This is the meme on the right wing media noise machine, joined in unison by the Left puritan, public-option-or-bust armchair activists. The claim is that President Obama's health reform has failed - FAILED - to contain the exploding cost of health care and health insurance. Never mind the pure absurdity of that argument being raised before the premium subsidies, exchanges and the individual mandate has a chance to take effect in 2014. The rah-rah yelling and screaming sensationalizes announcements from insurance companies of big raises in rates, but fail to correct the story-line when those same insurers pare down those rates.

That's happening right now, as both the Fox media empire on the Right and the Faux-gressives on the Left fail to tell you. Especially in cases where state regulators have started taking advantage of the new law's provisions that allow them to hold insurance companies accountable and ask for justifications of arbitrary rate hikes. California exercised that option, and here is the result:

WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in California has reduced its proposed rate increase [in the individual market] to an average of 9.1% from the previous proposal to an increase of 16.4%. Further, WellPoint’s new rate increase of 9.1% will go into effect on July 1, from the previously proposed April 1, and it will delay increases in deductible and co-pays until January 1, 2012.

Consequently, the decreased rate hike will save about $40 million, effecting about 600,000 individual and family policyholders in California.

It all started in the late 19th century where colonial Europeans using their divide and conquer strategy dismantled a United African country, Rwanda, into two ethnic groups (Tutsi and Hutu) that changed the socioeconomic power structure of the people of Rwanda forever. The Germans before WWI and the Belgians afterwards had to have allies in Rwanda and who would have thought the size of ones nose would be a way to distinguish ones superiority over another. Tutsi, the minority population with a European looking nose structure, long and narrow in size and the Hutu with their wider nose measurement were the distinguishing symbol that divided a once United African country into enemies across ethnic lines. The Tutsi were favored because of the belief that they originated from Caucasian blood as a result were given opportunity to be educated and participate in the Belgian colonial government. These obviously was a discriminatory favoritism of the Tutsis over the Hutu which forever left a scar and resentment on the Hutu majority. In 1920, it was the law of the Belgians to require people in Rwanda be identify by ethnicity between Tutsi and Hutu. They say it was for censuses purpose but the actual reason could not have been mistaken as it was the colonials trademark to divide, favor one group over another to create animosity across ethic groups. The strategy had been to conquer them by destructing them from focusing at the core issue of illegal occupation and forced enslavement. As a result, today we still have a generational divide in Rwanda and many other African colonies.

Let's roll the time clock to April 1994 in Rwanda:

The strange material advertised as economic "criticism from the left" since the start of 2009 has damaged public perception of the Obama administration and the Democratic party in a way that favors Republicans and has also displaced actual liberal economic proposals from public debate. The obvious example is the fate of the TARP funds which were originally a revolving fund that the Bush administration planned to distribute to Wall Street cronies. Under Obama and Geithner, TARP became a great success story of how Democratic administration deftly stopped a panic, made Wall Street pay, and performed emergency life-saving on the industrial economy. And TARP should have provided the Obama administration with funds to continue to invest in industrial development projects, environmental remediation, renewable energy plant construction and so on. But instead of pushing a competent centrist government to be more active in freeing the economy from the grip of finance and petro oligarchs, the "progressives", even those who were loudly decrying the inadequate funding for stimulus assisted the Republicans in shutting down TARP in a wave of faux-populism supposedly directed against banks.

Of the $245billion TARP gave to banks, Treasury has recovered about $244billion. Treasury is selling the $140 billion in "toxic assets" it acquired during the financial crisis and expecting a $10billion to $15billion profit. AIG has offered to buy back Maiden Lane II assets AIG transferred to the Fed during the crisis for a $1.5billion profit to the government. Other parties want to bid more. The Federal Reserve reports $80billion profit in investments ranging from the other assets the NYFed took over as Bear Stearns and AIG collapsed to the agency mortgage backed bonds purchased for quantitative easing. GM continues to reopen closed factories. Compared the the Reagan era Resolution Trust Find, TARP is stunning success for the public. We should have been advocating for TARP to be used as a revolving development bank, but instead we got stuff like this:

"Not only are the mop-headed weenie of a Treasury secretary's fingerprints on virtually all the gross giveaways in the new reform legislation, he's a living symbol of the Rubinite gangrene crawling up the leg of this administration. Putting Geithner against the wall and replacing him with an actual human being not recently employed by a Wall Street megabank would do a lot to prove that Obama was listening this past Election Day.

The things to notice about this passage is that it is entirely without any liberal economic content and is fully compatible with core Republican messaging.

I can't seem to get over this dailykos hypocritical diary. President Obama said this last night (full transcript here):

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

...and all hell has broken lose because the assertion being made is that we have "45,000 Americans we lose every year, because our government continues to see healthcare as a privilege not a right". Really? oh wait, this is the punch line from the diary:

We Americans are righteously told by the president that we don't turn a blind eye on atrocities in other countries. But ask the Americans that I met at Free Clinics across the length and breadth of the nation, if our country has turned a very blind eye on them and this uniquely American atrocity.

How can one be so hypocritical and pretend to be advocating for the 45,000 Americans we lose every year because they don't have Health Care Insurance when the same critics were trying to "KILL THE BILL" crapping all over the Health Care Reform bill that would allow 30 million people gain access to Health Insurance not to mention the 20 million American households that will qualify for subsidized insurance.

If there is any misunderstanding about the United States role in Libya, it can not be any clearer than this. If you have not watched the speech (transcript below the fold), it is worth every second of your time. He is indeed the best President in my life time.

In his last column for NY Times, Losing Our Way, Bob Herbert makes the case that for the 1,000,000th time how there is disparity in the lives of Americans who are struggling, noting the growing gap between the rich and the poor, how our economic inequity in this country continues to expand, et al, but he frames it in a way that is cynical as if lives saved in Libya are not worthy of saving because we have lost our ways and priorities in focusing to try to help the poor in this country while we are pumping cash to yet again another war that has probably saved another genocide in Libya. Don't know about you all but I am kinda tired of the Holier than thou Bob Herbert:

So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home. //snip The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely. Full article

With President Obama at the helm, the United States has not only seen unprecedented advancements in human and civil rights for LGBT Americans but also taken a leadership role on the world stage to stand up for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people across the globe. The United States not only signed a joint statement by some 85 countries on ending violence, criminal sanctions, and other human rights violations directed at people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, it took a leading role. The Council on Global Equality issued the following statement praising the efforts of the United States:

The Council is gratified by the strong support shown by the U.S. Government and by the Department of State in particular. Earlier today, the Department released a fact sheet outlining key components of the statement. As noted in that document, the U.S. played a strong leadership role in today’s result, and the newly adopted statement adds a number of references not seen in previous LGBT statements at the UN.

Yesterday was the first anniversary of President Obama and a Democratic Congress achieving something other presidents and Congresses have been trying to for more than a half a century: finally enacting into law comprehensive health care reform. It all happened because of the dedication of a President, the tenacity of a Democratic Speaker of the House, the determination of a Democratic Senate leader, and of course, the fierce force and memory of the late liberal Lion Ted Kennedy. On the occasion of the anniversary, Vice President Biden released the following video:

Dennis Kucinich is at it again. He is running around calling for President Obama's impeachment because of the air strikes the United Stats is leading in Libya to enforce a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Why? Because Dennis thinks that because there wasn't an explicit Congressional authorization of this action, the President is acting outside of his Constitutional authority and thus committing an impeachable offense.

I can't believe I have to do this, but let me introduce this part of the Constitution to Mr. Kucinich (from Article VI):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

In other words, international treaties, once ratified by the Senate, are considered the Supreme law of the United States. Do we have such an international treaty here? Oh look, what is this thing called the UN Charter, ratified by the United States Senate on July 28, 1945? Article 23 of the UN Charter establishes the Security Council. Using force in accordance with a Security Council resolution therefore is not only legal but may well be required under our international treaty obligations.

The Treasury department is selling the $140 billion in "toxic assets" it acquired during the financial crisis - and expecting a $10billion to $15billion profit. Because Republicans keep telling their story 24/7/365 and have a powerful media machine and Democrats do not, Democrats have to start each election cycle on the defensive trying to counter Republican misinformation. The capture of the Internet spotlight by the false-liberals only makes this situation more of a challenge. In particular, the false-liberals have insisted that their strange and often conspiratorial attack on the Obama team's economic policies is the liberal/progressive critique. This has a kind of cuckoo bird effect - actual liberal critiques get pushed into obscurity by the impostor. Here's an example of Duncan Black (Atrios) citing the Huffington Post to push his point about 2 years ago:

If You're Wondering Why The Market Is Tanking

It's basically this. Administration officials were greeted with sarcasm and laughter Monday night when they briefed lawmakers and congressional staff on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new financial-sector bailout project, according to people who were in the room. The laughter was at its height when Obama officials explained that the White House planned to guarantee a wide swath of toxic assets -- which they referred to as "legacy assets" -- but wouldn't be asking Congress for money. [...]

Aside from being very light on facts (and wrong), the Atrios/Huffpo argument rests on the right-wing economic idea that the financial markets are all knowing. Actual liberal/left economists like Keynes are not so convinced that stock traders are so smart.

What's the most urgent political problem in the USA and the world today? It's not Libya. Not Bradley Manning. Not - put down the remote Mike and stop jumping around like a 4 year old on a sugar high. The biggest problem is that the far right, anti-union, anti-democracy, anti-environmental, immoral, basically crazy Republican party is inches away from completing its power grab. They have stuffed the federal courts with Federalist Society ideologists, dominate the media corporate media, run Fox and hate radio 24/7/365, control many state governments and the US House and have enormous influence on the Senate. They've been working for 20 years or more to infiltrate religious loons into the military. They have huge political and media machines and have managed to hoodwink a lot of people about their actual goals. You know all that Mike, that's why you went to Wisconsin, but you keep letting them distract you.

More photos of President Obama's visit in Brazil below the mishmash that includes the President's Op-Ed, a great article on the President's approach on Libya by David Cone, BBC's Mark Mardell take on the Obama Doctrine and new Public Policy Polling data and analysis.

U.S. President Barack Obama participates in a meeting with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff (R) and Chief Executive Officers of U.S. and Brazilian companies at the Palacio do Itamaraty in Brasilia, March 19, 2011. Reuters Pictures

This song speaks to me like you all have a song that speaks to you. In this bitter world we live in where so much intersect, as humans, I sometimes wonder if we are just mean folks who only care about what is important to only ourselves and don't care to want to see about anything else. Or, is it we care but we give lip services to pretend like we really really do care about something? Our mothers have nurtured us to care and love in our home world but the world acts like it has no mother with superficial acts and drama to only deceive and take away our sincere soul of caring, generating hate and dislikes unto each other when there is so much good to do in this world. What good is it to care for only things that affect us if we don't extend ourselves to change what affect others? What are we doing to change things at an individual level? Do we contribute toward the good or do we contribute to the worse in the world? Can you pass the LOVE that lives deep within you but seldom shows up? Can we focus to try to dismantle the evil that has a stronghold on some who are terrorized by fear of a better future or fear of the changing world view.

For all the hotting and hollering the GOP likes to do about "who will think of the children!" they sure as heck aren't telling you the story of America's Motel Generation - children whose families are losing their homes and are being forced to move into motels to live week-to-week, nor are they doing anything about it. If you haven't seen this segment of 60 Minutes from earlier this month, please watch it now. It will break your heart.



This CBS news story tells the story of the video above, but in written words. And do you know what the Republicans are doing about it? They want to eliminate foreclosure prevention aid for families, so that even more children will be added to America's Motel Generation.

Earlier, Jon Rynn on this blog wrote that the lessons from Japan's recent devastating earthquake and tsunami teach us that nuclear power cannot even be part of the solution of a clean(er) energy future. Allow me to make a different case here. The primary claim of opponents of nuclear energy is that we should shoot for a fully renewable energy future, where our power demands are met by solar, wind and hydro energy, and leave nuclear power behind given its risks if and when an accident occurs.

We must, however, start with the reality that world energy demands are rising at astronomical levels, and as economies in Asia, South America and elsewhere continue to develop at a high rate, the demands are not likely to tame anytime soon. In fact, the US Energy Information Administration predicts demand to be rising as follows through 2035:

[Editor's note: This article does not reflect the view of either myself or TPV readers in general, and I plan on writing a rebuttal. However, John Rynn is a published author on green energy, and I do believe a respectful presentation of his warrants a view.]

Cross-posted from NewDeal 2.0

On March 14th, the NYTimes stated that “This page has endorsed nuclear power as one tool to head off global warming. We suspect that, when all the evidence is in from Japan, it will remain a valuable tool.” I want to argue that, to the contrary, the lesson to be learned from the catastrophe in Japan is that nuclear power is not even part of a sustainable solution to global warming. The whole idea behind preventing global warming is to protect the Earth’s ecosystems, collectively known as the biosphere. You can’t save the biosphere if it’s irradiated. The same problem rears its ugly head with most biofuels, certainly with corn ethanol; it won’t matter if the climate isn’t changing if the planet has been turned into one big desert because the soils and fresh water have been destroyed.

Speaking of water, the reactors that are melting down were supposed to be of a superior design, “light water” reactors, the “light” making it sound easier on the environment. But it turned out that unless you use (and abuse) prodigious amounts of circulating water, the whole system implodes. When the effects of global warming kick in and sea levels rise and erratic rainfall leads to unforeseen downpours or extended droughts, more sequences of rare events will lead to more nuclear power disasters.

Here's some stuff from my Eclectablog liveblogging of the protest at the Michigan Capitol today...

1:15pm - This guy is a teabagger. I overheard him tell the guy next to him, "Well, I'm going to try to get some recognition for this sign and get it plastered all over the fucking place." He stopped to pose for me no fewer than three times and he posed for anyone with a camera.



Notice that his buddy in the white shirt next to him has the Swastika/Snyderkamph image literally taped to his shirt. That shirt is an SEIU shirt. Shades of Mark Williams???

At least 3,000 people here and growing.



Some friends of mine at the activist's tent:



2:15 - Got to be 5,000 people here now with more flowing in.

During the 2010 mid-term election, a lot of Democrats did not get out to vote and as a result our asses were handed to us on a silver platter. However, a lot of critics on the Left were raising their hands claiming it was Obama's fault that people did not get out to vote. I always say, you keep repeating something and people will end up having difficulty distinguishing the truth from the misrepresentation as such during the mid-term many voters were confused and disengaged. The Republican spin machine was quite effective demonizing the HCR bill even democrats had difficulty understanding the access it gives to 30 million Americans not to mention the 20 million American households that will qualify for subsidized insurance. Moreover, some Democrats "Kill The Bill" efforts wasn't helpful either in order to get the message out to most of these low information voters. .

From people who have always been against health reform from the left because their favorite pony (public option) was dropped from the bill in order to pass it, we have consistently heard a premature predictions of doom based on the experience in Massachusetts. This past week, one of the blog queens that were hired by Left ideologues to try to kill health reform, cranked out this gem showing a study in the American Journal of Medicine that bankruptcies at least partially contributable to medical costs has not declined significantly in Massachusetts, and thereby making a conclusion that the federal health reform is also doomed. And the dittoheads on Daily Kos just ate it up.

Except there's a problem. Her analysis is complete garbage. It starts and ends with an erroneous assumption: that the federal health care law and the Massachusetts law are virtually indistinguishable, as are the markets for health care. Her proof? The misleading media claim that President Obama's health reform law was "modeled" after the one in Massachusetts. That is true only to an extent, and the federal law provides far more patient safeguards and employs far more cost containment measures than the MA law. We will explore those differences in detail later in this article. However, first, I want everyone to be clear on something else: a model in this instance is like a template. Not everything based on the same template is created alike. If in your class your professor requires you to submit your papers written in APA style, everyone essentially has the same template. Yet, some people in the class get an A on the paper and others get a D-. All things done following the same template are not created equal.

So this is what the Hill is reporting using the anonymous cover to stir shit up:

Obama is being pulled in opposite directions by those whose priorities are fiscal and those whose No. 1 concern is electoral. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling and Sperling’s deputy, Jason Furman — leading figures in the president’s economic team — are pressing Obama to cut Social Security benefits if necessary, say sources familiar with their positions. But Obama’s political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say.

Why don't these anonymous sources man up and reveal themselves instead of hiding like cowards so that we know who these stuff are sourced from to determine what is true or sensationalized bullshit by asking the source directly. At times, I wonder if other blogs are using the HuffPost cowardly "let's spin it" business model to some day sell their blog space to a $300 million dollars bidder. The funny thing is that there is no critical thinking of connecting the dots about these kinds of rumor reporting that is empowered to have a life of its own in some Liberal Purists blogs space like you know who and others who without questioning the source picks up the trash. Next thing you know it is viral.

I don't know how many of you know this, but the Huff and Puff Post has a new owner. Don't know who? I'll give you a hint: You've got mail! Yes, Huffington Post has sold to AOL for a cool $315 million in cash. Hell, I'll let Huff and Puff Po themselves tell the story:

AOL has agreed to purchase The Huffington Post for $315 million, approximately $300 million of which will be paid in cash funded from cash on hand. The Huffington Post is privately owned by its two cofounders, as well as a group of investors. The proposed transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of government approvals. The boards of directors of each company and shareholders of The Huffington Post have approved the transaction.

And just as HuffPo's owners make out with $315 million, AOL is eliminating 900 jobs, partly thanks to this very bonanza for the Huff and Puff Post:

NEW YORK – AOL said Thursday it will slash 900 jobs worldwide, or nearly 20 percent of its work force, partly to eliminate overlap that stems from its recent purchase of The Huffington Post.

About 200 of the cuts are from AOL's content and technology departments in the U.S. The remaining 700 are at AOL's offices in India, which mainly provide back-office support to the U.S. But AOL spokesman Graham James said 300 of those will move to other companies, which are taking over support functions.

Last night I read a usual spin from a front page article at DailyKos titled "Winning the future is a great slogan" that pretty much does the usual purist undermining of the President's effort to challenge and change the status quo. However, just like the RW, the purist Left critics never let down from throwing bricks at the President. The diary is not even deserving of a click so I won't link to it since the author thinks writing a controversial article enriches his pocket book but I will highlight from the diary an example of the bullshit that is often thrown by a Front Pager at DailyKos. (Shrug).

Where there are free markets, last year's winners are constantly limited or even run over by competition from nimbler and hungrier new entries that, in a modern industrial economy, often bring disruptive new technologies to market. But, as Adam Smith pointed out, the wealthy are motivated to conspire to restrain trade and limit competition in order to protect their privileges. They don't want to have to compete because that's too much work and too risky. When the Republicans complain about the Democrats and liberals wanting "government to pick winners and losers" what they really mean is that the government should just pick losers that don't want to face fair competition. Anywhere in the US economy where you can find a highly profitable company that is badly run or selling a harmful or obsolete product you'll nearly always find Republican politicians protecting that company from competition or risks via subsidies or legal barriers to competition. Oil companies are the most obvious beneficiaries: Exxon with $30+billion in profits and ZERO US taxes is a great example. Exxon has special tax benefits that wind turbine and electric car companies don't have, it has many exemptions from environmental laws, and it relies on a hugely expensive taxpayer funded military effort to protect its operations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Why are alternative energy sources not displacing the oil companies? Because oil companies get a lot of help from the government. Same for health insurance companies that the Republicans have exempted from ordinary contract law applies to other businesses. Or "defense" companies that get contracts to make things the military does not want.

You see, members of Congress are a special class among federal employees. Not only do they get to decide their own pay, they have no personal stake in whether or not the government keeps running. They are paid by a legal mandate rather than the appropriations process, and so they enjoy continuous bank deposits at taxpayer expense even if the government shuts down. To rectify this situation, Sens. Boxer and Casey last week passed legislation in the Senate that stops the pay for members of Congress and the President in case of a shutdown. The legislation also ensures that they cannot receive back pay once a shutdown is over.

Cross-posted from NewDeal20.org

In my last post, I started to discuss a speech by the founders of the Breakthrough Institute, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger (N and S). In this post, I will discuss their presentation of 12 theses of environmental thought, which they hope will supply “underlying assumptions for a new, post-environmental climate movement.”

1. They start off by claiming that “more, better, or louder climate science will not drive the transformation of the global energy economy.” If this is true, it is indeed tragic. What they seem to be saying is that the public cannot, or will not, deal with a complicated scientific topic, and worse, in my opinion, this public will not be very worried about our long-term future. I do agree with the broad theme of their alternative: appeal to medium-term self-interest, because I think it is eminently possible to tackle global warming by improving peoples’ lives in that time frame.

2. They advise that “we need to stop trying to scare the pants off of the American public. Doing so has demonstrably backfired.” I’m not sure about this one, partly because I don’t think it’s really been tried. There surely haven’t been any scare campaigns on display recently. And I don’t know how you can show that a few scientists talking about the very real possibility of massive ecological collapse has made much of an impact – unfortunately.

Cross-posted at Eclectablog.com.

Epic rant to follow. This might leave a mark.

In Wisconsin. In Ohio. In Michigan. In Florida.

All across the country, the True Liberals' efforts to teach Barack Obama a lesson are paying off in spades. Their plan could not have worked out more perfectly. After a year of shouting to the highest heavens about how much they were disappointed in President Obama and the Democrats, after a year promising to withhold their support during the 2010 Midterm campaign and, more importantly, at the ballot box, they got their wish: Democrats stayed home in droves. Huge numbers of Democrats across the country, many of whom had voted for the very first time in 2008, got up and went to the fridge instead of the polls that late Fall Tuesday.

Yesterday, in Wisconsin, the tea party Governor and his cadre of Republican Senators figured out a way to bypass Senate Democrats' exploitation of a loophole that allowed them to put the brakes on a GOP effort to drive a stake into the heart of unions in their state. Most collective bargaining rights for teachers and public employees are now gone as if they were trash taken to the curb. Sure, Scott Walker's favorables took a beating there for awhile. If it weren't for that pesky quorum loophole, this would have all been taken care of weeks ago and his numbers wouldn't have tanked so far. But that's water under the bridge and now they are back on track. The unions have been squashed like bugs and they can go back to laughing at the protesters as they are frisked and searched and scanned just to enter a public building.

Barack Obama has really got to be smarting over that, eh? He's really paid the price now, by golly.

Cross-posted from NewDeal20.org

In 2004 Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote an essay titled The Death of Environmentalism which shook the environmental community – although, probably not quite enough. Nordhaus and Shellenberger (N and S) have gone on to form The Breakthrough Institute, arguing that we need technological breakthroughs in order to solve our biggest environmental problem, global warming, as well as advocating for what they see as innovative solutions to various other problems.

They recently gave a follow-up speech at Yale, addressing the epochal questions, “What went wrong with the environmental movement in the past 10 years or so, and what new direction should we take?”. I’ve always been interested in what they have to say, because I think they have contributed several important new ideas, even though I disagree with other ideas of theirs. Their critique, at least, presents an opportunity to engage in a meaningful debate about environmental movements and policies. And they serve as a foil for me to pontificate about my own ideas.

N and S start their speech by recalling the genesis of Death of Environmentalism, because, as they say, “Not one of the environmental leaders we interviewed articulated a compelling vision or strategy for dealing with the challenge” of climate change. The environmental movement, broadly defined, was focused -- no, obsessed, with -- cap-and-trade. In fact, it still is. I have to agree with N and S on this one: the fascination with cap-and-trade has been, perhaps tragically, wrong-headed. If cap-and-trade killed environmentalism, then it is still dead.

If you haven't heard about this, you won't believe it: Gov. Rick Snyder's budget proposes not just to cut off aid from local government, but he wants the ability to, at his sole discretion, declare a financial emergency in any area, and send in his administration's goons appointed manager fire the local elected officials. Snyder's goons will have the power to do whatever they want and to void any contract, including (and specifically) collective bargaining contracts. Watch Rachel's excellent segment on this from last night:

This morning, the Washington Post reports:

The retired city administrator of Vernon, Calif., pulls down a pension of $43,320.53 a month - or close to $520,000 a year - through the underfunded California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), which covers about half of all government workers in the state and is the nation's largest public pension administrator.

Stories like these happen often enough, and even more often, they constitute fodder for the right wing assault on not outsized benefits but on collective bargaining right itself of the American worker. And yet,

Fat pensions like Malkenhorst's are not typical, of course. AFSCME, which is the largest public-employee union, says that its average member earns less than $45,000 a year and receives an annual pension of roughly $19,000.

Public employees across this country, for the most part, work hard and are able to retire with some dignity and a small pension. And yet, a small portion of them make out like bandits. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates the following from the numbers in the Post article:

...this means that roughly 3 percent of retirees account for almost 20 percent of total benefits (assuming an average pension for the over $100k group of $110k), which means that the average pension for the bottom 97 percent is a bit over $16,000 a year.

Good morning! So maybe we should start up those open threads again, don't you think? This morning, we have some good news:

Wisconsin:

• Gov. Scott Walker (Arrrghhh - WI) is apparently walking back on his insistence to strip state employees of collective bargaining rights. Funny how things change in the face of fierce public opposition and a little threat (named recall) to the cushy jobs the Republican office holders themselves hold.
• Speaking of the recall efforts in Wisconsin, Fox News is upset that President Obama's political team might - might - be involved with those efforts. Aww, isn't Fox cute when it's mad?

National Budget:

• Harry Reid is forcing Senate Republicans to vote on the House Republicans' budget cuts, as well as a vote on the Democratic proposal. But it's mostly for theater, probably. Neither is going to pass.
• President Obama is putting down a marker on the budget debate, focusing on the future. He's warning the GOP to keep its hands off of education.

Let's tee off on those for now. Use this as an open thread. It's yours.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the nation's banking industry has been a punching bag for both extremes of the ideological spectrum: if the far Right saw it as a chance to charge the president with taking over the banks, the Left puritans saw it as an outrage precisely because it didn't nationalize the banks. The risk was significant: $700 billion in taxpayer funds. If the Right complained about the President "interfering in the business" of the banks by blocking their corporate jet purchases while they were still on the taxpayer dole, the purity Left failed to see the controls the President did put in place, including compensation restrictions for executives of the banks that were being helped out by taxpayers. Banks needed to be completely nationalized or else, they said.

Either way, both groups - Teabaggers and Firebaggers - argued that it was a big waste of money, and we ain't nevah gettin' it back. Well, I reported in October that the Treasury had by then lowered their cost estimate to $30 billion. Many then argued - especially the all-knowing forces of the Obama-hating ideological left - that Treasury was pulling these numbers out of their rear end, and that it's too optimistic an estimate. They said we'll know when the funds actually are given back.

Well, to that end, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Department of Treasury has just with a near $7 billion repayment from AIG, TARP is now 70% repaid.

The Treasury Department has recovered 70% of the money distributed under the $700-billion bailout fund after American International Group paid back $6.9 billion of the money it owed [...]

AIG's repayment brings to $287 billion the total TARP money recovered, the Treasury Department said. Although Congress put $700 billion into the fund, the department disbursed only $411 billion.

As soon as I finished yesterday's piece about David Dayen's pony demands in the California budget, an orange corner of the Left ideologue blogosphere had lit up with this gem from the Laurence Lewis of the Daily Kos, accusing President Obama and the Democrats of losing their principles in the budget negotiations. Not that there's anything new about that. The same crowd has been whining ad infinitum about their claim to be The Protectors (TM) of such principles and the demonization of the President as being the destroyer thereof. So he starts with a bang, refusing any idea of a possible bipartisan solution to the federal budget:

The official statement called for a "bipartisan" approach. There seems to be a presumption that no one has been paying attention the past couple years, because the only people that still believe in bipartisanship are also likely the holdouts on Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Heh, apparently, believing that the budget will take a compromise between the parties (which, oh by the way, is the only way to avoid a shutdown and fix the budget, since, you know, Republicans control the House of Representatives) is holding out for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. But constantly asserting that if only the President would bully-pulpit, beat his chest and "push" harder, everything would be hunky dory and we'd be living in a progressive dreamland is the practical truth. What seems to be funny about Lewis' article, though, is that he at the same time seems to say: (1) Republicans are so hell bent on their ideological purity that they'll go to extremes to advance those, and (2) those same Republicans can be scared into voting for whatever it is that we want by just doing enough pushing and shoving. Am I the only one that sees a disconnect there?

It seems that every time there is a Democratic triumph in an election, the professional whiners on the Left get out their claws and teeth and start gnashing them. Since President Obama's election, we have seen a nonstop barrage of hitjobs on him. Then in the last election, when the whole country was experiencing a red wave, in California, we kicked their butts, and Democrats swept all statewide offices while Barbara Boxer was returned to the Senate.

So what now? The notorious FDL's David Dayen ("dday" on many corners of the Internet) is now going after the governor of California, Jerry Brown. Brown has to deal with a state budget shortfall of $28 billion, in a state where raising taxes is nearly impossible on the state level - even placing a tax increase on the ballot legislatively takes two-thirds vote of the legislature. His budget reflects quite a bit of pain, but it's without gimmicks, funny math or the illusion that everyone can me made happy and it won't cost us a penny. Apparently, Mr. Dayen is very mad that E. J. Dionne had the temerity to call such a plan "brave." After acknowledging the fact that Brown's attempt is at least honest, the whining begins:

Brown has ducked many more fundamental governance issues in the state. He hasn’t gone near a tax structure where people making $47,500 a year pay the same in income taxes as those making $999,999. He won’t approach the third rail of California politics, the artificially low property taxes resulting from Prop 13. He won’t expand the sales tax to cover services, which would allow the rate to be lowered while still gaining more revenue (and becoming more progressive, as higher-end services get used by wealthier people). He’s basically doing the bare minimum possible on revenue generation, and even then he won’t commit to raising them himself, preferring to put them up for a vote of the people.

The diarist stated in this outrageous and sensationalizing diary made for entertainment at DailyKos:

I'm beyond belief how such an intelligent man can spout such garbage.

Yep, that was what one liberal at the DailyKos said about what the President had said during a speech on Education and Innovation at Miami Central High School, Miami, Florida, sourcing the quote from the article Obama praises Jeb Bush on education reform. The big deal made by the diarist was this statement quoted:

"I've gotten to know Jeb because his family exemplifies public service," Obama said, declaring he was "grateful to him for the work that he's doing."

First of all, it takes a bigger person to acknowledge someone outside of their party for some good things (acknowledging a graduation rate improvement from 36 percent to 63 percent) they are doing or had done regardless of their political party affiliation. PERIOD!

(Side note: The President speaking about Miami Central High School...

A little more than a decade ago, when the state exams started, Miami Central scored a D in each of its first five years. Then it scored an F in each of the five years after that. Halls were literally littered with garbage. One of the buildings here was called the Fish Bowl because it was always flooded. In one survey, only a third of all students said they felt safe at school. Think about that -- only a third.

The Department of Labor reported today for the months of February that Non-farm payroll employment increased by 192,000 reducing the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. It also reported that "Job gains occurred in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services, health care, and transportation and warehousing". This is an encouraging news as a whole that Democrats should take to the bank praising as evidence that the economic recovery is on the right track while acknowledging there is still a lot of work ahead. While these are good news, there is also disappointment on a sector of working groups data that has showed little to non upward movement as the unemployment rate for blacks continue to be almost at twice the rate of whites (15.3%) and the unemployment rate for teenagers at almost 24%. Washington post reports:

It is perhaps the best all-around jobs report in three years. (Although the pace of job creation was faster for three months last spring, those numbers were inflated by temporary Census hiring.) Many analysts viewed the rapid decline in the unemployment rate in December and January as too good to be true, expecting the February number to inch back up to 9.1 percent. The further drop in the jobless rate was a sign that conditions could indeed be getting better for American workers. Private employers may finally be gaining the confidence to start hiring. They added 222,000 jobs [that is 1.5 million workers in the past year], partly offset by the loss of 30,000 government jobs. And the dip in unemployment showed that the steep drops in December and January were real and not stastistical aberrations.

If you have not paid attention to the latest Quinnipiac Poll, you have to be proud to be a Democrat because we do indeed have a President that is likable by 3 out of 4 Americans. If you tell me that is not a huge asset when we go to the polls in Nov 2011, you have me fooled. Not only that but his job approval rating after all the dirt has been thrown at the President is even at 46 - 46 percent. Mind you, this is after all the demonizing of the black man syndrome, the Republican and corporate media has been at for the last two years. But...asked if the President deserves a second term in the Oval Office, voters split 45 - 47 percent. But if you look at the poll numbers for a run off against the President, the President beats everyone of the Republicans in the field according to RealClearPolitics: Huckabee vs. Obama - Obama +5.5% Romney vs. Obama - Obama +5.2% Palin vs. Obama - Obama +15.2% Gingrich vs. Obama - Obama +14% Paul vs. Obama - Obama +9% Pawlenty vs. Obama - Obama +15.6% Is there anything Republicans have not done yet to ensure Barack Obama is a one term President? All done in the name of fighting “big government” or "promoting fiscal responsibility” or wanting our country back meme or just because he is simply just a bad evil African Muslim with intentions to destroy America.

As you may know, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has certified the question of standing of the defenders of Prop 8 to the California Supreme Court. This basically means that the Court of Appeals has asked the state Supreme Court whether or not proponents of Prop 8 have a legal standing to defend the case under California law by intervening while the Governor and the Attorney General of the state have refused to defend it. Proposition 8, as you remember, was struck down by a federal district court in California, but the Ninth Circuit subsequently issued a stay of that decision while it considers an appeal.

The only Republican statewide candidate with a realistic chance of winning last year in California was Steve Cooley, their candidate for Attorney General. He had promised to defend Prop 8 in court. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, promised not to defend it. In one of the closest statewide elections of all time, Kamala Harris was elected, as California Democrats crashed the nationwide red wave and swept all eight statewide offices. Harris' election is already proving to be crucial in the fight for marriage equality.

The latest offensive against Proposition 8 came when state Attorney General Kamala Harris told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a letter that sponsors of the measure approved in 2008 were unlikely to prevail in their appeal of a trial judge's ruling last year that struck it down.

Keeping Proposition 8 in effect therefore is a fruitless violation of gay Californians' civil rights, Harris said.

"The public interest weighs heavily against the government sanctioning such discrimination by permitting it to continue," she wrote.

Cross-posted at Eclectablog.com.

In 1981, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), the national union representing air traffic controllers, went on strike. After talks collapsed, President Ronald Reagan permanently fired 11,000 of the union members.

The President of the United States of America intervened in a labor dispute in a heavy-handed move that, in many ways, defined Reagan's legacy and shaped the Republican Party and how it is perceived for decades to come. The labor turmoil in Wisconsin today is a direct result of Governor Scott Walker's desire (obsession?) to be viewed as the next coming of Ronald Reagan and busting unions fits quite nicely into the frame.

President Obama has chosen to use a far less heavy hand in this situation but I believe it is the right path.

In the last diary/blog I published at Daily Kos, I had a number commenters who said, in essence, "Obama doesn't care about the middle class!", "Obama is screwing the poor!" and "Obama is throwing union members under the bus and hanging them out to dry!" These are patently absurd statements about a Democrat who has spent his life helping the poor and the middle class and who has vigorously defended unions and their collective bargaining rights.

Over the last few months, there has been a slow but steady flow of good news on the American economic front. We have discussed many of those advances before on TPV. That recently GM turned its a profit for the first time since 2004 (and its largest in a decade) and that consumer confidence has hit a three-year high -- which is to say it's at its highest level since a before the beginning of the financial crisis. This shall not stand! We cannot have the President's policies actually helping the economy! That would suck for the Republicans' chances in 2012!

Not that we're surprised to see such an anti-jobs move from the GOP. After all, they are as aware of the jobs "bikini graph" as we are. Here's a corresponding graph - tracking GDP growth (or shrinkage) since the beginning of the of Bush depression:



If the American people catch on to the simple fact presented here, the GOP's  election victory in 2010 may prove short lived, indeed.

Speaking about President Obama, Tobias Wolff, Law Professor at Univ. PA and Obama Campaign Legal Advisor had this to say about the amount of things the President has gotten done for LBGTQ rights on the Rachel Maddow show:

"Barack Obama has been President for a little over two years and one months and the amount he has gotten done in that period of time on Gay rights and indeed in a whole range of issue is breathtaking. It has been a monumental series of achievements including for LBGTQ Rights in this country." ~Tobias Wolff, Law Professor at Univ. PA and Obama Campaign Legal Advisor

If you have not heard what Tobias had to say, check this video out. If there is anyone that is most credible to speak about the President's inner workings and intent to advance LGBTQ causes, there is no one better to ask than Tobias Wolff. I have transcribed the interview with Rachel right below the video and the rest below the fold. Starting at 02:05 mark

Rachel: What does this decision by the Justice Department mean practically in terms of Gay rights? I know the law does not change right now but what do you expect this is going to mean? Tobias: Well, the Justice Department and the President has done two things. The first as you described in your intro is about the constitutional challenges to the DOMA itself and they have said that they are no longer going to defend the constitutionality of this discriminatory statue. That by itself is a big deal. But, they have done something else which is arguably even more important. The President and the Attorney General have concluded that it's a general matter anti-gay discrimination is preemptively unconstitutional that when States or the Government pass laws or adopt policies that disadvantages gay, lesbian and bi-sexual Americans that that action requires heightened or careful constitutional scrutiny because it is presumptively an unconstitutional form of discrimination. It is the first time the US Government has ever placed its credibility and its power behind that position. And, I think it is going to have an impact not just on the DOMA litigation but the civil rights litigation all around the country.

Cross-posted at Eclectablog.com.

Imagine if Barack Obama had received a true-to-life, realistic job preview of the job he was about to take on. Imagine if, in February 2007, when he decided to throw his hat into the ring in the run for president, he had read the following HELP WANTED ad, one that accurately reflects the road ahead of him.

Imagine…

---

February 2007 - HELP WANTED – Seeking: President of the United States

PLEASE POST UNTIL NOVEMBER 2008

Seeking a qualified individual to act as the President of the United States from January 2009 until at least January 2013. Employment contract may be extended for an additional four years upon successful completion of first term.

Duties of this position are listed below. This position has the following constraints:

• Prior to taking this position, you will be required conduct a nearly round-the-clock political campaign for over 20 months before a final decision will be made. During this time you can expect to be accused of being ineligible to run for office, unqualified for the position, of being a foreigner, of being a Muslim, and of associating with criminals/terrorists. Many lies will be told in public about you and these will be repeated by both prominent politicians as well as most mainstream media and fringe media outlets.
• You will be required to assume office in the middle of the largest national economic crisis since the Great Depression
• You will be required to assume office with the country in the middle of two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

As we have discussed previously, the Republican Whiners in Chiefs in the several states are not just trying to stamp out collective bargaining, they are joining a concerted effort by the national Republicans to roll back the historic health reform law enacted last year. Their big talking point is, "Oh, it's too burdensome on the states, the mandate is bad (well, at least, as far as Republicans are concerned, the employer mandate is bad) just leave it to us and we can do just as good a job just by frothing at the mouth screaming "free market!" " Well, it seems that President Obama is calling their bluff. According to the law, beginning in 2017, states can opt out of most of the mandates of the law, provided they can cover just as many people, with insurance just as good and as affordable, at no additional cost. The President has now embraced a proposal by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott "I'll be the 41st vote against health care" Brown (R-MA) that will allow that date to move up to 2014, when exchanges are supposed to open.

“I think that’s a reasonable proposal; I support it,” Mr. Obama told the governors, who were gathered in the State Dining Room of the White House.

“It will give you flexibility more quickly while still guaranteeing the American people reform.”