Just six short years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters. Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a horrific betrayal of their constitutional role. Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional. Here is a representative sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”

• Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent.  That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee.  And that happened for 200 years.”

• John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.

• Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

Sadly, this willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is par for the GOP’s course. Republicans invented a previously unheard of constitutional objection to the Affordable Care Act, they’ve called everything from Social Security to Medicare to child labor laws unconstitutional, and they’ve even pretended that the Constitution allows them to strip Americans of their citizenship.

Sen. Nelson’s vote against Liu, however, is utterly inexplicable. When Bush was naming judges, Nelson voted to end cloture on Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a radical tenther who once compared liberalism to “slavery” and Social Security to a “socialist revolution.” It is impossible to imagine what standard Nelson applied that would keep a mainstream voice like Liu off the court, but allow Judge Brown to shape the law.

Political pressures and the Senator’s reputation for acting as a thorn in the Democrats’ back could soon push him to take a stronger stance on repeal. Therefore, in an effort to prevent Nelson’s 2012 grandstanding against the law, it’s worth highlighting that Nebraska is already benefiting from reform — and Nelson is taking full credit for delivering the benefits. Yesterday, a local ABC station in Omaha, Nebraska reported that “the One World Community Health Center in south Omaha is planning a major expansion thanks to an $8.9 million grant from the Affordable Care Act.” Fortunately, Nelson was on hand to offer some supportive quotes:

Officials said the money will go toward the $15.3 million project to be built on the former Omaha Stockyards property. [...]

The expansion was made possible by the president’s health care reform and by a deciding vote from Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. “Whether you’re rich or poor, when people need health care, they need to receive it,” Nelson said.

The senator said he hopes critics will understand his vote when they see results like this in the metro.

“It makes me feel real proud to know people who are going to get care here are going to get quality care in quality facilities,” Nelson said.

The existing space for One World inside the Livestock Exchange Building will also be renovated with the funds.

According to HealthCare.gov, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services “has made $14.6 million in new grant funding available in Nebraska,” and enrolled 26 employers in the early-retiree program.

It’s worth noting that Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who supports full repeal, actually sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting grant money authorized by the law for the University of Nevada School of Medicine for “Primary Care Residency Expansion.” Nelson, I hope, avoids similar hypocrisy.

Ross Douthat explains why he won’t be missing Charlie Crist, Evan Bayh, or Arlen Specter and has wide comments on the general situation facing centrist legislators:

We hear a lot about the perils of political polarization, and for understandable reasons: America faces structural challenges that probably can’t be addressed by one party alone, and the waning of bipartisanship is one of the many forces that make a Greece or California-like endgame seem depressingly plausible. But if a polarized political system produces fewer centrists overall, it also increases the power and potential leverage of the centrists who remain. For a time, the most important figures in the debate over health care reform were Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus; later on, that role passed to Ben Nelson, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, among others. (The same was true in the stimulus debate, the financial reform debate, etc.) A swing vote in the U.S. Senate should be able to wield disproportionate influence over the design of legislation; a swing bloc, if one existed, would essentially have veto power over whatever the majority wanted to do. And so the legislator who wastes this power — by engaging in horse-trading without any larger vision, by griping constantly about their own party’s mistakes while voting the party line on every major piece of legislation, or by simply being a self-interested, unprincipled cynic — is as much to blame for the dysfunctions of the American political system as any uncompromising partisan of the left and right.

I think this was an underrated sub-plot of the 111th Congress. The people who occupied the legislative pivot points showed us basically nothing in the way of vision. When Scott Brown held all the leverage on financial regulation legislation, he used it to get a special carve-out aimed to benefit the bottom line of Massachusetts-based banks. Blue Dogs exempted car dealers from otherwise applicable consumer protection rules. Ben Nelson asked for the “cornhusker kickback.”

This kind of thing is one reason I’m hoping that instead of obsessing over finding compromises with Republicans the President will refocus his attention away from the legislative arena. Left to their own devices, maybe some of the pivoteers will realize that they have an obligation to actually frame some kind of proposal for coping with the country’s problems.

“I hate deficit spending, but some matters are so urgent that they can’t wait. Such was the case with the stimulus package, which contained more than $300 billion in tax relief, and I believe the same holds true about the expiring Bush era tax cuts,” Nelson has said. Heritage promoted the event by noting Nelson’s support for Bush’s tax cuts in the first place:

Since coming to the Senate in 2001, Nelson has played a key role in passing several major tax cuts, including providing the lynchpin of Democratic support for both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. In September, Nelson announced that he would again break ranks with his party and support the continuation of the 2001/2003 rates, noting that raising taxes in this economy could impair recovery and “hold back economic development across America.”

To his credit, Nelson did tout the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a success during the speech. But if Nelson’s worried about holding back development, he might want to take a look at the Congressional Budget Office’s work on the effects of the Bush tax cuts.

CBO has found that extending the Bush tax cuts are the least effective tax or spending step available for boosting the economy and that extending the entire Bush tax cut package permanently will actually decrease incomes and gross national product, due to the increased borrowing needed to pay for them. As The Wonk Room explained, Nelson has also suggested financing an extension of tax cuts for the rich by raising taxes on the middle class.

Nelson’s message went over well at Heritage, where fealty to Bush tax policies is paramount. But if Nelson truly believes in his policy prescription, then he should be willing to face a more skeptical audience. With that in mind, we’d like to extend an invitation to Nelson to come to the Center for American Progress and debate the Bush tax cuts anytime he’d like.

“I hate deficit spending, but some matters are so urgent that they can’t wait. Such was the case with the stimulus package, which contained more than $300 billion in tax relief, and I believe the same holds true about the expiring Bush era tax cuts,” Nelson has said. Heritage promoted the event by noting Nelson’s support for Bush’s tax cuts in the first place:

Since coming to the Senate in 2001, Nelson has played a key role in passing several major tax cuts, including providing the lynchpin of Democratic support for both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. In September, Nelson announced that he would again break ranks with his party and support the continuation of the 2001/2003 rates, noting that raising taxes in this economy could impair recovery and “hold back economic development across America.”

To his credit, Nelson did tout the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a success during the speech. But if Nelson’s worried about holding back development, he might want to take a look at the Congressional Budget Office’s work on the effects of the Bush tax cuts. CBO has found that extending the Bush tax cuts are the least effective tax or spending step available for boosting the economy and that extending the entire Bush tax cut package permanently will actually decrease incomes and gross national product, due to the increased borrowing needed to pay for them.

Unlike many Republicans, Nelson has said that an extension of the tax cuts should be “paid for as much as possible.” When asked for a potential pay-for, Nelson has responded, “well, you still have unspent stimulus funds,” which means Nelson is willing to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich by raising taxes on the middle class.

Nelson’s message went over well at Heritage, where fealty to Bush tax policies is paramount, but if Nelson truly believes in his policy prescription then he should be willing to face a more skeptical audience. With that in mind, we’d like to extend an invitation to Nelson to come to the Center for American Progress and debate the Bush tax cuts anytime he’d like.

Normally you see “moderates” flocking to popular positions, especially when—as in this case—the popular position is also a genuine bit of difference-splitting middle ground. But that’s not the case here. Jon Chait speculates as to why:

One possibility is that vulnerable red state Democrats are trying to signal their moderation by breaking with the party leadership on a high-profile issue, even one in which the party has a popular stance. But the defections include retiring Democrats like Bayh and Conrad, and a blue state Senator like Lieberman whose main political danger comes from the left.

So my explanation is that Senators are both among, and surrounded by, the small minority of Americans who earn more than $250,000 a year. They hear from them disproportionately, they live among them, and they are them. So their conception of what is popular and what is reasonable on this issue is warped.

There’s something to that. But I think larger issue here is the perverse framing of deficit issues. If Mitch McConnell were sponsoring a bill to cut taxes on rich people and cut spending by an equal amount, I bet no moderate Democrats would find that tempting. And if Mitch McConnell were sponsoring a bill to cut taxes on rich people and raise taxes on the middle class by an equal amount, I bet no moderate Democrats would find that tempting either. But of course a permanent reduction in rich people’s taxes implies reductions in spending or higher taxes on the middle class. And the media never—never—frames a division within the Democratic caucus as pitting spendthrift moderates like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson against deficit hawk liberals like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer even though this is the precise divide that opens up whenever Bush-era tax policies are on the table.

Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.

Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:

Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]

Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”

DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”

– Charlie Eisenhood

Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.

Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:

Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]

Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”

DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”

– Charlie Eisenhood

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Despite the fact that the unemployment rate is at a high 9.5 percent and that the benefits are the only source of income for many of those unable to find work, conservatives have demanded that spending on the benefits be offset before they vote for them (a demand they do not make for tax breaks for mulitmillionaires). In a statement explaining his decision to join conservatives to filibuster the extension, Nelson cited the relatively tiny deficit impact of extending them:

“Recently, Nebraska state officials estimated that our unemployment had improved slightly and was down to 4.9 percent. I am very sympathetic to the many Nebraskans who remain out of work and recognize that the federal government should extend unemployment benefits to help them. Before the vote last week on the tax extenders bill, which provided unemployment benefits, I informed Senate leadership that I was willing to vote for new spending as long as it is paid for. I believe this can be done and that the votes are there to pass it. The bill has been revised several times already and each time the deficit spending was less. Tough choices are possible and necessary to not add to the deficit. [...] So, Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout to the states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”

Yet today, the Washington Post reveals a new poll that finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans support extending unemployment benefits, even in the face of concerns of opponents who say it “adds too much to the federal budget deficit”:

The poll also finds that 57 percent of self-identified “moderate or liberal” Republicans support extending benefits. If Congress fails to extend benefits, it will — by the end of the week — “bring the total number of long-term unemployed prematurely cut off from aid to 2.5 million.” Considering the public’s views on the issue, Nelson should reconsider his stance.

From Nelson’s statement today:

I will support the Lieberman compromise because it removes politics from the process. It bases implementation of the repeal on the Pentagon’s review and a determination by our military leaders that repeal is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness, and that the Pentagon has prepared the necessary regulations to make the changes.

“I spoke to Secretary Gates and he advised that while he preferred waiting until the study is completed, he can live with this compromise.

“The Lieberman compromise shows that Congress values the Pentagon’s review that will include the advice and viewpoints from our men in women in uniform, from outside experts and from the American people about how to implement the repeal. It rests ultimate authority to make this change with our military leaders. I believe this is the right thing to do.”

Until today, it was unclear if the new compromise would win over enough votes, but Nelson’s statement suggests that the compromise and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ support, was critical to Nelson’s decision. As he told Metro Weekly last week, “I want to follow with the advice and the suggestions of Secretary of Defense Gates to have the study that is underway right now before we make that final decision — because it’s not a question of ‘whether,’ it’s a question of ‘how,” Nelson said. At that time, Nelson was also unsure if he could support the delayed-implementation approach. ““I don’t know,” Nelson said. “I haven’t seen that legislation. I know there’s probably some support for that, but I think it’s been made pretty clear by Secretary Gates that we shouldn’t take any action until the study is completed, and that’s my position. That’s where I’m going to stay.’”

More on the DADT compromise in today’s Progress Report.

From Nelson’s statement:

I will support the Lieberman compromise because it removes politics from the process. It bases implementation of the repeal on the Pentagon’s review and a determination by our military leaders that repeal is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness, and that the Pentagon has prepared the necessary regulations to make the changes.

“I spoke to Secretary Gates and he advised that while he preferred waiting until the study is completed, he can live with this compromise.

“The Lieberman compromise shows that Congress values the Pentagon’s review that will include the advice and viewpoints from our men in women in uniform, from outside experts and from the American people about how to implement the repeal. It rests ultimate authority to make this change with our military leaders. I believe this is the right thing to do.”

Until today, it was unclear if the new compromise would win over enough votes, but Nelson’s statement suggests that the compromise and Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ support, was critical to Nelson’s decision. As he told Metro Weekly last week, “I want to follow with the advice and the suggestions of Secretary of Defense Gates to have the study that is underway right now before we make that final decision — because it’s not a question of ‘whether,’ it’s a question of ‘how,” Nelson said. At that time, Nelson was also unsure if he could support the delayed-implementation approach. ““I don’t know,” Nelson said. “I haven’t seen that legislation. I know there’s probably some support for that, but I think it’s been made pretty clear by Secretary Gates that we shouldn’t take any action until the study is completed, and that’s my position. That’s where I’m going to stay.’”

“I’ve never used an ATM, so I don’t know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It’s true, I don’t know how to use one.” “But I could learn how to do it just like I’ve…I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.”

By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe’s and Menard’s. “I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane,” Nelson said. “I mean, I’m not without some skills. I just haven’t had the need to use an ATM.”

As the World Herald noted, there is an ATM in the basement of the Capitol Building “which prominently displays one of those ‘Fee Notice’ signs that frustrate so many constituents.” Making a withdrawal from it with a card not issued by the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union costs $2. (HT: Nico Pitney)

Rachel Slajda flags Ben Nelson’s curious outburst against critics of his apparently Buffet-motivated filibuster of financial regulatory reform:

“To be absolutely clear, I did not vote no because of Berkshire Hathaway. Nor did the fact that I and my wife have owned Berkshire stock for 30+ years have anything to do with my vote. It has never been an issue. It isn’t now,” he said in a statement. “I voted no because of concerns about what is in the underlying bill drafted by Senator Dodd.”

He said he did support the exemption Berkshire wanted, as a matter of policy. To force existing contracts to conform to new rules, he said, would be unconstitutional.

So he wanted the same think Berkshire wanted, and he owns shares in Berkshire, and Berkshire is located in his home state, and he filibustered the bill, but he didn’t filibuster the bill because of Berkshire’s concerns. It’s just a big coincidence. Now we’re clear.

Meanwhile, the rule in question is clearly constitutional. In fact, if it were unconstitutional it probably wouldn’t bother Warren Buffet so much. He’s concerned precisely because the law would be enforced and he doesn’t want to comply with it.

So why did Nelson help block the measure while 65 percent of Americans support Wall Street reform? Speculation immediately turned to Nelson’s relationship with one of his most important constituents, billionaire investor Warren Buffet and his Nebraska-based company Berkshire Hathaway. Just hours before the vote, Senate Democrats killed a provision “sought by Berkshire and pushed by” Nelson that would have potentially saved the investment firm $8 billion, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Senate Democrats agreed Monday to kill a provision from their derivatives bill pushed by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a change one analyst predicted could force the Nebraska company to set aside up to $8 billion.

The Senate Agriculture Committee inserted language into its derivatives bill last week at the request of Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) that would have exempted any existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements—the money set aside to cover potential losses.

Berkshire has $63 billion in derivatives contracts, and Mr. Buffett has boasted he holds very little collateral against these products. [...]

The provision would have helped all companies with existing contracts. Capitol Hill aides said, however, that Berkshire pushed forcefully for the change because of its large book of derivatives.

The White House and Treasury Department had strongly opposed the change sought by Berkshire, “on the grounds that it would weaken the government’s ability to regulate the enormous market for derivatives.”

Berkshire officials “have long supported” Nelson, giving him more money over his political career than those of any other company. A Nelson spokesperson admitted before the vote that Berkshire had lobbied Nelson, but said the senator had always believed the new rules should not apply retroactively. After the vote, Nelson said his opposition was due to concern about how the bill would affect small businesses, such as dentists and auto dealers, saying, “I want to make sure this deals with Wall Street and not Main Street.” An aide said “Berkshire Hathaway was not was a factor.”

But Dodd said the removal of the Buffett carve-out was likely responsible for Nelon’s opposition:

Asked about Nelson’s vote, Dodd said he couldn’t accommodate the Nebraskan’s push to exempt some companies from having to back up their derivative investments with additional collateral. [...]

Dodd, who was seen conversing with Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) before the vote, said the conversation revolved around the derivatives exemption.

“Dentists and auto dealers didn’t come up,” he said when asked.

A Senate aide agreed, “definitively” saying that Nelson switched his voted after Democrats dropped the Buffett carve-out. “He was on board until today and the only thing that changed was the removal of that provision,” the aide said.

“Has Nelson forgotten how the Cornhusker Kickback saga played out? That it became a huge embarrassment for him personally, for his party, and for his state?” Matt Yglesias asks. “It’s groundhog day here,” Dodd said laughing.

That all 41 Republicans decided to lock arms and block consideration of a financial regulatory reform bill late yesterday wasn’t a surprise. The GOP doesn’t say it opposes any effort to bring Wall Street to heel, but whatever ideas they may have about modifying Chris Dodd’s proposal they don’t want to talk about them in public so their strategy is to prevent formal debate while the press the case for watering the bill down in private.

Ben Nelson’s vote, by contrast, is puzzling. Annie Lowrey summarizes:

Regardless, the optics are terrible. Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback” delayed health care reform. Today [i.e., yesterday], news broke that Warren Buffett, the head of Berkshire Hathaway and a resident of Omaha, lobbied for the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which Nelson sits, to create a derivatives loophole that would benefit his company to the tune of billions, a proposal Senate Democrats swatted down. And now, Nelson is holding up progress on the financial front again.

Has Nelson forgotten how the Cornhusker Kickback saga played out? That it became a huge embarrassment for him personally, for his party, and for his state? These close votes on big issues are a great opportunity for Senators with specific policy priorities to get things done. It’s an opportunity that Nelson squandered on health care by asking for something petty and squalid, and it’s something he seems to want to squander anew with this purely parochial concern for the interests of his richest constituent.

I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers and businesses.

The EPA’s rules will function as a soft cap on large emitters of global warming pollution, most of whom are already covered by Clean Air Act permits for traditional pollution. No new layers of bureaucracy will be created. However, the cost of fossil-based energy would slowly rise. Because it would be legally difficult for the EPA to establish an emissions trading system, companies could not use market means to mitigate those costs.

The ability of trading markets to reduce compliance costs for pollution reduction is the key selling point of a Congressionally established cap-and-trade market as opposed to a command-and-control regime. However, Nelson has also indicated he opposes a cap-and-trade system:

Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap and trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap and trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”

A cap without “trade” is by definition a command-and-control regime — which Nelson has said he opposes on economic grounds. But he claims to oppose a cap with “trade” on populist grounds. In short, he’s using logically inconsistent excuses to block both executive branch and legislative branch action on global warming.

Nelson may be trying to pander to polls, which show that the phrase “cap and trade” is unpopular by comparison to Americans’ desire for the government to regulate polluters and support clean energy investment. Or maybe he’s pandering to his corporate polluter donors, who need senators like Nelson to maintain the Bush-Cheney status quo.

But yesterday, in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com Nelson said that he agreed to the compromise to “get” the final bill into conference and planned to use his leverage as the 60th vote, to insert his original amendment into in the final conference report:

LSN: OK, so you were planning on coming back…
NELSON: Absolutely. That is what I was just trying to tell the gentleman who was arguing about the 60th vote.
LSN: What made you think that it had a shot, after conference?
NELSON: Because they needed 60 votes again.
LSN: Right, but before, you voted for it even without it –
NELSON: To get it there….But, once it went to conference, as part of the conference, there was still another 60 vote threshold, and that is when I would have insisted and that is what Christy was talking about when I mentioned this on the phone – how we would approach this in conference to say, for my last 60th vote, it has to have Nelson/Hatch/Casey.
LSN: Why didn’t you stop it right then and there and say, “No Nelson/Hatch – nothing.”
NELSON: Because, at that point and time, the leverage wasn’t as strong – you have to play it [...]
LSN: So, if we got to conference and it was just the Nelson not the Nelson/Hatch/Casey – you would say ‘yes’ because you think it was good enough.
NELSON: I could have but I was going to say – and this was all the plan – that I would insist that it be Nelson/Hatch/Casey.

Nelson also said that federal law — the so–called Hyde restrictions — already prevented federal money from funding abortions that did not result from pregnancies that threaten the life of the woman, rape or incest, and admitted that his amendment was a redundancy. “I think it was probably necessary to clear up any question about it that somebody might have – but if Hyde truly applies…It was a belt and suspenders approach … to make sure that it was clear that it didn’t… This was just to make it clear,” he said.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Monday that he would oppose any health care reform bill with a national insurance exchange, which he described as a dealbreaker.

“The national exchange is unnecessary and I wouldn’t support something that would start us down the road of federal regulation of insurance and a single-payer plan,” Nelson told reporters Monday.

If Senate Democrats still had 60 votes, this would matter a lot.

Note that Nelson’s statement is ridiculous. A nationwide exchange on which people can buy health insurance plans from private, for-profit health insurance companies starts us down the road to a single-payer plan in the same sense that the road from the Capitol to National Airport starts us down the road to Santiago, Chile.

The real point, however, is that Nelson’s views are irrelevant. The exchange set-up will either be determined by reconciliation or else nothing will be done. Either way, he doesn’t matter. And this, incidentally, is the reason why the Democrats are so reluctant to do things with reconciliation or to curb the filibuster. Each of them is more important under a supermajority rule than they would be under a majority rule, even if it renders them collectively impotent.

Controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of Congress. We don’t need EPA looking over Congress’ shoulder telling us we’re not moving fast enough. I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers and businesses.

Scientists have been warning Washington D.C. about the dangers of greenhouse gases for over three decades now. Their work was suppressed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for eight years. Now it appears Ben Nelson and his ilk are stepping in to take their place.

In reality, nearly all of the pollution sites that would fall under greenhouse gas rules are already subject to Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and soot. As the last 40 years of success for the Clean Air Act have proven, its enforcement cleans the air, improves the public’s health, and strengthens our economy by rewarding efficiency and innovation instead of pollution.

Meanwhile, the costs of climate damages rise for Nelson’s state, falling squarely on Nebraska families, farmers, and businesses. Nearly all of Nebraska has been declared a disaster area because of drought, severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding.

Nelson further claimed that he believes “carbon emissions should be reduced”:

Carbon emissions should be reduced, but not through costly and complicated EPA regulations or a disadvantageous cap and trade proposal in Congress. They should be reduced through a comprehensive energy bill that promotes efficiencies and renewable energy through innovation and new technology that will help our state’s economy as we clean up the air.

Nelson has never supported a bill or policy that would achieve those goals. He opposed Lieberman-Warner in 2008, voted against McCain-Lieberman in 2005, and skipped the vote on McCain-Lieberman in 2003.

Nelson seemingly prefers to listen to his polluter donors than to scientific fact. In 2009 alone, Nelson received $553,300 from agribusiness, $164,200 from oil and gas interests, and $140,199 from electric utilities. Nelson has even taken $31,500 from the virulently right-wing Koch Industries, the private pollution giant that has mobilized tea party opposition to climate and health care legislation. Berkshire Hathaway, whose subsidiary MidAmerican Energy is one of the nation’s largest coal-powered utilities, opposes climate legislation and has given Nelson $51,800. Coal-hauling Union Pacific is Nelson’s number-three contributor at $49,750.

Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski has gained co-sponsorship for her effort to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from at least one Democrat, her office confirmed Friday evening. Spokesman Robert Dillon said that one Democrat has signed on, though he was not able to confirm the identity of the Democrat. There are, however, plenty of ideas about who this Democratic cosponsor may be. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Jim Webb (D-VA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), all previously on record voicing concerns about carbon regulation, have been floated as possible sign-ons.

In April 2009, Dorgan, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and Webb voted to preserve the filibuster threat against any “clean energy” legislation, even though they represent states on the front lines of the climate crisis. Below, the Wonk Room takes a closer look at these Murky Democrats:

BYRON DORGAN

Dorgan, buoyed by coal interests, has emerged as one of the strongest critics of President Obama’s plan to limit global warming pollution, saying it “makes no sense.” He opposes action even though his state has been ravaged by record floods and has vast renewable energy resources. Dorgan’s “preference is that Congress address this issue and not the EPA.” The senator told National Journal that “how the amendment is crafted — most notably whether it suspends the agency’s regulatory power or completely removes it — is crucial.”

BLANCHE LINCOLN

Lincoln has claimed that limits on carbon pollution would create “really high, higher food prices” and said when she took over the Senate Agriculture Committee that it isn’t her “preference to move on cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate this year.” Lincoln has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in polluter cash, including $10,000 from the right-wing extremists at Koch Industries.

MARY LANDRIEU

Landrieu has taken an oil-soaked stand “against forcing petrochemical companies” to “bear the brunt of new costs.” Her state, Lousiana, is still devastated by the widespread destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, a global-warming-fueled storm.

BEN NELSON

Nelson worries that climate legislation “could have a negative impact on our economy.” Unusual heat waves killed thousands of cattle last year, and a recent five-year drought was even more destructive.

JIM WEBB

Since 2008, Webb has opposed “things like emission standards.” Webb also opposes President Obama’s global warming plan, instead working with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to promote a nuclear-industry subsidy plan. Coal and nuclear utility Dominion Resources is Webb’s fourth largest corporate contributor. Sea level rise is already eating away Virginia’s coastlines.

Murkowski’s move is expected to be attached to legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling. If it comes in the form of a binding amendment, 60 votes would be required for passage. She may instead offer a disapproval resolution, which would not block the EPA but would help senators pledge allegiance to coal and oil interests as the 2010 election season nears. A disapproval resolution would only require 51 votes to pass.