Month: June 2011

In a sane world

by digby

Mike Lux has written an excellent post about the challenges facing the economy and the political consequences of continuing down the path we’re on that’s well worth reading.

But somehow this conclusion doesn’t reassure me:

Given the makeup of Congress, Obama has just one chance to dramatically improve the American economy before the 2012 election, and that is to move aggressively to revitalize the housing market. He’ll have to take on Wall Street to do it, and he’ll have to pick a fight with them and their Republican allies in Congress. It’s a political fight worth having, and most importantly it would put our economy on the right path by giving it the jumpstart it needs.

Isn’t it pretty to think so?

.

We’re Partying Like it’s 1998, Baby

by digby

Hey kids! Heads up. If you always wondered what it was like during the Great Clinton Panty Raid, we’re having a little tribute to that inanity from the beltway press as we speak. Chris Matthews, Mike Isikoff and Joe DiGenova are getting the band back together! But they’ve gone full one roots and aren’t even trying to hang their teen-age prurient obsessions on “the rule ‘o law” anymore. This time they are are just openly drooling over the pictures all while pretending to be the representatives of bourgeois American morality in Smalltown USA.

Here’s one random example of the discussion:

Matthews: Mike Isikoff… I listened to someone on the TV this morning I think it was on Morning Joe. And someone said, to be blunt about it, Congressmen can call up their mistresses or their girlfriends if they’re married, there’s nothing illegal about it or professional about it. Obviously there’s a moral issue. But is there anything in the rules that says you can’t use your electronic equipment of any kind for any reason you want as long as it’s not criminal?

Isikoff: You start out with the line from the House ethics manual which says you can’t do anything that brings dishonor upon the House and I think using any government .. look if there’s any government equipment used here at all, a telephone a computer, I think that’s one more nail in the coffin…

Matthews: really? It doesn’t matter if he’s yelling through a dixie cup. Does it really matter?

Isikoff: This was a textbook example of how to inflict maximum political damage on yourself. He took what was a pretty bad situation and made it so much worse by the way he handled it starting out with his arrogance, attacking the press, lying brazenly and then having to come before the press and say almost everything he said last week was a complete lie. That doesn’t give you a lot of confidence that everything he said yesterday is going to hold up. There’s that electronic trail…

Matthews: Joe old buddy I never talk to you long enough. I’ve got to have dinner with you soon. You’re always so rich in seeing these things for what they are.

Let’s just put this in a little perspective for the older viewers like me. Suppose this was like the more traditional British sex scandals, a kinky scandal like the famous Profumo scandal without Soviet spies involved. Suppose it was just a congressman who had a lot of girlfriends. He was married but he had a lot of girlfriends. That’s not unheard of.No virtual use of electronic equipment No emails, no weird use of the phone, no twitter. The real kind of sex. Would that be at all an ethics issue?

Joe DiGenova: That’s a very interesting question Chris. I think it would depend on who the congressman was. Because one of the things that’s at work here is who Weiner was. He was the lead attack dog for the Democrats in the House if not in the Senate. He is a nasty arrogant vicious attack dog. And part of his problem is that because he was the lead dog that way, when you fall, you fall very hard. Look at the absence of supporters. And whether or not he had girlfriends, that probably wouldn’t not have made a difference. What made a difference was the photographs. The actual realistic photographs of body parts.

Matthews: that’s worse than having girlfriends, you’re saying…

DiGenova: Absolutely, absolutely. Because it also reveals a very serious psychological problem and everyone knows it. This guy has a very serious psychological problem.

Matthews: Well, this is strange Michael. It’s like avatar sex. It’s the strangest thing … I’m thinking of a case like a celebrated role model like Tiger Woods… or Wilt Chamberlain… But this is like exhibitionism, is that what you’re saying Joe? Just putting it out there so everybody’s sharing .

DiGenova: Yes it is partly that. But remember Chris,a prt of the problem is that you hear from people how he treated his staff, the bullying, and I think that’s part of this. You have to look at the entire character of a guy like this. This guy has a series of deep seated problmes and I don’t think he has a lot of friends in the Democratic Party.

Matthews then called it “brain soup.” I’m only surprised that Isikoff didn’t weigh in on whether or not Weiner is a “sex addict.” He usually holds strong opinions on such things. (And don’t be surprised by their tolerance for “the real kind of sex. They pretended to be equally appalled at Clinton and Lewinsky’s “deviant” practices too.)

To think that was the conversation we had on cable shows night after night for years in the late 90s.

.

TMZ idol worship

by digby

Politico:

David Mark

When Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) admitted that he had indeed sent suggestive photos and tweets, he apologized to Andrew Breitbart, who first published the material. The blogger has in the past criticized major news organizations for ignoring news of consequence to conservatives, while journalists have long harbored suspicions about Breitbart’s motives and methods.

Have mainstream news organizations denied Breitbart his journalistic due because his targets have largely been on the political left? Will the Weiner episode – arguably Breitbart’s biggest political scalp yet – make journalists take his work more seriously?

(Go ahead and look at the responses if you have the stomach for it.) But merely by asking the question in this, Politico has framed the argument as a matter of partisanship not journalistic integrity.

This was a big, big win for Breitbart. And he will always be successful despite his record of hoaxes and lies not because even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but because the so called liberal media just loves the stuff he does.

This is the key, you know. It’s not about his ideology — it’s about his ability to provide them with the fetid, adolescent, lizard brain, tabloid dreck they crave. In their heart of hearts they all want to be TMZ.

.

So much for “nothing will change for the vast majority of workers”

by digby

Oh heck. It doesn’t look as if this is going to go quite the way it was planned:

McKinsey, which based its projection on a survey of more than 1,300 employers of various sizes and industries and other proprietary research, found that 30 percent of employers will “definitely” or “probably” stop offering coverage in the years after 2014, when new medical insurance exchanges are supposed to be up and running.

“The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike,” according to the study, published in McKinsey Quarterly.

“While the pace and timing are difficult to predict, McKinsey research points to a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits.”

Among employers with a high awareness of the health reform law, the number likely to drop health coverage for workers rises to more than 50 percent, the report predicted.

The numbers compare to a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014, McKinsey said.

The consultant also found that at least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.

Losing employer-sponsored insurance would not prompt workers to leave their jobs, contrary to what many employers assume, McKinsey also predicted. The study found more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering insurance, although about 60 percent would expect increased compensation.

I wonder how that will work out if the economy is still in the doldrums as it very well may be? (“Hey, if you don’t like it, you can always go find another job that pays more or offers health insurance, right?)

But they wouldn’t do that would they? After all, if there’s one thing we can always count on, it’s the belief among our business leaders that they have a responsibility to their employees and their communities.

.

Ding Dong Ya Bastard!

by digby

Colbert on Paul Revere:

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The great American tradition of warning our enemies that we are about to attack them …

Well, if you just started paying attention around 2003, that would be what you think, right?

.

From principle to fetish

by digby

I have long understood that many conservatives believe that the only right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that matters is the right to bear arms. But I think Sarah Palin’s “revisionist historian” (as George W. Bush used to say) interpretation of Paul Revere’s ride reveals that this goes even deeper than that. Essentially she — and I believe quite a few of her followers — believe that the revolution was fought over the right to bear arms.

In a video released today Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encourages terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves for potential Mumbai-style attacks. Gadahn’s video laid out a new tactic for Al Qaeda to continue their murderous terrorist agenda:

America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?

At gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing a background check. An investigation by the City of New York showed that even buyers that identified themselves as people who “probably couldn’t pass a background check” were able to purchase guns at gun shows. The investigation also showed the wide variety of guns available at gun shows.

In addition, people on terrorist watch lists are not forbidden from purchasing guns and many have done just that. Gadahn’s instructions come in the wake of Associated Press reporting that showed that more than 200 people with suspected terrorist ties bought guns legally in the United States last year. Following the AP report Representative Mike Quigley introduced an amendment to the Patriot Act that would give the Attorney General the authority to block gun sales to individuals on terror watch lists. The amendment was voted down.

During the early days after 9/11, when the whole country was awash in paranoia and fear and the debate around whether or not “the constitution is a suicide pact” was roiling the country, the government rounded people up, deported without due process, instituted a domestic spying regime and suspended habeas corpus for terrorist suspects but the right to bear arms was still considered sacrosanct:

Congressional testimony by Attorney General John Ashcroft last December that the F.B.I. could not legally use records of gun background checks to investigate terrorism suspects conflicted with a formal opinion by his own legal staff, a report issued yesterday by the General Accounting Office shows.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6, Mr. Ashcroft defended his policy of refusing to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after Sept. 11 had bought guns. Mr. Ashcroft asserted that the law which created the National Instant Check System for gun purchases ”outlaws and bans” use in criminal investigations.

Mr. Ashcroft said the law ”indicates that the only permissible use for the National Instant Check System is to audit the maintenance of that system.”

But the General Accounting Office report contains an opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, dated Oct. 1, which seems to allow the checks under some conditions. ”We see nothing in the NICS regulations that prohibits the F.B.I. from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records as long as one of the genuine purposes” is auditing the use of the system, the report says.

Moreover, the Office of Legal Counsel added, it was further convinced such checks were legal because the bureau of investigation had been ”using this method” all along.

The opinion was written after the bureau asked the Justice Department for permission to examine the records on background checks to see if any detainees had purchased guns.

It is unclear who in the Justice Department read the opinion. But sometime in October, the department rejected the F.B.I.’s request.

Like I said, sacrosanct.

And if they couldn’t bend their “principles” after 9/11, I have my doubts that they will bend them now:

The Obama administration says it’s taking “seriously” a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws.

Last week, Adam Gadahn, an American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, released a video informing followers that, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms” and urging them to exploit what is commonly known as the gun show loophole.

“You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card,” Gadahn added. “So what are you waiting for?”

No matter how seriously the White House takes this, considering that the death and mayhem caused by the flow of arms to Mexican drug cartels is met with a shrug by the NRA, I’m not at all confident that the American right will budge an inch on this. It’s no longer a principle with them, it’s a dangerous, compulsive fetish. Their answer to every threat posed by this lawless gun culture is more guns.

I hate to be defeatist — and more power to those who are fighting the good fight on this issue — but I honestly don’t know what it will take to change this. If Ashcroft was able to get away with protecting the NRA’s agenda in the immediate aftermath of the most dramatic terrorist attack in history, I can’t imagine what would do it.

Media Matters has more on this Al Qaeda directive here.
.

It’s A Seven

Now here’s a novel idea! How about giving people the “choice” to opt-out of Social Security and put their money in the stock market instead?

House Republicans on Friday introduced legislation that would allow workers to partially opt out of Social Security immediately, and fully opt out after 15 years.Rep. Pete Sessions (R-NY), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, and several other Republicans introduced the Savings Account for Every American (SAFE) Act. Under the bill, workers would immediately have 6.2 percent of their wages sent to a “SAFE” account each year.That would take the place of the 6.2 percent the workers now contributed to Social Security.Another 6.2% is sent to Social Security by employers. Under the Sessions bill, employers would continue to make this matching contribution to Social Security, but after 15 years, employers could also send that amount to the employee’s SAFE account.Sessions said this transition to a private retirement savings option is needed because Social Security last year began paying out more money than it took in.”Our nation’s Social Security Trust Fund is depleting at an alarming rate, and failure to implement immediate reforms endangers the ability of Americans to plan for their retirement with the options and certainty they deserve,” Sessions said. “To simply maintain the status quo would weaken American competitiveness by adding more unsustainable debt and insolvent entitlements to our economy when we can least afford it.”Under the bill, employees would be able to make tax free contributions to their SAFE account, and take tax-free distributions at retirement age. The bill would also allow employees to stay with the Social Security program if they wish.

Of course, what this would really do is remove money from the Social Security system right now, thus endangering the system for all older workers who will still be in the system 15 years from now. I’m beginning to wonder if my demographic group is going to be the guinea pig in a Soylent Green experiment. (Sure, they’ll eventually figure out that his whole thing is unworkable, but it will be too late for the last half of the baby boom.)

Ok, no use ignoring it. Back in the 20th century my mother gave me a great piece of advice: “never put on paper what the world can’t see.” In the 21st century, I would amend that to “never put on Facebook what the world can’t see.”

Breakdown

by digby

James Fallows’ has written a very stark comment on the lesson of the failed Peter Diamond nomination: if you didn’t know our system was dysfunctional before, you can’t avoid it now:

[A]s Peter Diamond has recounted in the New York Times, Shelby has, on his own whim, decidedthat the most recent recipient of the Nobel award in economics (Diamond), doesn’t meet the Shelby Test for economic excellence. I’m more skeptical than most people about the “Nobel prize” in economics. Technically, it’s not one of the “real” Nobel prizes, and in some cases it has inflated the delusions of economists that theirs is a hard science comparable to physics or biology/medicine. But let’s be serious. A career politician with a law degree from the University of Alabama (Shelby has 8 years as a prosecutor, 40 years as a legislator). Versus the economist who has just been recognized with the highest international lifetime-achievement honor that exists in his field — and whose specialty is studying America’s worst economic problem of the moment, chronic unemployment. Hmmm, I wonder which of them might be in a better position to judge the other’s street-cred about Fed policy. Yet Senate rules let one willful politician say: No, I think not. Presumably the Nobel committee will soon offer Shelby a standing veto over its selections.

Here’s the real question: America is rich and resilient. But is it resilient enough to permit folly and self-destruction of this sort? There is no recourse against Sen. Shelby for his abuse of power except to make sure everyone knows and remembers what he has done.

I wish I thought that would have an effect, but I don’t. America has become so cynical and opportunistic (in my opinion, largely because of the example of its leadership) that Shelby is seen through the prison of his tribal affiliation and his willingness to do whatever it takes to win. Those who see him as “one of theirs” see hims as a man of principle fighting for the greater good. But that’s not the problem. We’ve always had that. It’s the other part of the equation tin which he’s seen as a savvy operator who knows how to work the system and beat it that’s problematic. The fact that he’s doing it in the US Senate, which has always been populated by egomaniacs and tools for the most part, is what makes it so startling. It used to function as a gentleman’s club where hardball politics were hidden under a veneer of mutual cooperation. I’m sure that things like this happened in the past, but you wouldn’t have found someone like Shelby taking pride in breaking the traditions of the institution and getting kudos for doing it. That he did it over this nomination at this point in history is illustrative of the bigger problem.

I don’t think this is a partisan thing. (After all, Shelby was a Democrat for many years who switched to the GOP in 1994.) This is part of the great institutional failure of our whole governing system.

.