Month: February 2014

Here’s an  important primer from George Zornick that explains why progressives are still fighting to keep the Chained-CPI out of the president’s budget, even if it is a dead letter:

Obama’s chained CPI proposal from last year would take $9,521 in cumulative benefits from an average 85-year-old on Social Security, even with protections included in the proposal — including a small benefit bump at age 75 and protections for the very poor retirees. 

Already this year, progressives have had to stomach $8.6 billion in food-stamp cuts in the farm bill Obama signed, along with Congress’s failure to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.

Amid the economic downturn, especially for lower- and middle-income Americans, many liberals say they can’t accept these cuts to Social Security, too. “These are tough times for our country. With the middle class struggling and more people living in poverty than ever before, we urge you not to propose cuts in your budget to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits – cuts which would make life even more difficult for some of the most vulnerable people in America,” the letter from Senate Democrats said.

There is a strategic element here as well. White House officials have explicitly argued in the past that chained CPI isn’t their preferred policy but a concession Obama would be willing to make in exchange for increased tax revenue and new spending on such things as education and infrastructure. 

But many progressives, of course, see it differently. In an election year, and one in which immigration reform will be the main issue anyhow, the chances that Congress passes some sort of grand bargain on entitlements and new spending are somewhere around zero. 

In that context, many progressives think Social Security cuts on the table is a dangerous move. They think this is true in the short term, because as you may recall, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee attacked Democrats last year when chained CPI was in Obama’s budget. 

They also think it’s unwise in the long term, because by repeatedly making a pre-concession of Social Security cuts year after year, Democrats mainstream the idea and make eventual benefit reductions inevitable. Liberals have been making this argument for years, and the fact that chained CPI keeps showing up in Obama’s budget seems to prove their point.

Also too, with the Villagers giddily celebrating the new comity around the recently passed continuing resolution and debt ceiling hike along with the restoration of the military retiree benefits and the Gephardt Rule, can we really be so sure that they can’t get the Chained-CPI passed? I certainly doubt it — these Republicans certainly seem a kooky as ever — but who knows? Is it a good idea to keep counting on Tea Party lunacy just so the president can have “credibility” with the deficit hawks?

.

Must read ‘o the day: 93 year old Roger Angell on getting old

by digby

Just read the whole thing.

An excerpt:

… I’ve not yet forgotten Keats or Dick Cheney or what’s waiting for me at the dry cleaner’s today. As of right now, I’m not Christopher Hitchens or Tony Judt or Nora Ephron; I’m not dead and not yet mindless in a reliable upstate facility. Decline and disaster impend, but my thoughts don’t linger there. It shouldn’t surprise me if at this time next week I’m surrounded by family, gathered on short notice—they’re sad and shocked but also a little pissed off to be here—to help decide, after what’s happened, what’s to be done with me now. It must be this hovering knowledge, that two-ton safe swaying on a frayed rope just over my head, that makes everyone so glad to see me again. “How great you’re looking! Wow, tell me your secret!” they kindly cry when they happen upon me crossing the street or exiting a dinghy or departing an X-ray room, while the little balloon over their heads reads, “Holy shit—he’s still vertical!”

This essay may be the most interesting meditation on aging I’ve ever read. Even today, still decades younger but feeling old,  I can’t only hope to be as funny, erudite and clear as Roger Angell is at the age of 93. I feel a renewed sense of hope that despite the growing catalog of physical impairment and personal loss, this last act can be a really, really good one.

.

It’s the guns, Part 7,986

by digby

This was a ridiculous dispute. And there’s no excuse for it escalating into violence. But people are often ridiculous and they are prone to get angry when their property is defaced.

Which is why it’s a really bad idea for humans to have such easy access to deadly weapons:

An Arkansas man is facing first degree murder charges after he allegedly shot a 15-year-old girl to death over the weekend because she was participating in a prank on his 16-year-old son.

Shortly before 1:00 a.m. on Saturday morning, Little Rock Police responded to the Kum and Go gas station after a call about a shooting, according to KARK. Officers found a white Hyundai Sonata with bullet holes, broken glass, and four teens between the ages of 14 and 18.

A 15-year-old girl who was inside the car was identified as Adrian Broadway. She later died from a gunshot wound after being taken to nearby hospital. The car’s 18-year-old driver, Dshone Nelson, suffered minor injuries from broken glass.

The surviving teen victims reportedly told police that they had attempted to prank 48-year-old Willie Noble’s son by covering his car in eggs and leaves, KTHV reported.

“Apparently Mr. Noble’s teenage son had done a prank on some of the kids that were inside the vehicle on Halloween Night,” Lieutenant Sidney Allen explained. “As a result they were doing a retaliation prank and it ultimately had deadly results.”

After the shooting, the driver attempted to flee the scene to get help.

“It was a joke. We was friends, we was gonna come over there and clean it up,” 16-year-old Kortazha Williams, who was in the car, told KTHV. “It was supposed to be a prank; we were supposed to get up right now, and we were supposed to laugh.”

He was charged with murder and terrorism among other things.  And considering his race, it’s less likely he will be given a walk on the worst charges.  However, an unarmed 15 year old girl is dead at the hands of an angry man who would have been reduced to shouting and screaming and calling the cops if he hadn’t had a firearm handy.

.

Cold war

by digby

I realize that presidents have to make a lot of difficult decisions, but I’m hard pressed to think of any historical precedent for one sitting down and deciding which individual citizens to assassinate. Perhaps it’s happened, but I think it must be pretty rare. To secretly institutionalize the practice strikes me as a very unusual step.

One of a handful of Americans who have joined al Qaeda in Pakistan may soon find himself in the crosshairs of a U.S. killer drone, but officials will not say which one.

Current and former officials involved in the fight against terrorism tell ABC News the most likely candidates include fugitive al Qaeda mouthpiece Adam Yahiye Gadahn, the son of a California goat herder and under indictment for treason, and as many as three other American citizens who have taken up arms with al Qaeda in Pakistan or with affiliated groups battling U.S. forces along the border with Afghanistan.

Two unidentified men who each called themselves “Amriki” – “American” in Arabic – appeared several years ago in propaganda videos of an al Qaeda-aligned group in Pakistan. A third American, unnamed by sources but described as a mid-level al Qaeda facilitator in Pakistan, may also be among those possibly eyed for a drone strike for plotting attacks on other Americans.

A top al Qaeda external operations leader also believed to be hiding in Pakistan, Adnan Shukrijumah, grew up in New York and Florida but is a Guyanese citizen and legally only classified as a “U.S. Person.”
[…]
One senior official, who told ABC News that the individual under scrutiny is among a handful of known American “core” al Qaeda senior operatives in Pakistan, Syria, Somalia and possibly Yemen, added that the legalities of whether, how and who would be tasked with the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen posing a direct threat to other Americans have been resolved.

The target list has been fully vetted by administration lawyers, said knowledgeable sources, who believe there is high-level concern in the administration that one of the U.S. citizens may be collaterally killed in a strike primarily targeting a more senior al Qaeda leader. President Obama must approve any action to kill an American but incidental deaths of citizens traveling with al Qaeda targets have occurred three times in the past.

What exactly does “vetted” mean in this case? Clearly it’s not a real trial of any kind where the evidence is challenged in some sort of systematic way. How do they know the charges of “wanting to kill Americans” is really true? And is it reasonable to assassinate someone on the basis of words they’ve said or do we think they should have to have actually perpetrated some kind of act?

What kind of war is this? We citizens don’t know who these enemies are, what they want, the true nature of the threat, where they live, what their actual capabilities are or even if they’ve really done what they’re being condemned for doing. This all seems like a pretty vague basis for allowing the president of the United States to have the power to unilaterally decide which of his citizens to assassinate.

But we’ll never really know what this is all about, will we? Because we’re in a “war” that’s entirely based on secretly killing certain, specific individuals and we have no idea why or how or when it’s going to end. What the hell is really going on here?

.

Damnatio Memoriae for climate deniers

by David Atkins

The United States isn’t the only nation embarrassing itself and endangering the world on climate issues. The conservative Abbott administration in Australia is proving itself corrupt and anti-science as well:

The Abbott government has launched a formal review of Australia’s 20 per cent renewable energy target, choosing senior business figure Dick Warburton – who has been sceptical about mainstream climate change science in the past – to head it.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane launched the inquiry on Monday afternoon, with Mr Hunt saying the review’s terms of reference would focus on progress towards the target, investment certainty and its impact on electricity prices.

“We are a government that are unashamedly doing our best to take pressure off manufacturing, households, to do anything that can lower electricity prices,” Mr Hunt said.

“But this is about certainty, it is about the long-term. [The review] was always due and always predicted.”
The target, established under the Howard government and expanded under Labor, mandates that at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2020. But with electricity demand falling in Australia some industry groups complain the target – which mandates 41,000 gigawatt–hours of power be produced from renewables by decade’s end – will be overshot by up to 7 per cent.

Who wants to bet that the Abbott administration will find the 20% goal simply “too costly for consumers” and “burdensome to business”?

What’s worst about this is that Australia, with its drought-prone climate, severe weather and coastal cities, will be among the nations hardest hit by climate change. It’s also unfortunate that by the time the damage Abbott and his cronies is fully felt, most of them will be too dead to face crimes against humanity charges as they deserve.

The Romans had an elegant solution for this problem called Damnatio Memoriae, in which all villains too powerful to be held accountable during their lifetimes would be cursed and stricken from history after their deaths. For today’s corrupt climate change deniers, that may be the best bet. That and a hefty estate tax.

.

The Kochs are paving paradise to put up a parking lot

by digby

Last chance for you to win a Joni Mitchell print — and help the good guys win an election for you.

Howie sez:

If you haven’t entered the contest yet, you have ’til noon (Pacific, 3pm Eastern) right here. And if you want to contribute to Alan and Lee but have no interest in the contest, you’ll find them both on the regular Blue America page— along with all the other progressive House candidates we vetted so far this cycle.

But the real purpose of this e-mail is to remind you of what we’re up against– all of us.

The Koch brothers are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in Orlando to try to defeat Grayson with their regular complain of smears and lies. “Vicious, fraudulent negative ads. Money to burn. Who could that possibly be? Can you guess?” Grayson asked last week. And answered:

Right. It’s the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers are running attack ads against me. Already.

The Koch Brothers, Charles and David, are tied for fourth place on the list of the richest Americans. Each of them has $36 billion. That’s $36,000,000,000.00.

They own Koch Industries, which is one of the biggest polluters in America.

The Koch Brothers pledged and spent over $100 million in 2012, trying to defeat President Obama and the Democrats. That was roughly one one-thousandth of their wealth.

The Koch Brothers also spent $2 million to defeat me in 2010, through their front group “Americans for Prosperity” (AFP). And another $2 million through their front group “60 Plus”.

In 2012, their front group AFP printed 80,000 door-hangers to distribute in my district, condemning me for voting twice to raise the debt limit. I actually had voted twice against raising the debt limit – on the very bills that they cited. But the Koch Brothers don’t care. As far as they’re concerned, the truth is whatever they say it is.

Well, now they’re back, to try to beat me again. The ads in my district are paid for by the Koch front group “Concerned Veterans for America.” Virtually every nickel that the “Concerned Veterans for America” has to its name comes from a group called the TC4 Trust. And the money for the TC4 Trust comes from the Koch Brothers. The Washington Post and Open Secrets laid it all out, nice and neat, earlier this month. In a Washington Post article called “The Players in the Koch-Backed $400 Million Political Donor Network,” one of the “players” was “Concerned Veterans for America,” which “was funded almost entirely by TC4 in 2012.”

In the illustration above, Koch groups like this are called “Astroturf Agents,” “fake ‘grassroots’ groups to project an appearance of popular support for ideas and policies that benefit big corporations.”

Why do the Koch Brothers have it in for me? Is it because Slate magazine called me “the most effective Member of Congress”? Is it because Business Insider listed me as the most productive Member of Congress? Is it because I introduced more bills last year than any other Member of Congress? Is it because I passed more amendments last year– in a Republican-controlled House– than any other Member of Congress? Is it because I stood up against the military-industrial complex over war with Syria, and won?

Or is it all of the above?

Look, it’s clear at this point. Whoever ends up as the nominal Republican nominee in FL-9 this year is simply a placeholder. A proxy. A surrogate. It’s going to be me against the Koch Brothers.

As I explained yesterday, we need reach our voters, to dispel the Koch Brothers’ lies. And whether we do it through TV ads, radio ads, internet ads, mail or even yard signs, it all costs money.

I need your help, and I’m going to need it all of the time between now and Election Day. Not once– all the time. If you haven’t contributed to our campaign yet, then you need to start now. If you have contributed, then you need to do it again. If you aren’t already contributing monthly, then you need to do that– because these rotten attack ads against me are going to run monthly, weekly, daily and hourly. And if already you contribute monthly, God bless you for that, but please consider upping the ante.

This is serious. I need you to pitch in. Every dollar counts, because I count, and you count.

Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson

Click here to enter the drawing.

Attorney client privilege is so 20th century

by digby

Anybody have a problem with this?

An unnamed U.S. law firm was caught up in the global surveillance of the National Security Agency (NSA) and its overseas partners in Australia, according to a newspaper report on Saturday.

A top secret document obtained by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden shows the firm was monitored while representing a foreign government in trade disputes with the United States, according to The New York Times.

The government of Indonesia retained the law firm for trade talks, which were under surveillance by the Australian Signals Directorate, said the report, citing the February 2013 document.

The Australian agency notified the NSA that it was conducting surveillance of the talks, including communications between Indonesian officials and the U.S. law firm and offered to share the information, according to the Times.

The Australians said that “information covered by attorney-client privilege may be included” in the intelligence gathering, according to the document, which the Times described as a monthly bulletin from an NSA liaison office in Canberra, Australia.

The law firm was not identified in the document, but Mayer Brown, a Chicago-based firm with a global practice, was then advising the Indonesian government on trade, the Times said.

I didn’t think so. Attorney client privilege is sort of old fashioned anyway. After all, when you sign up for a Facebook account you’re selling off your privacy in all ways, right? Isn’t that we’re being told? And why shouldn’t the government be spying on law firms over trade talks? They’re working on behalf of the job creators to make sure all of us average citizens are safe. Let’s just move along.

Why unions?

by digby

This is why:

They ain’t dead yet

by digby

The Hill explains why progressive groups, unions and AARP and others are ramping up their efforts to get the Prsident to remove his proposal to cut Social Security from his budget. They’re hearing stuff like this and they don’t trust that the president isn’t listening. For good reason:

Deficit hawks say walking back the entitlement cuts would damage Obama’s credibility on fiscal issues, perhaps fatally.

“It just looks like caving to special interest groups. This is something he can cite as a hard choice and as standing up to his own base,” said Bob Bixby, the head of the Concord Coalition.

He said the Sanders letter is “all the more reason to keep it in” because Obama’s needs to distance himself from a “tax the rich” solution to the debt in order to foster centrist support for Democrats.

Bixby argued that because Obama already included the cuts in one budget, he cannot take them out without it looking purely political.

“He’s crossed the Rubicon. He can’t just take it out,” he said.

Another Democratic deficit hawk and former congressional aide said that removing the $250 billion in savings generated from chained CPI will make the new budget look worse in deficit terms than the 2013 budget.

“Even though it seems unlikely you will have a big deficit deal this year, the president has shown that he is at least willing to make a step in that direction.

“To that extent that the talks have failed, the question was who is being more reasonable? Reiterating his final offer to Speaker Boehner will allow the president to retain some degree of credibility,” the former aide said.

Yeah, he’s got lots credibility with the deficit hawks. Which is the 1% and the Villagers. If he wants a legacy to be the first Democrat to propose cutting Social Security and presided over unparalleled long term unemployment while the most wealthy people in the country sucked up all the wealth, he’ll let them have their way.

Meanwhile, we still have other Democrats playing a losing game:

Democrats say Obama could propose other ways to reduce the deficit that don’t cut entitlements.

Let’s not and say he did, ok? This competition to see who can cut government spending more in a recession hasn’t been working out too well.

.

They were just asking for a raise

by digby

Here’s yet another interesting intersection between race and capitalism in America:

This is from the March 10, 1919 diary entry of Cary Grayson, Woodrow Wilson’s personal doctor:

…the President said…that if the present government of Germany is recognizing the soldiers and workers councils, it is delivering itself into the hands of the bolshevists [sic]. He said the American negro returning from abroad would be our greatest medium in conveying bolshevism to America. For example, a friend recently related the experience of a lady friend wanting to employ a negro laundress offering to pay the usual wage in that community. The negress demands that she be given more money than was offered for the reason that “money is as much mine as it is yours.” Furthermore, he called attention to the fact that the French people have placed the negro soldier in France on an equality with the white men, and “it has gone to their heads.”

Jon Schwarz over at Michael Moore’s place gets to the heart of it:

The terrifying danger that the U.S. upper crust perceived in 1919 wasn’t that the lower orders were going to stage a Bolshevik revolution. It wasn’t even that they were going to try to get the right to vote and have a voice in the government. It was that they were asking for a raise.

(Also, worker councils were not a good idea that made workplaces run better, but pure revolutionary bolshevism. If you paid attention to the right-wing freakout over the UAW trying to organize the VW plant in Chattanooga, you saw nothing whatsoever has changed.)

That’s right. I think everyone knew that this laundress wasn’t spouting bolshevik propaganda. She was actually making a purely capitalist request — asking for a raise. And that was a threat.

And how did they give this threat a uniquely American spin? You guessed it:

The terrifying danger wasn’t coming from just any part of the lower orders, it was from the teeming non-white masses who want to take all our money.

Now we’re talking. This is how we did it then and how we do it now.

Read on to see how this turned into American foreign policy. We’re exceptional alright.