Month: February 2011

Spy vs Spy

by digby

I feel as if all this information about corporate spying must be something out of a bad novel or a cheap movie, but apparently it’s not. In fact, it’s very real. You heard about the secret documents showing that the Department of Justice had recommended a law firm to Bank of America which immediately hired some computer hackers and spies (which also work as government contractors) to try to destroy Wikileaks. Now we find out that the same law firm and contractors were hired by the Chamber of Commerce to silence its critics. Think progress has the whole story:

According to e-mails obtained by ThinkProgress, the Chamber hired the lobbying firm Hunton and Williams. Hunton And Williams’ attorney Richard Wyatt, who once represented Food Lion in its infamous lawsuit against ABC News, was hired by the Chamber in October of last year. To assist the Chamber, Wyatt and his associates, John Woods and Bob Quackenboss, solicited a set of private security firms — HB Gary Federal, Palantir, and Berico Technologies (collectively called Team Themis) — to develop tactics for damaging progressive groups and labor unions, in particular ThinkProgress, the labor coalition called Change to Win, the SEIU, US Chamber Watch, and StopTheChamber.com.

According to one document prepared by Team Themis, the campaign included an entrapment project. The proposal called for first creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then to subsequently expose the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents. In addition, the group proposed creating a “fake insider persona” to “generate communications” with Change to Win. View a screenshot below:

The security firms hoped to obtain $200,000 for initial background research, then charge up to $2 million for a larger disinformation campaign against progressives. We don’t know if the proposal was accepted after Phase 1 was completed.

The e-mails ThinkProgress acquired are available widely on the web. They were posted by members of “Anonymous,” the hactivist community responsible for taking down websites for oppressive regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and American corporations that have censored WikiLeaks. Anonymous published the emails from HB Gary Federal because an executive at the firm, Aaron Barr, was trying to take Anonymous down. Barr claimed that he had penetrated Anonymous and was hoping to sell the data to Bank of America and to federal authorities in the United States. In response, members of Anonymous hacked into Barr’s email and published some 40,000 company e-mails.

That whole thing is very similar to the BofA campaign against Glenn Greenwald and others and you will not believe how disgusting and frightening some of this stuff was. They seemed to be particularly concerned with internet activity and targeted the families of labor activists and bloggers — the dossiers include pictures of the kids and tracking of people’s wives’ private activities. It’s a truly creepy story and it kind of takes your breath away to think they went that far. I would say they need to be prosecuted except that the government seems to be supporting them in their efforts.

But this really takes the cake:

The emails from Aaron Barr, an executive at the private security firm HB Gary, detailed information about political opponents’ children, spouses, and personal lives. While Barr had no problems using the personal information of his opponents, he applies a different standard to himself.

Recall, the document disclosures arose when Barr — while working for corporate clients — triumphantly proclaimed to the Financial Times that he had uncovered the identities of “Anonymous,” the pro-WikiLeaks hacktivist community. The hackers then responded by leaking Barr’s emails. When that occurred, Barr moaned that his personal privacy had been violated:

Why did he talk to the Financial Times in the first place? Barr says he had been preparing to give a talk at the B-Sides security conference in San Francisco on Feb. 14 about information security in social media, and he wanted to drum up some publicity ahead of time to help spur the debate.

“Do I regret it now? Sure,” he says, with a short laugh. “I’m getting personal threats from people, and I have two kids. I have two four-year old kids. Nothing is worth that.”

Sure he is. As far as I can tell the mainstream press has completely ignored this story, which is par for the course. (Why should they be interested if corporate American and the government is in cahoots with a law firm and a bunch of security experts to destroy their political opponents?) So I somehow doubt that this fellow is getting any “personal threats.” But I’m sure in his mind being criticized by some bloggers is much worse than what he is revealed to have done on behalf of his corporate clients.

I find it ironic that this is being revealed at the same moment that I’m watching the events in Egypt unfold on my TV in the background. Lot’s of talk about freedom there, with shots of Joe Biden in the corner of the screen extolling the virtues of democracy and liberty for all. And as an American I don’t think I’ve ever felt more paranoid in my life.

Update: Greenwald has much more on this, here.
.

Empty Hugo Boss

by digby

Most smart people I know think that Mitt Romney is the only possible GOP challenger who could give Obama a race. But I honestly don’t think he’ll get the nomination, much less win the election. He is out of central casting and has the “business experience” so prized by Americans (who often confuse a wealthy playboy’s sinecures with entrepreneurial genius) so on paper he seems to be hard to beat. But the truth is that there is something shifty and just plain wrong about the guy that I don’t think can be overcome.

Here’s one more piece of evidence that the overwhelming sense of mistrust in this man is well founded. After having lurched back to the center after his disgraceful rightwing pander in 2008 he is now bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball. Today it was revealed that he has “revised” his autobiography:

The first rewrite excises a relatively even-handed assessment of the 2009 economic-stimulus package. In the original, Romney wrote that it “will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have.” The paperback pronounces the stimulus “a failure,” and blasts Obama’s “economic missteps” with conservative red-meat language — for example: “This is the first time government has declared war on free enterprise.”

The other major change comes in a chapter on health care. In the original hardcover, Romney tried to carefully distinguish between the Massachusetts law and the national version that was nearing passage as he wrote.

But the Massachusetts model has become Romney’s bête noire among conservatives, who loathe the national reform they call “Obamacare.” The rewritten paperback swings much harder, proclaiming that “Obamacare will not work and should be repealed,” and “Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states.”

Other additions in that section blame the Massachusetts legislature for altering his plan, and the current Democratic administration of Governor Deval Patrick for botching the implementation.

Asked about the changes, Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesperson for Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC, responded by e-mail: “The book was originally written in the months immediately following President Obama’s inauguration. A lot has occurred over the last two years, and these updates reflect those happenings.”

Uhm yeah, but the past didn’t change, did it?

The comment by his spokesman is so illustrative of the man himself. “Well sure, we said something completely different when everyone thought that Obama was riding high and it was important to not seem to be too very different from him. But now the electorate is very polarized and it’s not so popular for a Republican to identify in any way with his policies. Surely you can’t expect him to have any principles about these matters?”

There is something wrong with Mitt Romney. Regardless of how good he looks in his suit, it’s clearly empty — and people can just feel it. But who knows? Republicans aren’t really all that choosy are they?

.

Hosni and the football

by digby

I honestly don’t know what to say about Egypt but I feel that I should probably at least note what’s happened today while I was offline attending to life. When I left this morning I was sure that Mubarak was stepping down and felt quite ebullient (although very skeptical of Suleiman) at the idea of a peaceful revolution in Egypt of all places, coming to fruition. When I next checked, it was off and Mubarak had said that he had “transferred power” but that he wasn’t stepping down. From what I gather most people think this was the old man alone refusing to pull the trigger after having agreed.

Wow. It’s rare when you see major political events like this truly unfold before your eyes. It is usually so sterile and stage managed that you forget that not everything is controllable. It’s a fascinating story although today’s news is hardly positive.

If, like me, you missed the story in real time, Marc Lynch has written a good wrap-up of the day:

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Hosni Mubarak’s speech today was for Egypt. In the extended runup to his remarks, every sign indicated that he planned to announce his resignation: the military’s announcement that it had taken control, the shift in state television coverage, a steady stream of leaks about the speech. With the whole world watching, Mubarak instead offered a meandering, confused speech promising vague Constitutional changes and defiance of foreign pressure. He offered a vaguely worded delegation of power to Vice President Omar Suleiman, long after everyone in Egypt had stopped listening. It is virtually impossible to conceive of a more poorly conceived or executed speech.

Omar Suleiman’s televised address which followed made things even worse, if that’s possible, telling the people to go home and blaming al-Jazeera for the problems. It solidified the already deep distrust of his role among most of the opposition and of the protestors, and tied his fate to that of Mubarak. Even potentially positive ideas in their speeches, such as Constitutional amendments, were completely drowned out by their contemptuous treatment of popular demands. Things could get ugly tonight — and if things don’t explode now, then the crowds tomorrow will be absolutely massive. Whatever happens, for better or for worse, the prospects of an orderly, negotiated transition led by Omar Suleiman have just plummeted sharply.

read on

.

Calling bigots bigots

by digby

Oooh, Erick Erickson is having a hissy about Teh Gays not knowing their place and deigning to criticize Religious Right leaders who hate their guts:

I have done my best to stay out of this business, keep my mouth shut, and appreciate my friends on both sides of the CPAC divide. Had I not seen this particular attack by GOProud against long time solid conservatives I’d continue keeping my mouth shut. But this is too much. And my guess is that there aren’t many if any willing to call foul, so I will do it. As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization. … You really should read the whole thing. You’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? You’re a bigot. Wonderful trick. Sadly, it is being used on real heros within the conservative movement, including Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union. According to the dictionary, a bigot is a person “obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of [their] own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.” Chris Baron might want to look in the mirror. … While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for children, Chris Baron was signing up to work for the champions of child killing. While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for people’s right to work, GOProud was aligning itself with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. While Cleta Mitchell was helping the Senate Conservatives Fund get people like Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and others elected, GOProud was attacking Jim DeMint. While Cleta Mitchell was in super secret meetings of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy this week, GOProud was attacking Tim Pawlenty for daring to defend conservative positions on don’t ask-don’t tell. Those groups and people who have sat out CPAC this year have done so not because they hate the gays, as Grover Norquist and GOProud would have you believe, but because GOProud is not a conservative organization and its agenda is not a conservative agenda. For that, they are called losers and nasty bigots. These losers and nasty bigots have done a lot more for the conservative movement than GOProud. And I am very happy to call them my friends. This week, I’d much rather be with them than be at CPAC.

CNN must be so proud to have him as a member of “the best political team on television.”

I am enjoying Norquist’s pending excommunication though. Perhaps he ought to act more like a neutered animal and stop peeing all over the furniture and such.

.

Too Much Man Tan

by digby

In case you were confused about what’s happening with Republicans being unable to get easy legislation passed this week, Howie has the analysis here:

The trade bill outraged many Republicans and looked like it would fail, so Cantor pulled it at the last minute, egg dripping from his face. The PATRIOT Act extension just lost because Cantor hasn’t learned how to count yet. He’s too busy puffing himself up railing about defunding healthcare for hard-pressed American families. The GOP trade bill was abruptly pulled after some of the wingnuts in the caucus read it and decided it allows for too much government interference in the economy. What they objected to are the good parts of the bill– providing aid and training to workers who lose their jobs or see their hours or wages reduced due to increased imports. Republicans now plan to hold these reauthorizations hostage to get Democrats to support their really bad job-exporting “free trade” legislation with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.

Cantor losing on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act was more embarrassing because he just pointed out he isn’t paying any attention and is in over his head in his new job as Majority Leader. The bill was offered under suspension, meaning it would need a 2/3 majority, which Cantor felt would be easy with his huge majority plus plenty of Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats along for the ride. But he’s apparently not good with fractions. Although 67 Democrats did go along with him and Boehner– retiring warmonger Jane Harman among them, of course– 26 Republicans, many newly elected teabaggers bailed on the authoritarian legislation. It failed 277-148. Aside from Harman, other Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Boehner and Cantor for this despised bill were many of the worst of the worst among Democratic Members of Congress, whose default positions are almost always to vote with Boehner.

It appears that Boehner needs to spend a little bit less time crying and more time getting his “leadership team” on track. Everybody knows that the GOP is run by cracking the whip. They like it.

.

The “T” word

by digby

Here’s a headline for you:

Alan Grayson Vindicated in ‘Taliban Dan’ Claim — By Religious Right Leaders and Former Activists

That’s from Adele Stan’s article in Alternet about Sarah Posner’s blockbuster piece this week in Religion Dispatches about Bill Gothard — Daniel Webster’s mentor and spiritual leader. Stan explains:

No less a source than FactCheck.org condemned Grayson for the ad, saying that Webster’s words, made during remarks to one of Gothard’s organizations, were taken out of context. Grayson’s ad featured a clip of Webster saying, “Wives submit to your husbands.” While the admakers unwisely edited the video of Webster’s speech to suggest that was his own instruction (in reality, he was telling husbands that, when reading the Bible with their wives, to skip over those parts), a new report at Religion Dispatches by Sarah Posner makes clear that wifely submission — even in the face of abuse — is precisely the teaching given to Gothard’s followers, who include Webster.

At the time Grayson ran the ad, people all over the political spectrum were in a tizzy about using the word “Taliban” because it was outrageous to even suggest that Americans could be as primitive as those Islamic fundamentalists who still stone women for adultery. There was plenty of scholarship showing Webster’s mentor Bill Gothard’s affiliation with groups that had once called for capital punishment for gays and adulterers, and there was a ton of evidence that he personally belonged to a patriarchal cult that sits at the very fringe of American religious life.

But that was that. Grayson didn’t lose because of the ad, of course. He was in a Republican district in a Republican wave year and the shadowy conservative groups unleashed millions of dollars worth of ads against him. In his neighboring district, Suzanne Kosmas, a very polite, conservative Democrat who voted against virtually every Democratic initiative lost by a similar margin, so Grayson’s allegedly improper behavior was not the determining factor in his loss. But it is now a matter of political urban legend that this ad cost him his seat and it’s really too bad because it means that fundamentalists like Webster can never be called out on their religious views even when those religious views are totally out of the mainstream.

I wrote a lot about Bill Gothard and the religious right’s influence on the Republican Party during that election because I think these people are dangerous. And I think the assault on women’s rights we are seeing from this Republican congress bears out those fears.It is simply not true that the Tea Party is “libertarian.” They are anti-tax and anti-redistribution (for everyone but themselves) but they are very definitely in favor of using the full power of the state to inflict their religious moral views on others. And when it comes to Daniel Webster and some of the others, I would suggest that that moral view falls closer on the spectrum to Mullah Omar than it does to me.

Posner’s piece is amazing. She interviews ex-members of Gothard’s sect and other religious right leaders who reveal that he is beyond the pale even by the usual religious right standards — and that’s saying something. In interviews with evangelical scholars it becomes clear that Gothard holds extreme pre-modern patriarchal views: “It’s a culture of fear, is what it is.” Fear for women and children.

Those of you who may have seen The Duggars on their TLC reality show probably know that they are followers of The Quiverful movement which demands that women breed indiscriminately (thus resulting in Michelle personally bearing 19 children.) They are also followers of Bill Gothard, but the happy picture they create on their reality show doesn’t jibe with the stories of women who were in abusive marriages under Gothards strictures. Maybe Jim-Bob isn’t abusive toward Michelle, but if he were, Michelle would be required to bear it anyway. Not that she would have the energy to get out what with 19 children and all. Posner writes about one woman who excaped:

“Eliza,” now in her late 30s, was exposed to Gothard’s teachings her whole life, through her parents’ homeschool materials and attendance at Gothard conferences. She attended ATI conferences with her family from the time she was 12 until just two years ago. In the ATI courses, she said, Gothard’s teachings became more “wacky.”

ATI provides both homeschool materials and training courses all over the world on wide-ranging topics, including law, landscaping, music, food service, interior design, and “eternity arts.” But it’s in the gender-separated seminars that Gothard’s vision for women becomes clear: they are taught how to “radiate the brightness of the Lord Jesus Christ through their thoughts, words, and actions,” become “virtuous women,” and recognize the importance of “falling in love with the Lord, accepting your design and realizing your unique gifts.” Gothard, who teaches that dating is wrong, and that couples should engage instead in “courtship,” maintains “the purpose of courtship is to determine a couple’s readiness for marriage and to discern the will of God for a covenant marriage that will benefit the world.”

Many ATI conferences last for days or weeks at a time. Eliza said, “I didn’t realize you could control people’s minds by sleep deprivation, lack of good food, and pumping way too much information as they could pump into them without giving them time to think… You’ve got kids there for goodness sake!”

ATI families “basically ate, breathed, lived, and slept ATI and Mr. Gothard,” said Jack.

Among other things, Eliza said, Gothard would not permit boys and girls to talk to each other, demanded a strict dress code, taught that girls should never run, and demanded that girls style their hair wavy—not straight or curly—because “wavy hair is attractive and becoming—it causes you to focus on the woman’s face instead of her body.” Gothard’s approved wavy hairstyle is meant, she said, “to attract men to your bright eyes, which will attract them to God, instead of your body.”

Eliza elaborated on how she was required to live under her father’s authority, even in adulthood. “Girls should be serving their fathers and at times they should do ministry things under their father’s direction—while they were single,” she said. “Make the most of your single years to serve God.” She remains single, something she attributes in part to her parents’ adherence to Gothard’s teachings.

As a result, she said, she never attended college (she had been educated in Christian schools until fifth grade and homeschooled for the duration of her education) and never learned skills with which she could earn a living for herself. Gothard discouraged college, she said, because he said parents shouldn’t expose their children to “alternative philosophies.” Women were expected to be under their fathers’ “authority” until marriage; because she wasn’t interested in marriage, she remained at home until very recently, but said that not being able to earn a living for herself “at this stage of my life is very scary.”

Gothard, who has never been married, teaches that dating is prohibited (a rule echoed by the Duggars on their television show) “because you’ll give away too much of your heart.” As the blogger Hopewell wrote on Garrison’s blog, the Duggars “view dating as unhealthy, leading to a diminished capacity to love your eventual spouse… They view adulthood as something that begins with a parent-approved marriage and at no other time.”

Gothard’s ATI is the largest distributor of homeschooling material in the US:

2003–1,096,000 estimated homeschool children K-12, a 29% increase from 1999 which showed 850,000 students (general population increased only 1%) (NCES)

2007-2008–2.0 to 2.5 million homeschooled students K-12 (NHERI)
Home education grows about 5-12% per year (NHERI)

I am told by many liberals that it’s wrong to be concerned about the fact that Daniel Webster is one of the most powerful people in the nation. Or that others like him, including Jim Bob Duggar, are in politics. And I just can’t go along with that. As far as I’m concerned it’s the same thing as ignoring the rise of the Taliban back in the 1990s, when people like Grover Norquist and Dana Rohrabacher were extolling their virtues as men of God who were bringing order to chaos in Afghanistan while women’s rights groups like RAWA were desperately trying to get the word out about the repression of women. We were told that women’s rights have different cultural meanings and that it was inappropriate to be concerned. I don’t think that worked out very well.

The fact is that women’s rights are human rights and when patriarchal religious fundamentalists of any stripe become political everyone should be concerned, because it isn’t “just about women” (although that’s an offensive way to think about it in itself) it’s about men too. These people are authoritarians and should be exposed for what they are.

Grayson tried to do that and used the “T” word, which is out of bounds because apparently Americans can never be compared to anything evil, whether historical or contemporary, even if the analogy is extremely apt. He got hammered not only for being imprecise in his ad but for taking on his opponents fringe religious views at all. I’m sure it was noted by other politicians and it will be a cold day in hell before anyone does it again. And that’s too bad because Grayson was right. Webster is a member of a fringe, patriarchal cult that is as far out of the Christian mainstream as the Taliban is outside the mainstream of Islam which

gained power through their political efforts

. Let’s hope the Christian Reconstructionists in the Tea Party (and there are many) don’t have similar success. It may be unlikely but the fact that it’s becoming increasingly impossible to even talk about this in real terms means I doubt anyone would even know it’s happened until after the fact.

I urge you to read Posner’s whole article. It’s fascinating and important:“Taliban Dan’s” Teacher: Inside Bill Gothard’s Authoritarian Subculture

.

Letter to the Senator

by digby

It was reported yesterday that Senator Richard Shelby evidently thinks we are on the verge of a massive breakthrough in medical science that will lengthen life expectancy infinitely — and thus it makes perfect sense to raise the retirement age “every few years.” (I’m being generous in thinking that he’s got some inside scientific knowledge. The more likely explanation for his absurd comment is that he wants to raise the retirement age to 120 so that everyone will be dead before they can collect — or that he’s just really stupid.)

In case he’s just a typical DC lemming who is just parroting Pete Peterson’s Very Serious hired guns, Dean Baker sent him a letter laying out the facts. I doubt that Senator Shelby gives a damn about them and is simply a “faith-based” social security antagonist, but it’s worth having on record:

February 9, 2011

The Honorable Richard Shelby
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Shelby:

During a recent breakfast at the Institute for Education, you said that Social Security is actuarially unsound, that the next generation of workers would receive little or nothing from Social Security and that there is no proof that your sons would get much at all. This is badly mistaken. You should know, both for your own personal finances, and more importantly for your actions as Senator, that under any plausible set of circumstances you and your sons can anticipate a substantial Social Security benefit.

You reached the national retirement age for Social Security in 1999. While I don’t know your precise earnings history, your pay as a senator made you eligible for the maximum benefit if it were sustained for 35 years. The Social Security Trustees Report and likely your own personal finances show that a maximum wage earner retiring in 1999 receives an annual benefit of $21,674 in 2010 dollars.

The trustees’ projections show that if nothing is ever done, then Social Security would pay full benefits through the year 2037. At this point, even if Congress does nothing there still would be substantial money flowing into the program, allowing the program to pay just under 80 percent of benefits. In the case of your youngest son, he would receive $29,700 from 2037 on (in today’s dollars), if his lifetime earnings path is similar to your own (i.e. he is a maximum wage earner).

As can be seen in Table V1.F2 of the Trustees Report, Social Security’s revenue in 2040 will be equal to 13.23 percent of covered payroll, while its outlays are projected at 16.64 percent. This would be sufficient to pay 79.5 percent of scheduled benefits.

Social Security’s finances are actually projected to improve slightly over the next decade so that the program would be able to pay 81.0 percent of scheduled benefits in 2050. For your son, this would be a benefit of slightly over $30,000. The situation is projected to change little in subsequent years. This means that your youngest son should be able to get a benefit of roughly this size for as long as he lives, even if Congress never does anything to eliminate the shortfall in the program. Again, these sums are all adjusted for inflation.

You also said that the normal retirement age for social security should be raised “every several years”. However, this would amount to a cut in benefits with each successive increase in the retirement age. If the normal age of retirement is phased in to reach 70 by 2036, it would result in a 4.0 percent reduction in benefits for workers between the ages of 50-54 in 2007 and a 10 percent reduction for workers between the ages of 40-44 in 2007.

Another point worth considering is that if the normal retirement age increased every few years, many workers would find it increasingly difficult to work until they are eligible for Social Security benefits. Forty five percent of workers over the age of 58 work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult work conditions. It is hard to imagine construction workers, firefighters, or nurses working well into their mid 60’s. Many would end up taking early retirement with a considerable reduction in benefits compared to currently scheduled levels.

Of course, it would be extremely unfortunate if Congress ever allowed Social Security to pay less than the full scheduled benefit. As a political matter it also seems unlikely in a context where beneficiaries are almost 50 percent larger as a share of the adult population than they are today. It is also worth noting that the necessary increases in funding are relatively small compared to items like the rise in defense spending over the last decade, so there certainly are not major economic obstacles to maintaining full funding.

I hope that you will take the time to review the program’s finances more carefully so that when you speak on it in the future you are better informed. I would be happy to assist you in providing additional background if it would be helpful.

Regards,

Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Cc: www.cepr.net

You could pass that on to relatives who insist that because SS is broke, we need to cut it immediately.

.

Believing What They Want To Believe

by digby

If you haven’t seen this yet, watch it all the way through —- and weep for the future of your country:

It’s just so damned dumb. And I know I’m a terrible person for saying that out loud because In America every little voter is just as smart as the next obe, even if they seem a little bit slow. But it is.

And apparently, if they don’t believe he’s Muslim, they believe he’s some sort of Black Supremacist Christian that isn’t really Christian.

.

Happy days are here again?

by digby

… or is it Morning in America, I can’t remember:

Oh that’s right, it’s Winning The Future, I forgot.

via @rortybomb and TPM

Ecstatic Dances for the Human Sacrifices

by digby

Poor Chris Hayes must have felt like he had inadvertently joined the cast of the Real Housewives of DC when he went on Morning Joe this morning. Rarely have we seen so many wealthy celebrities telling each other convenient lies and insisting that others should sacrifice so they can prosper.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gosh, if only more people were like that wonderful centrist Bob Corker. The good news is that the Democrats do seem to be very interested in meeting him halfway. You may have noticed that this has been a very cold winter and it’s fairly certain that we will have climate disruptions going forward. And you may have also noticed that there is a little problem with the economy and that a lot of people are in financial trouble. So this makes perfect sense to those who believe that middle class and poor Americans need their characters built with some more sacrifice. (The wealthy, remember, must be reassured that they will not have to spend even one more penny in taxes or they will feel “uncertain” which is completely unacceptable.) :

President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget will cut several billion dollars from the government’s energy assistance fund for poor people, officials briefed on the subject told National Journal.It’s the biggest domestic spending cut disclosed so far, and one that will likely generate the most heat from the president’s traditional political allies. That would satisfy the White House, which has a vested interest in convincing Americans that it is serious about budget discipline. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, would see funding drop by about $3 billion from an authorized 2009 total of $5.1 billion. The proposed cut will not touch the program’s emergency reserve fund, about $590 million, which can be used during particularly harsh cold snaps or extended heat spells, three officials told National Journal.

Dan Pfeiffer on behalf of the White House tweeted this by way of explanation:

Tough choices = cutting things u like RT:@GlennThrush April Ryan asks good question: How does Obama feel about cutting HUD block grants?

Yes, it’s very tough on the politicians and the Villagers whose lies have reached such epic proportions that they are nearly speaking in tongues they are so feverish about cutting basic necessities for the poor. Sure, people will have to go without heat in winter, but think how hard it is on all those wealthy cosseted politicians who are selling out their constituents? It’s very, very “tough” for millionaires to explain why they need to cut basic necessities for average people while insisting that their rich patrons not be required to pay even modest increases in taxes. Imagine the discomfort at Townhall meetings if they find out that someone died? The embarrassment is too awful to contemplate.

The good news is that all the Villagers will be very, very impressed with their manly, manliness and their lavish, lobbyist fundraisers and meetings with bankers will be much more comfortable going forward. I’m a little bit worried about Andrea Mitchell though. She’s so excited about this bipartisan budget slashing (aka “sacrifice”) that I’m afraid she’s going to have a breakdown.

.