Daily Kos publisher and founder Markos Moulitsas has a post up on his blog about the 10 point gap GOP  has opened up in the Congressional generic ballot.  In it, he cannot resist the temptation to take his latest dump on President Obama and the Democrats:

It's a slow motion car wreck in the works, and the best the White House and its allies can do is complain that we didn't clap loudly enough.

Clap, Markos? Really? Seriously, forget about clapping.  How about not taking a dump on the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress as frequently as you can with no reason at all? Can you and your allies do that?

This isn't about clapping - although applause is more than warranted at the successes and triumphs this President and this Democratic Congress have been able to achieve even in the face of unified, vitriolic and violent right wing enmity ranging from challenging the President's citizenship to cutting off gas lines at the homes of families of Democratic members of Congress.

For too many both on the right and the left opposed to the new health reform law, the favorite attack point is the individual mandate.  "The government has never before mandated that you buy a product from a private company!" goes out the outrage among the left ideologues in particular, as they note the lack of a public option.

First of all, it's important that we understand what this "mandate" really is.  It is this: starting in 2014, you will be required to obtain health insurance that meets excellent minimum coverage standards if you can find it for 8% of your income or less (or pay a small fine), and people with incomes under 400% of the poverty level, subsidies will be provided on a sliding scale.

Here's the deal about that meme of how the government has never mandated that individuals buy a product from a private company.  It's completely, utterly, and provably false.  The government does, on a regular basis, mandate the purchase of private products from private companies by the American people.  Let's look at a few things that proves this case.

Usually, I try to do pieces filled with objective information, data, etc.  Not today.  Today I want to tell you about the culture and the people that are my heritage.  Ahmed Sharif was the cab driver in New York City that was stabbed after confirming to his passenger that he is Muslim.  Ahmed Sharif also comes from the same land and culture that I grew up in.  No, I'm not Muslim.

I have prepared a transcript of the Mr. Sharif's interview, from a segment on Countdown on MSNBC on Thursday night (video follows).

He asked me where I'm from. I answer(ed) him, 'Bangladesh.'

He then questioned [if] I'm Muslim. "Yeah, I am Muslim." Then he told me 'Salam Alaikum.' I returned 'Alaikum a Salam.' He said that's the month of Ramadan, how I'm doing. I said I'm doing good.

Then he started making fun of the month of Ramadan. Then I decided to keep my mouth shut.

He started yelling and screaming. "This is the checkpost, this is the checkpost, you motherfucker. I have to put you down. I have to bring King Abdullah to the checkpoint." So I said, "What are you talking about, 'what checkpoint?' " In this time I saw the knife coming to my neck.

There is a fair amount of disgruntled murmur among the progressive economic community that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not big enough, and did not do enough targeted spending.  To be clear, I share those concerns.  In times of economic desperation, consumers tighten their belts, and government must spend to make up that lost demand in the economy.  What we do know is that the stimulus package, costing roughly $800 billion, was about as big a package as was possible to get through in the face of near-uniform Republican filibusters in the Senate.

But a crucial detail is often missed in the debate to try to jockey to show that we were right, and that if only the stimulus package had been bigger and/or better targeted to spending rather than a third being spent on tax cuts, we would be a whole lot better off.  That crucial detail is whether the stimulus spending that was authorized is being spent as quickly as possible.  More precisely, whether states and local governments - through whom must of the stimulus spending is done - are spending the money already authorized for them fast enough.  It turns out that they are not.

Nearly five months after the passage of the most significant health care and insurance consumer reforms in this country in more than half a century, the never-satisfied-with-anything left ideologues on the blogosphere are returning to the theme they used to try to kill health reform, before it was obvious it would pass, when they switched and pretended they were for it.

But the true color is out again.  Under the guise of holding the President and Democrats accountable, we have got the attitude of blaming the President and Democrats for not stopping all health care woes right away, which, apparently spells impending doom of and provides proof positive of the ineffectuality of the new health reform law.  So let's go through these ridiculous claims and see if facts don't debunk the heck out of them.

First, of course, we have the big complaint - California has allowed Anthem Blue Cross to move forward with a rate hike averaging 14% in the individual market, with the highest increases at 20%.  That is undoubtedly horrific.  But what is being left out of the story here?  The author of the health-care bashing piece tells you that Anthem originally asked for a 39% increase and made it look like as if asking for that increase is what allowed them half of what they originally bargained for.  Not so.  First of all, the rate hike was delayed for 6 months, thanks to the intervention of California regulators, saving California consumers $184 million this year, a fact "nyceve" fails to mention, even though I found it right in the same article she cited to make her case.

Last week, we at the Progress for A More Perfect Union Facebook group had a live chat with Congressman Alan Grayson.  He was a terrific guest, and I have a transcript up if you would like to read what he talked about during the chat.

The organizers at Progress for A More Perfect Union have done it again, and tonight at 5pm Pacific time (8pm Eastern), we will be joined by Justin Coussoule, the Democratic challenger to John of Orange... err, I mean John Boehner, the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives from Ohio's 8th Congressional District.  Coussoule is a graduate of West Point; he's a fiscally responsible progressive who is a tireless advocate for our veterans, for distressed homeowners, clean energy and cap-and-trade, and public service.

Boehner is eying the seat of the Speaker of the House, but we have the opportunity to stop him right in his district.  Support Justin Coussoule - here's how:

• Volunteer
• Donate 
• Facebook
• Twitter

And, once again, join us for the live chat tonight at 5 pm Pacific (8 pm Eastern) and meet the candidate yourself!  Let's send a message: No, the Republicans can't have the keys back after putting the car in the ditch.

(Author's Note: Excerpt of my column in theloop21.com. And cross-posted at Policydiary.com)

It wasn't so long ago when many people were considering U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-FL) to be, well, (insert here trite political phrase of the moment): the next Obama. A Harvard-trained attorney, with strong national Democratic support, a close personal relationship with President Obama, extensive name recognition throughout the state, and centrist enough to actually have a shot at being Alabama's first black governor -- Davis had a bright future. And he still does, just not in the Democratic Party.

After losing in the gubernatorial democratic primary, in what could be considered a landslide, Davis went on an ill-conceived rant in a published op-ed against former adversary and primary winner, Ron Sparks. Not only did Davis commit the cardinal sin of lashing out at Sparks and withholding an endorsement of his candidacy for governor (essentially violating Election Etiquette 101) -- even worse, he lavished praise on Sparks' opponent: "Robert Bentley is one of the most decent, honorable people I know in politics. I have nothing but admiration for him. I believe he will be a very strong candidate."

In the end, Davis' behavior is nearly as bad as the campaign he ran. But I'll get to that a little later.

Please read full article here: http://www.theloop21.com/politics/how-kendrick-meek-became-artur-davis-and-artur-davis-became-republican

President Obama signed into law major credit card reform in May of 2009.  Big banks, in their usual fashion, have complained that the reforms are too restrictive and that it would hurt consumers.  They never mentioned just how much credit card debt hurts consumers.  Most of the reforms went in effect in February 2010, with the rest taking effect on August 22, and with creditors making changes throughout the last year.

Let's discuss the reforms that will help you, the consumer, first.  Then we will briefly go over the state of the falling credit card balances since reform has been proposed and enacted.

The right to know and the right to leave: The first thing to go into effect was last August, since when creditors have been required to give 45-day notice to consumers on changes in credit card terms, including interest rates.  Since then, credit card companies have also been required to give consumers at least 21 days (as opposed to 14) to pay their monthly credit card bills.  Not only that, if you don't like your new terms or interest rates, you have the right to opt-out, cancel your card, and pay off the balance under the older terms and previous lower interest rates.

(This is an excerpt of my weekly column in theloop21.com)

For many folks it's hard not be cynical about the state of health care and, in particular, health insurance in this country. While the government rightfully attempts to protect and empower consumers, health insurance companies and colleges are trying to squeeze maximum revenue out of students by offering limited benefit plans at relatively high rates.

This is not meant to demonize health insurance companies or universities. Clearly, some folks could benefit from a limited benefit plan based on their age, health status, risk profile, family history, and ability to pay. However recent pleas by colleges to waive out of some caps and new rules under the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act (ACA) should fall on deaf ears.

Some colleges along with the American Council on Education (who collectively account for 4.5 million students) assert in a letter, dated Aug. 12 and sent to Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius, that they will not be able to offer health plans that meet the "essential minimum coverage" required of all individuals in the individual mandate (set to go into effect in 2014). The mandate imposes an annual penalty on individuals who do not have qualifying plans meeting this coverage standard (See ACA §1501).

What these colleges fail to mention in the letter...


Read Full Article Here: http://www.theloop21.com/money/colleges-seek-loophole-student-health-insurance-plans

Chuck Hagel, one of the few left of a band of truly country-first Republicans, plans to endorse Joe Sestak for Senate in Pennsylvania.  Before retiring at the end of the last Congress, Hagel had chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Republicans were in power.  Conservative as he was, he was an intellectual interested in policy rather than simple political gain.

Country-first is what it came down for Hagel when he told the AP of his plans to endorse Sestak:

Hagel told The Associated Press on Monday that Sestak has demonstrated during his two terms in Congress that he puts the interests of the nation and his constituents ahead of his party.

"I think he's exactly what our country needs more of. I think he's what the Senate needs more of — courageous, independent thinking," Hagel said. "That's what the job is about. You are supposed to use your judgment."

The eyes of the health care community were focused this past week on Seattle, WA, where the state insurance commissioners have been meeting.  As many of you know, the new health reform law requires health insurance companies to start spending at least 85% of your premium dollars to provide health care in large group markets (80% in individual and small group markets), referred to also as a Medical Loss Ratio or MLR.  Congress, however, left the job of defining what counts as a health care expenditure up to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), subject to certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The health insurers have been represented by 500 well funded lobbyists, and the consumers by not nearly as well financed but nonetheless passionate advocates like Wendell Potter. The battle has been waged how expansive the definition of medical care and quality improvement would be, with insurers looking to reclassify administrative expenses as quality improvements.

As I mentioned earlier, tonight we had a conversation with Congressman Alan Grayson over at the facebook group "Progress for a More Perfect Union."  You can see the thread here, but since the questions and answers are not all in order, I have constructed a transcript of sorts that puts the questions together with the Congressman's answers.  I'm organizing the transcript by subject and not chronologically.

Economy and Jobs.

Q: Pre-written questions about the jobs situation.

Grayson: Try to find a union job. That's one way to get ahead. But more generally, we need to do more for the people in America who work. Health coverage for them and their families, paid sick leave, pensions and a decent life. A New New Deal. A Real Deal.

Q: How about the economy...getting better or should we be ready for even more pain?

Grayson: I'm not sure which way the economy will go in the short-run. The Recovery Act runs out at the end of September, and the Republicans have gotten so good at blocking everything that there may be nothing to replace it. Which would mean more pain, for lots of people.

Congressman Alan Grayson met with President Obama yesterday, and he will be having a conversation with members of the Facebook group Progress for a More Perfect Union this evening from 8-9 pm ET. That's 5-6 pm Pacific for my fellow west coasters. I will be participating in the Q&A session, and I invite my readers to join. Congressman Grayson is a committed progressive who is currently the sponsor of the at-cost Medicare buy-in bill in Congress.

You may remember that Congressman Grayson bared the Republican obstructionism to health reform for all to see:



So come and join us tonight, and if you can't make it, feel free to leave some questions for the Congressman in the comments. Expect a full writeup from me tomorrow on what happens!

For all the Republican huffing and puffing about having to pay for unemployment benefits extension and state aid by the federal government in these hard economic times, as well as the right's ridiculous and debunk Laissez Faire economic ideas of doing nothing and "let the market handle it," there's one thing no one is telling you. Federal action on the economy saved at least enough revenue to pay for a good chunk of federal aid provided to the states.

In a recently published study on the impacts of federal intervention to rescue the economy from a second great depression, economists Mark Zandy and Alan Blinder estimated that those actions saved over 8 million jobs. But it's not just the saving of over 8 million jobs, but also how it happened overtime.  Have a look at this chart to see the aggregate of jobs saved with each quarter:

I have been a fan of Howard Dean's for a long time.  I got my start in politics with the Dean for America campaign in 2003-04.  More than anything, I had respected Gov. Dean for his uncanny ability to reframe our political debates from a progressive perspective, rather than buying into the traditional media narratives.

But it seems that even Dean fell into the lower Manhattan Islamic center (misnomer: "ground zero mosque") faux controversy by going on a conservative radio station and suggesting that it would be best for all if the people behind the center moved it elsewhere, rather than reframing it as an issue of the political right exploiting and spreading hatred of a segment of our fellow Americans - American Muslims.

Dean appeared with host David Goodman, calling for a compromise and calling it an affront to those who lost lives on September 11, 2001. Here's a transcript I put together from the audio of the segment:

I have been thinking about this for a while. There is a reason a whole bunch of our politicians talk to the American people like we are stupid. There's a reason we don't get treated like adults.  Bluntly, it's because we don't act like adults.  This is not to cast the net widely on every American, of course, but vast swaths of our politically loud act as impatient children or hostile hate and fear-mongers rather than informed citizens. On the right, you have these malicious, hostile hate groups and fear mongers who want President Obama to fail at any cost. On the left, we have the impatient, spoiled children throwing tantrums every other minute because they're not getting a certain thing in a certain legislation, or because they are not getting something fast enough.

Let me say at the outset that there is no moral equivalence between the loud left and loud right, of course.  There is no moral equivalence between vicious hate mongers and impatient children.

It's hard to prove a negative.  But in the recent political and socio-economic climate, it is important for us as a country to answer a question: did government action prevent a second great depression, and if so, to what degree?  Suppose, for the purposes of understanding the effects of government action in what used to be a free-falling economy, a model could be constructed that would estimate where the economy would be without those government actions.  Suppose an expert analysis could be conducted to predict what would have happened if nothing were to be done.

Well, it turns out that Alan Blinder, a professor of Economics at Princeton University and Mark Zandy, Chief Economist at Moody's have constructed such a model and conducted just that analysis. They released a study titled How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End in late July examining the impact of the massive government intervention that they conclude likely prevented a second great depression.  As hard as times are now, the report found that:

Without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

(Author's Note: This is an excerpt of my weekly column in theloop21.com)

We already know that the U.S. economy is continuing to struggle and forcing families and communities and states to make tough decisions. What is also known is that it’ll take years for the unemployment rate to dip below 9 percent much less get back to the low rates enjoyed during the Bush administration (clearly I’m referring to those previous to the 2008 recession). But what intrigues me is when we look deeper at the unemployment rate in the black community -- above 15 percent, much higher than the 9.5 percent for the general population -- and how that is affecting the standard of living and, more important, attitudes about their future and President Obama’s leadership.

Full article may be read here. 

By: John S. Wilson

No, I don't mean skewed right in the traditional statistical sense where most of the data falls on the right side of the mean.  I am wondering as to whether Public Policy Polling surveys give a greater weight to Republican voters than is warranted by national party ID numbers.  Today, the PPP released numbers for a national survey, identifying 33% of voters in favor of same-sex marriage, and 57% opposed to it.  Those numbers are drastically different from a CNN Opinion Research Poll two days ago, which showed 52% of voters think that marriage should be available to gay couples, and 46% who disagreed.

What could possibly explain this, other than CNN perhaps being totally wrong, and support for gay marriage actually still at a low level while a strong majority opposes it?  I thought I'd look at the party identification numbers obtained by PPP for this survey and compare them to the national overall party ID.  Here's what I found.

On the Blog of Rights over at the ACLU, Suzanne Ito took a shot at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, titled The ACLU and the "Professional Left."

As you might've heard, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been denigrating what he called the “professional left” – those who have been trying to hold the Obama administration to the commitments it made in its early days.

I don't think that's the case at all. "Professional Left," the way Gibbs used it, had nothing whatsoever to do with those who are merely trying to hold the administration accountable.  Instead, it referred to those on the left who constantly complain without ever recognizing anything good that the White House and this President has done.

If you have ever wondered whether the constant drumbeat from the professional detractors of Barack Obama on the left is something new in history, I urge you to read this fantastic historical perspective by Daily Kos diarist "puakev": Liberal Criticism of Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal.  The parallels in the attacks from the left on Obama and those directed at FDR during his time are striking.

As I noticed the parallels in the critics, I could not help but think about what many Obama critics have essentially ignored in the context of evaluating the President's performance: the unique political challenges that Obama faces that FDR never had to: unprecedented Republican obstructionism, politics of race and violence and the right wing media empire. In other words, what we've been up against.

(Author's Note: This is an excerpt of my weekly column in theloop21.com)

Obama recently touched down at the University of Texas to talk about the strong correlation between higher education and the economy. He proclaimed ““Education is an economic issue. Education is the economic issue of our time,” as he proceeded to lay out a four part plan that his administration has already begun to implement, three of which I will cover here.

(1) Making college more affordable

Tripling the value of education tax credits; increasing the value of Pell Grants and indexing them to the inflation rate; and better loan repayment terms that will allow more flexibility.

I am a fan of tax credits because they allow middle class families to catch a break as they invest in their children’s education. They should not be penalized for making this investment; conversely, they should be rewarded by receiving assistance. Better repayment terms also are a good thing. They will allow students themselves to understand that education is a long term investment and will require self-sacrifice -- now and in the future -- but won’t require them to take a vow of poverty to go with it. Indexing Pell Grants to the rate of inflation sounds like a good idea as well.

However there have been many arguments made in the past (some of which even persuasively) that link higher education costs to -- ironically -- higher federal loan and grant limits...

Read the full article here: http://theloop21.com/money/obama-education-the-economic-issue-our-time

On August 5, the Social Security and Medicare Trustee Report was issued for 2010.  In this post, I plan on talking about the report's implications for Medicare, and the saving grace of the health reform law passed this year (the Affordable Care Act or ACA) on it.  It's important both to understand how Medicare plans to keep its promise to seniors, and also to understand the positive effects of health reform, since the 24 hour news cycle is bereft of depth on policy.

The first good news in the Trustees' report summary was that the life of fully funded Medicare, without cutting guaranteed benefits, has been extended by 12 years - which is to say that the life of Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund (Part A) has been extended by 12 years.  Quoting the rpeort:

In contrast with the 2017 fund exhaustion date reported last year, the ACA is expected to result in much smaller HI deficits for the next several years, followed by small annual surpluses through the remainder of the short-range period, which postpones trust fund exhaustion to 2029.

Chris Bowers, over at Open Left, is getting a bit uncomfortable with the upcoming Public Policy Polling numbers showing Obama's approval rating at an astounding and steady 85% among liberals.  It doesn't come as a surprise to anyone except professional agitators like Bowers whose mantra - that liberals are abandoning Obama - goes ca-put with that poll.  A Gallup poll shows the president's approval among liberals at a lower 76%, according to Ezra Klein.

So he rained on the parade:

Today, Ezra Klein has a blog post up in which he expresses understanding why the White House is frustrated with what press secretary Gibbs calls the "professional left" (and I call the authoritarian left ideologues).  What he doesn't understand, Ezra says, is the fact that Gibbs is running to the press to vent about it.  After all, by doing so, Gibbs just made it a story.

The professional left put out plenty of responses.  What they managed not to tell you though, is that Ezra Klein confirms Gibb's point that the nitpicking-on-Obama-from-the-left phenomenon is in fact a beltway phenomenon.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that this is largely a Beltway phenomenon: According to Gallup, Obama is at 81 percent among self-described Democrats and 76 percent among self-described liberals.[...]

In fact, as the graph below shows (click on it for a larger version), his approval trends among Democrats, independents and the country mirror Ronald Reagan's ratings among Republicans, independents and the country almost exactly.

Elizabeth Warren, the Chair of the Congressional oversight panel for the TARP funds is without a doubt the best consumer advocate to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Chariman Barney Frank of the House Financial Services Committee has been an unabashed supporter of Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB.  But the other half of the namesake of the financial reform bill, Senate Banking Chairman and retiring Senator Chris Dodd, does not seem to be so hot on the idea.

First, Dodd went on a radio show right after financial reform passed and announced that Warren might be "unconfirmable."  But Noam Schieber at The New Republic debunked Dodd's theory and reported that Warren would likely be confirmed should she be nominated, and the White House held firmly to its view that Warren is confirmable.  With his "she can't be confirmed" theory debunk by journalists and repudiated by the White House, Dodd has come up with a new tack: she might be confirmable, but the fight would be too hard.  On Bloomberg with Judy Woodruff, Dodd said:

Hmm?  sharron Angle to refuse corporate cash?  Oh yes, yes she will refuse money from corporate PACs.  But you see, there's a catch.  She will do so only if the corporation running the PAC happens to offer benefits to spouses or partners of their gay and lesbian employees.  Doncha feel better?

Greg Sargent of The Plum Line broke the story today.  Evidently, Crazy Queen of Nevada sharron Angle was filling out a questionnaire by the Washington-based "Government is not God PAC" (noooo, really?) and she slapped a "Yes" next to everything they asked, including the following gem:

In question 35A of the questionnaire, Angle was asked:

Would you refuse PAC money from those who are fundamentally opposed to your views on social issues?

Angle checked the Yes box. The questionnaire then asked:

In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports "equal rights for gays" and offers benefits to "partners" of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?

Angle again checked the Yes box.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

That was the order of US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker that made clear that protections of the US Constitution applies as well to gay Americans as it does to our heterosexual counterparts.  It was a landmark decision in defense of the words inscribed on the Supreme Court building: Equal Justice Under Law.

Here we go again.  David Sirota, whom I took to task for his wildly ridiculous theory of how Obama is "obsessed" with confronting "the Left" (Sirota is, no doubt, the duly self-proclaimed representative of it), has penned yet another hit piece today expressing outrage that the USAID, under the Obama Administration, is pouring taxpayer money in a nefarious-sounding "Obama Outsourcing Program."  I mean, don't get me wrong.  I am happy to see Sirota and RedState agree, but they both need some perspective and some context.

The Difference Between Offshoring and Outsourcing

First of all, the Information Week article that David uses to build his case seems to equate offshoring with outsourcing.  While they are often indistinguishable in the current political rhetoric, it's important to remember they are not one and the same.  Outsourcing is merely handing a part of the business process to another company - that company can be local or international, it's outsourcing.  Offshoring, on the other hand refers to outsourcing to a foreign company's foreign operations (this is important - if Ford outsourced some of its work to a Toyota plant in the US, it would not be considered offshoring, but would be considered outsourcing).

Today on Daily Kos, David Sirota - the guy with the selective House fantasy on the health reform public option - wrote an article to try to drive a wedge between progressives against President Obama.  More insidiously, he tars and feathers the President by claiming "This president goes out of his way to be very confrontational towards progressives."  I think the reality is that David Sirota goes out of his way to be confrontational towards President, because the so-called pieces of evidence he presents are hearsay, mistruths, or bunk.

Take the idea that the White House threatened freshmen Democratic Congressman on a 2009 supplemental Afghan war funding bill, for example.  Interestingly enough, the accusation came from Rep. Lynn Woolsey (whom I respect), who wasn't herself threatened and who also didn't name any specific members of Congress who were threatened so the report could be verified.  In addition, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro disputed the charges on the record.

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.  That is the inscription you see on the building when you walk up the stairs to the United States Supreme Court.

News came today that a federal district court judge in San Francisco is going to announce his decision on the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8 tomorrow.  Prop 8, as you know, took away an existing right in the California Constitution - the right of same sex couples to marry.  The case was brought by perhaps the two most brilliant attorneys for federal appeals cases: the infamous opponents in the 2000 Bush v. Gore, Ted Olsen and David Boies case came together to file this case.

(Courtesy of TheLoop21.com)

(Author's Note: An excerpt of my weekly column in TheLoop21.com)

It’s no secret that school districts are struggling in this economic climate. In an effort to tighten their belts districts are cutting back on teacher training and technology purchases, laying off staff, and some are even eliminating summer school. All of these decisions are made with the faulty understanding that while in the interim they are necessary, in the long term they’ll have little to no impact. Unfortunately, this is surely not the case.

While support staff may be rehired and technology purchases deferred to a later date, the time in which children (who are either already behind or soon will be) can gain parity with their peers is short and getting shorter.

In regards to summer school closures Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently said: “At a time when we need to work harder to close achievement gaps and prepare every child for college and career, cutting summer school is the wrong way to go. These kids need more time, not less.”

Yet schools in New York, California, Missouri, and Indiana have already ended summer school programs or soon will. The Associated Press reports:

“An American Association of School Administrators survey found that 34 percent of respondents are considering eliminating summer school for the 2010-11 school year. That's a rate that has roughly doubled each year, from 8 percent in 2008-09 to 14 percent in 2009-10.”

So what’s the big deal?

Please click here to read full article

By now, we all know of right-wing crazy woman Phyllis Schlafly had some pretty horrific things to say last week about single women being on welfare.  Unmarried women, according to Schlafly, kick their husbands out and hope for big government to take care of them.  Even more stunning, she labeled children of unmarried women as "illegitimate."  Really, you see, she is mad at women who dare to be single mothers.

The Schlafly Fallacy

Setting aside the pure, unadulterated bigoted rhetoric, I decided to look at the facts.  The program most commonly accessed by families in need is called "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" or TANF.  If Phyllis Schlafly is correct, and the scary single-mothers-epidemic is causing dependence on government, the benefits going to single mothers would be on the rise, and the share of those benefits received by mom-and-pop families would be on the decline.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  In the last decade, as percentage of total families receiving assistance, single-parent households have declined and two-parent households have risen.

Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, the American economy staved off a second great depression, but the economic downturn that began in late 2007 was much deeper than most could imagine.  While the economy is still making gains, those gains are slowing due to unemployment, consumer anxiety and lack of fiscal stimulus.  Think Progress put together the handy chart on the right to demonstrate, with data from the Commerce Department.  In the last quarter of 2009, our GDP grew at a healthy 5.6% annual rate, but that growth had slowed to 2.4% annual  in the quarter that ended in June.