The Chronicle has a nice rundown of where Northern California House Democrats stand on today’s war funding vote.  The lines of fissure have pitted Nancy Pelosi against Lynn Woolsey, which, if it’s safe to assume that San Francisco is every bit as progressive on Iraq and Afghanistan as Marin and Sonoma Counties are, you could fairly depict as a struggle between the priorities of the majority leadership and the preferences of constituents back home in the Bay Area.  Lynn Woolsey comes out here fighting like a champ for her district, while the Speaker is representing, in effect, the Obama administration.  Which I suppose we should just start getting used to (it’s her job, after all).

One surprise here is that Sam Farr (CA-17) is now “on the fence.”  Farr used to be a ‘no’ vote.  He signed a letter in 2007 committing not to vote for funding without timelines, as well as another letter objecting to the bill in its current form with the IMF provisions included.  His even straddling the fence now is a pretty major reversal, and demonstrates how hard these members are being pushed to break with principle on this decision.

If you live in Farr’s district and believe that a war funding bill without an exit plan and with an IMF bailout is a dumb idea, his office could use a gentle push: 202-225-2861.  One question you could ask is the question Jane Hamsher put to Zoe Lofgren: How exactly does the Congressman justify supporting a bailout of European banks after his own state has been refused assistance when on the brink of bankruptcy?

The vote is today and the final outcome is being shaped this very moment, so your call would need to be placed right now.

As per The Chronicle, here’s where other Northern California Democrats come out:

Where Northern California Democrats stand

How House members polled Monday broke down on the $106 billion bill:

On the fence: Sam Farr, Monterey; Mike Thompson, Napa; Mike Honda, San Jose; Jerry McNerney, Pleasanton; Doris Matsui, Sacramento

Likely/definite yes: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco; George Miller, Martinez

Likely/definite no: Lynn Woolsey, Petaluma; Barbara Lee, Oakland; Pete Stark, Fremont; Jackie Speier, San Mateo

Not returning calls: Anna Eshoo, Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, San Jose

Jane Harman is not doing herself any favors with her insistent maintaining of innocence in the AIPAC/wiretapping scandal.  First off, her instinct to lash out in anger, saying that she is about secret wiretaps and considering the taps an abuse of power, really comes off badly, considering that she lobbied to spike the NYT story revealing the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.  It’s darn near impossible to reconcile her past statements with this new image as a civil liberties extremist.

So if I understand this correctly — and I’m pretty sure I do — when the U.S. Government eavesdropped for years on American citizens with no warrants and in violation of the law, that was “both legal and necessary” as well as “essential to U.S. national security,” and it was the “despicable” whistle-blowers (such as Thomas Tamm) who disclosed that crime and the newspapers which reported it who should have been criminally investigated, but not the lawbreaking government officials.  But when the U.S. Government legally and with warrants eavesdrops on Jane Harman, that is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen, and full-scale investigations must be commenced immediately to get to the bottom of this abuse of power.  Behold Jane Harman’s overnight transformation from Very Serious Champion of the Lawless Surveillance State to shrill civil liberties extremist […]

Besides, if Jane Harman didn’t do anything wrong — as she claims — then what does she have to hide?  Only Terrorists and criminals would mind the Government listening in.  We all know that government officials have better things to do than worry about what innocent Americans are saying.  If she did nothing wrong — if all she was doing was talking to her nice constituents and AIPAC supporters about how she could be of service — then Bush officials obviously weren’t interested in what she had to say.

Beyond that, even if there were “illegal” acts committed here, surely we should be rushing to retroactively immunize those responsible, just as Harman eagerly advocated and engineered and then voted for when it came to the telecoms who broke our laws and enabled illegal spying on American citizens.  That was when she voted to gut FISA protections and massively expand the Government’s power to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants as part of the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer Surveillance State celebration known as the “FISA Amendments Act of 2008.”

This goes double for Steny Hoyer, who’s out there whining about wiretapping after pushing the FISA Amendments Act through the House.

Worse, Harman’s appearance on NPR went completely off the rails, as she admitted key elements of the conversations unwittingly (over):

Robert Siegel: First, do you remember the phone call in question? Who is the other party and is that a fair description of what was discussed?

Rep. Jane Harman: We don’t know if there was a phone call. These are three unnamed sources, former and present national security officials, who are allegedly selectively leaking information about a phone call or phone calls that may or may not have taken place.

RS: But are you saying that you really don’t have any recollection at all of a phone conversation like this?

JH: I’m saying that, No. 1, I don’t know that there was a phone conversation. If there was and it was intercepted, let’s read exactly what I said to whom. We don’t know who that was either.

RS: But, indeed, if what happened was, initially, your phone wasn’t tapped [and that] the person you were talking with was being tapped – and if that was an investigation of a foreign agent, is it realistic to think that anybody is going to release a completely unredacted transcript of that conversation?

JH: Well, let’s find out. I mean, the person I was talking to was an American citizen. I know something about the law and wiretaps. There are two ways you do it. One is you get a FISA warrant, which has to start with a foreign suspected terrorist, a non-American foreigner. If this was FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that would have had to happen.

RS: But if you know that it was an American citizen –

JH: If it was Article III, FBI wiretap, that’s different. But I don’t know what this was. And I don’t know why this was done. And I don’t know who the sources are who are claiming that this happened are and I think –

RS: But you are saying that you know it was an American citizen. So that would suggest that you know that there was a –

JH: Well, I know that anyone I would have talked to about, you know, the AIPAC prosecution would have been an American citizen. I didn’t talk to some foreigner about it.

RS: You never spoke to an Israeli? You never spoke to an Israeli about this.

JH: Well, I speak to Israelis from time to time. I just came back from a second trip to Israel in this calendar year. I’ve been to the Middle East region as a member of Congress 22 times and was in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Israel and Turkey just a week ago.

I’m writing this blind, because my head just exploded.

Lucas O’Connor has a bit more.  Let’s be clear – the AIPAC spying case has always been dodgy, the principals may not even be tried, and the release of this story now is a bit curious.  But Harman’s hypocrisy on this issue is clear, her efforts at spin control insulting to anyone’s intelligence, and her efforts to spike the warrantless wiretapping story during the 2004 Bush/Kerry election unconscionable.

Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi came out today saying she had been briefed by the Justice Department about the Harman wiretap several years ago, but she “wasn’t at liberty at the time of the briefing to let Ms. Harman know.”  She also said that the disclosure had no bearing on Harman losing out on the top position at the House Intelligence Commitee.

News from around the state:

• Polls close in the SD-26 election between Asms. Curren Price and Mike Davis shortly. We’ll update with election results upon their release.

• CalPERS/STRS are attempting to be the lead plaintiffs against Bank of America in the Merril Lynch bonus scandal.  Both organizations have been outspoken advocates for sound corporate governance.

• Imagine this, a bipartisan bill in Sacramento!  With Dave Jones, Nathan Fletcher and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner all aboard!  And the cause is noble!  Basically, this bill would allow workers at small businesses with under 20 employees to be eligible for federal subsidies to COBRA in the same way that workers in firms with more than 20 employees are eligible under the economic recovery plan.  The bill is AB23, and should pass out of the Assembly Health Committee today.

• An interesting story about the relationship between Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, and how the Speaker views her role as a leader. Much of it is not all that insightful, but it does take a look at how Pelosi is trying to use the House as a counterpoint to the more conservative Senate, and to Obama’s compromising instincts.

• OC Progressive takes a look at cuts to OCTA, the county’s bus service. Unfortunately, at a time when we should be investing heavily in public transportation, services are being slashed throughout the state.

• For those interested, Adriel Hampton, candidate for CA-10, has posted a short video about himself.

• Sen. Tony Strickland (Yacht Party-Thousand Oaks) may be able to ball, but that picture of him in uniform for the minor league Los Angeles Lightning, for whom he will actually play May 2 for a one-game special in his district, should get him disqualified from a political career.  Memo to politicians – lay off the tank tops.

Late last week, Democrats temporarily shelved a bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages on primary residences (also known as “cram-down”).  Moderates who put the hold on this legislation, particularly former Wall Street investor Ellen Tauscher, crowed about it to the media.

This hardly amounts to a breakthrough win for party moderates – or a major concession by the speaker. But it was a consequential moment in the minds of moderate leaders who often find themselves marginalized in a caucus dominated by liberals.

“It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex,” said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill […]

Moderates worry Pelosi is routinely staking very liberal positions to push House versions of big bills as far to the left as possible to enhance their standing in negotiations with the historically centrist Senate. This might be a smart tactic, but it often hurts Democrats who rely on Republican votes to win reelection. Put bluntly, it makes them look too liberal […]

That prompted lawmakers, like Tauscher, to limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible, even though this measure is only loosely related to the president’s broader proposal.

Tauscher’s New Democrat Coalition teamed with their natural allies in the Blue Dog Coalition to impose 10 significant changes, including requirements that bankruptcy judges use federal guidelines to determine the fair market value of a home and that modified loans must be “unaffordable and not just underwater” to prevent wealthy homeowners from taking advantage of the process, according to a widely distributed e-mail from Adam Pase, executive director of the New Democrat Coalition.

This, of course, angered some liberals. “The New Dems’ position is the banks’ position,” a senior Democratic aide involved in the bankruptcy negotiations complained on Friday. “New Democrats are shills for the banks.”

It’s confounding that any New Democrat thinks their constituents give a ring-a-ding about banking industry concerns, and are not in fact the very people struggling to keep their homes that this legislation would help.

More, including Tauscher staffers lying to bloggers, on the flip…

When Chris Bowers used Tauscher as the face of the moderate backlash against working people facing foreclosure, her office responded by saying they supported the rule on the bill (HR 1106), and that their changes would “strengthen” the bill, and that they didn’t meet with anyone in the financial services industry about it.  But David Waldman explains why that, simply put, is a crock – she voted for the rule because it incorporated the changes she wanted to make.  And if that was the only hurdle, why didn’t the legislation get a vote last week?

Now, that amendment was approved by the Rules Committee last Wednesday night, the 25th of February, and the rule was adopted on Thursday morning, the 26th. That locked in place that the voting on the bill would include a vote on an amendment incorporating Tauscher’s list of changes.

So why, if she supports the bill, would work on it be suspended on the afternoon of Thursday, the 26th? She “supports the bill,” and voted for the rule that locked in a shot at making the changes she proposed to the Judiciary Committee, and yet here we are, waiting over the weekend for… what, exactly?

Ellen Tauscher supported the rule because it made an amendment in order that would incorporate her list of demands. That’s all. But she must clearly want more changes, because even after winning these concessions, the bill is still stalled, and the news reports on the stall have Tauscher’s name all over them.

Jane Hamsher has a lot more on Tauscher, who is clearly putting banking industry interests ahead of her constituents’.  She doesn’t have to necessarily talk to anyone in the financial services industry personally, because Adam Pase, the chairman of the New Dmocrats, works out of her office:

Pase is is a former lobbyist for the Twenty First Century Group, whose client, the Coalition for Fair & Affordable Lending, is an astroturf group, financed by the banking industry, that lobbied on behalf of. . . you guessed it. . . sub-prime lenders. Contrary to what you might hear on Morning Joe, it was national civil rights leaders who joined together to fight the Coalition’s predatory lenders as they tried to pass the Ney-Kanjorski bill, which would have enabled banks to get around predatory lending laws and make more bad loans. This they justified based on the oh-so-high-minded need to provide loans to low income and minority borrowers. It was true scumbaggery.

Pase was also the senior policy adviser for Dennis Moore when Moore organized Blue Dogs to oppose mortgage write-downs on behalf of the banking industry in 2007, and he is evidently the one driving policy on this one for the New Dems. But one has to wonder — what is Tauscher thinking? Her district is one of the hardest hit by the mortgage crisis, as you can see from the map. Why is she trying to limit mortgage write-downs to subprime loans only, on behalf of banks, when every foreclosure brings down the value of all houses in a neighborhood? Her claim to care so very much about people still struggling to pay their mortgages rings hollow.

Shaun Donovan, the HUD Secretary, is headed to the House today to whip support for the bill.  This legislation would save perhaps 800,000 families from foreclosure without one penny of cost to the taxpayer.  All the bill would do is give leverage to homeowners who have been screwed by their lenders at practically every step of this process.

Homeowners burned by Blue Dogs and New Dems like Tauscher are not likely to forget the treachery.  Firedoglake has some action items.

We’re asking you to do two things:

Write a letter to the editor of your local papers (just enter your zip code) saying you expect your Member of Congress to represent you, not the banks, and you’ll be watching to see if they oppose Tauscher and her bank lobbyist cronies.

Sign a petition to Nancy Pelosi telling her not to “buckle” to pressure from bank lobbyists working through greedy corporatist Members of Congress, and to act swiftly to give judges the authority they need to write down mortgages.  The banks must take responsibility for their own bad judgment; taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to pick up the tab.

These same people killed efforts in 2007 to allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages at that time, which could have helped us from ever getting to this place.  It’s time they stop pretending that they care about their constituents when they’re only being tools of the banking lobby.

I think it’s more about telling Pelosi we’ll have her back if she stands up to these cretins.  You know what to do.

President Obama has officially directed the EPA to review the decision to deny California (and 17 other states) a waiver under the Clean Air Act to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, and considering that Obama’s EPA is about to hire the lead attorney in the Supreme Court case that found the EPA has the authority regulate carbon emissions, I expect we will see the waiver granted in short order.

“For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House. “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”

Today’s actions come as Obama seeks to fulfill campaign promises in the first days of his administration. The moves fulfill long-held goals of the environmental movement.

Lawmakers and environmentalists throughout California are hailing the move (I’ll put some reactions on the flip).  But notably, another group on board with the decisions are – wait for it – the automakers.

Auto-industry officials were surprisingly receptive to President Obama’s announcement about tightening emission standards, saying the steps he announced were the best they could hope for.

“It seems the president has set out a reasonable process,” said a top industry official who refused to be named. “He can say with credibility that there’s a new sheriff in town. Now, maybe there’s room to discuss this with stakeholders.”

The uncertainty of the process, given the Bush Administration’s failure to set standards passed by Congress in the 2007 energy bill and this looming fight over the California waiver which could have ended up in Congress or the courts, may be a factor in the auto companies’ tepid support.  So too is the fact that Obama and the federal government still partially controls the fate of the Big Three in the auto industry bailout.

Eventually, we will much to what amounts to a national standard, with 40% of the country’s population poised to back California’s emissions targets and the auto industry forced to calibrate to the higher standard.  This will SPUR innovation, not dampen it, and will eventually be a boon to an industry which has failed to adapt to changing needs for far too long.

As promised, I have some local reactions.  Here are a few from the above-linked LA Times article:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the actions historic. California has the most aggressive policies, though other states plan to follow California’s lead.

“Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars,” said Schwarzenegger in an e-mailed statement.

“This should prompt cheers from California to Maine,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, speaking before today’s formal announcement. He praised Obama as “a man of his word” for the decision.

Tim Carmichael, senior policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, hailed the decision as a vital step for the administration and the world in the fight against global warming.

“I think Obama got a clear message that this is a priority not only for California state protection but also for planetary protection,” Carmichael said.

And here’s Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer:

“I have long said that granting California the waiver so that California and 18 other states can address tailpipe emissions from cars is the best first step the President can take to combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is so refreshing to see that the President understands that science must lead the way. We know that the scientists and professionals at EPA have made it clear that science and the law demand that the waiver be granted. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as quickly as possible. The President’s comments about the importance of American leadership on clean energy and global warming were also music to my ears.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

“This morning, President Obama signaled that our country can no longer afford to wait to combat the climate crisis and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.  He is setting our country on a path led by science and innovation, in a dramatic departure from the past eight years.

“Granting the request of California and other states to move forward with reducing greenhouse gases emissions from vehicles will steer American automakers to retool their fleets.  Only through innovation will automakers be able to create the greener cars of the future and regain their global competitiveness.

“President Obama has also sent a clear message on CAFE standards.  Restarting the implementation of new fuel efficiency standards will allow the Obama Administration to bring fresh thinking to the process and ensure the standards achieve the goals set by Congress in the landmark 2007 energy bill.  

“The New Direction Congress will work with President Obama to embrace a clean, renewable, and energy-independent future for America.  We look forward to building on the historic Energy Independence and Security Act with an economic recovery package that works to double renewable energy generation, invests in green infrastructure, and creates the clean energy jobs that will provide a stronger economy for the future.”

Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman:

This is a tremendous and long overdue step for energy independence and the environment. President Obama is taking the nation in a decisive new direction that will receive broad support across the country.

A couple weeks ago I wrote about three looming battles that we had to think about after the election.  Two of them have already fizzled.  The open primary ballot initiative filed with the state has been withdrawn.  That’s probably because the Governor wanted to present it himself, so we’ll see where that goes, and a lot of it might have to do with whether or not Prop. 11 actually passes.  Second, Bush Republican and rich developer Rick Caruso decided against running for Mayor of Los Angeles against Antonio Villaraigosa.  There is now no credible candidate running against the incumbent.  Caruso may figure that Villaraigosa is primed for bigger and better things (he’s in Washington today with President-Elect Obama’s council of economic advisers), and if Villaraigosa vacates the seat he’d have a better shot of capturing it.

However, there are a couple other looming battles that are out there.  First, Jane Harman, Congresswoman from the 36th Congressional District, is in line for a top intelligence post with the Obama Administration, and the odds are extremely likely that she’d take it.  Laura Rozen has a profile here.  After a tough primary against Marcy Winograd in 2006, Harman has been a moderately better vote in Congress, but this represents a real opportunity to put a progressive in that seat.  Winograd has recently moved into the district, and would certainly be my first choice if it comes open (or if it doesn’t – Harman voted for the FISA bill this year).

The other major news is that Henry Waxman, my Congressman, is looking to oust John Dingell from his post atop the Energy and Commerce Committee.  This is a long time coming, and I don’t think Waxman would go for it without the support of the Speaker.  The Dingellsaurus, while a decent liberal on most issues (and also a former representative of mine in Ann Arbor, MI), has blocked progress on climate change and modernizing the auto industry for years.  We were finally able to get a modest increase in CAFE standards last year, but Waxman, who wrote the Clean Air Act of 1990, would obviously be a major step up.  And with the auto industry on life support and asking for handouts as a result of the old ways of doing business, it’s clearly time for a Democratic committee chair who isn’t protecting their interests at the expense of the planet.  Waxman’s “Safe Climate Act” introduced last year would mandate a cut in greenhouse gases of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  That’s exactly the right attitude from the committee chair, and with energy issues obviously so crucial in an Obama Administration, we need someone in that post who recognizes the scope of the problem.  It should also be clear that the committee has likely jurisdiction over health care reform.  

Grist has a lot more on this story.