Lieberman apparently agreed to give some No Labels-supported bill a hearing at the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill would deny salaries to members of Congress in the event that they fail to pass budgets on time, because that will definitely make the comfortable millionaires in Congress work together.

(Does the content of the budget bill matter? Like, at all? Isn’t no budget better than, I dunno, a budget that spends a zillion dollars on magic beans? Or warplanes that don’t work and might kill their pilots?)

So go thank Joe Lieberman for his leadership, on his Facebook page!

And therein lies a tale of Washington. No one in Washington favors allowing Capitol Hill insiders using non-public information to reap profits — at least not publicly. But privately, well, that’s a different story.

The Senate version of the STOCK Act differs from the House version in crucial ways.  The House bill regulates the so-called political intelligence industry, which consists of lobbyists and private businesses who milk information from members of Congress and their staff and sell it to hedge funds and other investors. The House bill requires people in the political intelligence industry to register as lobbyists. The Senate bill merely calls for study of this obscure sector of the Washington economy, which is worth an estimated $100 million, according to the Wall Street Journal.

As the Journal explained last year:

Information about what’s happening in Washington is at a premium on Wall Street these days. Government regulatory changes and economic initiatives following the 2008 financial crisis have affected numerous industries, and even minor shifts in policy can be of interest to hedge-fund managers. When the health-care bill was snaking its way through Congress in 2009, for example, hedge funds wanted to know about every twist and turn. They followed the debt-ceiling showdown over the summer just as closely.

Keen for information about what’s happening behind the scenes, hedge funds have been drilling ever deeper into the government. Thousands of political insiders are being paid by hedge funds, private-equity firms and other big investors. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, for example, is an adviser to Paulson & Co., and former Treasury Secretary John Snow works for Cerberus Capital Management. SAC Capital Advisors and Eton Park Capital Management have hired former congressional staffers.

The move to limit the scope of the STOCK Act seems to have been led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the less prominent but no less well connected Managed Funds Association. According to 2011 lobbying disclosure forms, lobbyists for both groups reached out to Congress with their clients’ concerns about the legislation.

According to Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a transparency advocacy group that lobbied for the House version of the STOCK Act, the two groups were especially concerned about the regulation of the political intelligence industry.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents some of the most powerful corporations in America and spent almost $350 million lobbying Congress over the past three years, according to OpenSecrets.org. A spokesperson for the Chamber said that the group has not taken a position on the STOCK Act.

The Managed Funds Association lists influential investment firms and banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, UBS and Barclay’s Capital as “strategic partners.” The group’s senior advisors include representatives from Eton Park Capital Management, which received an insider tip about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in July 2008, as well as representatives from Paulson & Co.,  SAC Capital Advisors, and Soros Fund Management. A spokesperson for the Managed Funds Association declined to comment on the STOCK Act.

Whether or not these lobbying groups had a hand in the writing of the Senate bill, its provisions provide protections to the political intelligence industry that the House bill does not.

Walz’s version of the STOCK Act prohibits  “any person from buying or selling any commodity for future delivery or swap while the person is in possession of material nonpublic information relating to any pending or prospective legislative action” or “material nonpublic information derived from Federal employment relating to the commodity.” It also requires  political intelligence firms to register as lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

The Senate version of the STOCK Act, sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., is less comprehensive. It merely prohibits any “Member of Congress and … employee of Congress” from using “any nonpublic information derived from the individual’s position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the individual’s duties, for personal benefit” (emphasis added). The actions of people in the political intelligence industry who use their congressional connections to sell information to the hedge funds would not be covered.

The Lieberman bill does not require political intelligence firms to register as lobbyists. It only mandates that the comptroller general and the Congressional Research Service submit studies on “the role of political intelligence in the financial markets” a year after the legislation is signed into law.

Rep. Slaughter, who has been championing the STOCK Act for five years, believes that curbing the power of the political intelligence industry is a crucial part of restoring the public’s trust in Congress.

“Our constituents didn’t send us here to line the pockets of hedge fund managers,” she has said. “If there was ever a case to show that Wall Street and Capitol Hill have become too cozy this is it, and the political intelligence industry is in desperate need of transparency, meaning they should register as lobbyists do.”

The House version of the STOCK Act got a boost from a “60 Minutes” feature on congressional insider trading last November that reported how members of Congress had used their insider’s knowledge to make profitable stock transactions. But when Republicans and Democrats rallied to support the House bill, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., suddenly balked. He canceled the mark-up by House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. – a major player in the “60 Minutes” feature and one of those eager to row back from the scandal. Cantor, who came under fire himself for having made a $15,000 bet on the dollar’s decline before last year’s summer debt ceiling fight, later told CBS News that he wanted to ensure that the legislation accounted for more than just deals based on the trading of financial instruments.

After Obama’s speech, Lieberman and Cantor scrambled to protect the Senate bill.

In a colorful floor speech on Monday, Lieberman resisted amendments to his bill by invoking  Thidwick the Moose, the kindhearted creature in a Dr. Seuss book who allowed so many of his fellow animals to climb on his antlers that they eventually fell off. (“Dr. Seuss,” it should be noted, was the pen name of the late Theodor Seuss Geisel,  a liberal Democrat, who would probably not be amused to learn that one of his fictional creations had been conscripted in the effort to protect the paid informants of Wall Street tycoons.)

For his part, Cantor told Politico yesterday that he wanted to “strengthen” the Senate bill without changing the language that calls for the study — not regulation — of the political intelligence industry.

It’s not hard to guess why Cantor and Lieberman want to leave the political intelligence industry unregulated. According to the Sunlight Foundation’s influenceexplorer.com, they are both major beneficiaries of securities and investment firms. The House majority leader and the senator have received just under $1.4 million and $3.8 million, respectively, in campaign contributions from securities and investment firms over the course of their political careers.

In a statement released after Monday’s cloture vote, Cantor said that he is “pleased” with the Senate bill, but  reiterated that he wants to have the final legislation account for more than just financial transactions based on securities exchanges. He also wants the bill to more thoroughly cover the personal finances of members of the executive branch. He said the bill did not “go far enough.”

As  for regulation of  the political intelligence industry, he suggested that would be going too far.

“I think that the Senate bill … speaks to the potential misuse of that kind of information and untoward activity on the part of, not Members of Congress, but others that are in the business of monitoring Washington,” he said on Tuesday at a press conference. “I think that in advocating — in putting forth a directive to get underneath that kind of activity — to really begin to determine what it is — is something that is helpful.”

If you parse Cantor’s nervous language, he is saying more time is needed to assess whether or not Congress should prohibit private interests from cashing in on insider knowledge harvested on Capitol Hill. If Cantor and Lieberman have their way, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act will ensure that some people can continue secretly trading on congressional knowledge.

Walz and Slaughter say they will file what is known as discharge petition to advance their bill this week.  If a majority of the House signs the petition, the bill can immediately advance to the House floor for consideration. Whether their bill will reach President Obama’s desk is still in doubt. The hidden power of Wall Street and the hedge funds — “the political intelligence industry” — is not.

“Partisan gridlock” is to blame for the failure of “jobs bills” from each party.

Which partisans, exactly?

Senate Democrats on Thursday came up nine votes short of the 60 needed to advance their infrastructure bill past a key procedural hurdle. The vote was 51-49, with all Republicans and two members of the Democratic caucus — Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — voting no.

What happened is that the big jobs bill “failed” in the Senate despite receiving more than 50 votes because of the Republican tactic of effectively filibustering everything. So Democrats split the big bill into smaller bills, which have also failed because every single Republican plus independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and conservative Democrat Ben Nelson joined Republicans in refusing to invoke cloture, thus preventing the bills from actually coming to a real vote. The Republican “jobs bill” is a “jobs bill” in name only, and was presented solely so that Republicans could claim to have a “jobs bill.” Also, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are trolls who hate the Democratic Party and constantly work against its interests.

The press has helpfully enabled Republican Senate obstructionism by reporting on it as if bills “losing” despite winning 51 percent of the vote is totally normal and acceptable.

The problem, basically, is that “Republicans continue now-normalized practice of abuse of Senate procedure to block popular jobs bills because they object to raising taxes on rich people and wish to deny the president legislative victories” does not sound as objective as “Both parties block jobs bills.”

But even by the sorry standards of the mainstream press, this story is ridiculous. Both parties have jobs bills, both parties block jobs bills, and the concept of “partisan gridlock” has somehow gained sentience and agency and now works to defeat popular legislation independent of the actions and desires of actual human legislators!

Lieberman, the “model purple senator” and avowed champion of moderation, is surely praising centrist Republican Jon Huntsman and pragmatic former blue-state governor Mitt Romney, right? Nope. Lieberman instead has kind words for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, the 2012 race’s two most outspoken conservatives.

Why does Joe Lieberman, former Democratic candidate for vice president, like Bachmann and Perry so much? (I mean besides because those two are the ones who inspire the more liberal fear and loathing?) Because Bachmann and Perry share Joe Lieberman’s love of constant sanctimonious religious moralizing, of course.

Lieberman respects Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, two Republican presidential contenders who have spoken up about their faith on the trail. “I know this got controversial recently, with Governor Perry and Congresswoman Bachmann. But they didn’t give up their First Amendment right to free expression and freedom of religion when they decided to run for president,” he says. “I like it when a candidate, if they feel comfortable, talks about their faith. It’s very interesting to me; it tells me more about the candidate, giving me one more factor to evaluate about what kind of president they would be.”

“Others may be turned off by it, even by the very fact that you’re talking about it, or the way you’re articulating it,” Lieberman says. “That’s the risk you take.” But he emphasizes that while some may find Perry’s public prayers troubling, or Bachmann’s Christian declarations strange, many Americans find such words “reassuring.” In this sense, he urges all politicians, if they are so inclined, to speak up, even if they are not religious experts, in order to make politics more hospitable to religious discussions.

Yes, a lot of work still needs to be done to make politics more hospitable to constant pious invocations of The Lord. It is a good thing Joe Lieberman is standing up for the First Amendment right of all politicians everywhere to be an outspoken evangelical Christian who uses religious arguments to justify political decisions.

“This is classic America,” Lieberman says. “The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The whole history of the country is intertwined with religion. The founding documents are premised on a world view, actually a very creationist world view.” Since then, “We have found a way to invite religion into the public square without pushing all but one religion out. It’s remarkable.”

Classic America.

The Constitution actually “promises” that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which is arguably closer to “freedom from religion” than the other way around, but that’s splitting hairs. What’s important is that we all agree that the Constitution is “creationist” (?!) and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are Classic America.

(Does Joe Lieberman know that there are actually a couple members of a religious minority in the GOP race, by the way? Wouldn’t the Mormon candidates be a better example of America “inviting religions into the public square without pushing all but one religion out” than the dominionist Protestants?)

“I believe that the planned drawdown is an unnecessary risk,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, who claimed that no military leader has spoken in favor of the timetable.

Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine general expected to carry out the president’s drawdown order, has said the schedule is a bit more aggressive than the military had anticipated. Allen has cautioned that successfully winding down the war will require new progress on a wide front, including more help from allies and less Afghan corruption.

McCain — during a stop at the Kabul headquarters of the foreign military contingent, called the International Security Assistance Force — said he’s concerned there may not be enough American troops for a move from southern Afghanistan to the east to “finish the job there.” There are currently about 90,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan among a total international force of more than 132,000.

NATO has deployed the bulk of its forces to Helmand and Kandahar, two southern provinces where Afghan Taliban influence is strong, but international terrorist groups are less influential.

McCain said the drawdown will deprive NATO “to a significant degree” as it attempts to pacify eastern Afghanistan next summer.

Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, cited gains in Afghan security force recruitment and capability and said he was optimistic that native forces would soon be ready to take over security. But Graham also worried Obama’s withdrawal plan may reduce U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan too quickly.

“Withdrawal is what the enemy hopes to hear,” said Graham. “Our goal is to make sure that the enemy doesn’t hear withdrawal and the Afghan people don’t hear withdrawal.”

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said it was important to reassure Afghans that they will continue to receive help long after the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

“We’re certainly going to be here in great numbers until the end of 2014 and I hope as a result of a strategic long-term partnership with Afghanistan that we will have a military presence here and cooperation here with our Afghan partners for a long time after that,” said Lieberman.

The senators were skeptical about Western efforts to reach a negotiated peace with the Taliban’s leadership and suggested that political compromises with the insurgents could betray the Afghan people.

“I don’t think there will be serious negotiations with the Taliban until they are convinced that they cannot succeed in the attaining their goals through the force of arms on the battlefield,” said McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

Lieberman said that the Taliban would not seriously consider peace until coalition and Afghan forces “basically beat down and wear down the Taliban fighters and they lose their will increasingly and the leadership is isolated.” Lieberman called the idea that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, NATO leaders and insurgent commanders could talk out their differences at a peace conference “a dream, a fantasy.”

The senators’ harshest observations were reserved for Pakistan, home of many of the insurgent groups NATO forces are currently fighting in Afghanistan.

“There’s growing anger, it’s not just impatience, in the Congress of the United States toward Pakistan,” said Lieberman. “We want to have a good relationship with them but we’re tired of seeing them be both our allies and our enemies and supporting our enemies at the same time. They’ve got to decide to be our allies and we’ll be good allies to them, or we won’t.”

Shortly before the senators’ news conference in Kabul, an improvised bomb exploded on the other end of the capital, wounding three Afghan policemen, the Afghan Interior Ministry said. Insurgents have focused many of their attacks on Afghan security forces to undermine their development and NATO’s plans to transfer security operations to Afghan control.