attorney General Drew Edmondson for the Democratic nod.

* As of this morning, former Rep. Rob Simmons' (R) on-again/off-again Senate campaign in Connecticut is back on again.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) has a narrow lead over Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in this year's Senate race, 43% to 41%.

* In an interesting Democratic primary in Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen (D), a white lawmaker running for re-election in a majority-African-American district, now enjoys support from the Congressional Black Caucus for the first time.

* It almost certainly won't amount to much, but Rep. Mike Castle (R), the leading candidate in Delaware's U.S. Senate race, is facing a primary challenge from Christine O'Donnell. Yesterday, O'Donnell picked up support from the Tea Party Express, which has previously helped right-wing candidates in GOP primaries in Nevada, Kentucky, and Utah.

LAY OF THE LAND.... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's estimable Jay Bookman tried to wrap his head around the current political landscape, and felt like he'd fallen down a rabbit hole.

Here we are in the smoldering ruins of an economy recently wrecked by Wall Street greed, in a country where for 30 years almost all income growth has been concentrated among the richest 1 percent of Americans. Rising populist anger, massive long-term unemployment and record home foreclosures serve as counterpoints to soaring corporate profits, while the Supreme Court rules that corporations are people and can spend limitless amounts of money trying to elect candidates willing to serve their interests.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party defends massive tax breaks for the wealthy while blocking aid to the unemployed, fights bitterly against regulations designed to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown, blocks legislation that would at least require corporate and special interests to identify themselves when they invest in elections and does all that while proclaiming itself to be the party of the little people.

Do I have that right?

Yep.

I'd just add two things. One, congressional Republicans also hope to block a bill to offer economic incentives to small businesses, while blocking all related efforts to improve the economy, including aid to states.

Two, they're the party that's expected to do extremely well in November, all of these details notwithstanding.

THE GOP'S WELL-HIDDEN AFFECTION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.... A mistaken impression quickly took hold recently during the debate over extended unemployment benefits, and much of the media bought it. The assumption became that everyone on both sides supported the extension, it was simply a debate over how. Dems saw the aid as an emergency, while Republicans didn't want the costs added to the deficit.

In effect, the GOP argued, "We're not callous; we love the unemployed. We're anxious to extend benefits. We just want the kind of fiscally responsible approach we cared nothing about when we were in the majority."

They're still pushing this line, probably aware of voters' support for the benefits.

In a blog post yesterday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) argued that the "Unemployment Extension Should Have Been Paid For." Sen. Johanns works hard to defend the GOP, but in order to believe his excuses you'd have to ignore the past six months of Republican talking points, filibusters and anonymous holds.

"I don't know a single Senator in Washington who didn't want to see these benefits extended," Johanns claims.

This is pretty silly. As Alan Pyke noted, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) dismissed jobless aid as money that offers "a disincentive" to getting a job, a sentiment endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R) . For that matter, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested that if you don't have a job, you might very well be a drug addict.

Johanns specifically referenced sitting senators, but if we expand the view a bit, we see even more Republican hostility towards the unemployed. One GOP congressman recently compared the jobless to "hobos." Nevada's Sharron Angle blasted the unemployed as "spoiled"; Wisconsin's Ron Johnson said those without jobs won't look until their benefits run out; Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett said the unemployed choose not to work because of the benefits; and Kentucky's Rand Paul thinks the jobless should just quit their bellyaching and "get back to work."

Johanns would have us believe that both parties were looking out for the unemployed, just in different ways. That's nonsense.

CAN THE DREAM ACT BECOME A REALITY?.... The chances of the Senate taking up a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year are about zero. But there is time, and at least some political will, to tackle smaller measures related to the larger policy.

Some immigrant rights groups are shifting the strategy in their so-far unsuccessful push to overhaul immigration law: They're calling the new tactic the "down payment" approach.

"We are aware that the clock is running out, and there are no guarantees that a Congress that is supportive of immigration reform will be returned in November," said Antonio Gonzales, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, a Latino public policy group. "We took a deep breath and said, 'Okay, we need a Plan B.' "

And part of Plan B is pursuing a measure called the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which is sponsored by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). I'd like to think a bill like this would be a no-brainer. Every year, tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants graduate from American high schools, but are quickly stuck -- they can't qualify for college aid, and they can't work legally. America is the only home they've ever known -- in most cases, they were brought into the country illegally by their parents -- but at 18, they have few options.

The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for these young immigrants -- graduate from high school, get conditional permanent residency status, go to college or serve in the military, and become eligible for citizenship.

The road ahead for the measure is tricky. On the right, Senate Republicans have predictably vowed to filibuster the measure. On the left, there are concerns that passing the DREAM Act might make passing a comprehensive bill more difficult. For now, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seems serious about trying to get it to the floor before the elections.

In theory, getting enough Republican votes to overcome a filibuster shouldn't be difficult. Not only is Lugar co-sponsoring the bill, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) helped write the policy a few years ago. Better yet, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), before his transformation into a right-wing hack, not only endorsed the DREAM Act, he offered congressional testimony in support of the idea, and promised the National Council of La Raza two years ago that he would support the bill if elected president.

To be sure, consistency isn't their best quality, but conservative Republicans have been on board with the DREAM Act for years. If just a few of them would let the Senate vote, up or down, on the bill, it stands a chance.

Update: As recently as April, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he was open to working on immigration reform. Today, commenting on the bipartisan DREAM Act, Cornyn said Dems are just trying to "play to the peanut gallery."

I sure hope he's not referring to those kids who need a hand.

PREFERRING POLITICAL PARALYSIS.... If there's one thing that should be overwhelmingly obvious after the last four years, it's that the Senate process is broken. Obstructionist tactics that were once rare have been scandalously routine -- for the first time in American history, a Senate supermajority is necessary for literally every bill of consequence. The result is a legislative paralysis that undermines America's ability to thrive in the 21st century.

Except, it's apparently not obvious to all.

Senate Democrats do not have the votes to lower the 60-vote threshold to cut off filibusters.

The lack of support among a handful of Senate Democratic incumbents is a major blow to the effort to change the upper chamber's rules. [...]

Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation. Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it.

A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.

Most of the support in the Senate for reforming the broken status quo comes from newer members of the chamber, but it's the Dems who've been around for a while -- those who remember being in the minority -- who are most inclined to keep things as they are, regardless of the consequences to the institution or the country.

It's a reminder that no one wants to give up a weapon they might want to use themselves someday. Republicans are abusing procedural rules now to undermine a progressive agenda, and some Dems are no doubt thinking they'll be able to abuse those same rules down the road.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) told The Hill, "I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.... I think it has been working."

I don't know what Senate Akaka has been watching, but it doesn't sound like this one.

With the Senate Democratic majority due to shrink, and Republicans becoming more hysterically conservative, these anti-reform Dems are inviting a disaster -- a government incapable of passing legislation.