President Obama today announced plans for a $50 billion investment to beef up US infrastructure. It's not exactly a stimilus, but a front loaded long term package to "rebuild 150,000 miles of roads, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail and rehabilitate 150 miles of runways."

Budget Director Peter Orszag is et to reside from the Obama administration in July. The New York Times says Budget Directors never stay around for long anyway and this gives the President time to find a replacement for the next budget cycle

By a vote of 59-39, the Senate voted last night to pass legislation aiming to fix the US financial industry, which almost collapsed back in last 2008. Four Republicans, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Charles Grassley and Scott Brown joined a majority of Democrats in voting for the bill. The Senate was hung up in debate until Scott Brown (MA) got assurances from Congressman Barney Frank that several concerns about Massachusetts' financial institutions would be addressed.

The bill now heads to conference committee to hammer out differences between the House version.

The Treasury Department is saying it'll recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned banks, which could make this years deficit go from $1.5 to 1.3 trillion. Meanwhile, Larry Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, says the recession is over and expects job growth to begin again in the Spring. If this happens in the slightest, expect the Obama Administration to make note of that, especially in the run up to the 2010 elections.

Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, Chairman and Ranking member respectively of the US Senate Budget Committee have introduced legislation to create a a bipartisan commission to focus on reducing the deficit.

However, there's an odd aspect to it, namely how it makes recommendations:

Conrad said the task force would have 18 members - 16 from Congress, evenly divided between both parties, and two from the administration, including the Treasury secretary.

The commission's report would be due after the 2010 elections. And at least 14 of the 18 members must agree to the report's recommendations before submitting it to Congress.

Congress would then have to vote yes or no to the commission'ssuggestions without filibustering or amending them. And they would need to do so before Dec. 31, 2010. To pass, the recommendations would need to garner at least 60 votes in the Senate and a 60% majority of votes in the House.

Seems to set a lot of high bars to get recommendations passed by Congress.

While most of US politics is focused on health care or Tiger Woods, the House and Senate have been working on other reforms. Senator Chris Dodd is trying to push through a reform bill designed to put tighter control measures on the financial sector (Details), which may wind up influencing cap and trade legislation.

Arab countries are reportedly considering switching around from the dollar for oil sales to a basket of currencies.. That may not be all bad argues an article in Time. NPR's Marketplace says it's all doom and gloom, noting that the dollar is backed by American power and stability.

Congressional Quarterly takes a look at Rep. Bobby L. Rush (IL-1) and the campaign fiance system. It seems not all the funds a candidate receives have to go to the campaign. Some of Rush's receipts helped fund a church he founded, which is legal. It's something all lawmakers to do in some form or fashion:

Other lawmakers have influenced their communities -- and preserved their legacies -- by setting up tax-exempt nonprofits, often in the defense and technology industries, to take advantage of federal grant, contract and earmark opportunities.

Rush's approach is different because a church is his center of operations and he concentrates on social services. But what his approach has in common with those of other lawmakers is the earmarking of tax dollars -- Rush earmarked nearly $700,000 for two related social services entities he helped establish.

I wonder if the "flexibility" of campaign funds is made clear when candidates are asking for them.

Overhaul of the U.S. financial system comes up for a vote in the House this Friday. Rep. Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee plans bring legislation to a vote that would allow shareholders to have a greater say on ceo salaries and make their pay structure more visible to the them at least. The point is to try to show the huge-risk, huge-reward relationship in the financial industry and give shareholders power to curb that if it's deemed necessary. Republicans say more time and hearings are needed to go over the legislation, since it would invest too much power in the government.

Congress critters, that's who, about 240 of them, mostly Republicans but at least 50 Democrats. Considering that the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the U.S. and the economic melt down, some would like to see the Fed throw open its books and thanks to Representative Ron Paul (yeah the guy who wanted to be President), the House has the votes to do so.

Meanwhile, in the other chamber, Senator Jim DeMint tried to attach an amendment about an audit to a bill, but it was rejected on technicalities. It seems the Democratic leadership doesn't want this to happen.

U.S. President Obama has released a plan to reform the country's financial regulations.

The plan that Obama rolled out Wednesday would expand government oversight of banks and other financial institutions, establish a new consumer financial protection agency, and more vigorously regulate both financial markets and unusual financial instruments like credit derivatives.

But the plan is meeting resistance as officials chafe at the idea of more government regulation.

After the Fed's controversial bailout of insurance giant AIG, that's true on both sides of the aisle: In an interview Wednesday on MSNBC, Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner said he is concerned that giving the Fed more power will compromise its independence and "draw it further into the political process."

James Gattuso, a senior research fellow in regulatory policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees.

"The more power given to the Fed, the more political it becomes," Gattuso says. He suggested that accountability would emerge as an issue on the Fed's Board of Governors, whose members are appointed for terms of 14 years.

What's a political party to when they have the Presidency, House and Senate? If you're thinking raise more money than the minority party, you'd be right. Too bad it's not that much more than the minority party.

The DNC, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have raised a combined $56 million in the first four months of the year, compared with $54.9 million for the three Republican party committees. And while the DNC has picked up its fundraising pace from two years ago, the Democrats’ two congressional campaign committees are lagging behind their 2007 numbers.

Not a big issue at this point, the 2010 elections are still over a ways off, but surprising.

Everyone loves the idea of the government spending less money, as long as it doesn't affect their city/state/region. As the Obama administration prepares to detail its proposed 17 billion in tax cuts, resistance is gearing up to fight specific cuts.

For instance, there's the Even Start program, designed to help low income families become literate. The Bush administration tried to cut it, and it's on the chopping block under Obama. Both administrations cite low performance scores for the the program. But the House likes the program and will probably vote to keep it, as it provides money to local communities and supporting a program that promotes literacy looks better than proposing a program that kills it.

Obama has a meeting with his almost full Cabinet this morning. Almost full because Kathleen Sebelius's nomination as Health and Human Services Secretary has been held up by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) , who is worried about contributions she got from a doctor who performs abortions.

What's the subject of Cabinet meeting? Cutting government spending by a whopping $100 Million.

Death of the California Dream

Obama continues to move at a rapid pace, announcing a $3.6 trillion budget designed to get the sluggish US economy moving, cut healthcare costs and encourage alternative fuels.

Krugman likes it, others question the numbers and Republicans aren't impressed at all.

After much back and forth, the House and Senate have agreed to a $789 billion Stimulus package, showcasing Obama's power and limits, especially in bipartisanship.

Today, Timothy Geithner unveiled the Treasury's plan to shore up financial markets, translated here. Confidence inspiring it ain't.

Last week Representative Barney Frank introduced legislation providing oversight for the other $350 billion of bailout money. Frank later changed his mind, saying he'll take Obama at his word, but Republicans aren't so trusting. Meanwhle, Obama has already promised a veto of any blockage of his administration accessing the funds.

Not to worry, the U.S. Congress's automatic pay raise is still set to happen in 2009. There is a bill in the House to freeze pay, but it hasn't gotten much support.

Help me reconcile my disdain for how political campaigns are financed, and my preferred candidate's decision to forgo public financing and raise/spend more money than god.    Continues...

As 'hockey mom" Sarah Palin sat down for her first CNN interview, reports came out of the $150K clothing spree the RNC treated her to.

Political contributions of $200 or less don't have be publicly reported, a fact that is raising questions about some of Obama's campaign donations.