Skip to content

Month: February 2014

The real Obamacare hustle

The real Obamacare hustle

by digby

Kevin Drum points out something that’s going to be an ongoing problem for the Democrats and the government: all problems with health care are now going to be blamed on Obamacare. He cites this little example of the AOL CEO blaming Obamacare for the fact that they’re changing their 401K matching fund policy to save themselves some expense and screw their employees:

In the CEO chair, let me give you an example of the decisions we have to make as a company: Obamacare is an additional $7.1 million expense for us as a company….As a CEO and Management Team, we had to decide “Do we pass the $7.1 million of Obamacare costs to our employees or do we try to eat as much of that as possible and cut other benefits?”

Kevin spells out the obvious:

The all-purpose punching bag gets the blame again. AOL’s health care expenses went up this year, just as they have every year since the company was founded, but this time it’s Obamacare’s fault. Why? Well, why not? It’s a mighty handy excuse, isn’t it? And it certainly distracts everyone from the fact that AOL is shafting its employees even though it just announced its best results in a decade.

Yup. This isn’t the only example. Even in my own personal life I had an acquaintance of mine insist that her employer provided insurance costs more because of Obamacare. This person is a Republican and would probably be convinced of that in any case. But she claims that her human resources representative told her this. Having dealt with corporate human resources people in my life, I can easily believe it.

The real jerks are the dishonest corporate CEOs and others who know better who are saying it to excuse screwing their employees. In fact it’s downright unpatriotic.

.

Laura’s little white slip

Laura’s little white slip

by digby

I just don’t see how the Republicans are ever going to be able to deal with their little demographic problem when their leading voices can’t keep their real thoughts to themselves. This comes from Laura Ingraham responding to Justice Sotomayor saying that she uses the term undocumented immigrants because calling “them illegal aliens seemed . . . insulting.”

After claiming that Sotomayor’s preference for one term over the other somehow reflects insufficient respect for the rule of law, Ingraham said that Justice Sotomayor’s “allegiance obviously goes to her, you know, immigrant family background, not to the U.S. Constitution.”

Sotomayor isn’t an immigrant and neither is her family. They are from Puerto Rico, which is an American territory falling under the US Constitution. Sotomayor was born in New York, which the likes of Ingraham may think is a foreign country but actually isn’t. In point of fact, it’s entirely possible that Sotomayor’s ancestors have been in America far longer than Ingraham’s.

It just popped out of Ingraham’s nasty, right wing mouth because that’s where the white right wing mind inevitably leads. And if Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Susanna Martinez forgot their talking points for a moment and said something similarly out of line, Laura Ingraham and her ilk would automatically make the same assumption. It’s how their world is organized.

Here’s the link to the comment.

.

The Christie kiss

The Christie kiss

by digby

There’s something so perfect about this happening to the man who made his phony bipartisan image (an image beloved by the Villagers) by walking along beaches with Barack Obama:

Christie, as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is scheduled to visit Fort Worth and Dallas for fundraisers Thursday, but the state’s likely GOP gubernatorial nominee, Greg Abbott, won’t be putting out the welcome mat. Abbott will be hundreds of miles away, giving a policy speech in Houston. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who isn’t seeking re-election, won’t be around, either.

Democrats said it’s another sign that Republicans are nervous about Christie’s problems in New Jersey.

Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said the concerns may be warranted.

When Christie visited Florida three weeks ago on behalf of the Republican Governors Association, Gov. Rick Scott participated, but the two men refused to meet with reporters or pose for pictures together.

“This could be a coincidence, but it is also very convenient for Scott and Abbott. Both have their own challenges, and naturally they don’t want to add Christie’s challenges on top,” Sabato said.

“Candidates have to think about the TV ads that could air. Here’s one if they are seen chumming it up with Christie on videotape and it turns out he’s not told the truth: Birds of a feather — you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps.”

Politicians have come back from stuff like this. Nixon did. Clinton did. Maybe Christie can pull it off too. But I doubt it. Both of those pols were special in ways that Christie is not. They were really smart, for one thing. And they had a survival skill that had been demonstrated over and over again. I don’t see that in Christie.

That walk on the beach with Obama turned out to be this:

Well played Mr President.

.

The vampire squid’s money funnel bled Libya dry, by @DavidOAtkins

The vampire squid’s money funnel bled Libya dry

by David Atkins

This story about Goldman Sachs’ exploitation of Libya has been making the rounds in the press, but only on the back pages and in the small links. It deserves more attention:

Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment bank, is being sued in London for selling Libya “worthless” derivatives trades in 2008 that the country’s financial managers did not understand. Libya says it lost approximately $1.2 billion on the deals, while Goldman made $350 million.

At the time, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), which invests profits from the country’s oil and gas exports, had assets worth $60 billion under former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.Goldman Sachs convinced LIA to buy long-term call options on six companies: Allianz, a German insurance and investment company; Banco Santander, a Spanish bank; Citbank, a U.S. bank; Électricité de France, a French state utility; ENI, an Italian oil company; and UniCredit, an Italian bank.

What the Libyans did not understand was that if the stocks in these six companies did not rise, their investments would become worthless. Instead the LIA executives weretaken in by a trip to Morocco as well as “small gifts, such as aftershaves and chocolates” and an offer of an internship for Mustafa Mohamed Zarti, the brother of the Libyan fund’s deputy executive director, in Dubai and London.

“The unique circumstances allowed Goldman Sachs to take advantage of the LIA’s extremely limited financial and legal experience to deliberately exploit its position of influence and to take advantage in a way that generated colossal losses for the LIA but substantial profits for Goldman Sachs,” said LIA Chairman AbdulMagid Breish in a statement.

For example, LIA paid $200 million to gamble on the value of 22.3 million Citigroupshares. At the time, these shares were worth $5.7 billion and so long as they rose in value by at least $200 million, LIA stood to get its money back and the full value of the shares. But since Citigroup’s shares did not rise by at least $200 million, LIA lost its wager.

The timing of the bets was particularly bad. Since the deals were struck in early 2008, just before the last financial crisis when most share prices tumbled, the Libyans lost their wagers.

“We think the claims are without merit, and will defend them,” Fiona Laffan, a Goldman Sachs spokeswoman in London, told Bloomberg news service.

Financial firms like Goldman aren’t just destroying the middle class here at home. They’re also destabilizing struggling and developing countries around the world for what amounts to pocket change for them.

HSBC is a drug money laundering criminal organization. JP Morgan helped destroy the American economy. And Goldman Sachs is quite literally a national security threat.

.

What nice ladies

What nice ladies

by digby

Chris Matthews flagged this video on his show today. It’s of a town hall meeting with GOP Rep Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma:

This is a person who took an oath to uphold the constitution.

His voters want to impeach and/or execute the president.

Because, among other high crimes, they think he is smuggling Muslims in airplanes into the country.

And he appears to agree with them.

Just saying.

.

Wall Street Murder Mystery

Wall Street Murder Mystery

by digby

Via Dave Dayen and Gaius Publius we have a mystery, worthy of Hollywood:

The deaths began on Sunday, January 26. London police reported that William Broeksmit, a top executive at Deutsche Bank who had retired in 2013, had been found hanged in his home in the South Kensington section of London. The day after Broeksmit was pronounced dead, Eric Ben-Artzi, a former risk analyst turned whistleblower at Deutsche Bank, was scheduled to speak at Auburn University in Alabama on his allegations that Deutsche had hid $12 billion in losses during the financial crisis with the knowledge of senior executives. Two other whistleblowers have brought similar charges against Deutsche Bank.

Just two days after Broeksmit’s death, on Tuesday, January 28, a 39-year old American, Gabriel Magee, a Vice President at JPMorgan in London, plunged to his death from the roof of the 33-story European headquarters of JPMorgan in Canary Wharf. According to Magee’s LinkedIn profile, he was involved in “Technical architecture oversight for planning, development, and operation of systems for fixed income securities and interest rate derivatives.”

Magee’s parents, Bill and Nell Magee, are not buying the official story according to press reports and are planning to travel from the United States to London to get at the truth. One of their key issues, which should also trouble the police, is how an employee obtains access to the rooftop of one of the mostly highly secure buildings in London.

One day after Magee’s death, on Wednesday, January 29, 2014, 50-year old Michael (Mike) Dueker, the Chief Economist at Russell Investments, is said to have died from a 50-foot fall from a highway ramp down an embankment in Washington state. Again, suicide is being presented by media as the likely cause. … According to a report in the New York Times in November of last year, Russell Investments was one of a number of firms that received subpoenas from New York State regulators who are probing the potential for pay-to-play schemes involving pension funds based in New York. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against Russell Investments in the matter.

Oh, and did I mention the missing Wall Street reporter?

The case of David Bird, the oil markets reporter who had worked at the Wall Street Journal for 20 years and vanished without a trace on the afternoon of January 11, has this in common with the other three tragedies: his work involves a commodities market – oil – which is under investigation by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for possible manipulation. … Bird left his Long Hill, New Jersey home on that Saturday, telling his wife he was going for a walk. An intentional disappearance is incompatible with the fact that he left the house wearing a bright red jacket and without his life-sustaining medicine he was required to take daily as a result of a liver transplant.

As GP points out all this happened in one 18 day stretch. Could be coincidence, of course. Maybe it’s even probable. But it’s very intriguing.

Cuddle up of the couch, download the story and read the whole thing.

An interesting campaign finance reform alternative, by @DavidOAtkins

An interesting campaign finance reform alternative

by David Atkins

Since the Supreme Court has illogically and immorally decided that there is no logical separation between money and speech, most legislative efforts at campaign finance reform that don’t involve Constitutional amendment are moot. In fact, campaign finance law tends to be perversely counterproductive at this point, allowing the wealthiest donors and PACs nearly free reign, but setting up myriad obstacles for smaller grassroots groups. It might even be more progressive given the current situation to throw all the campaign finance laws out and let it be a total free-for-all.

That said, there’s a new effort by Democrats in the House that might make things a little better:

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a new public-financing bill that they hope will help curb the influence of K Street lobbyists and free-spending megadonors in congressional elections.

Introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and backed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the bill would create a voluntary system of publicly financed House elections. The idea is to encourage candidates to raise more money from more people rather than relying on big donors.

Donations of up to $150 to congressional candidates would be matched at a rate of 6 to 1 — meaning a $50 check would turn into a $350 check. If candidates agreed to take only small donations, the match would increase to 9 to 1. Candidates who are able to raise more than $50,000 in small donations in the final 60 days of the election would be eligible for even more resources.

“If you create a system that makes the small donors the linchpin of the system in terms of how members of Congress directly raise the funds for their campaigns, then it gives everyday citizens much more of a role — a leveraging role — in the funding of those campaigns,” Sarbanes said in an interview.

Congress put into place voluntary public financing for presidential elections in 1976, but no such system has ever existed for congressional campaigns.

The biggest, most competitive races would still likely ignore it. But most Congressional elections aren’t those races, and a voluntary public finance system might serve to reduce some of the corrupting pressures. Pending a Constitutional amendment it may well be the best we can do at this point.

.

Republican fiscal and military hawks screw veterans. How typical.

Republican fiscal and military hawks screw veterans. How typical.

by digby

This truly surprises me and I didn’t think anything the Republicans could do would surprise me at this point. Military retirees are among the staunchest GOP supporters in the land. And they are screwing them.

This post from Angelajean at Daily Kos tells the sad tale. Everyone agrees that the cuts to the military retiree benefits in the recent budget deal must be restored. (This was the Republican “compromise” you’ll recall, which obviously would not stand since neither Republicans or Democrats backed it. Only Republicans wanted the cuts to federal workers pensions so naturally, they will remain.) In any case,  Republicans are ostentatiously supporting the repeal of these cuts. Well, except for one little thing:

Military families and veterans have been placing their bets on a different bill, one that offers not only a fix for military retirees but other solutions for many veterans issues. That would be Senator Bernie Sander’s S 1950. Senator Harry Reid has placed it on the fast track and yesterday we read that the bill would be ready for a vote on the floor of the Senate on Monday.

But Republicans are already lining up in opposition:

The GOP alternative is being led by panel ranking member Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C) as Republicans are balking at the way Sanders would pay for his $24 billion measure.

“I don’t think that’s a real offset,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters. “Because we’re withdrawing from Iraq [and Afghanistan], we’re not going to spend the money, so getting credit for money you don’t spend is not an offset.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) agreed. “I’d rather have a bill that we can pay for,” he said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said he was only opposed because of the offset.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised concerns about the funding issue, but said he also had problems with some of the provisions in the legislation.

Isn’t that special?  They’ll probably get it and then take credit for the restoration and all the military families will reward them with their continued loyalty.

And the hypocrisy is overwhelming:

Let me tell you a little something about this offset the Republicans seem so concerned about. It is a funding measure that Congress agreed upon years ago – it was a specific answer to a specific problem. Congress couldn’t agree on a way to pay for two wars but they knew they had to find some solution. It was the Overseas Contingency Operations fund and it allowed Congress to pay for two wars for more than 12 years without ever having to find an actual way to pay for the wars. That’s right – it is borrowed money. It was a work around and it has enabled Congress to spend funds that did not exist for more than 12 years. 

Well isn’t it just like a conservative Republican to agree to that kind of spending deficit as long as it pays for war?

Yes it is.

Update: here’s a win-win for you:

A new break in the GOP’s debt-ceiling strategy emerged at a private lunch on Wednesday, where House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) encouraged his allies to consider linking a restoration of recently cut military benefits with a one-year extension of the federal government’s borrowing authority.

According to two people present at the lunch and two others familiar with the session, Boehner said the maneuver would likely force Democrats to join with Republicans and also win support from conservatives, who have been upset about changes to the military’s cost-of-living benefits, which were adjusted in December.

Boehner did not endorse the idea, the sources added, but he did urge the group of more than a dozen of his loyalists to talk up the possible play with colleagues. And if the idea gains momentum, he is open to potentially bringing it to the floor, they said.

“He was very warm to it, seeing it as something that can get us out of this fix,” said one attendee, who like the others requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “I think this could be a way for us to get through the debt ceiling, but the speaker is going to spend the next few days taking the temperature of his members.”

If it’s really that simple, then let’s get ‘er done!

Otis Pike RIP

Otis Pike RIP

by digby

Former congressman Otis Pike has passed away. Here’s his obituary in the local paper.  It’s very nice.  But it omits the most important part of his 20 year congressional career. And that’s very, very sad.

In case you didn’t see my earlier exclusive excerpt of Rick Perlstein’s forthcoming book, here’s a big part of what made Otis Pike a great American lawmaker

…The [Pike] report, drafted by an Ervin Committee veteran, was, for a government document, a literary masterpiece, and hard-hitting as hell: it opened with seventy pages savaging the Ford administration’s lack of cooperation with Congress’s work, and continued, more aggressively than Pike’s public hearings—which had been plenty aggressive themselves, far more so than Senator Church’s—by documenting the CIA’s wasteful spending (where it could figure out what it spent), its bald failures at prediction, its abuses of civil liberties and its blanket indifference that any of this might pose a problem. It singled out Henry Kissinger for his “passion for secrecy” and statements “at variance with facts”; it detailed a number of failed covert actions—not naming countries, but with plenty enough identifying details to make things obvious enough for those who cared to infer. For instance, how the Nixon administration encouraged the Kurdish minority in Iraq to revolt, then abandoned them when the Shah of Iran objected. “Even in the context of covert action,” it concluded concerning that one, “ours was a cynical exercise.”


And something about all this seemed to spook cowed congressmen—who soon were voting to neuter themselves. 


The House Rules Committee approved a measure by nine votes to seven to suppress publication report unless President Ford approved its contents. The full House debated whether to accept or reject the recommendation. Those against argued that the “classification” system itself violated the canons of checks and balances that were supposed to be the foundation of the republic. A moderate Republican from Colorado pointed out that the executive branch was desperate to serve as judge and jury in the very case for which it was plaintiff: that the report definitively established that the CIA had committed “despicable, detestable acts,” but that “we are being castigated by those who perpetrate the acts and classify them.” Pike made a demystifying point: that each of these things called “secrets,” and hemmed around with such sacralizing foofaraw, talked of as if they were blatant instructions to our enemies on how to defeat us, “is a fact or opinion to which some bureaucrat has applied a rubber stamp.” A Democrat from suburban Chicago drove home the bottom line: “If we are not a coequal branch of this government, if we are not equal to the President and the Supreme Court, then let the CIA write this report; let the President write this report; and we ought to fold our tent and go home.”


To no avail. On January 29, the full House voted by two to one, led by conservatives, to suppress the very report it had authorized a year of work and several hundred thousand dollars to produce.


It all was too much for Daniel Schorr. He took his copy to his bosses at CBS: “We owe it to history to publish it,” he said. They disagreed. He went to a nonprofit organization called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to see if they could find a publishing house that might be interested, with the proceeds perhaps going to their group. They could not. Finally the alternative weekly the Village Voice agreed to publish it, in a massive special issue, and since the Reporters Committee now controlled the document, theVoice made a contribution to the group. This set off a fierce backlash among the polite guardians of journalistic decorum; the New York Times editorialized that by “making the report available for cash” Daniel Schorr was guilty of “selling secrets.” On ABC, anchor Sam Donaldson said, “There are those that argue that in an open society like ours nothing should be concealed from the public. Depending on who espouses it, that position is either cynical, or naive.” He said “mature and rational citizens” understood this—but not, apparently, Daniel Schorr. Nor his bosses at CBS News, who suspended him, though local affiliates begged CBS brass to fire him.


The House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into who leaked the document to Schorr, who never told coughed u his source; they ended up spending $350,000, interviewing 400 witnesses, coming up with, yes, one leaker, Congressman Les Aspin (D-Wisconsin)—but he had leaked it to the CIA, as a political favor.

Pike’s obituary only says that he chose to retire from congress in 1978.  But there was a reason:

[T]he unfortunate fact is that such investigations, while necessary, tend to be politically poisonous for the lawmakers who run them. Frank Church had presidential aspirations in 1975, but the investigation ate up so much of his time that it kept him from campaigning (he later groused that it might have cost him a shot at being Jimmy Carter’s vice president, too). The public and Congress, who had been furious about agency abuses of power in 1975, had mostly lost interest by the time the committee delivered its report a year later. Only one of its recommendations—the surveillance court—actually made it into law, and Church lost his Senate seat in the 1980 election following spurious accusations that his investigation had led to the assassination of a CIA station chief in Greece. The chairman of the concurrent investigative committee in the House, New York Democrat Otis Pike, saw his reputation similarly battered, and left office in 1979.

Today we have McCarthyesque authoritarians like Congressman Mike Rogers getting lots of traction in the media,  promoting dangerous unconstitutional legal theories.  Just today Andrea Mitchell featured his frightening questioning yesterday, and then allowed Congressman Mike McCaul to smear Snowden as a Russian spy even as he admitted he had no evidence, but you know, it just must be true.

This is how you get lauded in the Village: go along and get along. Wave the flag, demagogue whatever the boogieman of the moment happens to be (I guess it’s now officially Russia again …) and defend the status quo.  There’s no political upside to being a “reformer.”

That may all seem like a long time ago to a lot of you.  Perhaps you think things have changed in Washington. But that all happened in one of the greatest government oversight moments in US history — the wake of the revelations about the war , J. Edgar Hoover and the abuses of Richard Nixon. And that rubber stamp FISA Court was the best they could do.

I wish I had an easy answer for how to fix this but I always come back to Ike. Until we do something about that, our democratic values, individual rights and constitutional principles are going to remain under threat. The Military and Police apparatus of the United States is just too big, too rich and too influential and it’s driven by paranoia and stimulating martial emotionalism. It’s a problem.

*It should be noted that the NY Times obituary prominently discussed Pike’s role in trying to reform the government’s spying programs.

Republicans don’t understand the concept of “choice”. And I’m not talking about abortion

Republicans don’t understand the concept of “choice”. And I’m not talking about abortion.

by digby

Greg Sargent with the inconvenient truth:

As noted here yesterday, Republicans went mad with glee at the new Congressional Budget Office report on deficits and the Affordable Care Act, with multiple GOP officials claiming it showed the law will kill over two million jobs. That was false.

Under questioning today before the House Budget Committee from Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests Obamacare will reduce unemployment:

The CBO report found that Obamacare — through subsidizing health coverage – would reduce the amount of hours workers choose to work, to the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over 10 years. This was widely spun by Republicans as a loss of 2.5 million jobs.

To counter this, Van Hollen cited the report’s findings on Obamacare’s impact on labor demand, rather than supply. On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will “boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services.” This, the report says, “will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years.”

“When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?” Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

“Yes, that’s right,” Elmendorf said.

Republicans also like the idea of slavery — after all, people being forced to stay in underpaid jobs they loathe, without opportunity or mobility just to keep their health insurance is good for business.

.