You know how sometimes it seems like the volume of commercials is twice as loud as the program that you're watching? It's annoying as hell and forces you to scramble for the remote control's mute button, otherwise you risk getting knocked over by the wall of sound emanating from your TV.

Well, thanks to an act of Congress that is now heading to President Obama's desk, those super loud commercial breaks are going to be a thing of the past:

The House by voice vote Thursday passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo (R-Calif.) that would lower the volume of television commercials, sending it to President Obama's desk for his signature.

The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the volume of advertisements to ensure they aren't noticeably louder than the programs they interrupt, a problem that has annoyed consumers for decades. The bill passed the Senate in September and has been endorsed by Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.

“TV programs use a variety of sound levels to build dramatic effect. But advertisements have been neither subtle nor nuanced,” Rep. Eshoo said. “My bill reduces commercial volume, allowing them to only be as loud as the decibel level of regular programming. Consumers will no longer have to experience being blasted at. It’s a simple fix to a huge nuisance.”

The Senate bill was championed by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. It's such a good idea that not even a single Republican dared filibuster it.

What digby says.

If they pursue this Social Security/Austerity business I think we'll have a one term presidency (even, Gawd help us, if the Queen of the Arctic gets the nomination.) And I'm not sure that the Democratic Party won't be permanently shattered.

I know that sounds hyperbolic, but it's vitally, vitally important that the president understand that if he goes after Social Security, the Republicans will turn the argument on him just as they did with "death panels" and "pulling the plug on Grandma" and end up solidifying the senior vote for the foreseeable future and further alienate the Party from the liberal base. I know it makes no sense that Republicans would be able to cast themselves as the protectors of the elderly, but in case you haven't been paying attention lately, politics doesn't operate in a linear, rational fashion at the moment. After all, the Republicans just won an election almost entirely on the basis of saving Medicare.

Republicans are going to take on entitlement reform, and if they do it on a Democratic president's watch, they'll turn it on him with a vengance.

"The third rail is not the third rail anymore," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the incoming House Budget chairman, told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast roundtable with reporters yesterday. "The political weaponization of entitlement reform is no longer as potent as it used to be, and the best evidence is this last election."

They will go after this third rail. It's not as effective a political weapon as it used to be because Dems have ceded so much ground on it with their ridiculous acquiescence on deficit hysteria; ridiculous particularly considering the silver platter gift they were given by the Republican fight for millionaires' tax cuts. Instead of speaking with one extremely loud, united voice on the insanity of giving these tax breaks to millionaires on the backs of America's middle class and senior citizens, we get this.

A group of 14 Democrats pressed for a congressional action to address the deficit despite a failure by President Obama's fiscal commission to achieve enough votes to send its austerity plan to Congress for a vote....

The 14 senators hailed the commission's recommendations on Social Security, healthcare, and tax reforms — three cornerstones of the plan on which support for a plan could hinge....

The signatories were Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo,), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

Thanks, Amy Klobuchar and John Tester for throwing your lot in with the ConservaDems. Good luck keeping your base enthused for 2012. But special condemnation has to be reserved for Dick Durbin, who reversed his position on raising the retirement age and endorsed the catfood commission's plan. Here's what he said in October: “It’s tough to say just stick around and deliver mail for another couple of years, be a waitress for another couple of years." Did the intervening month and a half make delivering that message any easier?

One of the tired raps on politicians is their tendency to govern according to polls. Would that it were so! There hasn't been a reputable poll in the last year that didn't show the American public resolutely opposed to any cuts to Social Security and supportive of tax hikes for the rich. If Dems betray those majorities, they'll see the enthusiasm gap of 2010 magnified disastrously in 2012, and as digby says, the party shattered, potentially beyond repair.

Check out this amazing Pollster.com graph of President Obama’s job approval rating from August 1st through November 30th:

During the period that covered the vast majority of 2010 electioneering--a time period featuring billions in paid media, not to mention an even greater amount of discourse spent analyzing, spinning, hyping, fainting, cheering, crying, arguing, and generally freaking out over the elections--President Obama’s approval rating never changed at all.

The cause of the stability in President Obama’s approval rating over the last four months could be the result of any number of factors. This graph does not show what any of those factors are. It only shows that his approval rating is remarkably stable of late.

Still, even if we don’t know the cause of the stability in President Obama’s approval rating, it is wroth noting. During the three months before August, and in fact for most of his presidency, Obama's approval rating had declined at a consistent, slow rate:

That trend has ended, replaced by a new stasis. How long this new trend will last--and what comes next--is anyone’s guess.

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ….

• Is President Obama really capitulating to the Republicans in the hope of gaining their cooperation? Laurence Lewis will offer an alternate possibility.
• Dante Atkins will bemoan the death of shared responsibility.
• brooklynbadboy will explore the hollow, empty American Exceptionalism rhetoric of Sarah Palin.
• Steven "DarkSyde" Andrew will review and interrogate the Man Who Killed the Planet Pluto (And he claims Pluto was just begging for it!).
• Laura Clawson is wondering if the New York Times declared it "Ladies, downgrade your expectations" week.
• Kaili Joy Gray will talk miracles and brisket.
• Mark Sumner will look up to find "death from above."

One of the fascinating things I learned about during my trip to Germany last September is that funny-looking word in the title (pronounced something like "grun dungs zoo shooss"). As Harold Meyerson pointed out in The Washington Post, Germany's economy is kicking butt. Republicans, of course, hate this. To them, a big government, heavily unionized, social democracy like Germany is supposed to be the poster child for the wrong way to do things. Yet Germany prospers. But here's something even they would have difficulty arguing with: Germany's government helps the unemployed start businesses with start-up capital. Maybe we should consider giving something like this a try.

Der Gründungszuschuss roughly translates into "start-up grant." It is a program for the unemployed that gives a monthly amount of seed capital for those on unemployment. The grant is means-tested and is paid on top of unemployment, health and other benefits. For example, a married couple with children can get a grant up to just under $32,000! A single person who is unemployed and has no children can get up to just over $25,000. The benefits are paid out over a period of nine months. After that, there is an extension of benefits called the "building phase" that pays an additional $400 per month for six months.

The German government expects that 20 to 30 percent of these businesses will fail. No matter. As policy, they've decided that they'd rather have people with an entrepreneurial bent out doing something rather than sitting around. This money isn't just thrown away. There are an extensive state-sponsored classes that must be attended to learn how to start a business properly. A carefully written business plan must be submitted to a board. The government also supplies free business consulting to help get the start-up off the ground and avoid pitfalls. There is an extensive array of government seminars to help grantees manage their businesses to success. A person can pull out of the program at any time without fault, including for being called back to work. In fact, even if one is called back to work, they can still complete the program. The government requires grantees to spend at least 15 hours per week on their start-ups. (I had one of those Michael Moore "You've got to be kidding me" moments on that one.) Want more? The grant is tax free.

I learned about Der Gründungszuschuss from a friend in Cologne. (You can learn more about it by reading here, provided you read German. But you may be able to use one of those translators.) His older brother was laid off from an internet service provider in 2008, got the start-up grant in 2009. He now has a small search optimization consulting firm with a partner and a secretary. In two years, he went from unemployment right into tax-paying independent businessman. And he put someone else to work and got some private capital off the sidelines.

Just imagine if we could get something like that going here.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has just recently announced his own set of proposals for Senate rules reform. And here it is (PDF).

Merkley's proposal doesn't seem to call for the actual elimination of the filibuster, but there's plenty to it that goes a long way toward curtailing its abuse, and bringing it back to the widely-held public conception of what the filibuster is (or ought to be), which is to say a difficult test of endurance that you'd only undertake on strong principle, as opposed to just putting holds on things, and then walking away, returning occasionally only to insist on another useless quorum call.

So keeping in mind that these are proposals that contemplate the continuance of the filibuster's existence, I'm just going to offer a quick run-down on the elements of the proposal, and tell you what I think:

Proposed Reforms:

#1) Narrow the Scope:

Eliminate the use of the filibuster on motions to proceed. Blocking deliberation has little place in a legislative body. If a Senator believes a bill is so deeply flawed that debate should be suspended, the senator still has the right to move to table the bill.

Good idea, and certainly one I've thought belonged in any package of reforms. The only thing I'd add is that it might  need a safety valve. For example, I'd perhaps make the motion to proceed non-debatable only if offered by the Majority Leader (and maybe Assistant Majority Leader, too) or his designee. Otherwise, if I'm Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn, I'd just make motions to proceed to my own bills all day long and force votes on them. Even if I don't have any bills, I'd just make them up just to kill a whole day voting down motions to proceed on bills as quickly as I could make them up. Presumably at some point the Majority Leader shows up and gets preferential recognition from the chair so that they don't get the floor anymore to make their motions, but then the Majority Leader has to spend all day on the floor, and that'd be a problem.

#2) Further Narrow the Scope:

We should consider further narrowing the scope. For example, it is worth debating banning filibusters on amendments since members would still have the right to filibuster the final vote. It is also worth examining the value of limiting filibusters on appointing conferees.

Good idea, but it could present a little more difficultly to implement. This would require a rule either time limiting consideration of all amendments, or allowing a different threshold for cloture (if the cloture rule is retained) for amendments. You can't just "ban filibusters," since they have the negative existence problem. That is, they don't exist independently, but are the outgrowth of a rules loophole -- that being the lack of a mechanism for limiting debate other than the cloture procedure. So banning or limiting them requires cobbling together a new rule, rather than just flipping a switch on an old one.

#3) Create an Expedited Path for Nominations:

The Senate is failing in its responsibility to “advise and consent” on nominations, doing extensive damage to the other branches of government. This is an abuse of its responsibility.

We should consider, therefore, an expedited regular order for nominations. The regular order for each nominee might still be subject to a filibuster, but only under the revised filibuster requirements discussed below.

Good idea in general, and theoretically should have Republican support, since this was their original nuclear option aim. Another worthy suggestion I've heard: eliminate post-cloture time on nominations. Apparently, the reason they allow post-cloture debate is so that further amendments might be considered. But you can't amend a nomination, so once you've invoked cloture on it, you should just get right to the vote.

#4) Require a filibuster petition:

Require a substantial number of senators, perhaps 10, to file a filibuster petition to block a simple majority vote on an amendment or a bill. By creating a public record, senators have to take responsibility for obstructing the process. This also prevents a single senator from blocking the regular order.

This one I'd need more explanation on. I don't see it doing anything that a roll call vote doesn't do, in terms of putting people on the record as to whether they want to insist on a delay. It also seems hard to enforce independently. Suppose only nine Senators sign the petition, but yet Senators continue to object to unanimous consent requests to proceed on the matter, make long speeches, refuse to yield, and ultimately vote against cloture? What good has the petition requirement done you, even if they haven't complied with it? If you still retain a cloture rule with a threshold higher than a simple majority, what difference does it make if a Senator refuses or neglects to sign the petition, but fully intends to vote no on cloture anyway? I don't think I get that one.

#5) Require filibustering senators to hold the floor:

The public believes that filibustering senators have to hold the floor. Indeed, the public perceives the filibuster as an act of principled public courage and sacrifice. Let’s make it so.

Require a specific number of Senators -- I suggest five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter -- to be on the floor to sustain the filibuster. This would be required even during quorum calls. At any point, a member could call for a count of the senators on the floor who stand in opposition to the regular order, and if the count falls below the required level, the regular order prevails and a majority vote is held.

Several folks have asked how this would work in practice. So here is an example.

Upon request by a member, the Senate President would make the following announcement.

“The Sergeant-at-Arms will bar the doors and the Clerk will take count of all who stand in opposition to the regular order.”

The clerk would then announce:

“All senators who stand in opposition to the regular order will declare their opposition.”

The President would then report one of the following:

“[#] senators stand in opposition. This fails to meet the number required to continue the suspension of the regular order. The regular order is restored and a vote on this [bill/amendment] will be held, according to the rules, at [time stated].”

Or

“[#] senators stand in opposition. This meets the number required to continue the suspension of the regular order. Debate will continue.”

This accomplishes two important objectives. It makes a filibuster visible to all Americans. And it places the responsibility for maintaining the filibuster squarely upon those objecting to the regular order.

This approach creates two specific ways to overcome a filibuster. First, there is still the existing method of following the current rules for deliberation followed by a 60-vote cloture requirement. Second, however, is that a filibuster could collapse at any time if the filibustering senators fail to maintain the required floor presence.

Good idea in general. Interesting approach to ratchet up the number as time passes. That's a good compromise for an idea that's generally well-liked but hard to choose a number for. Increasing the burden as the annoyance and obstruction factor increases is a good weighting option. I like it! (Senators might be a little intimidated by the idea of the Sergeant at Arms barring the door, though! Still, it won't do any good if Senators can hang out in the cloakroom and only come out when they need to boost their numbers for a head count.)

#6) Require continuous debate:

The Senate could also require debate to be continuous. Under this requirement, if a speaker concludes (arguing either side) and there is no senator who wishes to speak, the regular order is immediately restored, debate is concluded, and a simple majority vote is held according to further details established in the rules.

This further expands the visibility of the filibuster. Americans who tune in to observe the filibuster would not see a quorum call, but would see a debate in process.

Good idea in general. Both 5 and 6 are what the public thinks filibusters are and ought to be anyway. Hard to see how you lose by giving them what they want (though there's always a way).

#7) Establish the right of the minority to offer amendments:

The Senate wastes enormous amounts of time trying to work out a structure for the presentation and debate of amendments on any given bill. The Senate needs a regular order for the presentation of amendments so that, in the absence of an agreement between the Majority and Minority leaders, debate will proceed.

This regular order must be defined in the rules, and I suggest a regular order that includes the following:

** Starting five hours after the start of debate, a member of the minority party would present an amendment chosen by the minority leader.

** The amendment would be debated for two hours, with time evenly divided between the majority and minority, followed by a vote. 6

** A member of the majority party would present the next amendment with similar rules.

** After each party has had the opportunity to present five [or some other modest number] amendments each, a final vote will be in order.

This regular order would still be subject to the filibuster on any amendment or final vote, but such a filibuster would have to follow the revised guidelines for filibusters.

This regular order would also be subject to any unanimous consent agreement that modifies it.

For example, leaders might negotiate an agreement to consider specific additional amendments and the body might consent. Or perhaps members of the minority or majority might start a filibuster by filing a petition because they wanted the opportunity to have additional votes on amendments. The leaders might then negotiate such an agreement and the body might consent.

This approach has several points of value:

1. This addresses a major grievance of the minority, namely, the absence of an opportunity to have their ideas presented and debated. In that sense, it is a strong compensating factor for making the minority spend more time and energy on filibusters.

2. It gives the majority and minority leaders time to attempt to work out a unanimous consent agreement.

3. But if that attempt fails, the body can proceed to debate and vote, honoring its responsibilities as a legislative body.

4. The majority and minority leaders have an incentive to work out an agreement, since they might not want to be in the uncomfortable position of choosing which amendments to consider.

More than fair. And one other objection that it addresses is the objection of reform opponents who insist that they don't want to "turn the Senate into the House." One of the key differences is preserved, in that the House does not guarantee the right of the minority to amend the bill during regular debate, and preserves only the right to a single motion to recommit. That's a major, major part of what makes the Senate the Senate -- at least according to the Senators who enjoy this power. And it makes a certain amount of sense to have one chamber that works on a strict majority rules basis, and one that guarantees the minority a chance to have its ideas tested against those of the majority. That's the key thing here: test those ideas out with a vote.

#8) Decrease the Segregation of Members

Members of the Senate are segregated by party. They sit on different sides of the aisle in the Senate chamber. They sit on opposite sides of the room in committees. They caucus separately. Even the pages on the floor are designated as “Democratic” pages or “Republican” pages.

These practices may not have been significant in the past when senators lived in Washington and socialized on evenings and weekends. But now senators work evenings and then fly home, greatly diminishing the time for informal interactions with each other.

The segregation of the senators by parties unnecessarily deepens the partisan divide and we should end it. It is worth observing, by the way, that many state legislatures do not practice such segregation, facilitating the forging of informal connections between members of different parties.

Here are three specific suggestions:

1.      Bolt down the desks in the Senate chamber permanently – fifty on each side -- and allow senators to choose desks anywhere they want on the floor among those available.

2.      End the segregation of senators in committee meetings. One committee, Homeland Security, has already done this.

3. End the designation of pages by party.

Well, interesting. It comes from the right place. The only thing about the pages is that they sometimes have to carry sensitive materials that Senators of one party don't want anyone from the other party to see. But then, you could always send your own staff on those errands, I guess.

So that's it. There are plenty of other proposals out there, too. But this one was the most recent, so I thought I'd react. I've done it a little informally, but I did that in the interest of getting it out there for discussion, rather than spending the day crafting something more put-together.

What do you think?

This thread comes to you live from Pasadena and is excited to be going to the biggest college football game in Southern California this evening. But...links before gridiron.

• The spider enthusiast in me is outraged:

  A German man who authorities said netted more than $300,000 by smuggling hundreds of tarantulas into the United States through the mail was expected to appear in court Friday in Los Angeles to face federal charges.

  Officials said the web of "Operation Spiderman" caught Sven Koppler, 37, Thursday, shortly after he arrived in Los Angeles to meet with associates in the alleged scheme that included some endangered species of tarantula.

  Koppler is charged with illegally importing wildlife into the United States, an offense that carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

  Tarantulas, tied up and packaged in small plastic tubes. Oh, the humanity.

• The Courage Campaign has a new page featuring video testimony from veterans in support of repealing DADT. Powerful stuff.
• The Congressional Budget Office says that the Federal DREAM Act will reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next ten years. But I'm sure we can still count on all those Republican and Blue Dog deficit hawks will be sure to oppose it...on the idea that we shouldn't be spending more on immigrants, no doubt.
• Amazing stuff that could change our perspective on life as we know it:

  ASA-funded astrobiology research has changed the fundamental knowledge about what comprises all known life on Earth.

  Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its cell components.

  "The definition of life has just expanded," said Ed Weiler, NASA's associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington. "As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it."

• I swear, I am not actively looking for incidents of anti-Islam or anti-LGBT bigotry in the State of Tennessee. But here are a couple more that have made news this week...first, a transgender customer at Kohl's was assaulted in Jackson, resulting in jaw injuries and three lost teeth. According to the victim, she obtained a copy of the police report, which stated that she was "put in his place" by the assailant. In other news, Belmont University in Nashville apparently fired their women's soccer coach because she is gay, while trying to pretend that she resigned of her own accord in a difficult job environment with a child on the way for her and her partner. It's a sentiment that is certainly not shared by the rest of the student body: students have collected a thousand signatures in support of starting a gay-straight alliance student group, but have been rebuffed.

  Just one more example: the old guard can continue to try to impose discrimination, but the world is changing around them, and sooner or later they'll be left behind.

The fun starts below the fold.

Creepy:

A security guard at a St. Paul Planned Parenthood clinic called the cops last week after he spotted a Republican state lawmaker with a loaded gun in the parking lot. But the pol says he was only "checking on" his online girlfriend, who he thought may be on a date with another man -- a claim police have not been able to corroborate because the man did not have a phone number or address for the woman.

According to the police report, a security guard reported the man, Rep. Tom Hackbarth, after he saw him get out of a pickup truck in the parking lot with a loaded gun in a hip holster. The guard saw him walk into an alley near the clinic.

But it's not like Rep. Hackbarth was showing up armed at a Planned Parenthood to initimidate or harass the clinic's patients. No, he just wanted to intimidate and harass his "girlfriend."

He said he was in the neighborhood looking for his girlfriend, a woman he said he had met online a few months before and had been on a couple dates with.

Police have not been able to track down the mystery woman. Hackbarth said he didn't have her phone number or address, as he only communicated with her via an online dating site. He also told police he didn't remember the name of the site.

Hackbarth later told the Star Tribune that he had had coffee with the woman the day before and asked her out to dinner. She declined, saying she had plans with a female friend in the Highland Park, the neighborhood around the Planned Parenthood clinic.

But he didn't believe her.

"She gave me some line of baloney, and I thought, 'well, she's fibbing to me.' You could tell, and I thought, 'well, I'm going to check it out.' and I went there to see if she was around and her vehicle was not there. And I was just checking on her," he told the local CBS affiliate.

But it's not like he was jealous or anything.

"It's not like I was really jealous, but you know how you meet this person and you really like her, and she's saying all the right things, but you think she's feeding you a line of bull----? She's giving you all this ... and you want to figure out what's going on. Well that's what I did," he said in a telephone interview in which he readily talked about the incident but questioned its newsworthiness. "Sure enough, she lied to me and I'm done with it."

He said the notion that police suspected him of terroristic behavior is "insane," but he acknowledged, "It's really weird and odd when all taken together, and I can see how people took things the way they did."

Yeah, there's nothing weird or creepy about showing up at your girlfriend's house, armed, just to see if she's giving you the brush off for another guy. And why would she? After all, with Rep. Hackbarth's armed stalking attentiveness, he sure seems like a great catch.

It's pretty neat biochemistry, but that's all the so-called arsenic-based life is. PZ has a great piece from which I'll borrow some important points:

[A]nd notice, just below phosphorous, there's another atom, arsenic. You'd predict just from looking at the table that arsenic ought to have some chemical similarities to phosphorus, and you'd be right. Arsenic can substitute for phosphorus in many chemical reactions. This is, in fact, one of the reasons arsenic is toxic. It's similar, but not identical, to phosphorus, and can take its place in chemical reactions fundamental to life ...

Arsenic has the same valence as phosphor. And for those of you who have forgotten basic high school chemistry, that means it reacts with other elements and compounds in a similar way. Not only is that not surprising, back before scientists had an inkling about how atoms were put together, these chemical similarities allowed substances to be grouped into periods, indicated above by columns labeled IIIA, IVA, etc. And so the completed item, which forms the basis of modern chemistry to this day, eventually became known as the periodic table.

• SpaceX's Falcon 9 is on the pad at Kennedy Space Center with a Dragon capsule perched atop (Background). I don't think people fully grasp the revolution in space travel and space-based resources that may soon be upon us.
• It takes a kick ass community, to know a kick ass community: those are individual players all coordinating their lines and steps:

• The LHC is making mini Big Bangs.

The voting isn't over yet, but nonetheless, the outcome isn't in question. (David has the background on the two votes in the Senate this morning.) Republicans continue to hold their breath in order to keep billionaires happy and blow up the deficit. And get the added bonus of voting against extending unemployment benefits.

Nothing really reflects the absurdity of this debate better than this exchange from the morning's debate between Senators Schumer and Grassley. The Dems argue on facts, the Republicans argue nonsense, and will win the day. On behalf of billionaires. Against the rest of the country.

Mr. Schumer: I thank my colleague. And through the chair, I'd simply like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point of view here. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance ex extension?

Mr. Grassley: I thought I made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it's a license to spend $1.15. So it just increases the national debt. And when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it's not being spent. And if you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you don't increase the deficit and you'll also have the money spent right away.  

Mr. Schumer: I would just say that the answer doesn't deal with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. A dollar of tax break for millionaire and a dollar of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. However, every economist -- I saw we had a chart up about economists before -- will tell you that a dollar into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as a dollar into tax decreases for millionaires. That's pretty universal. Mark Zandy, John McCain's economic advisor during his campaign, said that a dollar of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents worth. A dollar of tax -- a dollar of unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.

The fact that Republicans will be able to obstruct the Dem package today does not change any of the facts that extending the tax cuts for millionaires will continue to cost the country, dearly. Maybe instead of negotiating with the terrorists Senate Republicans, it's time for President Obama to start talking about the veto pen.

The first vote is happening now. For the highlights of the debate, check out the liveblog.

Update: Ok, then. As of now, Senators Feingold, Webb, Ben Nelson, Manchin, and Lieberman vote with the GOP on the first vote. That really helps. Presumably, Feingold did it because he doesn't want any of the cuts to be extended. Fails 53-36.

Update 2: We now know what the definition of "middle class" is for Senators Manchin, Ben Nelson, and Webb--$1 million in income. They all voted yes on the Schumer amendment. There were more no votes among Dems on this one--Feingold, Rockefeller, Harkin, and Durbin voted against it, as did Lieberman. Fails 53-37.

It's not clear at the moment what happens next with the tax cuts. Presumably, negotiations continue.

And in other business. Reid says that there will be cloture votes on DREAM Act, 911 firefighter health, firefighter collective bargaining and $250 cola for seniors on Wednesday.

With President Obama returning from Afghanistan, Vice President Biden delivered the weekly address, repeating his call on Friday for swift action to extend middle-class tax cuts and to provide unemployment benefits:

Here's an excerpt from his message (full transcript below):

I just don’t agree with the folks who’ve said we can’t afford a lifeline for Americans who lost their jobs during the worst recession in generations, but we can afford to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans.  That’s bad economic policy, and it’s also just simply wrong.

Congress must extend these needed unemployment benefits before it goes home for the year.  And it must bolster economic growth by preserving tax cuts for our middle class.  I’m glad that the House of Representatives voted to do that this week, and I call on the United States Senate to do the same.

Look, there’s no doubt these are tough times.  But we are slowly but surely fighting our way back, moving forward.  And we’re going to keep fighting – to grow this economy, to strengthen our middle class, and to restore the American Dream.  That’s my pledge to you.

As it relates to the tax cuts, the key here is that Biden repeated his call for the Senate to approve the House-passed middle-class tax cut plan -- a welcome shift in message from the Thursday statement in which the White House basically declared the House package DOA. Now the question is whether Biden is being used to mollify the party base, or whether we'll see some real follow-through from President Obama and the administration.

If Biden's comments do signal a real change in direction, and we start seeing some real follow-through from the administration, then by next week we could be looking at a whole new ballgame when it comes to the tax cut debate, with Democrats in a position to reach a tax cut compromise that will finally bring the Bush tax policy to an end. And as far as holiday gifts go, that would be a pretty good one to give to the nation.

The House is not in session today.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 8:15am

By unanimous consent, at 10:30am Saturday, December 4, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid motion to concur with the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.4853, with the Baucus amendment #4727 [link] (tax cut extension for those making up to $250,000, plus several additional items such as UI extension, AMT relief, estate tax, 1099 repeal, making work pay credit, and others).

If cloture is not invoked, the Senate would immediately proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer amendment #4728 [link] (tax cut extension for those making up to $1 million, plus several additional items such as UI extension, AMT relief, estate tax, 1099 repeal, making work pay credit, and others).

The time from 8:30am until 10:30am will be equally divided and controlled between the Leaders or their designees.

Here come the cloture votes on the tax cut extensions. I don't know that there's much explanation necessary. There are two cloture motions pending. The first vote taken will be to invoke cloture on an amendment to the House version of the bill, which was itself a complete substitute amendment for the previous, Senate-amended text of H.R. 4853. Hence, a motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with... another amendment.

And if cloture fails? They'll move to a cloture vote on essentially the same thing, except that this time the amendment being offered will be on extending the tax cuts on the first $1 million in income, instead of the first $250K.

If both fail, well, that'll be it for the day. Though you can expect Harry Reid to change his vote to no, so that he'll have the right to call for reconsideration of the vote later on. Why? Senate rules allow for a Senator on the prevailing side of a vote to ask for reconsideration. And asking for reconsideration of a cloture vote is a faster way to take a second bite at the apple (if that's what you want to do) than filing a second cloture motion. That's because cloture motions have to "ripen" before you're allowed to vote on them. That's why they're having these votes on a Saturday instead of having taken them yesterday. Yesterday, they were still ripening.

If one or the other of the cloture motions are adopted, there'll be up to 30 additional hours of debate on whichever amendment cloture was invoked on, and then a vote on the amendment itself. And after that? Back to the House, which will have to vote on... a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853.

So what ever happened to the supposed deal for having four votes rather than two? Well, apparently that deal -- which would have included two Republican amendments that would have offered the choice of either a temporary or a permanent extension of all the cuts -- fell apart when a Republican objected to it at the last minute, leaving a surprised and embarrassed Mitch McConnell at the table empty-handed.

Why would a Republican object to a deal offering the minority an equal number of amendments on the bill, each aimed at doing exactly what they supposedly wanted? Because someone in the Republican Conference thinks both of the Democratic amendments will fail on their cloture votes, and Dems will be embarrassed by their inability to settle this situation, and then House Republicans will be free to write the extension bill they way they want it come January. And they'll make the extension retroactive to January 1, and look like heroes.

Why would a Republican make a surprise objection at the last minute and embarrass Mitch McConnell like that? Because Mitch McConnell hasn't been the Republican Leader for at least the last year. Jim DeMint is the real Senate Minority Leader, and he plays harder ball than McConnell does. He just showed Mitch who's boss by pulling the rug out from under him, and reminded Republicans that the source of their power is not their ability to use procedure to leverage deals, but their ability to leverage procedure to prevent any from being made while Democrats control the White House and Congress.

It's time to stop trying to understand Republicans in terms of figuring out what they want and trying to find middle ground. If "what they want" were even really of interest to Republicans at this point, then they'd have been over the moon at having a legitimate shot at passing an amendment to make all the tax cuts permanent today. But they walked away from that (as they walked away from a legitimate shot at passing both 1099 repeal and a $39 billion stimulus rescission earlier this week, totally abandoning their "tax cuts don't have to be paid for" rhetoric in the process) because "what they want" at this point is for Democrats to be seen losing as often as possible, on as many things as possible.

Then again, maybe that's why Obama has seemed so interested in getting to the Republican position on these extensions. If he can get them in place now, it's a story about a Democratic President working with Republicans to cut a deal on taxes. If he puts up a fight for a middle class-only extension but gets handed a defeat in the Senate (thanks in no small part to conservative Dems), only to see the same or similar Republican deal get handed to him as a list of demands come January, it's a story about a Democratic President weakened and forced to accept Republicans terms on taxes.

So, enjoy the show. Happy bipartisanship hunting, everybody!

Saturday opinion.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend:

Palin's argument seems to challenge a great American tradition, enshrined in the Constitution, stipulating that there be no religious test for public office. A careful reading of her book leads me to conclude that Palin wishes for precisely such a test. And she seems to think that she, and those who think like her, are qualified to judge who would pass and who would not.

She tries to define who's a Real American. People of color need not apply.

Charles Blow:

This is it. This is the last time I’m going to write the name Sarah Palin until she does something truly newsworthy, like declare herself a candidate for the presidency. Until then, I will no longer take part in the left’s obsessive-compulsive fascination with her, which is both unhealthy and counterproductive.

NY Times:

Social networking and mobile apps have venture capitalists racing to invest, but some wonder if technology start-ups are headed towards another big bust.

Just what we need.

Reuters:

Europe's sovereign debt crisis will still hang over global markets next week, but on Wall Street, investors will not be afraid to bet on stocks.

Really? And that helps Main Street with jobs how, again?

Wall Street has shown its ability to hold onto gains, or quickly recover from losses this week despite Europe's debt woes, suggesting that investors are confident of a sustained rally.

Colbert King:

The recent attacks on Sarah Palin by establishment conservatives make her Democratic opponents seem like wusses. The prospect of a Palin presidential candidacy in 2012 has obviously spooked the GOP elite. But do they have to be so mean?

You're kidding, right? Everyone realizes she's completely unqualified for the position and would be a disaster for both parties.

Jonathan Cohn:

Critics of health care reform this week thought they would get their first win in the campaign to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Instead they got a lesson in just how politically challenging a wholesale repeal might be.

Gail Collins:

Then all hell broke loose and the Republicans kept ranting about how "Obamacare" would put the federal government between you and your doctor and try to save money by prohibiting said doctor from using the best treatments and procedures.

All this came to mind when I was talking to Flor Felix, whose husband, Francisco, a 32-year-old truck driver with four kids, was denied a liver transplant because the Arizona Legislature had yanked funds for it out of a state Medicaid program.

Thank you, Arizona, for reminding the nation what the issues really are.

Damian Carrington writes, Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen Accord:

^{There is another Carrington story on the subject here.}

• • • • •

^{See boatse's diary, Gender in Cancun.}

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2006:

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Alfonso Nevarez, HoosierDeb, srkp23, vcmvo2, watercarrier4diogenes, and ybruti. They have found some gems, so be sure to read, tip, and rec!

• Steven D highlights the global gaps in developmental efforts and investments in US Green Energy Fail. (HoosierDeb)
• boatsie provides an illustrated report on gender in cancun and COP16 - the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (ybruti)
• Frank Cocozzelli details the dross in Robert P. George's Cross of Gold. (HoosierDeb)
• RiseUpEconomics says a US basic income guarantee would mitigate the fact that Work Sucks, and There’s Not Enough of It. (ybruti)
• epjmcginley brings us gracious prose about Bald Eagles and The Grim Descent of our planet. (watercarrier4diogenes)
• rpinero casts Arizona's governor as Scrooge in A 21st Century Christmas Carol. (ybruti)
• Bob Sloan, a long-time advocate for reform of prisons and prison industry, continues his important series with INSOURCING - Cheney, Hylton and the Prison Industrial Complex. (Alfonso Nevarez)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: December 2, 2010.

sardonyx has Top Comments: Double Trouble Edition.

Please join the Ranger crew tonight by suggesting your rescues in this Open Thread.