Multi Medium

Why I’m Fed Up

As Gregg very effectively points out, it’s funny how Obama and the Democrats couldn’t be bothered to make an effort on behalf of the public option, much less single payer, dithering endlessly and fruitlessly with Republicans and immediately capitulating when conservative wankers like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson say they’ll vote no… yet now that the healthcare reform bill has transformed into a huge windfall for the insurance industry (and antichoice fanatics), they’ve pulled out all the stops to push for its passage and aggressively (and apparently effectively) attack any Democrats who hold out.  They’re even getting creative with arcane procedural workarounds.

So, to sum up: Public option/single payer?  Not worth the slightest effort to defend.  Gutting abortion rights and forcing people to buy insurance from the private companies who made healthcare suck in the first place?  The most important bill ever, and woe unto any Democrat who votes against it.

I guess it’s all just a matter of priorities, and Obama and the Democrats clearly have the wrong ones.

Add comment March 17th, 2010 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Missing The Point

The problem isn’t that the government lacks an agency “that would provide early warnings of possible systemic collapses,” the problem is that it lacks an agency that will listen to early warnings of possible systemic collapses.

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

…And?

Oh yeah, this seems like a real effective argument against financial regulation:

Alex Castellanos, a Republican consultant, pointed to another edge: with Americans most anxious about unemployment, calling for stricter regulation of Wall Street is “not a growth argument, it’s a punishment argument.”

Aside from being dishonest in the extreme, is it even relevant to anything?  Wall Street’s growth has done little if anything to enrich anyone outside of Wall Street, so it’s a little difficult to see what the harm in curbing it to sustainable levels of non-recklessness would be.

2 comments March 9th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

Epic Optics Fail

Sure, that’s a great idea to publicly embrace a company whose reputation is so corrupt and bloody that it had to CHANGE ITS NAME.  How could that possibly backfire?

The Republican National Committee plans to hold an April fundraiser at a Moyock, N.C. compound owned by the military contracting firm formerly known as Blackwater, Politico reports.

According to an RNC fundraising document uncovered on Wednesday, RNC “Young Eagles” — party major donors under 40 — will meet at the facility in the spring.

(…)

It was recently reported that Blackwater employees took hundreds of firearms from both the U.S. Mmilitary and Afghan police forces using the South Park alias “Eric Cartman.”

Brilliant!  Hey, maybe KBR can handle the lighting.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 08:30pm Posted by Eli

Juxtaposition Of The Day

Today’s NYT Op-Ed page:

It is not unusual for members of Congress to arrange group rentals in Washington to share housing costs…. What is highly unusual, and unjustifiable, is the tax-exempt status as a religious institution enjoyed by a boarding house called the C Street Center that caters to conservative Christian lawmakers.

The $1.8 million townhouse came to public notice last year when three recent tenants — Senator John Ensign; Mark Sanford, the South Carolina governor and former congressman; and former Representative Charles Pickering Jr. — were embroiled in marital infidelity scandals. Mr. Pickering was accused by his estranged wife of entertaining a mistress at the house.

The center soon lost most of its city tax exemption, after District of Columbia officials decided it was a residence, not a church. And now a coalition of mainline Christian ministers is demanding that the Internal Revenue Service end the center’s federal tax exemption and its shield of nontransparency. The coalition is rightly concerned that the center is exploiting, and thereby cheapening, the constitutional protections guaranteed legitimate religious institutions.

The Week profile of Joseph Stack:

Why was Stack so furious at the IRS?
He was apparently busted in the 1980s for claiming his home was a church to avoid taxation — a protest scheme he says cost him “$40,000+” and “10 years of my life.”

Not that I’m trying to compare conservative Republicans to a crazy man who hated taxes so much that he flew his plane into an IRS building, of course.  That would be uncivil.

Add comment March 1st, 2010 at 06:57pm Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

Turns out Obama “supports” the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in much the same way that he “supported” the public option:

The Obama administration is no longer insisting on the creation of a stand-alone consumer protection agency as a central element of the plan to remake regulation of the financial system.

In hopes of quick congressional approval of a reform bill, White House officials are opening the door to compromise with lawmakers concerned about creating a new bureaucracy, according to congressional and some administration sources.

President Obama’s economic team is now open to housing the consumer regulator inside another agency, such as the Treasury Department, though they still prefer a stand-alone agency. In either case, they are insisting on a regulator with political autonomy and real teeth so it can effectively enforce rules designed to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

(…)

A free-standing agency had been a central part of the original blueprint released by the Obama administration, which said it is essential to have one agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers from lending abuses. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, that responsibility was spread across numerous agencies and often took a back seat to ensuring the well-being of banks. A version of the stand-alone proposal was included in a bill passed by the House in December.

(…)

In one scenario under discussion, a consumer bureau would be set up within the Treasury Department. In another, a consumer protection division would be established inside a new national agency to regulate banks.

The latter idea would upset some consumer advocates, who say they do not want the consumer regulator to answer to bank supervisors. Advocates say these supervisors have shoddy records on shielding customers from abusive financial practices.

What could possibly go wrong?

Add comment February 25th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

It Certainly Does Explain A Lot…

No wonder Gibbs is trying to throw cold water on passing the public option through reconciliation.  Obama really is playing for the other team. Jebus, what a dishonest scumbag.

I’m still hopeful that Congress will pass the public option simply to save their own skins in November, but it’s going to be a lot harder with the president actively working against them.  I assume even Obama wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually veto the public option if it somehow passed, but if he did I’m sure his explanation would be fascinating.

1 comment February 24th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Successiness

[Please imagine that I found a video of "That's not flying!  That's falling with style!" from Toy Story]

Well, that’s awfully nice that Obama doesn’t begrudge Wall Street executives like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein their “success or wealth,” but I just have to wonder whether taking your company to the brink of collapse with risky quasi-legal dealings and then using your connections and too-big-to-failness to extort huge direct and indirect government bailouts that restore it to obscene profitability is, strictly speaking, “success.”

I mean, would Blankfein’s “savvy” strategy have worked as well for a company one-twentieth the size which did not have alumni seeded in key high-level positions all over the federal government?

Add comment February 11th, 2010 at 07:01pm Posted by Eli

Common Ground

It’s ironic, really.  Both the tea party and Democratic party rank-and-files are completely disgusted by the degree to which our government has been captured into the service of corporate interests, but their leadership is totally on board with it.

Their leadership is reflecting and representing their interests just about as well as ours is; we’re just further along on realizing it.

Add comment February 10th, 2010 at 08:24pm Posted by Eli

Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn Unions…

Back in December when Labor was supporting (or at least holding its fire) on the Senate’s terrible healthcare reform bill in exchange for sugarplum visions of EFCA, I wrote:

I think it’s blindingly obvious at this point that staying on Obama’s good side has bought Labor exactly nothing, and will continue to buy them nothing.  If they don’t start threatening to withhold their support (not just votes, but GOTV and organizational muscle) in the 2010 and 2012 elections, they will continue to get diddly-squat from the Obama White House.

The unions need to stop begging for scraps and start using their leverage.  No more “pretty please”; it’s time for “or else”.

And also:

It is simply amazing to me that the unions are still supporting the terrible Senate healthcare bill in hopes that Obama will push for EFCA in return. How can they possibly still believe that after watching the way the stimulus, bailout, climate reform, financial reform, and healthcare reform have played out?

If Obama “supports” EFCA the way he supported healthcare reform and the public option, union members will end up paying dues directly to their employers.

And what happened?  Scott Brown got elected to Teddy Kennedy’s seat without EFCA getting anywhere near the Senate floor, and now the unions are justifiably pissed.  But it is not strictly accurate to say that the possibility of EFCA passing died in that special election last month; it’s more accurate to say that the useful illusion that EFCA might pass is what died.  Because there was simply no way that EFCA was ever going to pass a Senate ruled by corrupt treacherous scumbags like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

It’ll be interesting to see just what Labor does now that the Democrats can’t hold EFCA hostage anymore.  Will they simply withhold support, or will they start actively backing primary challengers?  I’m hoping it’s the latter, and I’m hoping Nelson and Lieberman are their top priorities.

Add comment February 10th, 2010 at 06:15pm Posted by Eli

Dick Shelby’s Dick Move

This seems… excessive:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

“While holds are frequent,” CongressDaily’s Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), “Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal.”

(…)

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama’s nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track….

(…)

A San Diego State University professor and Congressional expert told the Mobile paper “he knew of no previous use of a blanket hold” in recent history.

This is really just another example of Republicans shamelessly abusing the rules of the Senate to block everything, just like their transformation of the filibuster from an extraordinary measure to a routine procedure.  In the past a sense of courtesy, decorum, and mutual respect prevented Senators of either party from turning the legislative process into a mockery, but those are traits the Republican caucus is completely devoid of now.

Which is what makes Orrin Hatch’s threat that they would get nasty if the Democrats used reconciliation to fix the healthcare reform bill so ridiculous – they’re already in full-blown, do-anything, legislative Lord Of The Flies mode, and that’s why the Democrats are talking about reconciliation.

I don’t see any easy way to fix this, unfortunately.  The Democrats no longer have 60 votes to short-circuit Republican shenanigans, and they didn’t show much appetite for (or ability to) use them when they did.  A procedural overhaul would be massive and would probably have unforeseen consequences (eliminating the filibuster would probably fix a lot of it, though).  And there’s certainly less than zero chance that the Republicans will ever stop being obstructionist assholes.

Add comment February 5th, 2010 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Frank Luntz Advises Republicans To Double Down On Democratic Corruption

How else to explain this approach to killing financial reform?

Luntz continued: “Ordinarily, calling for a new government program ‘to protect consumers’ would be extraordinary popular. But these are not ordinary times. The American people are not just saying ‘no.’ They are saying ‘hell no’ to more government agencies, more bureaucrats, and more legislation crafted by special interests.”

(…)

“The American people are tired of add-ons, earmarks, and backroom deals – but they are mad as hell at ‘lobbyist loopholes,’” Luntz wrote. “You must put proponents of the legislation on the defense, forcing them to attempt to justify the ‘lobbyist loopholes’ and exemptions placed in the bill… Highlight the exemptions. Broadcast them. Remind them, ‘The legislation is filled with lobbyist loopholes that exclude certain wealthy, powerful industries from regulations.’”

This seems like a very risky messaging strategy unless you are supremely, totally confident that the Democrats won’t simply remove all the loopholes you’re pretending to be outraged about and then call your bluff.  “Okay, we’ve listened to your critique about this bill, and in true bipartisan fashion we have decided to remove all the lobbyist loopholes you find so objectionable.  So you’ll all vote for it now, right?”

Sadly, I think Luntz’s gamble is probably going to be work, since Democrats (Senate Democrats in particular) continue to show every sign that they care more about their corporate donors than even getting re-elected.  Which is a shame, because I sure would like to hear the Republicans struggle to explain why they can’t vote for financial reform without loopholes – both now, and again in November.

Add comment February 1st, 2010 at 06:55pm Posted by Eli

A Modest Proposal On Campaign Finance Reform

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have a suggestion on how to (mostly) get around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:

While Congress can’t issue a broad ban on all companies, it can target the very large class that does business with the federal government and ban those companies from “endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.”

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies — and tens of thousands of others — would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn’t do both. When push came to shove, it’s likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their “free speech.”

The Roberts court is skeptical — to put it mildly — of campaign finance restrictions. But it is still highly unlikely that the justices would strike down a law targeting federal contractors. All nine recognize that Congress may restrict free speech when there is a significant risk of corruption. That risk is obvious when corporate speakers are simultaneously doing business with the government.

(…)

Our proposal requires only a modest extension of existing law. Federal contractors already are not allowed to “directly or indirectly . . . make any contribution of money or other things of value” to “any political party, committee, or candidate.” This provision arguably bars Big Pharma from launching a media campaign in favor of a candidate who supports its special deals, thereby “indirectly providing” the candidate something “of value.” But it doesn’t cover the case in which contractors threaten to spend millions to oppose senators and representatives who refuse their excessive demands. There is a need, then, for a new statutory initiative: The same anti-corruption rationale that may prohibit contractors from spending millions in favor of candidates requires a statutory prohibition on a negative advertising blitz.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Of course, constitutional or not, our corporate-owned Congress still has to pass it.

1 comment January 27th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

David Michael Green Speaks For Me

I know, I’ve never heard of him either.  But he absolutely dismantles the corruption and self-destructive fecklessness of Obama and congressional (especially Senate) Democrats, who look more and more like Republican double agents every day.

It’s awfully shrill, and a little bit repetitive, and you should totally read it.

1 comment January 26th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

The Next Big Thing

Dave Johnson on the implications of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United decision:

The marketplace is now irrelevant – only company size matters. It is just more efficient to beat your competitors by buying legislation than it is by competing in the marketplace. When you can purchase $1 billion in tax breaks, subsidies, mandates, contracts, whatever by spending a few million on candidates/influence, etc. it just makes more sense to do so. The return on investment is just so much higher than building factories, spending on research, paying employees, and other tedious, time-consuming, capital-intensive work.

For some time companies have recognized that the rewards from lobbying outperform the rewards from competing in the marketplace, and this ruling just amplifies that. This 2006 New York Times article, Google Joins the Lobbying Herd, discussed how Google felt it had “no choice but to get into the arena” to start “spreading its lobbying dollars” around to politicians and quotes Lauren Maddox, a lobbyist for Google, saying the “policy process is an extension of the market battlefield.” This supreme court ruling just clinches this shift away from markets.

First American companies made money selling natural resources.  Then they made money by selling manufactured goods.  Now they make money selling intangible financial products.  The next logical step in their evolution is to make money by paying the government to give it to them.

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 07:05pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Spin

Newt Gingrich explains that the Citizens United ruling is a huge win for ordinary citizens because rich people and corporations will give you millions of dollars of campaign support to oppose them. Fascinating.

BLOCK: You’re saying that this ruling affects the average citizen expressing his or her voice, as opposed to corporations being allowed to spend freely.

Mr. GINGRICH: Im saying that it allows you to have a middle-class candidate go out and find allies and supporters who are able to help them match the rich. And able to help them match the incumbent. Remember, incumbents run with millions of dollars in congressional staff, congressional franking, congressional travel. And they have all the advantages of being able to issue statements from their incumbent office. And the challenger – the person out there who’s the citizen who’s rebelling, who wants to change things – is at an enormous disadvantage in taking on incumbents.

This will, in fact, level the playing field and allow middle-class candidates to begin to have an opportunity to raise the resources to take on the powerful and the rich.

Is there a Hall Of Fame for spin?

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 01:26pm Posted by Eli

Ralph Nader’s Smirking Revenge

It is truly amazing that anyone can look at a shocking Democratic loss in Massachusetts and conclude that it’s a backlash against liberal overreach.  Does anyone really seriously believe that Obama and the Democrats have been too liberal for Massachusetts? Really?  Especially when they’ve fallen far short of enacting the platform they were overwhelmingly elected on?  But if one doesn’t trust logic and common sense, one can always check the polling:

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”

• by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
• by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

• 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
• 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

• 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
• 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

Oh yeah, that’s a real clear call for centrism, all right.

Here’s what I’m seeing: In 2000, Ralph Nader basically ran on a platform of “Republicans and Democrats are all corporate whores, there’s no real difference between them.”  The economy was in great shape at the tail end of a pro-corporate but generally successful Democratic presidency, so his message fell on deaf ears.  If it ain’t broke, etc.

Then Dubya and his pet Congress subject us to eight years of truly disastrous policy that enriches corporations and wealth at the expense of everyone else.  By 2005, America is thoroughly sick of it and starts voting Republicans out en masse in 2006, culminating in a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2009, not to mention a frightening economic collapse engineered by years of unconditional corporatism.

And what happened?  Nothing.  This Democratic president and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress continue to coddle, protect, and bail out the same corporations who crashed the economy while doing nothing for their victims.  Americans swept in the Democrats expecting change and reform, and got more of the godawful corporate same.  If ever there was a time for them to be receptive to Nader’s message that both parties are indistinguishable corporate whores, it would be now, when the economy is struggling and the Democrats are following the same corrupt and foolish path as the Republicans (whose awfulness is still very fresh in everyone’s minds).

I don’t know that it will be Nader himself (in fact, I expect it won’t be), but to me it looks like the conditions are ripe for a populist throw-all-the-bums-out third party to make an impact in the 2012 election cycle.  I don’t know whether it’ll be tea partiers from the right (that’d be my bet) or greens from the left, or even some weird coalition of both, but someone is going to capitalize on the “I voted for the Democrats and nothing changed, but I don’t want the Republicans back either” frustration that’s bubbling up out there, mark my words.

1 comment January 21st, 2010 at 11:35am Posted by Eli

Electoral Politics In A Nutshell

If the voters think you’re accomplishing most of what they think you promised to accomplish, you’ll probably get re-elected.  If they don’t, you probably won’t.

Obama managed to charm voters into believing that he had promised more than he actually did, but so far has delivered far less than he actually promised.

Here’s a partial composite list of things that Obama promised, or that those who voted for him think he promised:

• Universal healthcare that doesn’t suck
• Financial reform to restructure Wall Street and punish its malefactors of great wealth
• Jobs/economic stimulus/mortgage relief
• Shifting the tax burden back towards the rich
• Emphasis on green energy and jobs/significant reductions of greenhouse emissions
• Government transparency/restoration of respect for the Constitution and rule of law
• Reduction of lobbyist influence
• Abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
• Closing of Gitmo
• Withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
• Accountability for Bush administration criminals

I can’t think of a single item on this list that Obama has come even close to achieving, or even made a good-faith effort to achieve.  I’d say that he was comparatively most successful on jobs and economic stimulus, but 10% unemployment isn’t exactly something to brag about.

Obama and the Democrats got their performance review yesterday.  If they don’t start showing some serious improvement in the quality of their work product over the next nine months, a whole bunch of them are going to get fired.

Add comment January 20th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

Krugigami

As a longtime Paul Krugman fan, it has been sad and disappointing to watch him advocate for the terrible Senate healthcare bill, and repeatedly defend John Gruber for shilling said bill without disclosing all the money the administration paid him.  Overall, his heart’s still in the right place, but this one giant blind spot takes him to some interesting and uncomfortable places:

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

(…)

It’s important to remember, also, how important health care reform is to the Democratic base. Some activists have been left disillusioned by the compromises made to get legislation through the Senate — but they would have been even more disillusioned if Democrats had simply punted on the issue.

And politics should be about more than winning elections. Even if health care reform loses Democrats’ votes (which is questionable), it’s the right thing to do.

(…)

Democrats have to do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill. Passing such a bill won’t be their political salvation — but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom.

So, on the one hand, Obama and the Democrats are in trouble because they went half-assed, compromised and corporatist on the stimulus and financial reform… but on the other hand, they’ll be in even more trouble if they don’t pass half-assed, compromised and corporatist healthcare reform.  Mr. Krugman needs to make up his mind.

Add comment January 18th, 2010 at 01:00pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Tone-Deafness

Exhibit A:

Turner triggered controversy in August when he first floated the transaction tax idea and criticized the size of the U.K. financial sector in an interview in Prospect, a British journal. At a black-tie gathering of financial executives in London on Sept. 22, Turner said banks should move away from products, such as complex derivatives, that don’t benefit society.

“Some financial activities which proliferated over the last 10 years were socially useless, and some parts of the system were swollen beyond their optimal size,” he told the gathering.

Turner’s remarks have been condemned by executives who say it’s ridiculous to introduce a moral dimension to regulation.

“Quite honestly, I am appalled, disgusted, ashamed and hugely embarrassed,” wrote Howard Wheeldon, a senior strategist at BGC Partners LP, in an August note. “How dare he?” Wheeldon now says. “Markets will decide if something is too big or too small. It’s not for an individual, however powerful, to slam and damn nearly 1 million people.”

Yes, how dare anyone suggest that something as petty and schoolmarmish as mere morality should every trump the wisdom of the almighty and all-knowing market which never makes mistakes!

Exhibit B:

[Harold Ford Jr.] blasted [Gillibrand's] support for the proposed health care overhaul, which is expected to cost New York an extra $1 billion a year, and for opposing the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry.

“It was a mistake,” he said, noting that most Wall Street firms had already paid back the money. “How can you be against ensuring that the lifeblood of your city and of your state survives?”

(…)

After Mr. Ford, a five-term Tennessee congressman, arrived in New York, he took a job as a vice chairman at Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America). But he kept a toe in politics, becoming a commentator on Fox and then NBC, which features him several days a week on programs like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Speaking from a conference room at New York University, where he is a teacher, Mr. Ford, 39, expressed enthusiasm about his new hometown, though he described a life quite different than most New Yorkers. On many days, he is driven to an NBC television studio in a chauffeured car. He and his wife, Emily, a 29-year-old fashion executive, live a few blocks from the Lexington Avenue subway line in the Flatiron district. But Mr. Ford said he takes the subway only occasionally in the winter, to avoid the cold when he cannot hail a cab.

Asked whether he had visited all five boroughs, he mentioned taking a helicopter ride across the city with fellow executives, at the invitation of Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner. “The only place I have not spent considerable time is Staten Island,” he said, adding that “I landed there in the helicopter, so I can say yes.”

(…)

He has breakfast most mornings at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, and he receives regular pedicures. (He described them as treatment for a foot condition.)

Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”

(…)

Offering a glimpse into a possible campaign strategy, Mr. Ford and his aides said he would run as an insurgent who is uncontrolled by the entrenched political class that he says has rallied around Ms. Gillibrand. His tentative slogan: “Harold Ford: nobody’s man but ours.”

(…)

Mr. Ford has officially been a resident of the state only since 2009, and did not vote in November’s mayoral election.

Oh yeah, New Yorkers are just going to loooove this anti-establishment man of the people.  He really has that common touch.

Add comment January 14th, 2010 at 07:23am Posted by Eli

What’s Next For WaPo?

First it was the attempt to sell access to government officials and their own news staff, and now they’re outsourcing their reporting to conservative propaganda outlets.

It’s only a matter of time before they attempt to sell naming rights.  Maybe “The Wellpoint Washington Post”, or perhaps “The Halliburton Post”?  Maybe they’ll even start renting out advertising space on their reporters and editors so that they look like NASCAR drivers in suits.  But at least we’d be able to see at a glance who their sponsors are.

Add comment January 3rd, 2010 at 04:08pm Posted by Eli

Whatever You Do, Don’t Read This

It’s just too disheartening:

In the fall of 2008, Democrats took the White House and expanded their Congressional majorities as America struggled through a financial collapse wrought by years of deregulation. The public was furious. It seemed as if the banks and institutions that dragged the economy to the brink of disaster — and were subsequently rescued by taxpayer funds — would finally be forced to change their ways.

But it’s not happening. Financial regulation’s long slog through Congress has left it riddled with loopholes, carved out at the request of the same industries that caused the mess in the first place. An outraged American public is proving no match for the mix of corporate money and influence that has been marshaled on behalf of the financial sector.

The banking committee… is known as a “money committee” because joining it makes fundraising, especially from donors with financial interests litigated by the panel, significantly easier.

The Democratic leadership chose to embrace this concept, setting up the committee as an ATM for vulnerable rookies. Eleven freshman representatives from conservative-leaning districts, designated as “frontline” members, have been given precious spots on the committee. They have individually raised an average of $1.09 million for their 2010 campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; by contrast, the average House member has raised less than half of that amount.

(…)

Because the frontline members face the possible end of their careers in November and may be beholden to the whims of powerful donors, the Democrats’ 13-seat advantage on the committee is weaker than it appears. If seven members break with the party on a vote, the GOP wins. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) refers to them as “the unreliable bottom row.” (The second row is little better, populated by the Democrats from red-leaning areas who first took office after the 2006 election.)

In short, by setting up the committee as a place for shaky Democrats from red districts to pad their campaign coffers, leadership made a choice to prioritize fundraising over the passage of strong legislation. “It makes it difficult to corral consensus,” says Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a subcommittee chairman, of the unwieldy panel.

(…)

Sixteen of the committee’s 86 current staffers — including a good chunk of the senior staff — worked as lobbyists before coming to the committee. (And it’s not just Republicans; 12 of the 16 are Democrats.)

“The door doesn’t just revolve once,” says Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.). “They tend to go out and come back and go out again. It really does create a set of financial incentives, whether conscious or not.”

If anything, it gets worse from there.  It’s appalling and more than a little scary just how corrupt and rotten our government has become.

2 comments December 31st, 2009 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

What I’ve Been Saying

Scarecrow has a great post about just how badly Obama and the Democrats have sold us out on healthcare, and how pathetic our supposed “reform” is when compared to the rest of the developed world, and Drew Westen decries Obama’s abject lack of leadership.  I think the root cause is the same: Our government has become so completely captive to corporate donors that it is literally almost impossible to pass any bill that might harm corporate interests in any way.

As I put it back in July:

As the increasingly discouraging healthcare “reform” process plays out, the endgame makes the most sense when you remember that the Prime Directive for Obama and most of Congress is this:

First, do no harm… to the insurance companies.

(…)

This is why single-payor is off the table (and how many of today’s public option advocates wouldn’t prefer single-payor if they thought it was attainable?) – it would kill the insurance industry outright (aside from the much smaller business of providing gap coverage), whereas a correctly managed (i.e., small or unsuccessful) public option would only wound them.

The fundamental problem is that the starting point has never been “How do we improve healthcare for our constituents?”, but rather, “How do we make sure this doesn’t hurt the insurance industry?”

And at FDL in August:

Need to slash greenhouse emissions to prevent the ice caps from melting?  You have to do it without hurting the energy companies.

Need to rescue the economy and reform the financial system?  You have to do it without hurting Wall Street.

Need to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone?  You have to do it without hurting the insurance companies.

Need to reform campaign finance?  You have to do it without diminishing the influence of the corporations or the advantages of incumbency.

It is virtually impossible to achieve meaningful reform within such nonsensical parameters.

I wish I could see a way out of this loop, but campaign finance (the primary source of the corruption) is inside it.

2 comments December 21st, 2009 at 01:03pm Posted by Eli

Statements I Wish I Could Believe

The president who hired an economic team full of Wall Street insiders says “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

No, of course not.  I guess it must have just… happened.

2 comments December 12th, 2009 at 03:58pm Posted by Eli

Nice Try, Religious People.

See if you can spot the flaw in their reasoning:

Leaders of the group, called the Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care, met with Lieberman on Monday but said he maintained his opposition to the public option.

Their latest attempt to lobby the senator will appear in newspapers across the state today, an advertisement featuring a letter from Norwalk Rabbi Joseph Ron Fish describing the imperative of multiple faiths to seek the welfare of everyone, particularly the meek and vulnerable. The advertisement includes the signatures of 240 Connecticut religious leaders and will argue that Lieberman must support “real reform” as a matter of conscience, according to the group.

(…)

One religious leader, the Rev. Joshua Mason Pawelek, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society in Manchester, said he hopes the advertisement, along with the work of other groups lobbying Lieberman, will convince the senator to reconsider his position on the public option.

“Hopefully he will get the message that his constituency … supports health care reform,” Pawelek said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday. “Hopefully he would understand that and have his heart moved and change his mind.”

Joe’s constituency isn’t the people of Connecticut, it’s Aetna and the health insurance industry.  You know, the people his wife is a professional lobbyist for?

2 comments December 10th, 2009 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

Beginning To Look Like A Trend…

Obama is allowing himself to be led by the nose by generals who are far to the right of the people who supported and elected him.  Just as he is allowing himself to be led by the nose by corporate shills like Summers and Geithner, and by anti-public option compromisers like Rahm.

Just once I’d like to see Obama stand up to all the Republicans and near-Republicans who are advising him, and actually do something that he was elected to do, but I know that’s a pipe dream.  He listens to them not because he’s a weak and gullible naif (although that could be true as well), but because he’s one of them and they’re telling him exactly what he wants to hear.

Add comment December 8th, 2009 at 07:11am Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Month, Part II

Surely I can’t be the only one who desperately wants to smack these self-important assholes upside the head:

Some of President Obama’s wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.

Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year’s campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.

Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren’t getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and access to the White House they became used to during the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

“I’ve had almost no communication with the White House,” said Chris Korge, a top supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton from Miami who later collected $5.5 million for Obama, making him one of the president’s biggest fundraisers.

Korge said his only visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was a St. Patrick’s Day event. He complained in a recent interview that the administration has done little to reward the president’s donors or tap into their experience and wisdom.

“There is no connection between the administration and money people,” he said. “If they do have any connection . . . it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned.”

There are probably millions of non-gazillionaire Obama supporters who worked their asses off and contributed money they couldn’t afford, who are bitterly disappointed by Obama systematically betraying almost every single progressive ideal and their hopes that he would take decisive action to fix everything Bush broke, and these entitled jackasses are whining because they’re not getting stroked enough?  Bite me.

Add comment December 4th, 2009 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Month, Part I

Hasn’t Grandma Millie suffered enough?

Ben Bernanke let his slip show at multiple points during his confirmation hearing today. First, as Ryan Grim reports, he echoed bank robber Willie Sutton in targeting nothing less than Social Security:

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee today, where he’s seeking re-appointment as the Fed’s chairman, Bernanke called for cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security even as unemployment rises and the middle class is endangered.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) sympathized with Bernanke, saying that, because of entitlement spending, “you’re going to be looking at a situation where the Congress will be unable to provide any kind of fiscal discipline because of the mandatory spending. That puts an enormous burden on your plate.”

“Well, Senator, I was about to address entitlements,” Bernanke replied. “I think you can’t tackle the problem in the medium term without doing something about getting entitlements under control and reducing the costs, particularly of health care.”

Bernanke reminded Congress that it has the power to repeal Social Security and Medicare.

“It’s only mandatory until Congress says it’s not mandatory. And we have no option but to address those costs at some point or else we will have an unsustainable situation,” said Bernanke [...]

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) followed Bennett and pointed out that “there’s only really two ways you can deflect this deficit, and that’s either by cutting expenditures or raising income taxes or other forms of taxes.”

Reed asked him if he could think of other ways, but Bernanke returned to entitlement money as the way to balance the budget.

“Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money is, as he put it,” Bernanke said. “The money in this case is in entitlements.”

Sounds like someone wants to see a cat food commission in the near future.

Bernanke likes to say that he’s not following the lead of his predecessor and getting involved in fiscal policy. But clearly, that’s not universal. He’s fine with talking about entitlement cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It’s when tax increases for the rich or on stock trades come up, that Bernanke demurs and says that Congress writes the laws.

(…)

So let’s tally that up. No second stimulus, no jobs bill, no public investment to deal with the worst hiring crisis since the Depression, no relief for a jobless recovery, but yes to cutting people’s meager Social Security benefit and their health care in their old age.

Trillions of dollars in bailouts for the assholes who trashed our economy GOOD; Social Security and Medicare BAD.

I’m glad to see that the holds on Bernanke’s nomination are multiplying – and at least 75% of them are Republican, which means they might actually be honored.

Add comment December 4th, 2009 at 07:08am Posted by Eli

So Much For The Charm Offensive

…Or maybe they realize just how woefully inadequate it is:

“I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image — and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

(…)

Plenty of Wall Streeters worry about the big discrepancies in wealth, and think the rise of a financial industry-led plutocracy is unjust. That doesn’t mean any of them plan to move into a double-wide mobile home as a show of solidarity with the little people, though.

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

Ya know, if you feel the need to carry a gun because you’re afraid an angry mob will tear you to pieces, that’s probably a hint that you may not be in the most honorable line of work.  Also worth considering: Plaxico Burress.

Add comment December 1st, 2009 at 09:11pm Posted by Eli

Ensign Will Resign After The 2010 Election

Well, how else to interpret his explanation of why he’s not stepping down now:

Embattled Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Monday rejected calls for his resignation based on an extramarital affair with a former aide, saying to do so would take the focus off Republican efforts to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

In his first live interview since news of the affair broke this summer, Ensign warned Las Vegas Newsradio KXNT talk show host Alan Stock: “If I resign, we have a second Senate race. For the people who want to beat Harry Reid, if you have a second Senate race in this state you take the focus off of Harry Reid. … I think that would hurt the conservative cause.” Stock has called on Ensign, up for re-election in 2012, to step down.

“If I were to listen to some folks out there, we’d have a second Senate race. People need to think about that,” Ensign said.

I mean, if Ensign is only hanging onto his seat to make it easier to oust Reid in 2010, then he has no excuse to stay in office one minute after that election, right?  Or at the very least he should pledge not to seek re-election.  Otherwise one might think that this is simply a flimsy and transparent excuse for him to cling to power despite his blatant wrongdoing.

1 comment December 1st, 2009 at 11:19am Posted by Eli