It's Coming Soon

Capitalism: A Love Story will appear in movie theaters on October 2, 2009.

Cash for Clunkers: A Stellar Success

It's enough to make an economic conservative gnash his teeth in anger, but the truth must be said: the cash for clunkers program was a stellar success:

The popular Cash for Clunkers program generated nearly 700,000 new car sales during the past month, giving the U.S. auto industry a badly needed jolt of activity during the deepest decline in auto sales in two decades.

The government, releasing final data on the car incentives, said Wednesday that dealers submitted 690,114 sales totaling $2.88 billion, bringing the program to a close under its $3 billion budget. 

Hear that, conservatives? The program ended under budget. Perhaps more significantly, the program was so successful it ended ahead of schedule. 

It proved far more popular than lawmakers originally thought. Congress added another $2 billion to the original $1 billion budget when the first pot of money nearly ran out in a week. The extra money was supposed to last through Labor Day, but the funding only lasted about a month.

That's a measure of both how popular the program was with the public and the high level of economic activity it generated.

While no one thinks that auto sales will continue at the same frenzied pace now that the program has ended, there is ample indication that auto-makers believe that sales will substantially increase above pre-program levels. They have added shifts in their manufacturing plants and have rehired some laid-off workers. The White House estimates that "42,000 jobs will be created or saved because of the program."

No doubt the perennial naysayers will make much of this:

The biggest industry beneficiaries were Japanese automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan, which accounted for 41 percent of the new vehicle sales. That outpaced Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which had a share of nearly 39 percent. Toyota Motor Corp. led the industry with 19.4 percent of new sales, followed by General Motors Co. with 17.6 percent and Ford Motor Co. with 14.4 percent.

The Japanese automakers fared better. But look more closely at the facts:

The Toyota Corolla was the most popular new vehicle purchased under the program. The Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Ford Focus held the next three top spots. All four are built in the United States.

In short, the sales are helping the US economy. That's not the only thing that the program helped:

The government said 84 percent of the trade-ins were trucks and 59 percent of the new vehicles were passenger cars. New vehicles bought through Cash for Clunkers had an average fuel-efficiency of 24.9 miles per gallon, compared with an average of 15.8 mpg for trade-ins, a 58 percent improvement.

 

Great news all around, right? But, reader, if you hear a note of weeping in the national celebration of this program's success, it's those economic conservatives who, for entirely doctrinaire reasons, simply cannot admit they were wrong. A government stimulus program worked—in fact, it exceeded expectations—and that must be denied at all costs. You see, if they admit that a government stimulus program worked here, then they'll have to admit that such programs might work in other aspects of the economy as well. Too bad for them. Reality is rarely kind to dogmatists.

Ted Kennedy is Dead

He lived too long to receive the mythologizing that his older brothers received and, so, strode among us more like a man than a demigod. Of course, the mythologizing of Jack and Bobby placed them at level Ted Kennedy would never achieve. His lot was to stay behind and watch over the Kennedy clan and do the hard work in the Senate over decades, work that has wrought justice and help for millions of Americans. He has always been my favorite of the three and I have often wished that he could have been President. I think he would have made a good and principled president.

I'm sorry that he's gone. I'll miss his fire and compassion and fearlessness in promoting a righteous cause. Many are the better because Ted Kennedy lived.

clipped from abcnews.go.com Sen. Ted Kennedy died shortly before midnight Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77. The man known as the "liberal lion of the Senate" had fought a more than year-long battle with brain cancer, and according to his son had lived longer with the disease than his doctors expected him to. Sen. Edward Moore Kennedy, the youngest Kennedy brother who was left to head the family's political dynasty after his brothers President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. Kennedy championed health care reform, working wages and equal rights in his storied career. In August, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- the nation's highest civilian honor -- by President Obama. His daughter, Kara Kennedy, accepted the award on his behalf.

Limbaugh: American Penises Endangered by Obama

We've had evocations of "death panels," government run "reeducation camps," "death books," (the standard) socialism, Nazism, (locally) fascism and so on. But now Rush Limbaugh has come up with a new bugbear about President Obama to incite hysteria about him: President Obama is a threat to American penises. I'm not kidding:

LIMBAUGH: I have been mentioned in a rap song by the rapper Jay-Z. Got a new song out there, what's the name of the song? Don't know what the name of the song is, new song out mentions me and the moderate Bill O'Reilly.

JAY-Z [audio clip]: Black vs. white my nigga, we off that. Please tell Bill O'Reilly to fall back. Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls, it's 2010 not 1864. Yeah we come so far. How's that for a mix, got a black president, got green presidents.

LIMBAUGH: Is this - Snerdly, mark a new development in my career, to be singled out in a rap song by the famous rapper Jay-Z? I guess it is, I guess it's - as far as I know, I've never been mentioned in a rap song by anybody. I guess it means I made it, I'm now in a rap tune by the famous rapper Jay-Z. "Tell Rush Limbaugh to get off my balls, tell Bill O'Reilly to fall back." I would remind the rapper Jay-Z, Mr. Z, it is President Obama that wants to mandate circumcision. We had that yesterday, and that means if anybody - if we need to save our penises from anybody, it's Obama

What will the kooks, cranks and crackpots come up with next?

Losing Expensively: Delaware’s Awful Day in Court

I should have saved the article about it, but the state of Delaware is paying private attorneys from two law firms a lot of money to represent the state in a lawsuit filed by the USA's major professional sports leagues and the NCAA. The plaintiffs want to stop the state from proceeding to hold Los Vegas style sports betting beginning September 1, 2009. The money the state of Delaware paid these exemplary attorneys went down the crapper today:

Delaware's proposal to launch single-game sports betting next week violates federal law and cannot proceed, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

The panel made its surprise ruling from the bench after a nearly two-hour hearing. Judge Theodore McKee said a written order outlining their ruling would be issued later today. Sports betting was set to start in Delaware Sept. 1.

The case presented by the state's well paid attorneys was so bad that the three-judge panel didn't need to take much time to rule against the state. The judges virtually ruled from the bench:

The panel was only expected to rule Monday on the issue of a temporary order to stop Delaware from launching sports betting with single-game wagers against a point spread and bets on all sports except pro football while the leagues' federal lawsuit moved through the court system.

However, during the oral arguments, members of the three-judge panel indicated there appeared to be no factual dispute between the state and the sports leagues and it was a simple matter of law that they could resolve at this stage.

Although today's order was a temporary one pending a full hearing before the Circuit Court, the judges basically told the state's attorneys that the state's case has little chance of prevailing:

And after leaving the bench and conferring together for about 40 minutes, the three judges -- McKee, Julio Fuentes and Thomas Hardiman -- returned to the bench and announced that not only did they think there was a "likelihood" the leagues would prevail at trial, but had decided the state's plan violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

The state has 14 days to decide if it wants to appeal today's decision to the Circuit Court or directly to the US Supreme Court. Given the Circuit Court's language today about Delaware's chances, appealing to it seems like an exercise in futility. Besides, if Delaware's attorneys believe there might be reason to wonder about the constitutionality of the Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, then that would be decided by the Supreme Court eventually in any case.

The rub is that Delaware counted on the legality of its new sports betting legislation to generate $17 million in revenue, an amount needed to balance the state's budget. Did the state of Delaware plan on this money for the purposes of creating a final budget bill but knowing full well that its case would be weak in Court? Regardless of the answer to that question, what will the state do now to make up the apparently lost $17 million in lost revenue? Will it require a special legislative session? Where will the $17 million come from? It seems that many recently past issues about how Delaware would resolve its budget shortfall have suddenly become relevant again.

In the meantime, there is one bottom line the state should consider. If its legal case is weak, why spend a fortune on high priced attorneys for the rest of the court proceedings? There is no virtue in losing expensively.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pro sports leagues granted hearing to stop Delaware sports betting (sports.espn.go.com)
• Delaware now 4th state to allow sports betting (sports.espn.go.com)
• Leagues fight Delaware's legalization of sports betting (timesunion.com)

Leon Panetta Should Be Fired

If CIA Director Leon Panetta cannot accept that it's a proper role of the Department of Justice to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute anyone in the CIA for possibly breaking federal laws against torture, then he should be removed from his job. He should be fired.

His primary duty is NOT to give cover to potential criminals within the CIA but to help in upholding the law.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com CIA Director threatened to quit over an potential criminal investigation of CIA torture, ABC News reported Monday. A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com. According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture." Panetta was apparently also upset over the release, happening today, of an internal 2004 report on CIA torture.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rights groups rip CIA immunity on interrogations (cnn.com)
• Guns, Drills, Executions: CIA Atrocities Alleged (abcnews.go.com)
• Attorney General May Open Interrogation Inquiry (nytimes.com)
• House Dems: Panetta said CIA misled Congress (cnn.com)
• Double Jeopardy for CIA Interrogators? (abcnews.go.com)
• AP Sources: Report Reveals CIA Mock Executions (abcnews.go.com)

Rand Paul: A Chip Off the Same Lunatic Block

Like his father Ron Paul, who sponsored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (ASRA), which would withdraw the US from the United Nations, Rand Paul (who is running for the US Senate for the state of Kentucky) sees a dangerous conspiracy afoot in the USA's relationship with its neighbors:

The diehard supporters of GOP maverick Ron Paul are back in campaign mode. But they're not backing another presidential run by America's favorite libertarian. Paul's son, Dr. Rand Paul, is running for a 2010 U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. To hear the other Dr. Paul's take on one-world government and abolishing the Federal Reserve, you'd swear you were listening to his dad.

I called Rand Paul at his medical office in Bowling Green, Kentucky. In a drawling voice, Paul echoed his father's strong isolationist streak. He brought up fears of a united North American government, including Mexico and Canada, that would replace American currency, an idea he said was being actively promoted by David Rockefeller.

Rand Paul doesn't discount all conspiracy theories. "Some of the fears of world government are legitimate," he said.

Oooo! Watch out for that world government. I guess Daddy's ASRA is on target, eh?

But Rand is individuating from Dad a bit. His specific concern is about the brewing plot to replace the USA dollar:

"When you hear about the 'Amero,' a new North American money," he said, "you might say that those people are just conspiracy theorists. But if you said the same thing about the euro 30 years ago they would have said, 'Oh, you're crazy, we'll never get rid of the pound and those currencies, and lo and behold we have a euro currency. So some of the fears of world government are legitimate."

Perhaps xenophobia is an inherited trait.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rand Paul's Birthday Present to Dad Ron Paul (usnews.com)
• Ron Paul and Auditing the Federal Reserve (usnews.com)
• Ron Paul: The World's Most Popular U.S. Congressman (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

The Torturers Were Not Prosecuted

Guess what happened to the CIA officer who threatened a terror suspect with a gun? He got a slap on the wrist. That's all.

A CIA officer who allegedly used a gun to intimidate a captured al-Qaeda suspect was formally disciplined for violating the agency's rules for conducting interrogations, but Bush administration Justice Department officials ultimately declined to file charges against him, according to two former intelligence officials familiar with the case.

The officer, who has not been identified, was immediately called back to CIA headquarters to face an internal accountability board and was "reprimanded and reassigned" for committing acts outside the CIA's legal guidelines for interrogating terrorism suspects. At the time of the 2002 incident, the guidelines permitted the use of sleep deprivation and waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- on some suspects, according to a former senior intelligence official who closely followed the events.

What about the officer who threatened a terror suspect with a revolving power drill? What happened to him? Same thing. A slap on the wrist:

In a separate incident, interrogators reportedly used an electric drill to intimidate the same detainee, al-Qaeda commander Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the group's former chief in the Persian Gulf and the alleged mastermind of the deadly USS Cole suicide bombing in 2000.

"The agency, where appropriate, took its own disciplinary action when the Department of Justice declined prosecution," CIA spokesman George Little said Saturday.

Is there reason to believe that these CIA officers committed any crime(s). Indeed, there is, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute for inexplicable reasons:

Some officials involved in the case viewed the use of a gun during interrogation as a possible violation of a U.S. law that prohibits threatening detainees with imminent death. But Justice Department lawyers reviewed the case and declined to file charges, according to several former and current intelligence officials who tracked the case. It was unclear why the lawyers took that position….

The U.S. anti-torture statute bans acts intended to inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering resulting from, among other things, "the threat of imminent death" or threats of being "subjected to death."

According to one expert, however, prosecuting torturers isn't likely to result in convictions:

A. John Radsan, a former federal prosecutor who also served as assistant general counsel at the CIA, said such a case might be difficult to successfully prosecute.

"The victims are not sympathetic. Witnesses may not talk. Evidence may be gone," Radsan said. "If anyone is indicted, there will be the usual graymail. The defendant is going to push [Justice] to reveal things about the program that will even make this administration uncomfortable. The defendant will say whatever he did was reasonable reliance on advice from government lawyers."

What a nice tidy little system. A law against torture exists on the books for, it appears, largely PR reasons. But it is virtually impossible to successfully prosecute anyone on the basis of the law. So, CIA officers can torture people with virtual impunity. And some people say that the government can't be efficient.

Mock Executions and Power Drills

Is there anything that interrogators didn't do to terrorist suspects in USA custody?

A long-suppressed report by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general to be released next week reveals that CIA interrogators staged mock executions as part of the agency's post-9/11 program to detain and question terror suspects, NEWSWEEK has learned.

According to two sources—one who has read a draft of the paper and one who was briefed on it—the report describes how one detainee, suspected USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. According to the sources, who like others quoted in this article asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, Nashiri's interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. Interrogators also turned on a power drill and held it near him. "The purpose was to scare him into giving [information] up," said one of the sources. A federal law banning the use of torture expressly forbids threatening a detainee with "imminent death." (emphasis mine)

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri wasn't the ojnly omne subject to such treatment:

The report also says, according to the sources, that a mock execution was staged in a room next to a detainee, during which a gunshot was fired in an effort to make the suspect believe that another prisoner had been killed. The inspector general's report alludes to more than one mock execution.

Videotapes of Nashiri's interrogation were subsequently destroyed, "an action that has been under investigation for more than a year by a federal prosecutor."

The report containing this information was completed by the CIA's Inspector General in May of 2004 and it is just now coming to light.

The use of mock execution and threatening detainees with power drills was not authorized by Justice Department memoranda sanctioning "enhanced interrogation techniques." In short, these practices exceeded the kinds of torture that the Bush administration sanctioned.

Just as shocking is when the Justice Department and some members of Congress learned about these practices:

The inspector general's report, commissioned by then CIA director George Tenet, was sent to the Justice Department and congressional intelligence committee leaders shortly after it was written. But it was not shown to all members of the intelligence committees until September 2006, around the time that President Bush publicly acknowledged the CIA detention-and-interrogation program and instructed the agency, which had been holding detainees in a network of secret overseas prisons, to transfer them to the U.S. military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. (emphasis mine)

Were these forms of torture effective?

According to another source who has seen the document, the report says that the agency's interrogation program did produce usable intelligence.

The prosecution of the torturers and torture-sanctioners is long overdue.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA waterboarding (cnn.com)
• CIA bosses face jury over al-Qaida tapes (guardian.co.uk)
• From secret prisons to Guantanamo Bay (cnn.com)
• Memo: 2 al Qaeda leaders waterboarded 266 times (cnn.com)
• War Crimes And The Destruction Of Evidence (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

An Idiot Rich Man

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is well known for his business acumen and philanthropy, but when it comes to understanding wealth disparity in the USA, apparently he is an idiot:

Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives on Friday, declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate….

"You know, last time I checked, pharmaceutical companies don't make a lot of money, their executives don't make a lot of money – not that they couldn't be better," Bloomberg said.

One would think that this assertion couldn't possibly be made because it is preposterous on an intuitive level alone. Given the magnitude of business that pharmaceutical companies generate both nationally and internationally, how is it even possible to hypothesize that the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies don't make a lot of money? But let's look at two examples of suffering CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies:

Abbott Laboratories Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Miles White's compensation was $25.3 million in 2008. The North Chicago, Ill.-based company saw profit rising 35 percent to $4.88 billion.

Merck & Co.'s chief executive, Richard T. Clark, received a $17.3 million compensation package for 2008. The company's profit more than doubled to $7.8 billion.

How did Michael Bloomberg arrive at his mind numbing conclusion? It results from the fact that Bloomberg views the compensation of the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies from the perspective of himself:

The mayor – and wealthiest person in New York City with a fortune estimated at $16.5 billion – made the comments on his radio show Friday during a discussion about health care.

As long as "me" is the standard in assessing wealth distribution and adequacy, instead of "we," then idiotic and insensitive statements like Bloomberg's should be an expected consequence from many among the rich.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bloomberg Cruising to Re-Election (politicalwire.com)

Anonymous Blogger Unmasked by Court

Anonymous blogging is supposed to give the blogger a level of protection that the self-identified blogger lacks: freedom from the repercussions that come from self disclosure. But the veil of protection has just been pierced by a court.

The court ordered Google to give up the IP address to the plaintiff of the blogger who used words like "skanky," "ho", and "whoring" beneath the photographs of the plaintiff (a model).

Be careful my anonymous blogger friends.

clipped from www.abcnews.go.com She had graced the cover of Vogue and found success as a model. But Liskula Cohen's latest achievement came in the courtroom. Horrified by the hateful words of an anonymous blogger, Cohen took Google to court in hopes of forcing the company to reveal the writer's identity -- and won. Google initially refused to unmask the unidentified writer, who Cohen, 36, claimed defamed her by posting words like "skanky," "ho", and "whoring" below her photographs. The IP address turned over by Google revealed that the blogger was an acquaintance of Cohen's. Cohen said it was a woman she hadn't seen in about a year, but who was a regular fixture at dinners and parties, but she was not, as Cohen had feared, someone who was close to her. "Why should anybody let it go? If somebody attacks somebody on the street, you're not going to let it go … why should I just ignore it?" Cohen told "Good Morning America" exclusively today. "I couldn't find one reason to ignore it."

That's Telling Them, Barney

The contempt of the kooks, cranks, crackpots, red- and Nazi-baiters deserve to be met with contempt, the more condescending the better.

House Democrats and Unions Revolt Over Public Option

If President Barack Obama won't stand up for the public option in health care reform, some liberal and progressive members of Congress will. They pledge not to vote for any health care reform that doesn't include the public option:

The White House's signal that it's willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.

A group of left-leaning House Democrats tells POLITICO that a bill without a public option simply won't win enough votes in their caucus - a sentiment that raises fresh questions about the prospects to enact sweeping health care reform this year.

"A bill without a public option won't pass the House," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee. "Not only are they weakening their proposal, but they are also weakening their hand. This is legislative subtraction by subtraction."

Privately, the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus sent the same message to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said Sunday that a public plan is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform. (link)

Indeed, 60 members of the House of Representatives sent to following letter to Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.

We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies' good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.

To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.

We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option. (link)

According to Politico:

The letter's unequivocal: Five dozen House Dems say, No public option, no support. (link)

A revolt in the House of Representatives could mean that any health reform will be stalemated this year if the Senate (especially those damn Blue Dog Democrats) stands pat on no public option.

The question then becomes how to get Democratic Senators to change their mind. The nation's labor unions have come up with a strategy: hit the anti-public option Democrats where they live in campaign contributions and workers:

One of the country's most prominent union officials is warning that big labor may pull its support from Democrats who don't fight for a government-run insurance plan.

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Saturday, Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer and likely next president of the AFL-CIO, said his federation is drawing a line in the sand when it comes to a public option in the health care bill. Lawmakers who don't support the provision, he said, shouldn't take anything for granted.

"We'll look at every one of their votes," Trumka said after his speech at the Netroots Nation convention. "If they're against the Employee Free Choice Act, if they're against health care for that reason, I think it'll be tough for them to get support from working people."

Trumka's remarks were echoed privately by several other labor officials at the convention in Pittsburgh. In particular, the emerging Senate Finance Committee plan - which seems unlikely to contain a public option and could end up taxing pricey health care packages - seems almost guaranteed to incite the unions.

"We'll oppose it," Trumka said, when asked about any bill that ends the tax exemption for employer coverage. "It's actually a stupid concept because if you tax those that have it to pay for those that don't, eventually those that have [benefits] won't. Then who do you ultimately tax?"

Trumka's warning shots come at a time that the AFL-CIO is charting out a more aggressive campaign to target lawmakers who, as one official put it, "take labor's help but don't vote for labor's interests." Part of that process is to hold out the prospect of electoral consequences. (link)

Former Democratic Party Chairperson Howard Dean predicted electoral consequences for those who vote against a public option:

Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean fired one of the clearest warning shots at hesitant Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, insisting that if the party was unable to produce a health care bill with a public plan, there would be electoral consequences.

"I do think there will be primaries as the result of all this, if the bill doesn't pass with a public option," Dean said, in a phone interview with the Huffington Post. (link)

Dean is probably dreaming. But let's indulge the dream for a moment and then suppose all three of these vows and predictions obtain:

• House Democrats stand pat and won't pass a health care bill without a public option
  
• Unions don't walk away from their vow to not support Democrats who will vote for health care bill without a public option
  
• There is early indication in various states that potential primary candidates will run against Senators and Representatives if they don't support a public option
  

Since I am dreaming, allow me to raise the ante:

• President Obama draws a line in the sand and says a public option must be a part of any bill that he signs.
  

If all four of the factors obtained, do you think that a public option would pass Congress? I do. I don't think that some of the blue dogs would want to be left isolated, twisting in the wind in 2010, beset by primary challengers who have union support and the tacit disfavor of the President, stigmatized with the epitaph that they killed health care reform.

All that is doable, but, then, I'm just dreaming.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dean wants Obama to stand by public option (msnbc.msn.com)
• Labor Warns Dems: We'll Sit Out Election If You Oppose Public Plan (huffingtonpost.com)
• Dean: Health Care Needs Public Option (time.com)
• 'Public Option' in Health Plan May Be Dropped (nytimes.com)

Richard Korn Announces Run for Delaware State Auditor

Citizen advocate Richard Korn has announced his run for Delaware State Auditor. Presumably, his opponent will be the long-time incumbent Tom Wagner. (I am not certain if Wagner has yet announced his intention to run for State Auditor again.)

In his press release, Korn writes:

Our community, state and nation are going through one of, if not the most challenging economic times in recent history. Due to a lack of oversight and foresight, greed and irresponsibility have run rampant and have nearly ruined our economy. It's no wonder so much anxiety about this economic black hole looms over the homes of our friends, neighbors and families.

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, IT'S PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT USES OUR TAXES IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT WAYS POSSIBLE. It's not just a challenge, but an obligation and an opportunity for us to work together to make our government more transparent and accountable.

THE STATE AUDITOR IS YOUR WATCHDOG AGAINST FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE. I'm running for State Auditor because - as a citizen taxpayer - I've been accountable to you in the past and will continue to do so as your State Auditor. I've FOUGHT for and won accountability and transparency in New Castle County's budget. I've FOUGHT against fraud by helping pass the Delaware Workplace Fraud Act, which should bring millions of dollars to our state treasury and prevents employers from taking advantage of their employees. I've FOUGHT for the poor by helping bring over a million gallons of discounted and free heating oil to low-income families annually. Throughout OUR campaign I will be releasing plans to further my watchdog work as your State Auditor.

This should be an interesting race. The campaign website can be found here.

Is Obama Trying to Have It Both Ways on DOMA?

Is President Barack Obama trying to have it both ways on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

I want to take up later the so-called standard practice of the Justice Department defending laws it doesn't agree with. For the moment, I want readers to get the picture in focus. Although the Obama administration opposes DOMA, it is defending the law in Court.

Because the defense of the law in court has angered many civil libertarians, the Obama administration has now hit upon the strategy of stating its policy objections to DOMA in its court briefs defending DOMA:

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

If the administration really believes that DOMA is discriminatory, presumably ala the 14^th amendment, then why does the Justice Department feel obliged to defend DOMA? Surely it is not the proper business of the Justice Department to defend laws it finds unconstitutional.

Unless the Obama administration holds that DOMA is discriminatory in a way that is not unconstitutional, then it seems that the Obama administration is trying to have it both ways. It's trying through policy to assuage the civil libertarians, homosexual or otherwise, that gave Obama considerable support during the election of 2008 while at the same time trying to assuage voters who support DOMA by defending it in court.

Having it both ways might be an emerging trend with the Obama administration.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Justice Department Defends Defense Of Marriage Act - That Candidate Obama Opposed (blogs.abcnews.com)
• New Obama legal brief changes tune on DOMA, kind of (americablog.com)

It's Likely That Cocaine is on Your Dollar Bill

This is a shocker. There is a 90% chance that traces of cocaine can be found on your folding money. I would have never thought the percentage would be so--not to pun--high.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com On Sunday, the American Chemical Society, a nonprofit scientific society chartered by Congress, released a study claiming that up to 90 percent of U.S. paper money contains traces of cocaine. Of the 5 countries studied, The U.S. and Canada had the highest levels tested, with China and Japan ranking lowest, from 12 to 20 percent contamination levels. "To my surprise, we're finding more and more cocaine in banknotes," said study leader Yuegang Zuo, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth. "I'm not sure why we've seen this apparent increase, but it could be related to the economic downturn, with stressed people turning to cocaine," Zuo says.

Did Kathleen Sebelius Misspeak, Really?

Did Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius misspeak when she said earlier today that the Obama administration was willing to drop the public option in favor health insurance co-ops? It depends on who you talk to in the administration:

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

But another White official said in an e-mail "that Sebelius didn't misspeak.'The media misplayed it'." That was quite a misplay since it came from Sebelius herself on national television.

Then there is the wiggle-room interpretation of Health and Human Services Secretary's words:

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

I suppose the President could think that the public option is the "best way" to lower costs, etc, but still find co-ops an acceptable way if they make it to his desk in a final bill. It's not as though the President is saying that the public option is the only way to go.

Here the wiggling is explicit:

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before. (emphasis mine)

If that is not enough indication of hedging, there are the words of President Obama himself:

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said. (emphasis mine)

It sounds as though the President is trying to have it both ways for the time being. He wants to keep the favor of the liberals and progressives while signaling to Congress and Americans afraid of the public option that he is willing to drop the public option in favor of a relatively more bi-partisan approach: viz., the co-ops. He doesn't want to take a stand.

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House ready to drop 'public option'? (msnbc.msn.com)
• The End of the Public Option? (firedoglake.com)

Union Jobs Provide More Vacation Time

Leave it to the marketplace and workers would get very little, if any, vacation time. In the USA there are no federal laws requiring paid vacation time, a position the USA alone occupies among industrialized nations. Union representation, however, makes a difference.

But the paid vacation act, pending in Congress, hopes to address the larger problem of mostly non-unionized workplaces. It's hardly adequate. It requires firms with 100 employees or more to provide only a week of paid vacation. But it is a start and it deserves our support.

clipped from www.epi.org The United States has been called "the no-vacation nation."1 In fact, it is alone among industrialized countries in having no statutory paid leave. European Union rules entitle all workers to a minimum of 20 paid days of leave per year, and many European countries do better than that. In the United States, one out of four workers has no paid vacation or public holiday leave at all. Belonging to a union, however, is a clear advantage in this regard. The average non-unionized worker will work a lifetime and still never reach the European minimum amount of paid annual leave (see chart). A study of the entire workforce—adjusted for occupation, industry, and other factors—found that, after 25 years, union members receive 26.6% more vacation weeks than non-union workers.2 The Paid Vacation Act currently before Congress would be the first broadly applied U.S. vacation law. It would require firms with 100 employees or more to provide a week of paid vacation

Obama Abandons Public Option

Many progressives had hoped for a single-payer, universal health care system, the kind that many industrialized countries have and which have a demonstrable history of working well. But it was clear that when Obama ran for president that possibility would never materialize during his administration. The "public option" was the best one could hope for. Now Obama is ready to abandon that idea in favor of co-ops, a sort of Fanny-Med approach to public health care. Because these co-ops will be required to maintain the same financial reserves as private insurerers, the competitive advantage they will provide to private insurers will probably little better than marginal.

The upshot will be the continuation of millions of Americans without health insurance of any kind. Continued bankruptcies, the continuation of people dying from the lack of health care, etc. A slight improvement perhaps, but everything remaining much the same. The political need for Obama to declare victory usurped the health care provision needs of millions of Americans.

clipped from www.commondreams.org Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system. Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.