Multi Medium

Palintology

What more appropriate publication to write about Sarah Palin than Vanity Fair?  Michael Joseph Gross has a long but amazing profile of Herself in the latest issue.  Adjectives that come to mind include: thin-skinned, vindictive, secretive, manipulative, callous, angry, selfish, greedy, and phony.  There’s also some interesting nuggets about her nasty sockpuppety supporters and use of suspiciously ephemeral shell PACs to launder her speaking fees.

And then there’s this:

There’s a general consensus in town that, at least since the start of the 2008 campaign, Todd has been shouldering the bulk of the parenting and that Sarah’s relationship with her children has grown more distant. The children did not, as Sarah has claimed, have a chance to weigh in on her decision to run for vice president. She did not even deliver the news to them personally; as has been reported, she asked McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, to do it for her. Todd reportedly told Sarah that, if the children spent too much time on the campaign trail, they would pay a price: grades would tumble and discipline would fall apart. When she agreed to serve as McCain’s running mate, one of her children was already failing in school, according to campaign aides. But Sarah, these aides say, seemed comforted by having the children around, and she seemed lonely when they were gone. An aide overheard conversations between Sarah and Todd in which Sarah tried to make a self-serving argument sound selfless, holding that the campaign was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, one that she could not deny the children. “I don’t care what it costs,” she said. “I want them here.” Although the couple hired a nanny to help the children with their homework, little homework got done.

On the road, aides say, Sarah spared the rod. When one child refused to sign autographs unless she was provided with pink or purple Sharpies that had been custom-printed with her name, the staff tried to argue that black Sharpies—the only kind they had—would do just fine. But Sarah ordered them to do what the child said, and personalized pink and purple markers were produced. Another time, when one daughter wanted to have her hair and makeup done by Palin’s campaign stylists (the children’s grooming was not part of their job), Palin’s initial response seemed like an old-fashioned lesson in manners. According to an aide, Palin told the daughter that, since she was seeking a favor from the stylists, she should ask them nicely herself and see what they said. When the stylists apologetically told the girl they didn’t have time that day, Palin, incensed, sent the child back to give them a message: “Tell them they don’t have a choice. They have to do it.” And so they did.  Despite railing at the press for invading her family’s privacy, Palin showed little ambivalence during the campaign about making some aspects of the childrens’ private lives public to serve her interests. Soon after her nomination, she brought up with McCain aides the subject of Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Levi Johnston: “Would it be good for the campaign if they got married before the election?” she asked, and went on to wonder whether one weekend or another would be more advantageous for media coverage.

Enjoy!

Add comment September 1st, 2010 at 07:45am Posted by Eli

What Lessig Said

In his reaction to the White House’s latest progressive-bashing fiasco, Professor Lessig nails what makes Obama so deeply frustrating:

It’s certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn’t ever a Lefty. He didn’t promise to be a Lefty. And there’s no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty.

But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

When Candidate Obama took on Hilary Clinton, he was quite clear about what he thought about the way Washington works. And he was quite clear about why he was running for President. As he said:

[U]nless we’re willing to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way, nothing else is going to change. And the reason I’m running for president is to challenge that system.

Read it again: “The reason I am running for president is to challenge that system.”

(multiple similar Obama quotes follow)

Since coming to power, Obama has pushed just one piece of legislation that would have any effect at all on the power of lobbyists over Congress. That bill has not passed, and even if it had, it would have changed nothing in the lobbyists’ power. He has not even indicated that he would support the only substantial reform of lobbyists power with support in Congress today — the Fair Elections Now Act. Indeed, “congressional reform” doesn’t even merit a mention on the “Additional Issues” page of whitehouse.gov (though “sportsmen” does).

Obama’s strategy as president has not been to “change the way Washington works.” Rather, he has pushed reforms in the same old way, with the same old games….

(…)

[Obama] promised to “take up the fight.” His failure to deliver on that critical promise — the promise that distinguished him from his main primary rival — or even to try, is a failure that everyone, Lefties included, should be free to complain about without suffering the rage of Gibbs.

Of course, Obama has always been careful to couch his capitulation to the will of corporate lobbyists as some kind of principled pragmatism, as necessary compromise in order to achieve his noble objectives, but the reality is that President Obama has demonstrated little or no desire to oppose or reduce the power of corporate lobbyists and corporate money in our political system, which is rapidly approaching absolute.  And I think that’s a pretty damn fair and reasonable complaint to make after he made such a show of being Mr. Clean during the campaign.

Add comment August 13th, 2010 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Washington Post Calls 85% Of America “Denialists”

Well isn’t this special…

The current focus of the Social Security denialists’ ire is President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which they view as a stalking horse for gutting Social Security. A new group, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, which includes the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, asserts that the president’s two choices to chair the panel, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, “sent a clear message. Social Security is on the chopping block.” The groups’ list of what changes are unacceptable is longer than what it would consider: no increase in retirement age; no reduction in benefits; no “means testing.” Rather, they say, the adjustments should come from the revenue side. Though the possibilities are not specified, they include raising the payroll tax rate, raising the ceiling for income on which benefits are paid or finding a new revenue source, such as the estate tax or a new financial transactions tax.

We would prefer a more balanced solution, one that relies on a combination of revenue increases and benefit adjustments. On the revenue side, it’s essential that the funding source come from within the Social Security system itself. The coalition is correct that Social Security should not be used to deal with deficit problems outside the program, but the converse is also true: Getting Social Security on a sustainable footing should not add to the deficit. Raising the payroll tax ceiling to cover the same share of wages that it did in 1983 would make sense, but that would only solve about one-third of the long-term problem. Some adjustments on the benefits side, particularly making benefits less generous for the highest-income recipients, would also make sense.

…Or the payroll tax ceiling could simply be removed, which as I understand it would fix 100% of the problem.  Funny how “benefit adjustments” seems like a perfectly acceptable idea but removing the cap doesn’t.

But if the WaPo wants to call us denialists, we’re in good company:

Social Security turns 75 this week and remains an intensely popular program with voters of all ages, who strongly oppose cutting it to reduce the deficit, according to a new survey paid for by AARP and conducted by GfK Roper.

The poll, which was provided exclusively to HuffPost, finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.

Too bad there just doesn’t seem to be any political will for doing what a mere 85% of the country wants.

2 comments August 12th, 2010 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Come on, did anyone really think that Congress would pass a financial reform bill that hurt Goldman Sachs?

As Wall Street scrambles to find the best and most profitable way to operate under the new financial reform law, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — the firm that was expected to suffer the most under the legislation — could emerge practically unscathed.

(…)

[T]op Goldman executives privately advised analysts that the bank did not expect the reform measure to cost it any revenue.

“The statement was perhaps surprising in its level of conviction,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski wrote in a note to clients, “but we’ve learned to take such judgments from GS very seriously.”

(…)

The law, signed by President Obama in July, could force the trading of derivatives, a big business line for Goldman, onto exchanges. Regulators might allow the trading of some contracts over the counter but require that the resulting payments be handled by a clearinghouse.

Either way, “we think we are well positioned to be a market leader under the new rules,” said Jack McCabe, co-head of Goldman’s derivatives clearing service business.

Richard Bove, a bank analyst at Rochdale Securities, said he had changed his view of the law’s effect on Goldman.

“I thought this company was going to be really harmed by this bill; now I’ve figured out that it’s not going to happen,” he said. “They should win big here.”

It’s not Matt Drudge who rules our world.  It’s Goldman Sachs.

Add comment August 12th, 2010 at 07:07am Posted by Eli

Tone-Deafness: We Haz It

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate their ultra-keen political instincts and compassion for the common man.  First up, Ken Salazar going to bat for the oil industry:

July’s decision halted development on billions of dollars in leases in the Arctic waters of the Chukchi Sea. Beistline found that the federal government didn’t follow environmental law before selling drilling rights. Among other things, he found the government had failed to analyze the environmental impact of natural gas development, “despite industry interest and specific lease incentives for such development,” according to court records.

The Obama administration is among those seeking clarification from Beistline, a rare recent case of the administration siding with the oil industry. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asked the court to narrow the ruling so that another company, Statoil, which owns 16 Chukchi leases, could start seismic testing roughly 100 miles from the coast. Government attorneys told the judge that Statoil, a global oil company partly owned by the Norwegian government, would likely face “significant economic losses” if it couldn’t proceed with seismic surveying.

Statoil said Tuesday it might cancel the seismic tests it hoped to do in the Chukchi this summer because it remains unclear whether the company will be allowed to do the work.

Environmental groups said they were stunned by the administration move, which they said undercuts the administration’s recent decisions to put the brakes on Arctic exploration in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

And, they said, marine mammals such as whales and walruses can be harmed by the testing. The impact of such tests on marine life was one of the issues the court said the federal government failed to consider adequately before issuing the Arctic drilling leases.

Awesome.  So nice to see the Interior’s deep concern for protecting the environment from the offshore oil industry.

And then there’s the always-reliable, prosperity-is-just-around-the-corner Tim Geithner:

Until now, President Obama and his advisers have been adamant that Congress should extend the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts only for individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples making less than $250,000, leaving tax rates on upper-income earners to increase as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2011.

But when asked repeatedly on ABC’s “Good Morning America” whether he would recommend that Obama veto an extension of the upper-income tax cuts, Geithner refused to commit.

(…)

“If you extend particularly these tax cuts that only go to 2 percent of the highest-earning Americans, then there’d be a much higher probability they’ll be extended indefinitely,” Geithner said. That would dramatically drive up the deficit and be “a deeply fiscally irresponsible act,” he added.

But asked again whether he would commit to a veto threat against any legislation extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts for now, Geithner responded “no.”

This sounds an awful lot like the healthcare reform fiasco, where Obama repeatedly claimed to support the public option, but refused to commit to vetoing any bill without it.  And after the way that turned out, it’s hard not to interpret a refusal to veto as a signal of tacit support.

Add comment August 4th, 2010 at 07:24am Posted by Eli

It’s Not Just HAMP…

Dday is right, of course, that a nominally “liberal” corrupt failure like HAMP makes liberalism look bad.  But the problem is that all of Obama and the Democrats’ failures, sellouts, and assorted disappointments will be blamed on “liberalism” because, as everyone knows, Obama is The Most Liberal President Of All Time.  So now most of America thinks that liberalism means putting corporations first and ordinary people and the Constitution last.  Or maybe that we’re all just craven hypocrites like our supposed leader.

It’s not bad enough that Obama has to repeatedly kick liberals in the face – he makes us look bad by association too.  It’s a win-win!

Add comment July 27th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Getting Harder And Harder To Tell The Difference

Between Democrats and Republicans:

A fiscally conservative Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate’s budget committee on Wednesday said he supports extending all of the tax cuts that expire this year, including for the wealthy.

“The general rule of thumb would be you’d not want to do tax changes, tax increases … until the recovery is on more solid ground,” Senator Kent Conrad said in an interview with reporters outside the Senate chambers, adding he did not believe the recovery has come yet.

Conrad’s comments are sympathetic with Republican arguments against raising taxes amid a fledgling economic recovery. They frame a debate gaining steam over whether stimulus to bolster the economy’s recovery, or deficit reduction, should be the top policy priority.

(…)

Conrad said that it will be tough to extend the top tax cuts, given worries about the deficit and because under budget rules, lawmakers must find offsetting revenue to pay for the lower rates for wealthier Americans.

But the North Dakota Democrat who also is on the Senate Finance Committee, said he thinks waiving so-called pay-go rules to extend the upper income rates should be considered.

“Pay-go is not just a line in the sand,” he said. “There is a reason that you have a pay-go waiver, which requires 60 votes.”

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh also recently questioned whether taxes should be raised on the wealthy, citing the economy.

Yes, let’s do increase the national debt in a way that won’t actually stimulate the economy, and then pretend that that’s somehow more fiscally responsible than targeted spending.  If there’s a better example of irresponsible politics-over-policy mindlessness, I’m hard-pressed to think of what it is.

Add comment July 22nd, 2010 at 11:25am Posted by Eli

Simon Johnson Is Half Right

I agree with him completely that Tim Geithner has displayed an uncanny knack for not only surviving, but failing upward, but I just don’t see sabotaging Elizabeth Warren as his Waterloo.  Sure, failing to appoint her to the CFPA would be a huge mistake and disappoint the progressive base terribly, but that’s been Obama’s M.O. for his entire presidency, and I certainly don’t see how Geithner would pay a price for that.  Hell, Obama loves kicking the hippies, he thinks it gives him some kind of centrist street cred, like that’s a good thing.

Add comment July 20th, 2010 at 06:34pm Posted by Eli

Obama The Socialist Strikes Again

Tell me again about what an overreaching, business-hating liberal Obama is:

A leading big-business group, responding to a request from top White House aides, last month submitted to President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget a 54-page hit list that takes aim at regulations protecting the environment, workers, consumers and investors.

Having asked the Business Roundtable for its advice, the White House was then faced with the question of what to do with it.

Discussions between the two parties are ongoing, the White House says. And their conclusion may depend on who wins the ongoing power struggle between the president’s top political gurus and his policy apparatus.

The push to placate business leaders is being led by Obama’s political team — in this case, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

But just like the advice the White House politicos are giving Obama about pressing forward with deficit reduction in the midst of a jobs crisis, the idea of loosening the reins on big business — at a time when the cost of deregulation has been so viscerally on display in the Gulf of Mexico — strikes some observers as spectacularly tone-deaf. Not just bad policy, but bad politics.

“What we’re in the middle of is a string of regulatory failures that the Obama administration seems very insensitive to,” said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the pro-regulation Center for Progressive Reform. She cited the financial crisis, the Massey Energy mine disaster, and of course the BP oil spill.

“Tone-deaf” is exactly right, especially if you read the whole depressing story.  The Obama administration is apparently seeking more corporate campaign contributions for Democratic candidates, but catering to big business is really the last thing they need to be doing to impress the voters.  As always, I assume the calculation is that with enough campaign cash they can convince the American people that Obama is a “fierce advocate” for Main Street over Wall Street.

Add comment July 16th, 2010 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Net Neutrality Passes… In Chile

First Argentina legalizes gay marriage, now this:

Net neutrality: you want it, we want it, ISPs pretty much hate it. Chilean politicians? Those guys love the stuff! The Board of the Chamber of Deputies voted almost unanimously to pass Bulletin 4915 which, among other things, forces an ISP to:

…ensure access to all types of content, services or applications available on the network and offer a service that does not distinguish content, applications or services, based on the source of it or their property.

Hey, remember when the U.S. was supposedly a thriving, cutting-edge beacon of democracy and Latin America was an economically prostrate backwater of corrupt banana republics?  How come we seem to be at least 5-10 years behind them now?

Add comment July 16th, 2010 at 07:26am Posted by Eli

Good News On Healthcare Reform

For those of you who were worried that healthcare reform might eventually get watered down:

Remember Liz Fowler? The former WellPoint VP whom William Ockham noted was the literal author of the health care reform bill?

I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to learn that WellPoint’s former VP will be in charge of consumer issues and oversight as our country implements the WellPoint/Liz Fowler health insurance bill. (h/t Glenn Greenwald)

Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law.  Fowler, chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chairs, will become deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

I for one am relieved to see that WellPoint’s Ms. Fowler’s bold vision will not be compromised when the reform plan is finally implemented.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 06:25pm Posted by Eli

The Wages Of Selling Out Is Mistrust

No one could have anticipated…

Almost four out of five Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll this month say they have just a little or no confidence that the measure being championed by congressional Democrats will prevent or significantly soften a future crisis. More than three-quarters say they don’t have much or any confidence the proposal will make their savings and financial assets more secure.

A plurality — 47 percent — says the bill will do more to protect the financial industry than consumers; 38 percent say consumers would benefit more.

Or this…

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.

Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.

Great going, guys.  You alienated your own base without doing squat to entice conservatives.  That’s really going to work out well for you in November.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

It All Depends On What The Meaning Of “People” Is…

Ah, Republicans. (Not that the Democrats are much better.)

It was barely a month ago that House Republicans announced the launch of a new website, America Speaking Out, that was designed to “craft a new agenda” based on input from real Americans.

Said a spokesman:

“There’s going to be a months-long period of engaging with the American people, asking for their ideas and [gauging] what their priorities are, and that’s going to take time,” Buck said. “Most people come up with an agenda in a back room in Washington, put it forward and say here’s what it is, take it.”

And today House Republicans are opting to be most people:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) have invited senior Republican lobbyists and top officials from several large trade groups to the Capitol next week to provide their suggestions for a new GOP agenda.

The meeting is part of the House leaders’ initiative called America Speaking Out, which is intended to draw broad input to create a new policy agenda for the party to launch in the fall.

An e-mail invitation sent to more than 20 trade representatives and obtained by Roll Call summoned guests to Boehner’s second-floor office on July 16 “to discuss House Republican efforts to produce a new policy agenda with a small group of trade association leaders.”

Actually, given the kind of bizarre pronouncements Republicans usually make about what “the American people” want, or what’s good for “the American people”, it’s really not surprising at all to find that they’re thinking of the corporate lobbying community.

Add comment July 9th, 2010 at 07:00am Posted by Eli

Republicans Persist In Their Inability To Take It

This is just too hilarious…

In recent weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has circulated information to local reporters about Republican candidates in close races. Among the claims:

– That Jim Renacci of Ohio once owed nearly $1.4 million in unpaid state taxes.

– That David Harmer of California received $160,000 in bonus and severance pay from a firm that got a federal bailout.

– That Jon Runyan of New Jersey got a legal break in property taxes for his 25-acre homestead by qualifying for a farmland assessment thanks to his four donkeys.

(…)

“When the issues are cutting against you, it is typical for a party in trouble to resort to other means,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “With the unemployment rate unacceptably high and President Obama’s approval rating falling, they have nothing left to run on other than character assassination.”

Yes, that’s right: The party of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe, Dan Burton, Ken Starr, and the Swift Boat Vets is complaining about Democrats resorting to character assassination to compensate for unpopular policies.  I dunno, maybe the Republicans would be more understanding if the Democrats just made shit up like they do.

Also, it’s a shame the story focuses entirely on House races and doesn’t mention that the Republican’s serial liar nominee for the Illinois Senate makes the right-wing caricature of Al Gore look like George Washington.

Add comment July 8th, 2010 at 08:14am Posted by Eli

Won’t-Do America

Bob Herbert has a great column in yesterday’s NYT about how the U.S. has let greatness slip away, mishandling crisis after crisis and allowing their opportunities go to waste.  But I think his perspective is a little skewed:

As a nation, we are becoming more and more accustomed to a sense of helplessness. We no longer rise to the great challenges before us. It’s not just that we can’t plug the oil leak, which is the perfect metaphor for what we’ve become. We can’t seem to do much of anything.

(…)

We are submitting to this debacle with the same pathetic lack of creativity and helpless mind-set that now seems to be the default position of Americans in the 21st century. We have become a nation that is good at destroying things — with wars overseas and mind-bogglingly self-destructive policies here at home — but that has lost sight of how to build and maintain a flourishing society. We’re dismantling our public school system and, incredibly, attacking our spectacularly successful system of higher education, which is the finest in the world.

How is it possible that we would let this happen?

We’ve got all kinds of sorry explanations for why we can’t do any of the things we need to do. The Democrats can’t get 60 votes in the Senate. Our budget deficits are too high. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck might object.

Meanwhile, the greatness of the United States, which so many have taken for granted for so long, is steadily slipping away.

It’s not that we can’t fix anything, that we’ve become too collectively stupid to figure out solutions to problems, it’s that we won’t fix anything.  Our political system has become so corrupt that concern for protecting the well-being of corporations and the wealthy now trumps all other considerations.  Remove that constraint, and a whole realm of possibilities and solutions opens up.  But as long as we’re stuck with it, we will continue to muddle through with half-assed band-aids that don’t work because they were designed by the very industries whose recklessness and criminality made them necessary.

Add comment June 23rd, 2010 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Co-Wanker Of The Day (Part 2)

Joe Barton:

BP’s CEO, Tony (I want my life back!) Hayward is testifying today before a House Committee, and he just received a heartfelt apology from one of his most loyal subjects. Joe Barton (R. Texas) just apologized to BP.

The Republican Party’s quintessential oil Congressman, Barton told Hayward how shameful it was that the Obama Administration would “shake down” BP by demanding that it give up dividends to shareholders and instead set aside a small fraction of their net revenues to the greedy Gulf folks who’ve been only slightly inconvenienced by losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and their environment. Never mind that BP agreed to this on its own, because it knows or fears it’s legal liability may eventually become worse.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people???

For what it’s worth, even some of his fellow Republicans think that was beyond the pale (even if the GOP’s prevailing feeling is that we shouldn’t make BP pay too much), forcing Barton to issue a non-apology apology apology.  Or something.

Add comment June 18th, 2010 at 11:36am Posted by Eli

One More Thought On Obama Vs. Labor

Perhaps the most telling thing of all about the Obama White House’s open hostility towards labor for supporting Halter over Lincoln is that it’s not like the unions took on one of Obama’s staunchest allies.  The unions opposed Lincoln because she helped torpedo EFCA and the public option, two things which Obama supposedly (emphasis on supposedly) really wanted.

So that tells us that:

A) Obama really really hates unions,

B) Obama really really likes conservative politicians who screw him over again and again,

C) Lincoln was in fact acting as Obama’s staunch ally by sabotaging progressive initiatives he cynically pretended to support in order to get elected, or

D) Some combination of both A and C.

None of these possibilities are exactly what I would call encouraging.

Add comment June 9th, 2010 at 06:20pm Posted by Eli

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Bad enough that Chris Hedges paints a terrifying picture of just how insane and evil and dangerous the Christian right is, but he also points out how the fecklessness and corruption of the Democratic establishment has enabled it by doing so little to push back against the out-of-control corporations that have destroyed our environment and economy.

I think he probably overstates just how numerous and powerful the truly crazy right-wing Christians are, but they clearly do have enough influence on American policy and discourse to be very, very scary.

Add comment June 8th, 2010 at 11:31am Posted by Eli

What’s The Worst That Could Happen?

Inconceivable!

When it approved BP’s 2009 plan to start an exploratory well 50 miles off the Louisiana coast — the same well that is now spewing millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf — the federal agency that oversees oil drilling assumed there would be little risk of a well blowout and likely no death to marine life if an accident were to happen.

BP estimated that in the worst case, a blowout at the well would spew out 162,000 barrels of oil every day, a massive figure that far exceeds any estimate of what is coming out now.

But in its exploration plan in March 2009, BP assured the federal Minerals Management Service that a well blowout was so unlikely that “a blowout scenario … is not required for the operations proposed.”

MMS then granted BP a “categorical exclusion” from a public review of the potential environmental impact of the drilling.

That was in line with the general view of MMS that a blowout was nothing to be feared. Before the lease of the oilfields in 2008, the MMS wrote a generic Environmental Impact Statement for the entire northern and western Gulf of Mexico that made the catastrophic well blowout that happened April 20 seem like a near impossibility.

MMS produced its blanket Environmental Impact Statement for 11 proposed leases, mostly off the Louisiana and Texas coasts. One of those planned sales was Lease Sale 206, which gave BP the right to drill at what is known as Mississippi Canyon 252 with a Transocean oil rig called Deepwater Horizon.

The MMS assessed everything from the possible impact of noise on marine life to the specific vulnerabilities of sea turtles and sturgeon, but through it all, the agency assumed any oil that might be spilled would be minimal and any leak would be quickly shut off.

(…)

When it comes to the type of oil well blowout that happened April 20, MMS was downright dismissive. The agency determined that fewer than six of every 10,000 wells would have a blowout that caused any oil to spill. Blowouts are “rare events of short duration,” the study stated, and “the infrequent subsurface blowout that may occur on the Gulf OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) would have a negligible effect on commercial fishing.”

That paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers.

After stating that 162,000 barrels a day is the worst-case scenario from a blowout of the well, BP certifies that it “has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge.” Elsewhere in the document, the company states it could deal with a loss of well control by drilling a relief well, but states a “further discussion of response to an oil spill resulting from the activities proposed in this plan is not required for this Exploration Plan.”

I mean, how could anyone possibly expect that there might be an uncontrollable blowout in a well a mile underwater?  Why, that’s just crazy talk!

Add comment May 27th, 2010 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

In Case You Needed Any More Proof…

Of just how thoroughly corrupt, compromised, and generally rigged our government has become:

Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains – and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income?

Answer: Some of the nation’s most prominent and wealthiest private asset managers, such as Paul Allen and Henry Kravis, who, along with hordes of lobbyists, are determined to keep the loophole wide open.

The House has already tried three times to close it only to have the Senate cave in because of campaign donations from these and other financiers who benefit from it.

(…)

Several of these private investment fund managers, by the way, have taken a lead in the national drive to cut the federal budget deficit. The senior chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, one of the largest private equity funds, is Peter G. Peterson, who never tires of telling the nation it faces economic ruin if deficits aren’t brought under control. Curiously, I have not heard Peterson advocate closing this tax loophole as one way to further the cause of fiscal responsibility.

Closing tax loopholes for billionaires may seem like a no-brainer, especially at a time when the nation is cutting back spending on the middle class — slashing budgets that fund child care, public schools, and public universities. Tens of thousands of teachers are getting pink slips.

But you can expect a huge fight.

There is also a moral issue here. Call me old fashioned but I just think it’s wrong that a single hedge fund manager earns a billion dollars, when a billion dollars would pay the salaries of about 20,000 teachers.

God forbid that we should try to balance the budget on the backs of the mega-rich instead of our retirees and everyone else.  It’s amazing and repellent that this is even difficult.

Add comment May 24th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

Priorities

So given the choice between preventing the next financial meltdown and protecting their Wall Street donors, guess which Congress chose.

But hey, at least they did enough to make it look like they’re taking the financial crisis seriously, and that’s all that really matters, right?

2 comments May 24th, 2010 at 07:04am Posted by Eli

All You Need To Know

…About the culture at MMS:

The director of the Minerals Management Service in Alaska is apologizing to colleagues for having a cake at a recent meeting with the words ”Drill, Baby, Drill” on it.

Yes, this was after the Deepwater Horizon blew up and unleashed an environmental holocaust.

…And about the culture in the Obama White House:

That the WH called reporters into the press office privately today to criticize them for asking about BP over & over is disturbing

Seriously???  Obama is playing Dubya’s “trust us and don’t ask questions, we know what we’re doing” card?

The oil industry rules our world, apparently.  Or at least our government.

2 comments May 22nd, 2010 at 04:01pm Posted by Eli

Whose Side Are They On Again?

It sure does look like MMS sees their role as facilitator rather than regulator…

A proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean as early as this summer received initial permits from the Minerals Management Service office in Alaska at the same time federal auditors were questioning the office about its environmental review process.

The approvals also came after many of the agency’s most experienced scientists had left, frustrated that their concerns over environmental threats from drilling had been ignored.

Minerals Management has faced intense scrutiny in the weeks since the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An article in The New York Times reported that it failed to get some environmental permits to approve drilling in the gulf and ignored objections from scientists to keep those projects on schedule.

Similar concerns are being raised about the agency’s handling of a plan by Shell Oil to begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

The Shell plan has stirred controversy for many years among environmentalists and advocates of the endangered bowhead whale, which is legally hunted in the area for subsistence by Alaska Natives.

Opponents have argued that an oil spill would be virtually impossible to contain, given the region’s remoteness, its severe weather and ice and limited onshore support.

The investigation of the Minerals Management’s Alaska office by the Government Accountability Office, completed in March, examined the environmental review process for proposed offshore leasing in southwest Alaska, which has since been canceled.

But it also raised questions about future leasing plans in the Beaufort and Chukchi at the time the agency was deciding whether to allow Shell to go forward on leases it had purchased. The Shell project received critical initial permits from Minerals Management last fall, though it still needs several final approvals.

The G.A.O. found that the Alaska branch deliberately avoided establishing consistent guidelines for determining whether future leases would cause significant environmental impacts in the Arctic — a finding that could require further examination and delay or prevent drilling.

Umm, I also thought there was a moratorium on new offshore drilling?  Perhaps that word does not mean what I think it means…

Add comment May 21st, 2010 at 06:55am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Pennsylvania AG and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett:

Tom Corbett, current Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania and Gubernatorial Candidate, has subpoenaed Twitter to appear as a Grand Jury witness to “testify and give evidence regarding alleged violations of the laws of Pennsylvania”.

The subpoena orders Twitter to provide “any and all subscriber information” of the person(s) behind two accounts – @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA – who have been anonymously criticizing the man on the popular micro-sharing service.

According to the subpoena (embedded below), the information that Twitter is ordered to provide includes “name, address, contact information, creation date, creation Internet Protocol address and any and all log in Internet Protocol address”.

Because using your government office to prosecute and harass your political critics isn’t an abuse of power at all…

I hope this wanker goes down hard in November.

Add comment May 20th, 2010 at 11:27am Posted by Eli

Sentence Of The Day

This is just beautiful:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., fighting a fraud lawsuit from U.S. regulators who accuse the company of misleading investors, is trying to persuade more Americans to trust the firm with their retirement funds.

What could possibly go wrong?  After all, Goldman’s concern for their clients is legendary.

Add comment May 19th, 2010 at 06:24pm Posted by Eli

My Brilliant Genius Plan To Fix Everything

Convince Obama that Wellpoint, PhRMA, Goldman Sachs, the oil industry, Pete Peterson, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Rahm Emanuel are all gay.

Because they could all use a little more “fierce advocacy.”

(Cross-posted at The Seminal)

Add comment May 19th, 2010 at 06:57am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Hey everybody!  It looks like Blanche Lincoln’s surprisingly populist and progressive derivatives bill was all a sham to get her re-elected!

Earlier today I mentioned that the Senate club was working to protect Blanche Lincoln, first by allowing her to offer up a kabuki derivatives bill which was strong enough for her to counteract claims of being too tight with Wall Street, then by delaying the eventual watering down of that piece in the overall bill until after her Senate primary. I’ve heard that Lincoln couldn’t even defend the concept of forcing the big banks to spin off their swaps trading desks in a caucus luncheon; Maria Cantwell had to do it for her. Clearly, she was fed the most left-leaning derivatives package available, with the expressed intention that it wouldn’t make the bill. Nobody wants to overturn it before it serves its purpose of getting Lincoln nominated for re-election, however.

It’s not like anyone predicted this or anything…

I kind of suspect that this was the kabuki plan all along – let Blanche posture and grandstand as some kind of anti-Wall Street crusader to fend off Halter’s primary challenge, but make sure her bill gets watered down substantially by other Senators before it actually comes up for a vote so her generous Wall Street donors don’t get pissed off.

Otherwise I think Blanche would be in the awkward position of having to vote against her own bill…

3 comments May 14th, 2010 at 11:20am Posted by Eli

How To Rein In The Credit Card Companies

Change the law so that they have to abide by the rules of the states they issue credit cards in instead of the states they’re incorporated in.  I particularly like this bit:

If you think interest-rate regulation is a bad idea, nothing in the Whitehouse amendment should bother you. It merely shifts the power to make decisions about interest-rate caps to the states and away from Washington bank regulators. California can enact laws appropriate for the conditions there, just like South Dakota can enact laws appropriate for its citizens. The Whitehouse amendment does not take any position on whether the appropriate law is a high cap, a low cap, or no cap at all. California or South Dakota or Delaware or any other state just would no longer be able to export their interest-rate laws to other states. It would allow the states to be laboratories of democracy, as the saying goes, and experiment with interest rate regulation.

The beauty of it is that it puts the Republicans in the position of opposing states’ rights, and pretty much everything they say in opposition to this idea can be used against them in the Roe v. Wade debate (”Reversing it wouldn’t ban abortion – it would just put the decision in the hands of the states!  What’s wrong with giving more power to the states?”)

Add comment May 11th, 2010 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

No! Really?

What?  Outrage over the BP disaster won’t lead to meaningful reform?

No one could have anticipated…

Add comment May 10th, 2010 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

Wow, It’s Like Deja Vu

So let me see… willful lack of government oversight enables risky and negligent practices, which inevitably lead to a massively devastating and costly catastrophe which everyone involved claims was completely impossible to foresee.

Why does this sound so familiar?

I guess the next step is a lot of tough talk and posturing about stronger regulations by Congress and Obama, which will eventually get watered down to nothing more than window dressing after an all-out industry lobbying campaign.

3 comments May 6th, 2010 at 11:58am Posted by Eli