Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The “American way of life” is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

Obama is not going to indefinitely detain American citizens, at least abusively to target political opponents. However, could you imagine this kind of power in the hands of a man like Richard Nixon? Obama will only be in office for – at the most – five more years. Do Democrats mean to say that they trust this kind of power with a Republican president? Would they be defending George W. Bush if he had signed this into law? The hypocrisy is astounding. Signing this bill is the single biggest mistake of President Obama’s career.

The facts are not on his side. Right-to-work states like South Carolina have a considerably higher unemployment rate than Indiana (10.5% vs. 9%) and their workers have lower wages. Daniels should get his talking points straight before he makes false and misleading claims about the jobs situation in Indiana. Unions are not the problem, Indiana Republicans’ willingness to sacrifice wages and workplace safety is the problem.

Daniels goes on to claim that, “I’d be completely opposed to this if it affected the right to organize. But every right-to-work state has unions and some of them have a higher percentage of union members than Indiana does. I’d be completely against anything that reduced the right to organize. This is only about whether you have to pay the dues or don’t.”

I’ll give the governor credit, he knows how to weasel out of his positions – at least rhetorically – even while still maintaining them. The bill has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with killing unions. Right-to-work is a way to drain a union’s resources. If you can benefit from a union and not have to pay for it then who would offer up their dues? It’s called free-riding. For a party that would love to see all resistance to corporate power crushed, right-to-work makes a good deal of sense.

Walker has refused to negotiate or form a compromise position, even after the unions said that they would offer concessions. Part of collective bargaining is that both sides given and take. Walker is coming from the position that he will get everything that he wants or else people will start to lose their jobs. The most amazing thing about this is that his plan was never discussed during last fall’s election, even though he has repeatedly lied in interviews saying that it was. As the non-partisan PolitiFact rates his claim of having campaigned on the issue as purely “false”.

Not only did he not campaign on the issue, but Walker’s position is extremely unpopular with the public at large. Poll after poll has shown that voters support the unions over the governor. An NBC News poll asked the question: “Do you think public employees who belong to a union and work for state government, city government, or a school district should have the same right to bargain when it comes to their health care, pension and other benefits as employees who belong to a union and work for private companies?” The results are unbelievable:

Yes – 77%
No – 19%
Not sure – 4%

Granted, the poll was taken from a nationwide sample. It is safe to assume that Wisconsin, as one of the more union-friendly states, probably has even higher levels of support for the unions than the nation at large. The support for the unions in this issue breaks party lines. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly back the right to collectively bargain. Even some Republicans have to support it, since their share of the electorate is greater than the 19% that oppose collective bargaining rights. The opinion of the public is unambiguous: they do not want union-busting to take place. Governor Walker has over-stepped his bounds by trying to destroy a political foe of his in the name of deficit reduction. The American people do not want any part of it.

Two Democrats voted against the bill, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Maria Cantwell of Washington, saying that the bill did not go far enough in regulating Wall Street. Republicans opposed the legislation, saying that the government overstepped its reach. Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-WV) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) missed the vote.

“Those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it didn’t work. They can no longer gamble away other people’s money,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid. “When this bill becomes law, the joyride on Wall Street will come to an end,” he added. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it will be reconciled with a previously passed House version.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin explained his vote against the bill by stating that he wants the bill to be stronger: “After thirty years of giving in to the wishes of Wall Street lobbyists, Congress needs to finally enact tough reforms to prevent Wall Street from driving our economy into the ditch again. We need to eliminate the risk posed to our economy by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms and to reinstate the protective firewalls between Main Street banks and Wall Street firms. Unfortunately, these key reforms are not included in the bill. The test for this legislation is a simple one – whether it will prevent another financial crisis. As the bill stands, it fails that test. Ending debate on the bill is finishing before the job is done.”

The truth is that the Party of No does not care about the country’s economic future – only their political standing and support for their donors. They voted against a stimulus act that had over $300 billion in tax cuts to middle class taxpayers. They voted against a health care bill that extends insurance to virtually everyone. They voted against extending unemployment benefits. And when they had a chance to stand up to Wall Street, they voted against Wall Street reform. Enough is enough. Send the GOP a message that obstruction is not how to run a country. Vote Democrat in the fall.

Much of this cycle the Democrats have trailed Republican Rob Portman, a former Bush administration official, by a few points. That appears to have ended with a slight lead for both Democratic candidates for Senate. The reversal of fortune comes just weeks after the health care reform bill became law. President Obama’s approval rating has also edged up in the state, as has Governor Strickland’s, a Democrat.

“In the Senate race, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher leads Republican Rob Portman 41 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 37 percent Portman lead February 24. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner edges Portman 38 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 35 percent Republican lead,” Quinnipiac University found. While a 4 point lead and 1 point lead for the Democratic candidates is not comfortable, it is a pretty big swing in the matter of a short period of time (7 points towards Lee Fisher and 6 points towards Jennifer Brunner).

In other words, while Democrats will have to defend their vote in tough districts, nearly double the number of Republicans find themselves in similar situations. Worse yet for the GOP, there is evidence that support for the bill is significantly improving from where it was just a couple months ago when Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

President Obama’s approval rating on health care stood at 36-54 opposed in January (according to CBS) and was up to 41-51 by this past weekend before the vote took place. That’s a shift of 8 points in about a two month period and that is before the House even passed the bill. Undoubtedly, those numbers will continue to improve as the positive coverage from the bill’s passage continues. The president’s overall job approval is at 49-41 positive, an improvement from 46-41 in January.

What these numbers show is that the negative feelings towards this bill have peaked and the positive feelings are on the way up. As various aspects of the bill begin to be felt relatively quickly, such as kids being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 or the ban on pre-existing conditions, approval will continue to improve. Americans will realize that the Armageddon that Republicans literally said would take place after the bill passed was nothing more than scare tactics.

Not only are calls for repealing the bill ridiculously unrealistic (President Obama would veto any repeal), they also will ring hallow in November. Voters will question why the Republican Party is campaigning on a platform of repealing a ban on pre-existing conditions, filling the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, extending health insurance to 32 million Americans and reducing the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to those 32 House Republicans that voted against health care in districts that President Obama won. Below is a list of all of them:

Judy Biggert IL-13
Brian Bilbray CA-50
Mary Bono Mack CA-45
Ken Calvert CA-44
Dave Camp MI-4
John Campbell CA-48
Anh “Joseph” Cao LA-2
Michael Castle DE-AL
Charles Dent PA-15
David Dreier CA-26
Randy Forbes VA-4
Elton Gallegly CA-24
Jim Gerlach PA-6
Mark Kirk IL-10
Leonard Lance NJ-7
Tom Latham IA-4
Frank LoBiondo NJ-2
Daniel Lungren CA-3
Donald Manzullo IL-16
Thaddeus McCotter MI-11
Howard “Buck” McKeon CA-25
Erik Paulsen MN-3
Thomas Petri WI-6
David Reichert WA-8
Mike Rogers MI-8
Peter Roskam IL-6
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FL-18
Paul Ryan WI-1
Lee Terry NE-2
Patrick Tiberi OH-12
Fred Upton MI-6
Frank Wolf VA-10
Bill Young FL-10

Two are running for the Senate, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware. Both of those districts are favored to be won by Democrats. Representative Cao sits in a heavily Democratic New Orleans district and was only elected because the sitting member was a convicted felon. He voted for the House bill last November, but opposed it on Sunday. You can count him as a lame duck. Democrats are sure to win that seat back.

Go down the list and you can see some vulnerable names in Democratic or Democratic-trending districts: Peter Roskam and Judy Biggert in the Chicago suburbs, Jim Gerlach whose failed bid for governor has undoubtedly put him behind the game in his suburban Philadelphia district, Dan Lungren of California went from 62% support in the 2004 election to 49% in 2008.

With the right challengers facing each of these vulnerable Republicans, Democrats have a good chance at winning a few of these seats. The Republican takeover of Congress that conservatives are talking about seems a long way away when you add that to the Democrats which are already favored to pick up Mark Kirk’s seat in Illinois, Mike Castle’s in Delaware and Cao’s in Louisiana.

Despite phony concern coming from Republican leaders over the political impact that health care reform would have on Democrats, most evidence suggests that passing the bill enhances their chances of retaining majority status. The Democratic Party in Congress and President Obama have, without a single Republican vote, passed historic legislation to provide universal health care coverage for Americans. This goal has eluded every president since Tedd Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It’s an achievement that puts them in the history books and on safer political ground than they would have been if Republicans succeeded in killing the bill.

Let me be clear that I do not mean to say that Democrats will gain seats in the midterm election this fall. I believe that we will see modest losses in the House and a handful in the Senate. This falls well within the political history of the president’s party losing seats in a midterm election. Democrats won in places in 2008 that we normally wouldn’t have: conservative districts in Alabama and Idaho, among others. These are likely lost causes in 2010. But the talk of a takeover of both the House and Senate by Republicans is overblown. They will not win either chamber for a long time to come.

Basically, these loans were giant subsidies to private banks. The banks received low interest loans from the government and when they signed loans with students, the risk was passed on to the government, which was responsible for defaults. This bill gets rid of the middle man. “What we have is a miraculous opportunity,” said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “Simply by stopping the subsidy to banks, we can plow those savings into our students.”

By voting against the reconciliation package in the House, every Republican member has voted against saving $60 billion in unnecessary spending to banks. The Republicans also voted against removing deals in the original health care proposal, such as the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback”, where money was directed to Nebraska and not any other state. I thought that they were against government waste? They’ve proven, yet again, that they will say one thing and do another.

Harkin’s ascension to chairman should give a boost to public option proponents as Kennedy was too ill to be much of an influence on the legislation currently making its way through Congress. “I’m ready to carry on [Kennedy's] work, and I’m ready to get a health reform bill passed and to President Obama before Christmas comes this December,” Harkin said at his annual Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa.

In regards to the bill making its way through the Senate right now, “That bill — mark my word, I’m the chairman — is going to have a strong public option,” he said to thunderous applause. “We lost a great progressive, a great leader on so many issues…It now falls to me to pick up the torch,” Harkin said. “No one can take Ted Kennedy’s place, but I tell you this, I’m ready for this fight, I’m ready to lead this committee.”

By the way, Obama’s policies are working. The GDP fell by only 1% in the second quarter compared to over 6% in the first quarter of 2009. Most economists believe that the country will see growth in the 3rd quarter of 2009 (July to September). The stimulus did what it was intended for: it slowed the recession, saved jobs that would have been otherwise lost and invested in our country’s economy through infrastructure projects, green jobs and the largest tax cut in American history.

Even (some) Republicans understand. Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett laid out the facts in an article for the Daily Beast:

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.

• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.

• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.

• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.