This morning, we were watching a Senate hearing about the housing finance system, and caught a poignant moment about the consequences of "depoliticizing" home ownership. Witness Thomas Hamilton of Barclay's Capital stated that government action is creating more homeowners than the private market would, an objectively true statement. If the housing market were "depoliticized", or absent of government intervention, only those with the ability to front significant down payments (i.e. the well-to-do) would be able to become homeowners.

Would that be a good thing? What would the implications be for our nation's commitment to democracy and freedom, given the central importance of home ownership to financial independence? We can't claim to have a definitive answer to these questions, since such answers reflect values and political beliefs about the proper role of government. But we do hope you consider them with an open mind and come to your own conclusions.

And as we are wont to do, we clipped out the video for you to see for yourself. Watch it here:

This clip is also notable because it demonstrates a textbook use of branding by Republicans and their small government allies. They dub deregulation of the housing finance system as "depoliticization", a sleight of hand that obscures the legitimate ideological debate at play. A policy change to let the market reign free in deciding who can become homeowners may or may not be justified, but it is unquestionably political in nature.

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) took to the floor today to speak out in opposition to the debt deal as negotiated by the White House and Congress. He says the deal is "grotesquely unfair and it is also bad economic policy." Specifically, he criticizes the deal for leaving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table as part of deeper cuts to follow while letting top earners off the hook, going so far as to say that the rich and the powerful are asked to contribute "not one cent" towards reducing the deficit.

6:53 PM ET: This update comes from Senator Sanders' website:

Sen. Bernie Sanders today issued the following statement on why he plans to vote against a deficit-reduction deal proposed by the White House and congressional leaders:

"The wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations who are doing phenomenally well today are not being asked to contribute one penny in shared sacrifice toward deficit reduction.  On the other hand, middle-class and working families who are suffering terribly in the midst of this horrible recession are being asked to shoulder 100 percent of the human cost of lowering our deficit. This is not only grossly unfair, it is bad economic policy.

"This two-part deficit-reduction legislation is complicated, and it is impossible to predict exactly which programs will be cut and by how much because the process requires action by appropriation committees and a new super committee in months to come.

"But it is very clear that there will be devastating cuts to education, infrastructure,  Head Start and child care, LIHEAP, community health centers, environmental protection, affordable housing and many, many other programs. I am also concerned that when we hear that ‘everything is on the table' in terms of what this super committee deals with it will certainly include devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' needs, while protecting the interests of the wealthy and large corporations.

"This country needs deficit reduction, but we need to do it in a way that is fair and which will result in economic growth and job creation.  This proposal does neither and I will oppose it."

I produced a few of these throughout the 2008 election cycle, and the spirit moved me once again here in the midst of campaign silly season to go through each Senate race and provide some background to get a lay of the land. It will be useful in projecting the Senate landscape for January 2011. Since it's a lot to chew on, I'll split the analysis up by party, and the Democratic-held seats are up first. Here goes:

Summary:

Safe D: 5 (HI, MD, NY-A, NY-B, VT)
Likely D: 3 (CT, OR, WV)
D Favored: 0
Leans D: 4 (CA, NV, WA, WI)
Barely D: 5 (CO, IL, KY, MO, PA)
Barely R: 1 (NH)
Leans R: 2 (FL, OH)
R Favored: 3 (DE, IN, NC)
Likely R: 4 (AR, AZ, IA, LA)
Safe R: 10 (AL, AK, GA, ID, KS, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT)

Key: Safe D = 95%-100% chance of D victory; Likely D = 85%-95%; D Favored = 75%-85%; Leans D = 60%-75%; Barely D = 50%-60%; Barely R = 40%-50%; Leans R = 25%-40%; R Favored = 15%-25%; Likely R = 5%-15%; Safe R = 0%-5%.

By William Schoell, Main Street Insider

I often think about why Senators today use so many obstructionist procedural tools, like the filibuster and holds.  Yes, there are times when a Senator has a legitimate gripe with a certain policy or nominee and for those (rare) occasions these tools make sense to use.  But it is becoming increasingly evident that these tools are not always used for legitimate policy differences but rather for political gains.