Two key House Republicans have indicated conditional support for one element of President Barack Obama's goal of putting 80 percent of Americans within reach of high-speed passenger rail service by 2035, as noted in his State of the Union address. Rep. John L. Mica (FL-07), the Republican Leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Bill Shuster (PA-09) on the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, voiced support for extending high-speed rail but cautioned that the President should seek more private investment and focus on fewer regions for where such service should be established.

But will the veteran Representatives' support mean additional government funding for high-speed rail? Opposition is extensive. Derrick Z. Jackson reported that the 175-member Republican Study Committee, a caucus of House Republican conservatives, wants to end all funding for both Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, “Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?’’ The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin returned their $1.2 billion share of  $8 billion in high-speed rail money that the Obama administration granted last year. The biggest chunk of those dollars went to California, Florida and Illinois.

What's been granted so far is mere seed money. A nationwide high-speed rail network would cost hundreds of billions. As an example of how much, Spain, which began its first state-owned and operated high-speed service 19 years ago, plans to spend $140 billion by 2020 to finish crisscrossing the country with fast trains. But the cost has a big benefit. The system has already transformed Spain's transportation and made it a world leader in high-speed rail. It's also boosted the economy. Just as it has been projected to do in the United States.

A study by the Boston-based Economic Development Research Group commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Mayor concluded last year that the results of high-speed rail by 2035 for just four cities would be vast:

In Los Angeles, up to $7.6 billion per year in new business, including $4.3 billion per year in Gross Regional Product (GRP) growth and up to 55,000 jobs. In Chicago, up to $6.1 billion per year in new business, including up to $3.6 billion per year in GRP growth and up to 42,000 jobs. In Orlando, up to $2.9 billion per year in new business, including up to $1.7 billion per year in GRP growth and up to 27,500 jobs. In Albany, up to $2.5 billion per year in new business, including up to $1.4 billion per year in GRP growth and up to 21,000 jobs.  

Additionally, HSR's projected larger flow of passengers will lead to increased tourism and business travel, generating additional spending at local hotels, restaurants and retail stores. Projections show that by 2035, HSR can annually add roughly $255 million in the Orlando area; $147 million in the Los Angeles area; more than $100 million in the Albany-Saratoga area; and $42 million in the Chicago area.

Last month, America 2050, an urban planning initiative focused on developing an infrastructure plan and growth strategy for the United States, published its 56-page study [pdf] identifying megaregions containing 70 percent of the population that would most benefit from high-speed rail.

The best system would be high-speed rail propelled by green energy, electricity delivered via low-leakage, ultra-high voltage lines that replace our aging grid. Electrification of all rail – slow or high speed – ought to be on the list of our goals for upgrading infrastructure. All part of getting us off carbon-based fuels.

Getting Congress - especially the current Congress - to provide the government's share of funding for such a network, will be no easy task. There are sources of money. The hundreds of billions poured into the military-industrial-congressional complex come to mind. In addition, a carbon tax, a gasoline tax (with appropriate assistance to low-income families) and a surcharge on new vehicles that get poor mileage are all possibilities. But each of these has its detractors. In addition, there is the crowd that simply argues no-new-taxes-no-matter-what.

Funding is not the only problem.

As Robert Goodspeed wrote in 2009:

Ironically, the California system is demonstrating the biggest problems for high speed rail in the U.S. may not be our lack of technical knowledge but our troubled infrastructure planning and delivery system. Disputes about alignments in California have already spawned lawsuits. Maybe beyond ogling their trains, we should study how our foreign counterparts resolve conflicts about system design. In one case study I read about planning a TGV line in France, the government convened a “debate” bringing together the stakeholders before choosing an alignment or other technical details. In the U.S. on the other hand, government agencies act both as project designers and boosters, relegating other stakeholders to reactionary roles as outsiders who rely on lawsuits to pursue their interests. In addition, our government agencies are also lacking in competent planners and administrators who specialize in rail. In the end, dysfunctional planning processes and weak planning capacity may result in avoidable cost overruns. Overcoming these obstacles may prove even more challenging than finding the historically elusive political will.

Responding to Goodspeed at the time, Robert Cruickshank wisely wrote that high-speed rail should everywhere be assessed and planned in a statewide context. In many places, it is currently "assessed in a town-by-town setting, totally divorced from statewide concerns, and even from local urban plans." This obstacle is one reason the federal government granted California $2.35 billion in matching funds for starting its 800-mile high-speed rail system but insisted that the first leg be built where objections to siting are likely to be few - in the central valley between two cities that are unlikely to get many passengers instead of, say, from San Francisco to Sacramento or Los Angeles to San Diego.  

This impediment to reasonably paced planning is also true of multi-state regions and of the nation as a whole.

If high-speed rail really is destined to become the reality in the United States that President Obama has proposed that it be, we also need to remember what happened when the nation's first rail network was built. That was a series of rip-offs of taxpayers by private interests who received gargantuan federal land grants, as well as federal and local financial backing, for laying down shoddily constructed railroads that, within a few years of making their owners ultra-wealthy, had to be rebuilt, and then rebuilt again. As a high-speed rail network will be one of the larger infrastructure projects ever built, comparable to the Interstate Highway System, we need effective, independent oversight to ensure that it's done right. We have plenty of examples proving that providing such oversight is no easy matter.

And, finally, given that any system will require vast sums of taxpayer money mixed with private dollars, the government's investment should generate returns to the public Treasury the same as any private investor would receive. Enough with having the government lay the foundation, provide the bucks, and then be told after the fact - while the private sector vacuums up the profits - that government can't do anything right.

• • • • •

For readers who wish to dig deeper, BruceMcF has written extensively on the subject of the "Steel Interstate," high-speed rail and all-electric transportation. You can see his diaries here and here.

While much of the US and Canada shivers in the dead of winter, summer reigns supreme in the southern hemisphere, and with summer comes tropical storms. Cyclone Yasi is about to slam Australia, and one of the factors that made Yasi so dangerous is record warmth:

The sea surface temperatures over the region of ocean Yasi is traversing were 1.2°C above average during December ... the highest value on record, going back to the early 1900s. Low wind shear and record warm sea surface temperatures will continue to affect Yasi for the next day, and the cyclone should be able to maintain Category 4 strength until landfall Wednesday evening (local time.)

Residents in vulnerable regions are evacuating. Emergency services are on high alert. Even storm rated structures are at risk:

Yasi, with winds of up to 300 km (186 miles) per hour, is so powerful it could blow apart even "cyclone proof" houses, engineers said on Wednesday. Yasi is headed for major towns and cities along the northeast coast. It is believed to be the strongest ever to hit Australia, surpassing Cyclone Tracy which largely destroyed the northern city of Darwin in 1974.

The House is not in session this week.

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

Convenes: 10:00am

Following any Leader remarks, Senator Paul will be recognized for up to 20 minutes in morning business to deliver his maiden speech.

Following his remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of S.223, the Federal Aviation Administration bill.

The Leaders and managers of the bill will continue to work on an agreement to dispose of the pending amendments. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

What are the pending amendments?

The following amendments are pending to S.223, FAA Authorization:

• Stabenow #9 (1099 Reporting)
• McConnell #13 (Health Care Repeal)

This might be considered the first fruit of the "gentleman's agreement" that emerged from the Senate rules reform effort last week. Part of that agreement was that the Majority Leader wouldn't so often use the tactic of "filling the amendment tree" (which has the effect of blocking all amendments to a bill) and the Republicans wouldn't so often filibuster the motion to proceed, so that debate could at least be started on most bills without having to invoke cloture right at the outset. So here we are with the first substantive piece of legislation to come to the Senate floor in the 112th Congress -- a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration -- and it arrives without a filibuster of the motion to proceed, and... with an amendment seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Which is probably just the sort of amendment the Majority Leader would otherwise have considered blocking.

So, what's to "work on" in terms of an agreement to dispose of these amendments? They're pending, which was the point of the "gentleman's agreement," so now you vote on them, right?

Well, it's not necessarily that simple. There's an agreement that contemplates setting the filibuster of the motion to proceed aside in order to get these amendments to the floor, but there's no agreement to set aside filibustering the amendments themselves. So now they'll have to work out whether they'll avoid the hassle of the actual filibuster (or what hassle there still is in today's modern filibuster, anyway) by simply requiring 60 votes to pass either or both of these amendments, and any others which might come up.

If Dems want to filibuster the repeal amendment, though, that'd probably be just fine with Republicans, since it would also halt the progress of the FAA bill itself. And Republicans consider any bill the Democrats can't pass to be a "win" for them. Plus, of course, Republicans believe that a vote against repeal is something they can use against Democrats, so they'll be happy to portray any vote against cloture on the amendment as the equivalent of a "no" vote. Similarly, if Dems opt to table the amendment (which has the effect of simply removing it from consideration and which can be done with a simple majority vote), they'll portray votes to table as equivalent to "no."

As an aside, I'll note that conservative bloggers have been anticipating the ability to portray a Democratic filibuster of repeal as hypocrisy, given the recent effort to reform the filibuster rules. But that ignores the fairly plain fact that the reforms Dems proposed didn't actually eliminate or even oppose the filibuster. But to those guys, that hardly matters. They spent the months during which the reforms were being discussed telling anyone who would listen (amounting, in the end, to almost nobody, including a significant portion of the readers who commented on their blog posts) the exact opposite.

Today's committee schedule appears in the extended entry. There's a 10am Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act that'll likely get some attention. Then later, a 2pm Judiciary meeting on nominations that'd likely have gotten some more attention if there had been any progress on the rules reform.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE

Hey, Love yer Sig...

Every now and agin' C&J toodles 'round the comments in diaries and front-page posts looking for signature lines (which you can create in your user profile, a feature that will also be available in the upgraded version of Daily Kos, except in giant flashing neon lights, or so I hear). Here's some brain candy from you, the unwashed (but well-coiffed) orange rabble:

Ethel Waters as Petunia in Cabin In The Sky (1943): "Sometimes when you fight the Devil, you gotta jab him with his own pitchfork." (avamontez)
-
Daily Kos: It's like high school, but with better beer and less making out. (turnover)
-
A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams  (dougymi)
-
"In politics, absurdity is not a handicap." --Napoleon Bonaparte  (PBen)
-
"How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises. (weasel)
-
Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism." My response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"  (Clytemnestra)
-
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." Aristotle (camlbacker)
-
Unapologetically pro-citizen. Not anti-corporation just very pro-citizen. (CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream)
-
Republicanism: the political theory that the poor have too much money and the rich do not have enough. (Bacchae1999)

And my favorite for this round, from Boris Godunov:

I finally put in a signature!

And a darn fine one. Well done. We now return you to our regularly scheduled mayhem under the watchful eye of our corporate overlords.

Cheers and Jeers, now in BlizzardVision, starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

See also Egypt mothership for links to current information and comment, including news sources.

NY Times editorial covers what is a consensus:

The announcement from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt that he would not run for re-election was welcome, if he means it, but it was unlikely to be enough. It is up to the Egyptian people to decide. But as a proud nationalist, Mr. Mubarak can best contribute to Egypt’s stability and future by stepping aside and letting an interim government take over until truly free elections can be held.

Maureen Dowd recognizes the many ways Bush and the neocons got it wrong (despite the siily claims that this is all their doing):

In another irony, one of the reasons Bush decided he needed to do something about the Arab dictatorships was his belief that they were spawning terrorists. But to try to fulfill his grandiose promise to defeat "every terrorist group of global reach," he needed the cooperation of the same dictators the U.S. had always supported. And he fell back to relying on the help of dictatorships to try to shut down dictatorships. Instead, he shut down the democratization process in 2006 after he and Rice were blindsided by Hamas winning the Palestinian elections.

Reuters:

Egypt's army has called for protesters to return home and allow life to return to normal after nine days of anti-government demonstrations.

The call came amid continued pressure on President Hosni Mubarak to quit after a speech in which he pledged not to stand for re-election in September.

Not at all clear what happens next regarding timing.

Al Jazeera:

US viewers seek Al Jazeera coverage

No one would accuse us of failing to forecast Egypt's boiling anger, or Tunisia's for the matter. That's not because our journalists are superheroes - though, if you watch, you appreciate their determination to get the story right. I would posit a simpler explanation for their successes: our journalists exist in the right places and are given the space and resources to get the job done. Most importantly, they have editorial freedom.

Even still, there are many places where we cannot do our jobs. The governments of Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, and Bahrain will not let our journalists step foot on their soil.

We were also banned in Ben Ali's Tunisia. We overcame this through the use of social media tools like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Politico:

The Center for American Progress Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Action Fund will argue at a briefing this morning that Republicans are "pushing an extreme ideological agenda" on social issues that’s likely to alienate female swing voters at the start of the 2012 cycle. In a memo that will be shared with reporters, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund takes aim at several specific bills – backed by GOP Reps. Chris Smith of New Jersey, Mike Pence of Indiana and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania – that aim to restrict federal funding for abortion services and groups that provide them, including Planned Parenthood. From the memo: "House leadership is already risking a political backlash ... [T]hey have introduced a number of anti-women’s health bills that will alienate a key voting demographic, independent women voters.... they risk being out of step with the American public by pushing an extreme ideological agenda that takes away women’s health benefits and rights, instead of focusing on jobs and the economy."

Katrina vanden Heuvel:

But while Lincoln was committing himself to the advancement of science and innovation, he remained focused on ending the nation's more immediate and immobilizing crises. President Obama must do the same; it is today's job market, not tomorrow's, and the victims of our historic chasm between great wealth and deep poverty, that deserve his primary focus now.

It shouldn't be either/or.

And...

A colossal winter storm stretching from New Mexico to Maine hit the heartland of the United States with snow, high winds and freezing rain on Tuesday, and experts said the worst was still to come as the storm moved northeast and temperatures were set to plunge.

It's day nine in what can justifiably now be called the Egyptian revolution. As we've learned over the past few days, the consistently best, stick-with-the-story English-language coverage is coming from Al Jazeera, which you can access via the Internet here.

Thanks to the collaborative effort of scores of Kossacks, there is a Mothership on the Recommended List with a running aggregation of diaries and important links to the continuing story in Egypt. There you can link to each of the previous diaries written on the subject.

In addition to the usual sources, here are a few worth looking at:

Openda has an excellent twitter feed of Egypt-related material.

simon daud has created a series of Arab sources on the subject.

alMasr Al-Youm is independent Egyptian media.

Sharif Abdel Kouddous reports from Egypt for Democracy Now.

The Arabist is Iskandr El Amrani's blog.

Stellaa at Sarthanapolos has posted A Guide: How Not To Say Stupid Stuff About Egypt.

From The Guardian, Egypt protesters react angrily to Mubarak's televised address:

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2007:

Tonight's Rescue is brought to you by HoosierDeb, ItsJessMe, sunspark says, srkp23, vcmvo2, claude, and pico.

Diary Rescue is all about promoting good writers, so remember to subscribe to diarists whose work you enjoy reading.

• matching mole writes more about our forests in Hanging On to The Ancient World: Proposed FL State Park Closings. (vcmvo2)
• Alec82 shines a light on the confusion that takes place at Section 29: At the Intersection of Free Speech and Anti-Gay Ideology. (sunspark says)
• idahospud44 decries the The Insanity of Mental Health Cutbacks. (srkp23)
• In Two Presidents Born on Back-to-Back Days, Mets102 offers his perspective on two very different men. (vcmvo2)
• In what he twice notes is a "rant, not...some grand manifesto," Nulwee rages against the abdication of its duty by modern US media in We're All With Al Jazeera Now. (sunspark says)
• Living on a boat lets Mortifyd offer some up-close perspectives on A View From the Shore - Wildlife Stories. (ItsJessMe)
• Inoljt analyzes The Future of the Asian-American Vote. (ItsJessMe)
• Clay Claiborne remembers the difficult life and tragic death of Mohamed Bouazizi, which inspired a stunning political transformation, in They Should Have Helped That Street Vendor. (srkp23)
• In the first installment of a promising new series, kcmitch opens a close reading of the US Constitution to help us see "what's actually IN there": Constituesday - Preamble. (sunspark says)
• War on Error is ALL hair-on-fire that IF These Two Videos Don't Concern Us, We Deserve What is Planned. Is Bible study the answer? You decide...(claude)
• myles spicer recounts the impact of The day an old man cried. (srkp23)
• Forgiven looks at the "blame the victim" mentality of politicians trying to cut entitlements for the elderly and can't believe What A Difference A Few Decades Make. (sunspark says)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: January 31, 2011.

brillig has Top Comments - Spam Edition.

Please suggest your own and use as an open thread.

Cleary, the Senate GOP leadership is trying to appease the teabaggers. Why else would they appoint Sen. Mike "child labor laws are unconstitutional" Lee to the Judiciary Committee and then immediately do this?

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) released a “budget” outlining $500 billion in spending cuts that he believes can be implemented next year. Among the cuts is eliminating the entire Department of Education, except for the Pell Grant program, as Paul feels that “the mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government.”

So, naturally, Senate Republicans have seen fit to appoint Paul to the Senate Education Committee.

This should make for more than usually interesting committee meetings. But it gets worse, if you can believe it.

In a bit of a double-whammy, the same Senate committee that oversees education also deals with workplace safety regulations, which Paul does not believe should ever be allowed to exist. In fact, Paul has said that mine safety regulations are unnecessary because “no one will apply” for jobs at unsafe mines. “The bottom line is: I’m not an expert, so don’t give me the power in Washington to be making rules,” Paul has said with regard to workplace safety.

Ah, what a vision for America's future: uneducated children working in unregulated mines.

Remember this bullshit, from Blanche Lincoln in the 2010 Senate primary in Arkansas?

They call him “Dollar Bill Halter,” because he’ll do anything to make a buck – even sitting on the boards of companies sued for defrauding investors and putting lives at risk, and yet another who shipped Americans jobs to Bangalore, India

It was infuriating seeing a senator who had done nothing but carry water for corporate interest suddenly attack her opponent for sitting on corporate boards. But it worked, as the establishment rallied around her -- and gift wrapped her Senate seat to Republicans. Oh well.

But this can't possibly be true, given that Blanche Lincoln got the vapors over serving on corporate boards!

New Orleans, La. – Entergy Corporation (NYSE: ETR) today announced the election of former U.S. Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln to its board of directors.

“We are pleased to add to the Entergy Board of Directors someone of Senator Lincoln’s intellectual depth and wide range of experiences and accomplishments,” said J. Wayne Leonard, Entergy’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Her leadership in finding common ground and practical solutions for today’s critical economic, environmental, social, and demographic issues made her one of the most respected members of Congress. Her advice and counsel will be invaluable to the board, shareholders and customers as we continue to define the corporation’s role in the evolving world of increased transparency and social responsibility in the pursuit of the public good.” [...]

“I am very proud and honored to be asked to serve on the board of Entergy Corporation,” said Lincoln. “During my time in Congress I had the pleasure of working with Entergy as a responsible corporate citizen that brought a problem solving mentality to issues facing my home state. The company has an outstanding legacy in Arkansas dating back to its roots as Arkansas Power and Light. I am excited about this opportunity and look forward to being a productive member of the board.”

Ah well. Considering that Lincoln did the bidding of Big Energy while in the Senate, it's only fitting that they return the favor.

As for hypocrite Blanche -- even with a Republican holding her seat, the Senate is a better place without her.

Dave Weigel reports on the proposal from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Barasso (R-WY) to allow states to opt out of the Affordable Care Act.

Senators John Barasso, R-WY, and Lindsey Graham, R-SC, have introduced The State Health Care Choice Act, written to allow states to opt out of the individual mandate, the employer mandate, expansion of Medicaid programs and "new federal requirements for regulating health insurance." The senators, introducing the legislation at a presser, were admirably blunt....

"We're opening up a third front in the challenges against Obama health care," said Graham. If the bill passed, "it would be easier for me to imagine more than half the states opting out of Obamacare. The bill would fall." Graham got a follow-up question, asking whether opting out would shrink the risk pool. "You've hit the point. The goal is repeal and replace." The goal was to bring the debate over health care into the 2012 campaign and into "the streets."

Except that it really doesn't have anything to do with the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace." There's no policy here, nothing that replaces the insurance reforms in the ACA needed to expand coverage. It's just repeal, allowing states to opt out on implementing any of the reforms, and continue with the status quo.

The existing law includes an option for states to get waivers to develop their own approach that comply with the goals of the ACA. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA) have an initiative that would allow states to get those waivers three years earlier than in the ACA, in 2014 rather than 2017, but the requirement that states actually do something to expand coverage is still there. Not with the Graham-Barasso plan.

What sets Graham and Barrasso apart is that under their approach, states wouldn't have to institute their own sets of reforms before leaving the federal system. With the current law or the Wyden-Brown alternative, the Health and Human Services secretary could grant a waiver....

[W]hile Graham might argue that the pure opt-out clause is the equivalent of repealing and replacing Obama's bill, the likely end result of his legislation would that a good chunk of the country simply fails to push any additional reform.

"It looks like what they are introducing is a straight-up opt-out which would allow states to gut the law without implementing anything in its place," a top Democratic Senate aide said.

They might try to sell this as a replacement policy, but it's not. It's simply a ploy to do exactly what they said: "The goal was to bring the debate over health care into the 2012 campaign and into 'the streets.'" It has nothing to do with fixing America's healthcare crisis.

Glenn Beck, at his most hilarious.

"I believe that I can make a case in the end that there are three powers that you will see really emerge. One, a Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe. Two, China, that will control Asia, the southern half of Africa, part of the Middle East, Australia, maybe New Zealand, and God only knows what else. And Russia, which will control all of the old former Soviet Union bloc, plus maybe the Netherlands. I'm not really sure. But their strong arm is coming. That leaves us and South America. What happens to us?"

"Maybe" New Zealand? Can we just stipulate that if China takes over Australia, that New Zealand won't be a tough nut for the Chinese to crack?

As for the Dutch, too bad NATO was too busy smoking hash in Amsterdam to do anything about the mighty Russian invasion. Luckily for everyone, it appears that in Beck's feverish mind, the Belgians held their ground against the Red Horde.

But the best part is how the Middle East is being controlled by the Muslim caliphate ... AND the Chinese! I'll be interested in seeing how that power-sharing agreement works out.

Classic:

Abracadabra! Senate rules reform! Poof!

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, (D-HI) today announced that the Committee will implement a moratorium on earmarks for the current session of Congress.  This amounts to a 2 year moratorium, as it will apply to both the FY 2011 and FY 2012 bills.

No, it's not rules reform in the sense that the body has adopted a change in the Standing Rules of the Senate. But it's rules reform in the sense that the Senate will change the way it does business, 67 votes or no 67 votes.

As you're doubtless aware, President Obama, in his State of the Union address, announced his intention to veto any appropriations bill with earmarks in it. It was a play perhaps designed to triangulate, or partially disarm a Republican position on the matter, though it was nonetheless met with less than universal praise from the GOP:

Blunt casts Obama vow to veto earmarks as power grab

WASHINGTON -- Amid calls for bipartisanship in Congress, Sen. Roy Blunt has found something early on that he and Senate Democratic leaders can agree on: opposing the president's plan to veto earmarks.

Blunt, R-Mo., said today that he agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that congressional spending should be the domain of Congress and that the ban on earmarks would "give the president too much power."

Wow, whaddya know? Something President Obama wants to do that a Republican disagrees with is a "power grab." Again.

But Blunt has a real point here, and it's been echoed by Democrats including Harry Reid, who know that whether or not earmarking is unpopular, it's Congress that holds the purse strings, and may direct appropriations as it sees fit. In fact, it's easily argue -- and Reid does make this argument -- that Members of Congress know better how already allocated money is best spent in the areas they represent than do the DC-based federal agencies. Hence Reid's message to the White House -- last week, anyway -- "back off."

But the White House didn't back off. And the veto threat, for some reason, resonates this time:

However, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.

That's 52-year veteran of the Congress and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye talking. The President said he would veto. The House said it wouldn't pass such bills. So that's it. Last week it was "back off," and this week it's "OK, we give."

Would the President risk a partial or even complete government shutdown by vetoing appropriations bills with earmarks in them? Because that's what 's implicit in the threat. Of course, the threat is a lot less daring when the House says it won't pass any such bills, anyway. But of course, this threat comes in the context of a looming fight over the budget ceiling, which contains all the same risk, albeit in slightly different form. And the assumption there, apparently, is that no one would dare risk any such thing. Would the possibility of sharing the blame change things, since there are threats from both the White House and the House of Representatives? Maybe. Although a veto is a veto, and a veto can't happen unless the House agrees to give the White House the opportunity to exercise it. So maybe we'll never know. Or maybe it would all be just too delicious to resist.

Or, it could all be taken off the table by simply having that most stolid, even ossified and unchanging body, the United States Senate -- which holds all things hostage at the whim of a minority or even a single Senator, which regularly rejects the legislation handed to it by the House even with overwhelming support on the pretense that it can't get 60 votes, which cannot change itself a whit lest the Founders themselves be set spinning in their graves -- simply agree to bend.

Abracadabra! Senate rules reform!

President Obama is expected to speak at any moment on the uprising in Egypt.

Watch here:

For ongoing coverage of the uprising in Egypt, see the Daily Kos Mothership diary.

Link to CSpan here in case the NBC link isn't working for you - [MB].

Update: Obama, saying the process of change must begin now, tells the people of Egypt: "I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren." --Jed

Update: Complete text of the President's remarks below the fold.

As bbb wrote yesterday, Harry Reid declared Social Security "off the table" as long as he's Senate Majority Leader.

"As long as I'm the Majority Leader, I'm going to do everything within my legislative powers to prevent privatizing or eliminating Social Security," Reid said. "I'll simply say it's off the table."

Here's the video, once again.

Senator Reid's strong words in support of Social Security are welcome, but "privatizing or eliminating" Social Security aren't the likely cuts we're going to see proposed to it. Great, privatization is off the table, but that's true for every Dem, and really isn't up for serious negotiation, anyway. Elimination of the program entirely might be the dream of every Republican in Congress, but it's not any goal they'll admit to, and certainly not what they'll propose.

There's an option that's been on the table for this Congress and administration since the catfood commission proposed it--raising the retirement age. That the retirement age has to be raised comes from the zombie lie that people are living longer, so it has to be done. And it's an option that the administration has as of yet not ruled out. From Chris's roundtable talk with Axelrod:

The answers that we received are not answers that will make anyone entirely happy. Here is what I took from them:

• The Obama administration is not willing to repudiate the “crisis” narrative surrounding Social Security that dominates the national political media.
• President Obama explicitly repudiated privatization of Social Security in his speech last night, and David Axelrod reaffirmed that repudiation today.
• If there is going to be a “bi-partisan” agreement to alter Social Security, it will be brokered by President Obama himself. Congress is not going to pass a deal to which President Obama has not given his prior approval.
• President Obama strikes generally strong notes in defense of Social Security when it comes to other possible ways to cut the program. However, other than privatization, both he and his administration are unwilling to get too specific about where the line is drawn.

That's why it's a concern that we're not hearing it from the Senate Majority Leader, as good has his general rhetoric on Social Security has been. While the citizen participants in the video all reference opposition to the raising the retirement age, Reid doesn't specifically say that it, too is off the table. He came closer in his Meet the Press interview a few weeks ago:

SEN. REID: No, it's not in crisis. This is, this is, this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course. But don't, don't...

MR. GREGORY: Means testing? Raising the retirement age?

SEN. REID: ...don't--I'm...

MR. GREGORY: Do you agree with either of those?

SEN. REID: I'm not going to go to any of those back-door methods to whack Social Security recipients. I'm not going to do that. We have a lot of things we can do with this debt that's a problem. But one of the places where I'm not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.

That's the line to hold--raising the retirement age is a back-door method to weakening Social security and "whacking" recipients--i.e. future generations of Americans who would have to work longer to ultimately receive less. That's a cut, and also needs to be declared "off the table," specifically.

Republicans are generally pretty good at recovering from money disadvantages, since their movement is full of people who can write the big checks. But let's hope they don't get their act together on this.

…[A]s the process gets underway ina series of first-round states, including New Jersey, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana, some party insiders are concerned that Republicans have failed to amass the funding necessary to capitalize on their advantages.
…
“The DLCC has been working with the Foundation for the Future and NCEC [The National Committee for an EffectiveCongress] for almost five years to make sure Democratic state legislators haveas much and as high-quality data as possible when they draw district lines and evaluate Republican gerrymanders,” [DLCC Executive Director Michael] Sargeant told C&E. However, he agrees that the failure of the MAPS project is a negative for Republicans. “By letting the MAPS project languish, the GOP isn't in as good of a position for redistricting as most think,” Sargeant said.
…
Roll Call’s Gonzalez reports that donors to MAPS lost faith in the group when they discovered that its “vision was too broad.” Underscoring the importance of MAPS to the Republican redistricting strategy, former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie told Hotline last week that, while there was still time to recover from the loss, the failure of MAPS has left Republicans at a distinct disadvantage in the first states to redistrict.

They really are that disorganized.

Even though Republicans made historic gains at the state level in 2010 that gave them unprecedented control over redistricting, they are currently lacking a unifying organization to lead the process.

And the absence of such a group is starting to cause alarm in Republican circles.

One such Republican is former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds. Reynolds is particularly invested in redistricting because he helped spearhead the GOP's efforts in 2010 that netted Republicans nearly 700 new seats in statehouses across the country at the Republican State Leadership Committee. Reynolds directly oversaw the RSLC's REDMAP program, the group's primary fundraising arm.

Despite those gains, though, Reynolds said the GOP is in something of holding pattern without an organization dedicated to raising money and focused on redistricting.

"I've been surprised that I didn't see the party yearning for some sort of outside effort to get the map-making up and going," Reynolds told Hotline On Call. "Normally instead of having the party pay for that, someone on the outside would take that initiative and I haven't seen that leadership." [...]

It looked like Republicans had such an organization when former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and veteran Republican strategist Charlie Black set up Making America's Promise Secure (or MAPS) in 2009. That group is virtually non-existent now, according to Republicans involved in the redistricting effort, including Reynolds. (Efforts to reach MAPS were unsuccessful.)

"There needs to be some other entity to come forward," Reynolds said.

Another Republican deeply involved in redistricting at the state level described the GOP's organization toward redistricting in one word: "Chaos."

The Koch brothers will come to their rescue. But even if they don't, the fact that Republicans have unilateral control of redistricting in 15 states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and MIchigan, portends some real pain after the new maps are drawn.