Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Actual Responsibility

by dday

I’m going to get hammered over the head for this, but what the hell, here goes.

President Obama’s budget has been leaked to major news organizations in time for the Sunday papers, and it seeks to close a yawning deficit over the long term through entirely unobjectionable means like ending unnecessary wars and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share for using the public commons. Also, importantly, he doesn’t try to close the budget gap entirely, and he’s offering an honest appraisal of the numbers instead of the stupid budget tricks that have defined the past decade.

Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers by the end of his first term, cutting the deficit he inherited in half, said administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the budget has yet to be released. His budget plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion in 2013 — still high in dollar terms, but a more manageable 3 percent of the overall economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from “winding down the war” in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on “overseas military contingency operations” throughout Obama’s presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, primarily by making good on his promise to eliminate the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for wealthy taxpayers, whom Obama defined during the campaign as those earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule for the 2011 tax year, when the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to more than 39 percent.

Obama also proposes to maintain the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million, instead of letting it expire next year. And he proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target tax havens and corporate loopholes, among other provisions, the official said.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-war high, to 22 percent.

The other big elements of this would be to eliminate the hedge fund loophole, which would tax a hedge fund manager’s income as income instead of capital gains, and to institute a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions, which would provide revenue to the federal government by selling carbon credits at auction. And while floating a deficit equal to about 3% of GDP in 2013, which would be remarkable given the investments being made, we would have a more efficient health care system that costs less and covers more people in return.

The budget also puts in place the building blocks of what administration officials say will be a broad restructuring of the U.S. health system, an effort aimed at covering some of the 46 million Americans who lack insurance while controlling costs and improving quality. Many lawmakers said they had expected a health care overhaul to be pushed off while Obama deals with the economic crisis, but administration officials stressed they intend to forge ahead with comprehensive reform.

“The budget will kick off or facilitate a focus on getting health care done this year,” the senior official said, adding that the White House is planning a summit on health care. The event has been delayed by former senator Tom Daschle’s decision to withdraw from consideration as health secretary because of tax problems, a move that left Obama without key member of his health team.

Administration officials and outside experts say the most likely path to revamping the health system is to begin with Medicare, the federal program for retirees and people with disabilities, and Medicaid, which serves the poor. Together, the two programs cover about 100 million people at a cost of $561 billion in 2007. Making policy changes in those programs — such as rewarding physicians who computerize their medical records or paying doctors for results rather than procedures–could improve care while generating long-term savings, expert say. It also could prod private insurers to follow suit.

They are talking about reducing Medicare eligibility to age 55, and also getting rid of the grossly inefficient Medicare Advantage, which is essentially a $35 billion dollar payoff to private insurance companies.

I know people are worried about the fiscal responsibility summit. Words matter, and using the language of those who have been trying for 40 years and longer to gut the social safety net is problematic. However, I am more than willing to judge the Administration on what they do. This budget is a Democratic statement of priorities, which states pretty clearly that we need a more responsible and progressive tax system that makes sure corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share. It strives for progress in health care and climate change and a winding down of commitments to foreign military adventures. And it ends blatant giveaways to industry.

There will be details that come out that I imagine I will not particularly like, and I’ll certainly fight any off the books chicanery designed to prop up elites as well as any assaults on the social safety net in this time of economic peril. But the budget is a major document. And this one is, so far, a very respectable manifestation of liberal principles.

.

Protesting The Brownies

by digby

If you don’t read anything else this Sunday besides your Oscar ballot, read this interview with Darrell Vandeveld, the former Guantanamo prosecutor who resigned in protest, by The Talking Dog (the latest in his remarkable series of interviews with lawyers involved in the legal morass of the Bush administration’s War on Terror.)

Mr Vandeveld is a man of integrity, not just in his unwillingness to go along with these miscarriages of justice and human decency, but in his unusual honesty in revealing his own motivations and evolution of thought. It’s fascinating stuff.

Seven prosecutors have resigned from the military commissions process in protest. These aren’t bleeding heat liberal hippies — they’re prosecutors. And from this man’s account, these prosecutions are so tainted by disorganization alone that it’s nearly impossible to imagine that justice can be done.

It appears that there is no aspect of the Bush administration that wasn’t run by a malevolent and/or incompetent “Brownie” to some extent or another. At this point, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that this was the plan all along.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Pay you back with interest

By Dennis Hartley


Owen and Watts: Lawyers, guns and money.

Get this. In the Bizarro World of Tom Tykwer’s new conspiracy thriller, The International, people don’t rob banks…. banks rob people. That’s crazy! And if you think that’s weird, check this out: at one point in the film, one of the characters puts forth the proposition that true power belongs to he who controls the debt. Are you swallowing this malarkey? Oh, and it gets even better. The filmmakers even go so far as to suggest that some Third World military coups are seeded by powerful financial groups and directed from shadowy corporate boardrooms. What a fantasy! I suppose the next thing you’re gonna tell me is that these same “evil bankers” will devise some nefarious bailout plan that enables them to sustain their self-indulgent standards of high living while the world’s economy collapses-and all at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. Yeah, right.

The (fictional) international bank in question is under relentless investigation by a stalwart Interpol agent (the ever-glum Clive Owen), who is following a trail of shady arms deals all over Europe and the Near East that appear to be linked to the organization. Whenever anyone gets close to exposing the truth about the bank’s Machiavellian schemes and criminal enterprises, they die under Mysterious Circumstances (alas, it is the karma for all whistle-blowers portrayed by lower-billed actors in a conspiracy thriller). The chase leads to New York, where (for reasons I was not 100% clear on) Owen is teamed up with a Manhattan-based assistant D.A. (Naomi Watts). Complexity ensues, with tastefully-attired Eurotrash assassins lurking behind every silver-tongued bank exec.

Director Tykwer, best-known for his hyper-kinetic cult thriller Run Lola Run, seems a bit at odds with himself here. He appears to be paying homage to the intelligent, divertingly Byzantine and deliberately paced political paranoia thrillers of the 1970s, like Three Days of the Condor and The Day of the Jackal, yet he also employs structural elements more akin to the logic-defying, action-driven escapades of a James Bond/Jason Bourne adventure (an imaginatively mounted shoot-out in New York’s Guggenheim art museum is cinematically exciting, yet feels incongruent with the rest of the narrative).

That being said, I still found the film involving enough to hold my attention throughout. It’s far from a classic, but if you are a sucker for the genre (like yours truly), I think you’ll find it a worthwhile diversion. I enjoyed the Bondian travelogue device (it even has the mandatory stop in Istanbul-complete with the requisite foot chase through a crowded bazaar). Owen and Watts hold your attention (although I would have liked to have seen more screen chemistry between them, and would it kill Clive Owen to crack just a tiny little smile once in a while?) and there is an excellent supporting performance from the frequently underrated German character actor, Armin Mueller-Stahl.

The timing of the film’s release is interesting, in light of the current banking crisis and the plethora of financial scandals. From what I understand, screenwriter Eric Singer (no relation to the drummer from Kiss) based certain elements of the story on the real-life B.C.C.I. scandal. I predict that this will become the ubiquitous new trend in screen villains-the R. Allen Stanfords and Bernie Madoffs seem heaven-sent to replace Middle-Eastern terrorists as the Heavies du Jour for action thrillers. You can take that to the bank.

Previous posts with related themes:

Michael Clayton

.

Whim Justice

by digby

Joan Walsh writes:

You might remember Bagram from Alex Gibney’s devastating “Taxi to the Dark Side,” which detailed the December 2002 torture and death — I would say murder — of a 22-year-old cab driver named Dilawar by U.S. soldiers there. Or maybe you remember Tim Golden’s riveting New York Times story in 2005, detailing the death of Dilawar and another detainee at Bagram.

After the Supreme Court ruled that Guantánamo detainees had the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, four Bagram prisoners tried to challenge their detention in U.S. District Court in Washington. The prisoners say the American military had detained and interrogated them without any charges and without letting them contact attorneys. According to AP, the suit was filed by relatives on their behalf; that was their only access to the legal system. The Bush administration defended against the suit by claiming all Bagram detainees have been deemed “enemy combatants” who had no right to U.S. courts. Today lawyers for the Obama administration decided to embrace the Bush defense.

I’m not sure what the legal or moral distinction between Guantanamo and Bagram might be, but the history of both hellholes is so bad that they not only shouldn’t they try to legally justify holding people there, they should destroy them completely.

I guess if you’re unlucky enough to live in a country the United States has invaded, you just have to take your chances and hope you don’t accidentally get caught up in the Kafkaesque prison nightmare we seem to favor. There’s no way out unless someone decides, out of the goodness of their hearts or perhaps on a whim, to let you go.

.

Cutting Corners

by digby

Here’s an email I received yesterday from regular reader Sleon about E coli conservatism and its consequences:

I wanted to thank you for your piece on the issue of the FDA, medical device companies, the corruption surrounding them and the laws they got enacted to prevent victims of defective products from suing them. I am one of those people. I had a defective lead (the wire that that connects my defibrillator to the heart itself) installed and when it failed, the device shocked me repeatedly. The device manufacturers euphemistically refer to those shocks as “inappropriate” and the sensation “uncomfortable but fleeting”, but I and many other patients I have spoken with call them excruciating and terrifying. It had only been installed a few weeks before and so I had to undergo surgery again to have it replaced. It turns out the failed product was a new one, supposedly improved, that had recently been sanctioned by the FDA. After the second surgery, the electrophysiologist who performed the operation followed up with the manufacturer and was told by someone there that they had already been “looking into” reports of other failures. The stress on my body from the second surgery soon caused my heart to go into an abnormal rhythm, which triggered additional shocks (10 in five minutes because the device itself couldn’t actually correct that particular kind of arrhythmia) and the whole incident was nearly fatal.

Even so it was still more than six months before the company issued a recall, though doctors like mine (who is one of the leading experts in these surgeries in all of new England) had refused to continue implanting them much earlier. I sought legal counsel afterwards and my attorney recommended joining a class-action suit that was in the works, rather than trying to go at them on my own. I took that advice even though at the time I was less interested in suing them for making a defective product than I was for their knowing it was defective, but still allowing it to be placed inside my body. These products are extremely expensive to develop and the company’s brass must have decided it was more profitable to continue to sell as many as possible before they were forced to recall them, in part because they had recently successfully lobbied for a new law they thought would protect them from lawsuits.

And as of today, that’s exactly what happened. The judge hearing the case threw it out citing the new law that said since the FDA had approved the device the manufacturer was protected from suits. Since then however, there have been numerous press reports that scientists and other whistleblowers within the agency are beginning to expose the corruption at the heart of the Bush FDA’s symbiotic relationship with the manufacturers – and in addition to outright graft and administrative incompetence, the certification process had been reduced to the manufacturer telling the FDA the product was safe and the FDA then certifying it was so. That, coupled with the fact that Congress has begun to consider clarifying the law in question to remove the protection loophole court decisions have provided the manufacturers, leads me to hope our rights will eventually be restored in this case. It is, of course, only the cost of punitive sanctions that will protect the public from the greed of under-regulated corporations like this.

Many people who received this and other defective parts and devices have been killed by them. I’m one of the lucky ones. All I had to do was suffer the torture of the “inappropriate” shocks; go through unnecessary additional surgeries; become so sick afterwards I nearly died; lose 20 pounds in 10 days as a result; miss a lot of work – it was months before I was back to my full, regular schedule; and suffer from repeated nightmares to this day of the device failing and shocking me again and again.

This is all part of what happens when the deregulation fetishists have their way. Add in that the political appointees entrusted with the agencies created to protect us from the unscrupulous have in fact worked to weaken and destroy the oversight we ought to have learned time and time again is necessary. The result is a world where the powerful control the legal process to the point where they can make profit trump public safety and morality. While we face many other pressing problems, I would hope we can find time to urge our representatives to support legislation that will restore sanity to the process and the necessary resources to protect us to the agencies charged with doing so.

Sincerely,
sleon

I’m convinced that one of the mistakes we’ve made over the years is not telling enough stories of real people who were affected by the conservative movement’s deregulation fervor. When they can keep it all abstract and clean it sounds great. It’s not so impressive when you see the human results of their “ideology.”

.

Best Mommies For The Job

by digby

What the hell?

US News & World Report’s Washington Whispers page currently features a poll asking readers who they would prefer to run a daycare center for their kids: First Lady Michelle Obama, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Why didn’t they just ask which one you’d rather get a blow job from?

I suppose it does make the editors at the NY Post feel better to know that they aren’t the only ignorant cretins in the new business these days.

.

Kamikazee Governors

by digby

I guess Jindahl and Barbour figure they’ve got four years for the economy to improve enough that their voters won’t remember that they put them out on the street during the recession:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states.

In an interview Friday, Barbour said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance.

I’m actually surprised that they chose unemployment insurance to make their stand. This isn’t aimed at the poor, who they always give the shaft, but actual voting, tax-paying workers. Do they think these folks won’t notice? I sure hope the Democratic Party is planning to explain it to them.

.

Character Building

by digby

I just love it when people who have screwed up on an epic scale turn around and tell you that the results of their handiwork are good for you because they build character. That’s essentially what Michael Gersen is trying to sell in today’s column.

After devoting some throwaway lines to the deteriorating mental health, loss of security and grinding poverty brought on by economic mismanagement like that he and his former boos just oversaw, he says that it actually makes society better because it brings people together and encourages old-fashioned virtues like thrift. Seriously. Hooray for the depression.

What he doesn’t mention is just how much power a bad economy puts in the hands of the wealthy and how long it takes for workers to gain it back. But then feudalism is the aristocrats’ system of choice, so what’s not to like? Keep the workers fighting for the scraps as long as possible. The nobles may not make quite as much as in boom times but at least the serfs stay in their place.

I actually know people who were around in the depression and although they remember certain things fondly, as we all do about our youth, I’ve never heard any of them say they wanted to relive it. (And some of these people, by the way, are among the least virtuous I’ve ever known. If depressions create good values, they sure don’t last.)

.

Cute Break

by digby

So shoot me. It’s been a long and depressing week and I need respite:

Oh shut up…

.

Titanic Liars

by digby

Lookie what I got today:

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is pleased to announce that its first national television ad will run on Sunday, February 22 as part of a $1 million-plus public education campaign aimed at raising awareness of America’s fiscal challenges. The awareness campaign was first announced at a February 5 Capitol Hill press conference by Foundation President and CEO David M. Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General from 1998-2008, who was joined by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). The TV ad will air during Sunday morning public affairs programming in advance of President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit on Monday, February 23. Additionally, as part of the awareness campaign, the Foundation will continue to advertise in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, and other publications. Both the print and TV ads can be downloaded at: http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/MainFeature/feb20/. The text of the TV ad is below: SMALL ICEBERG LOOMS UP, GOES PAST. Voiceover: “Everyone’s focused on the obstacles now facing our economy.” MUCH BIGGER ICEBERG LOOMS UP. IT IS HUGE. “But there’s a much larger threat: $56 trillion dollars in unfunded retirement and health care obligations, and the over-reliance on foreign lenders that endanger us all.” Screen Shot: $56 TRILLION Screen Shot: $483,000 PER U.S. HOUSEHOLD STEERING AWAY FROM ICEBERG. Screen Shot: BIPARTISAN COMMISSION “An action-oriented bipartisan commission would begin to steer us in the right direction.” FINAL SHOT OF CLEAR SEAS, BLUE SKY AHEAD, ICEBERGS NOW IN BACKGROUND. “America must chart a more responsible fiscal course, to navigate a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.”

Now, I know that the American people aren’t entirely fools. But that message is designed to confuse and obfuscate and convince people that our current problems have been caused by “unfunded” entitlements, running as it is right alongside Peterson’s convenient (and recent) emphasis on foreign investment. (You’ll notice that there’s no mention of the trillion dollar ongoing expenditures in the Iraq debacle.)

These people are going to be spending a lot of money to push this agenda. Maybe it will fail. I hope so. But I don’t think pretending that this isn’t a threat is a very smart position, nor do I think it’s wise to depend on the overwhelmed, month-old Obama administration to cleverly jiu-jitsu this without the left making it quite clear that they oppose it. If he doesn’t intend to barter away pieces of the safety net, it’s the left’s job to back him up. If he does, it’s our job to register our opposition. Either way, I think liberals should make noise about it. Peterson and his pals are very powerful and it doesn’t make sense to let them go unanswered out of sheer faith that the Obama administration’s somewhat confusing signals mean what we think they mean. Not to mention that the politics of this, and what they portend for the future, are potentially lethal.

At the very least, this fearmongering about “entitlements” is going to make universal health care much more difficult. Which is the point. Peterson has been leading a crusade for the past 30 years that’s made it impossible to necessarily expand the safety net, to the point where we now have 50 million people uninsured and many tens of millions more ready to go over the cliff. This isn’t just about social security. He wants to eliminate pensions for federal workers too. And medicare and medicaid. The man’s mission is to eliminate all “entitlements.” He’s not going to be on board any workable plan to provide health care to all Americans. It’s the antithesis of what he’s trying to do. (And yet, for some reason, Democrats always seem to love him. Go figure.)

You can’t just let him and his acolytes run around unanswered. They’ve been making things worse for average Americans for decades, largely because Democrats keep validating their premises.

Ian Welsh effectively rebuts the notion that the Orszag-Diamond plan to cut social security benefits is the liberal alternative. Breaking the generational compact has always been the necessary first step for the social security destroyers, and that’s what the Orszag-Diamond plan does.

.