Month: December 2014

So why didn’t the GOP oppose Obama’s “unconstitutional tyranny” in the cromnibus?

by David Atkins

Greg Sargent made a good point yesterday: either it’s tyranny or it isn’t.

But conservatives are right: If you take at face value House GOP leaders’ own lurid depictions of Obama’s action as a dire Constitutional threat, they are basically rolling over in the face of it. Indeed, if they don’t exercise maximum resistance now, barring a lucky break in the courts later, there may be little they can do to stop it.

Your own interpretation of the reason Boehner and crew chose not to include brinksmanship over immigration may vary. They may have simply wished to avert a shutdown, knowing that Obama would veto anything that defied his immigration order. Or Boehner may be kowtowing to big business interests that actually support bringing immigrants out of the shadows. Or he and the rest of the leadership may be acknowledging that the GOP is a party without a future if it keeps poking Latinos in the eye.

But one would think that a party that had just won an election overwhelmingly and actually believed that the President had flagrantly violated the Constitution in a tyrannical matter would do something about it in the first big budget fight immediately following said offenses.

Unless it’s all just hot air designed to whip up their xenophobic base. That’s also a possibility. In which case, the base would be fully justified in taking the leadership to the woodshed for perfidy, exaggeration or both.

.

Alas, Babylon
by Tom Sullivan

Daniel 5:27 (KJV)

TEKEL, thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

This morning the estimable teacherken weighs his leaders in the balances and finds them wanting. Having watched the release of the torture report this week and the budget vote in the House last night, he is sickened:

Tom Harkin is supposed to be a Liberal. Then why in Hell has he moved to pay off education loan lenders by cutting funding for Pell Grants?

If Obama is opposed to torture, why are not there criminal investigations of the CIA, starting with the destruction of the waterboarding tapes, a destruction that was NOT properly authorized even within the CIA?

If this administration and the Democratic leadership of the House is in theory committed to the environment, why agree to a bill that slashes even further funding for environmental initiatives?

If this administration and the Democratic leadership of the House believes in real fiscal responsibility, why agree to a bill that slashes the enforcement budget of the Internal Revenue Service?

I refuse to watch TV right now.

If the Liberal and Progressive Senators will not filibuster this bill, then they have succumbed to the terrorism of Wall Street and the Tea Party. The Republicans not only take hostages, they get Democrats to acquiesce in their slaughter.

You have to wonder how much longer oligarchs can continue to strip America to the walls to enrich themselves before the walls collapse on them. Wikipedia’s explanation of “the hand writing on the wall” from the Book of Daniel is a negative event “easily predictable based on the current situation.” Teacherken wonders whether we are seeing “the last gasp of an Ancien Regime before the guillotines made their appearance.”

This week we watched good, “churchgoing” neighbors defend morally abhorrent, clearly illegal practices contrary to everything they learned at their parents’ knees and everything their faith declaims. We watched as politicians and “good men of business” voted for relaxed rules that Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned will guarantee more bank failures requiring taxpayer bailouts of the very same banks We the People bailed out last time. Whatever happened to moral hazard? teacherken wonders.

But I wonder something else. What are the long-term effects on the psyche of spending 40-60 hours per week for decades on end working within an economic system that values the interests of amoral artificial persons above those of flesh-and-blood ones? Has anyone done a study on that? (Not that anyone of means would pay for it.) Do we really think a few hours in church each week provide a counterbalance? I submit instead we are breeding “persons” who would sell you the air you breathe if they could control how it gets to your nose. And if you cannot afford to buy “their” air? You should have worked harder, planned better, and saved more.

“The thing is,” Ken says of events this week, “when I get sickened I get determined.”

Cynics find it easy to sit on the sidelines and not get their nice, white vinyl souls besmirched by contact with either of the major parties. When such people ask why I do what I do, I tell them if I’m not in the fight I feel like roadkill. And I don’t like feeling like roadkill. I may still get run over, but I don’t feel like roadkill. Not terribly idealistic, but there it is.

I used to be a victim. I’m not anymore.

A post for people who care but have lives

by digby

Most of you have jobs and families and lives and things to do so you probably didn’t get to hear CIA chief John Brennan’s press conference today.  Paige Lavender at Huffington Post generously translated it for busy people like you so you don’t have to wade through all the bureaucratic jargon and double speak:

Brennan: “I’m not going to talk about any type of operational activity this agency is involved in currently. I’m just not going to do it.”

What he’s really saying: The CIA might still be torturing people, but you won’t hear anything about that from me.

Brennan: “There were times when CIA officers exceeded the policy guidance that was given and the authorized techniques that were approved and determined to be lawful.”

What he’s really saying: CIA officers tortured people, putting detainees through things like medically unnecessary forced rectal rehydration and rectal feedings.

Brennan: “While the agency has a traditional bias for action and a determined focus on achieving our mission, we take exceptional pride in providing truth to power.”

What he’s really saying: The agency leans toward taking action, like making men with broken feet and legs stand in stress positions.

Brennan: “I think there’s more than enough transparency that has happened over the last couple of days, I think it’s over the top.”

What he’s really saying: We never wanted you to find out about any of this at all.

Brennan: “The Department of Justice looked at this for many years and decided that there was no prosecutable crimes there.”

What he’s really saying: We tortured people and got away with it. Deal with it.

Brennan: “The use of these unmanned aerial vehicles that you refer to as ‘drones’ and the counterterrorism effort has done tremendous work to keep this country safe.”

What he’s really saying: We’re totally using drones and we’re totally not sorry about it.

Brennan: “One of the things I’ve learned in life, I guess, is to avoid being categorical.”

What he’s really saying: I’ll keep being fuzzy on details for as long as I want, thanks.

Brennan: “There were instances where representations of the program, about the program, that were used or approved by agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise or fell short of our trade craft standards. We have acknowledged some mistakes.”

What he’s really saying: We lied about torturing people. Again, sorry we’re not sorry.

Brennan: “Detainees who were subjected to EITs at some point during their confinement subsequently provided information that our experts found to be useful and valuable in our counterterrorism efforts, and the cause and effect relationship between the application of those EITs and the ultimate provision of the information is unknown and unknowable.” 

What he’s really saying: We tortured people and we got information from people. We don’t know if they’re connected, but screw you for thinking they’re not

Now go have a drink and try to forget …

Powerful images

by digby

The protests continue. In fact, they go all the way to the steps of the Capitol:

African American Congressional staffers staged a walkout Thursday afternoon, disrupting their workday to gather on the Capitol steps in a display of unity with demonstrations against the Eric Garner and Mike Brown grand jury decisions.

More than 150 staffers quietly ascended the House of Representatives steps to lodge a silent protest in response to the deaths of both black men at the hands of white police officers.

Senate Chaplain Dr. Barry Black led the crowd in prayer, accompanied by dozens of Congressional staff and members of Congress, including civil-rights leader Rep. John Lewis. They were gathered there, Black said, to be a “voice for the voiceless.”

“Forgive us when we have failed to lift our voices for those who could not speak or breathe themselves,” Black prayed, making an unmistakeable reference to the case of Garner, whose cries of, “I can’t breathe!” became an animating impetus for protesters.

After the Thursday prayer, the crowd of Congressional staff and lawmakers posed in the iconic, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” pose.

.

QOTD: The proof is in the Texas Republicans

by digby

“Running for the presidency’s not an IQ test.” — Rick Perry

And he’s grateful for it …

.

Let’s see the Panetta Review

by digby

I have a piece in Salon today about Mark Udall’s speech on the floor and the little noticed classified information he revealed:

However, despite the risk, Udall did reveal some very important classified information anyway. And for inexplicable reasons, nobody seems to have noticed. I’m talking about information contained in the classified ”Panetta Review,” which was the document the CIA was allegedly looking for when it infiltrated the computers of the Senate staffers doing the investigation.

Udall called it a smoking gun. Here’s what he said:

The Panetta Review found that the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Congress, the president, and the public on the efficacy of its coercive techniques. The Brennan Response, in contrast, continues to insist that the CIA’s interrogations produced unique intelligence that saved lives. Yet the Panetta Review identifies dozens of documents that include inaccurate information used to justify the use of torture – and indicates that the inaccuracies it identifies do not represent an exhaustive list.

The Panetta Review further describes how detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against them. It describes how the CIA – contrary to its own representations – often tortured detainees before trying any other approach. It describes how the CIA tortured detainees even when less coercive methods were yielding intelligence. The Panetta Review further identifies cases in which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a detainee had critical intelligence at all. In other words, CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they didn’t have intelligence – not because they thought they did.

We need to see that report.

.

Good thing she had her gun handy

by digby

TPM:

A woman charged with shooting and killing her ex-husband and stepdaughter has strong connections to groups advocating for expanding open carry gun laws in Texas.

Local news outlets on Wednesday reported that Veronica Dunnachie was arrested and charged with shooting and killing her ex-husband and step daughter.

Buried in some of the initial reporting on the arrest of Dunnachie seems to have been an active participant in open carry groups in Texas. The local ABC affiliate, WFAA, noted that Dunnachie’s Facebook page is photos of her engaged in open carry firearm advocacy activities.

This is why I steer clear of anyone openly packing heat. Who knows if they might get upset about something and start blasting away?

.

Will the real John Brennan please stand up?

by digby

August 2009:

I have seen—we all have seen—how our fight against terrorists sometimes led us to stray from our ideals as a nation. Tactics such as waterboarding were not in keeping with our values as Americans, and these practices have been rightly terminated and should not, and will not, happen again.

I believe President Obama is absolutely correct: such practices not only fail to advance our counterterrorism efforts, they actually set back our efforts. They are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, increase the determination of our enemies, and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. In short, they undermine our national security.

Today:

“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s,” Mr. Brennan said.

He’s very good at telling people what they want to hear.

Update:

This pretty much sums up where we are:

 Brennan said while the methods were legal then and subsequently banned, he would “defer to policymakers” if the CIA is asked to torture again. 

h/t @froomkin

They couldn’t wait to surrender

by digby

In case you were wondering whether even the tepid economic reforms of the last few years were going to stick, I think we have our answer. The “cromnibus” bill that’s about to pass the congress and likely signed by the president shows the effectiveness of the banking lobby at always, forever, getting what it wants. And it also shows that Democrats have been eager to have an excuse to do its bidding — they are ostensibly still in charge but have evidently signed off on repeal of some of their own reforms. They couldn’t even wait until the Republicans took over to formally surrender.

Vox explains what the piece of Dodd-Frank they’re rolling back does:

What is Section 716 for?

Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute has an accessible argument for Section 716. The basic case, however, is pretty simple. When FDIC-insured institutions fail, taxpayers are left holding the bag. So regulators need to closely monitor what happens with FDIC-insured money. But custom swaps are, by their nature, hard for regulators to supervise. Forcing them out of insured institutions reduces risk in the banking system.

Moreover, allowing banks to trade swaps with FDIC-insured money constitutes an unfair subsidy to the swaps industry.

What’s the case against Section 716?

On one level, the case is obvious. Banks don’t like it because it would be more profitable to trade swaps with FDIC-insured money and banks have a lot of clout on Capitol Hill. The repeal provision appears to have been written by Citigroup’s lobbyists. But there are a lot of elements of the Dodd-Frank bill that banks don’t like. Section 716 has attracted a disproportionate level of lobbyist attention because quite a few influential bank regulators — including members of the Obama administration — opposed an initial version of it.

That made it a bit of a weak link in the Dodd-Frank firmament. The result of that opposition was the promulgation of a compromise version in which the most standardized forms of swaps are exempted from the rule.

That’s brought around many of the initial opponents, but banks still don’t like it. Their argument on the merits is that it’s actually safer to keep the swaps inside the FDIC insured institution because that way their value can be preserved for the benefit of the bank’s creditors — including the FDIC.

Proponents of the current version of the rule argue that this has to be balanced against the risks posed by exotic financial products. They say keeping the standardized swaps in and the custom swaps out strikes the right balance. The industry disagrees.

Of course it does.
.

Burger King’s Tax Inversion: A “Whopper of a Deal”

by Gaius Publius

One of the reasons Elizabeth Warren and others oppose Wall Street millionaire Antonio Weiss, Obama’s nominee for an under-secretary of the Treasury position, is his involvement as “global head of investment banking” with Lazard Ltd., a huge bank that specializes in corporate tax avoidance deals known as “inversions.” (My coverage is here and here.) As Senator Warren said in a recent speech:

“In addition to his lack of basic qualifications, Mr. Weiss was part of the Burger King inversion deal that moved the U.S. company to Canada as part of a merger that would cut down on its tax obligations,” Warren said.

Earlier she wrote in the pages of the Huffington Post:

Let’s speak plainly: This was a tax deal, plain and simple. It was
designed to reduce Burger King’s tax burden, and Weiss was an important
and highly paid part of the team.

Both Burger King and Mr. Weiss’ defenders at the New York Times have tried to claim the tax deal wasn’t really a tax deal, just sort-of a tax deal. Dealbook’s Andrew Ross Sorkin came close to accusing Warren of lying about it. Referring to the Warren comment above that starts “Let’s speak plainly,” Sorkin wrote:

While it makes a nice sound bite, Ms. Warren is, to put it politely, mistaken.

Yet he maintains with a straight face and in the same article:

That’s not to say taxes were not a consideration. They were; they just weren’t a primary factor.

Let’s see how “not a primary factor” the tax breaks could end up being.

Burger King Could Dodge Up To $1.2 Billion in U.S. Taxes Over the Next Four Years

A new report by the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness analyzes this inversion deal and its consequences. The report is brief and readable. Among its findings (my emphasis):

Burger King executives deny that they are motivated by tax reasons. However, this report demonstrates that the inversion will result in substantial U.S. tax avoidance, while Burger King continues to generate significant profits from U.S. consumers, taxpayers and the Armed Services.

This report estimates that Burger King and its largest shareholders could dodge between $400 million and $1.2 billion in U.S. taxes over the next four years. At the same time, U.S. taxpayers provide an estimated $356 million a year – $1.4 billion over four years – subsidizing Burger King’s low pay and meager benefits through public assistance programs.

These benefits could be claimed by the company. In addition, the structure of the deal offers additional benefits to its shareholders (italics and paragraphing mine):

Burger King’s Owners Could Avoid up to $820 Million in U.S. Capital Gains Taxes

Burger King has proposed a unique structure for its merger with Tim Hortons that could allow Burger King shareholders to avoid substantial capital gains taxes. The report describes two scenarios under which shareholders could avoid as little as $10 million of capital gains taxes – an extremely conservative estimate – to at least $820 million, or some amount in between.

These estimates vary widely, in part, because it is not possible to identify everyone who owns Burger King shares, the percentage of shares that they own and their country of residence. One scenario assumes that any shareholder who is a U.S. resident will be able to avoid paying capital gains taxes. Another scenario assumes that the top three entities that own 81 percent of Burger King shares would be exempt from capital gains in the merger.

Burger King Is Not a U.S. Company — It Just Makes Money Here
 
There’s more, hiding in plain sight. About Burger King itself, the report notes:

Burger King, one of America’s iconic hamburger chains, was founded in 1954 in Miami, Florida, where it remains headquartered today.[4] There are 7,155 Burger King restaurants currently operating in the United States,[5] generating an estimated $8.5 billion in annual sales.[6] America is the chain’s largest market, responsible for an estimated 52 percent of global sales.[7]

Since 2010 Burger King has been owned primarily by 3G Capital, a private equity firm founded by three Brazilian billionaires, including the richest man in Brazil.[8] It owns 69 percent of Burger King,[9] and it is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven.[10]

Under the Burger King–Tim Hortons deal, both companies would become subsidiaries of a new Canadian entity, New Red Canada Partnership, relocating Burger King’s ultimate ownership from the United States to Canada.[11]

The report itself contains links and footnotes to each of these statements. For a quick summary of all of its findings, open the report at page 5 and read “Key Findings”.

Four Takeaways

This is a lot to digest, and the report contains even more; for example, the fact that Burger King is the predominant hamburger chain on U.S. military bases. So let’s look at a few takeaways:

3G Capital, the private equity firm controlled by three Brazilian billionaires … owns 69 percent of Burger King[.]

[3G Capital] already uses aggressive tax planning to reduce the burger chain’s tax bill in some of its largest markets, including the United States. As a result, Burger King has one of the lowest effective worldwide tax rates of any major American fast food company …

It has structured its international operations around subsidiaries located in tax havens and it dodges taxes by loading costs onto its U.S. operations to minimize its U.S. taxable income.

Over the last three years, Burger Kings’ “permanently reinvested” offshore profits on which it currently avoids paying U.S. taxes have more than doubled to $499 million in 2013, while the company’s capital expenditures outside North America plummeted to just $2.4 million in 2013.

Those three Brazilian billionaires are part of the “1% of the 1%” — the tribe of the very very rich. When you buy at Burger King, you keep them in unnecessary pride and luxury, help them buy that unneeded 20th house in France, for example, or that nice-to-have 13th polo pony.

We’ll likely never know, but the last Obama bundler who made the news will be ambassador to Hungary. As John McCain put it on the floor of the Senate:

[Colleen Bradley Bell] contributed 800,000 [dollars] to Obama in the last election and bundled more than $2.1 million for President Obama’s re-election effort.

Then McCain added: 

I am not against political appointees … I understand how the game is played …

So do we, Mr. McCain. Ambassadorships are pricey. Jobs at Treasury, less so. In addition, jobs at Treasury can come with their own rewards. For example …

When You See “Burger King” — Remember the “King”

The Weiss “deal” will play out over the next weeks or months. But the Burger King deal is over and done as of Friday, December 13, 2014. If you’re reading before that date, there is no way to stop it. If you’re reading after that date, there was no way to stop it. So I’ll leave you with one thought, good any time.

When you see this logo:

Think of this man, Jorge Paulo Lemann, net worth $23 billion, and his friends at 3G Capital. These are the Kings of Burger King. Jorge Paulo Lemann, the “richest man in Brazil.” Think of him as one half of one Koch brother — in dollars that’s roughly right.

And like the American service personnel Burger King sells to, he thanks you for your support.You can thank those service personnel by withholding support … from Burger King and Antonio Weiss.

GP

.