Conservative legislators appear conflicted by the same, uneasy mix of death wishing and wallet-pilfering as Anna Nicole Smith did with wealthy octogenarians. "More than half a dozen states suing to overturn President Barack Obama's health care law are also claiming its subsidies for covering retired state government employees, according to a list released Tuesday by the administration. About 2,000 employers have been approved for the extra help to cover early retirees, mainly private businesses. But the list also includes seven states suing to overturn the health care overhaul as an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government. The seven are Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska and Nevada."
Big foreign policy week for Obama. Last night, he told the nation that our combat mission in Iraq had ended. Today, he's working on the Middle East. Throughout the day, he's got one-on-one meetings (they're called bilaterals in diplomatic lingo) in the Oval Office with Israel's P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority's President, Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah II of Jordan, and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. At 5:20 PM, Obama will make a statement to the press. Then, at 7 PM, Obama and these four leaders will make press statements. Then, they're all having dinner. Every President since I can remember has held meetings like this.
Last night, Lisa Murkowski conceded to teabagger Joe Miller in the Alaska GOP Senate primary. Palin is causing more and more problems for the GOPers these days. John McCain plucked her from obscurity to shake up the 2008 campaign. But, he really set Palin on her path of destruction -- and wealth. She's getting really rich these days after she quit that low-paying state job. She's sure doing a number on Republicans. And, she's helped put the Alaska Senate race in play. The Democratic candidate is Scott MacAdams.
After Obama solves the Middle East problems today, he really needs to get focused on the 2010 elections, which are shaping up to be a disaster for Democrats. The Democratic leaders need to rally their base. They've got just a couple weeks to do it. Here's an idea: Maybe the the White House could pretend that Obama's on the ballot. Then, maybe they'd be doing things to help everyone win. Consider this a dry run for 2012. And, do something. FAST.
Surprise, surprise. The $100 million dollar man who has cashed in working for the banking industry is out there in strong defense of the banking industry. While some of his criticism of Gordon Brown may be fair, Blair has yet to realize that this is no longer 1997 before the economic collapse that ruined the lives of so many people around the world. Blair is obviously struggling to come to terms with the disaster that he helped bring to Iraq so adding one more catastrophe is one more than he can handle.
The political inner circles on the so-called left (think Bill Clinton, President Obama) still have yet to accept the failures of the banking greed culture that made so many promises yet delivered little outside of criminally high bonuses for the bankers. Leaders such as Blair and Clinton still believe that it's possible to cave in to business, strip regulation and then have everything work out. Sure, it's worked out well for both who make millions from the banks as consultants but for the rest, it's been a costly experiment.
And the UK's Freedom of Information Act? A terrible idea, says Tony. Lots more of the same old, same old Blair in all of his sickening arrogance and blindness.
On Iraq, Blair offers no change of heart but gives his most detailed defence yet of the policy of overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003. He writes emotionally of his anguish at not having anticipated "the nightmare that unfolded" after the initial success of toppling Saddam, and says he is devoting "a large part of the life left to me" to Middle East peace and interfaith reconciliation with the Muslim world.
He mounts a strong defence of the continuing war in Afghanistan and says that he would "not take a risk" of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear capability. However in his book Blair reveals that he "hesitated" before backing the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear weapons in 2006.
Blair's outspoken remarks about the financial crisis and the aftermath of the British general election of 2010 in his book's postscript are likely to have a wide party political impact, especially his caution about any embrace of the view that "the state is back".
"The problem, I would say error, was in buying a package which combined deficit spending, heavy regulation, identifying banks as the malfeasants and jettisoning the reinvention of government in favour of the rehabilitation of government. The public understands the difference between the state being forced to intervene to stabilise the market and government back in fashion as a major actor in the economy."
Shareholders are probably wondering why it's so little compared to the crashing stock price. News Corp stock (NWS) is down around 45% from it's one year high. How do performance bonuses only drop 20% when the performance of the company that you run is doing so poorly? Who would want to invest in that?
While Rupert Murdoch's British newspapers laid off journalists and fought their way through a global advertising recession, the Australian-born media mogul endured a modest degree of personal belt-tightening – his take-home pay dropped by 6% to $16.8m, or £10.9m.
Although still a hefty sum, Murdoch's annual pay packet was his smallest since 2003. The 79-year-old billionaire's salary was unchanged at $8.1m, but his performance-related bonus fell 20% to $4.4m. He got stock and share options worth $4.05m and he enjoyed $275,117 worth of personal use of a corporate jet.
They get away with slamming customers with fee increases like this because Washington allows it. Adding $24 per year for a service that you don't want sounds crazy. Is this really capitalism or is it the best system money can buy?
Just to be clear: That's $1.99 a month not to be in a phone book that Time Warner doesn't even publish.
AT&T;'s and Verizon's fees are a little more understandable. After all, they make extra cash selling ads in their phone books. The more people who choose not to be listed, the less valuable the directory becomes to advertisers, so the phone company wants to discourage people from leaving.
But Time Warner isn't in the phone book business. Its recurring fee for unlisted numbers is a money grab, pure and simple.
And the unlisted number charge isn't the only way that the cable giant has started reaching deeper into people's pockets.
As of Aug. 6, the company raised its fee for customers to pay their bill by phone to $4.99 from $2.99. It also raised it fee for ordering pay-per-view by phone to $4.99 from $2.99.
I think Lawrence O'Donnell just messed up with his Social Security segment as guest host on Countdown on Monday. If so, wow. And just ahead of his big MSNBC debut too. What do you think?
Notice his eagerness and interruptions in both of these interviews (the one above and below) — evidence that he really wanted to get his own "insight" out; and the way he went after Ashley Carson, the woman Alan Simpson insulted with the "310 million tits" remark, was striking.
The Carson interview starts in the clip above at the 3:50 mark, if you want to jump to it. The real poking starts at 6:20, where he claims that "for you" the "money will not be there." She corrects him, of course, saying he's not "factually correct." But she shouldn't have to; the man made his political bones with Moynihan on the Senate Finance committee! The rest of the interview is similarly revealing.
The performance continued in the second interview on the subject, with Ezra Klein. I don't normally think of Ezra Klein as this far left-of-center, but he comes through here like a champ.
Is Lawrence O'Donnell to the right of Klein on Social Security? Surprised me.
I don't think I heard this wrong. Here's David Dayen on the same subject. His headline: "Lawrence O’Donnell is Dangerously Wrong About Social Security".
Lawrence O’Donnell drank the Kool-Aid on Social Security a long time ago, probably from back when he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1990s. Last night he showed a consistent ability to swallow myths about the most successful social program in American history.
Dayen also agrees that the Klein interview was "even more absurd."
O'Donnell seems dangerously close to deficit fear-mongering against "entitlement spending." If so, that's how they'll kill Social Security, by spreading Dem cred on Conservative dreams. Take taxes off the table; dis-entitle the "entitled."
I'm especially concerned here, since as I mentioned, O'Donnell will soon have his own show, with Rachel as his lead in. We'll have to see, but this may not go well, at least on the Social Security front.
Incumbent Lisa Murkowski has conceded to challenger Joe Miller in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.
Speaking to reporters at her campaign headquarters in Anchorage, Murkowski said "based on where we are right now, I don't see a scenario where the primary will turn out in my favor."
When the Senate reconvenes in September, John McCain's GOP colleagues should thank him for picking Sarah Palin as his V.P. He created a monster.
Miller is a hard-core right-wing teabagger. He's way, way, way out there. Miller thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.
Joe Miller's surprise victory in the Alaska Republican Senate primary has given Democrats at least a marginal opportunity for a pick up this fall, although that will fade if Lisa Murkowski stays in the race for the general as the Libertarian candidate.
Miller leads Scott McAdams 47-39. McAdams is counteracting several of the trends causing Democrats trouble across the country this year. He's running even with independents at 42% and he's benefiting from a more unified party, getting 81% of the Democratic vote while just 73% of Republicans are committed to Miller. In most states that equation would be enough for the lead but in Alaska, where there's an 18 point Republican party identification advantage, it leaves McAdams running behind.
The reason for the closeness of the race is Miller's unpopularity. 52% of voters in the state have an unfavorable opinion of while only 36% see him positively.
What part of the banking crisis did the White House economic team miss? CNNMoney:
The government's list of troubled banks hit its highest level since 1992 during the second quarter, although the pace of growth continued to slow, according to a government report released Tuesday.
The number of banks at risk of failing rose by almost 7% to reach 829, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said in its quarterly survey of the nation's banking system.
That figure is up from 775 problem banks reported in the first quarter of the year, and is nearly double the 416 banks that were on the FDIC's watch list a year ago.
The poll numbers that we're seeing this week should be sending shivers up the spines of Democrats across the country. We're heading for trouble. Big trouble. Hurricane Earl looks like a summer breeze compared to the storm that's coming.
The first question is whether our leaders, starting with Obama, can do anything to fix it. Of course, they can. But, there's another, more important, question: Will Obama do anything to fix it. Based on the track record of the White House for the past 19 months, I'm not hopeful.
A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.
There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats...and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.
In a post appropriately titled, The Impending November of Doom, Markos looked at the latest Gallup Generic Tracking Poll, which is also pretty ugly. Actually, Gallup calls the GOP's 10 point lead "unprecedented": There's an ongoing enthusiasm gap between GOP voters and Democratic voters, too.
Markos, with Digby's input, explains the situation (hard to beat an analysis that includes those two):
Now, an enthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one, but it's also harder to get that unenthused voter to the polls. The Democratic turnout machine, which has made great strides in recent years, is going to have its work cut out just getting base voters out, and even then we'd still come up short. Yeah, it's bleak. And the White House can whine all it wants about the "professional left", fact is that this goes far beyond some blog or cable news host. So what to do?
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if you want to get people enthusiastic you might want to pick a big old fight right about now instead of trying desperately to avoid controversy (also known as "kerfuffles".) In case the Democrats don't realize it, Republicans and right leaning Independents aren't going to vote for them no matter what they do. Even if they open up those FEMA camps and start rounding up every Muslim and Mexican looking person they see, it won't work. Neither will rolling over and playing dead.
This goes beyond "doing something", and into the realm of actually doing something to excite the base. The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. Half measures and compromises with Republicans who voted against final legislation certainly doesn't count. Failing to follow through on promises on everything from comprehensive immigration reform to DADT doesn't help. Fighting to open up more shoreline to drilling doesn't help. Lilly Ledbetter was a step forward, then the Stupak Amendment was two steps back.
The administration has always seemed annoyed by its partisan base. All we've asked is that Obama keep his campaign promises. For that, we're castigated and mocked by the geniuses in the White House -- the ones who destroyed the vaunted Obama brand and all it stood for.
Markos is right on this, too:
No, this mess is the administration's making, with a healthy assist from Harry Reid's Senate. The shame is that Nancy Pelosi's House, which did its job, will bear the brunt of the voter backlash.
That is a shame. And, sure the White House will pay a price if the GOPers take back the House. But, their suffering will be over politics and subpoenas and useless investigations. Lots of Americans will face real hardship and suffering. That's the real tragedy.
Read More......
Obama's Oval Office speech speech is at 8:00 PM Eastern time. Via email, here are some excerpts. We'll also consider this an open thread for the speech:
“But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that our future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.”
***
“At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am proud of their service. Like all Americans, I am awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.”
***
“Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.”
***
“Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest – it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people – a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.”
***
“Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.”
Thoughts?
Jon Soltz from VoteVets offers his views on Iraq and what Obama should say here.
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.
Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.
I know we know this, but it's stunning how much Bush lied to us, including this:
In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.
The very, very talented Chase Whiteside and Erick Stoll were on the Mall on Saturday to interview some of the people who attended Glenn Beck's rally. It's scary: Read More......
Oh the humanity. One of these days Democrats are going to learn that no matter what they say or do, the corporate greed types are going to scream bloody murder no matter what. Everyone with open eyes knows that the middle class has been on the decline since the 1970s and that executive pay has been exploding ever since. Instead of spending big bucks on analyzing comparable pay at other similar businesses - which is hardly a cheap exercise - to make sure corporate executives are keeping up with the Jones' maybe they can spend a few more hours looking at the widening gap. Any chance these companies would like to provide full disclosure on how much they've spent doing pay analysis for the top 20 people in their company? I didn't think so.
The Democrats need to quit being so fearful of taking on this problem and the constant whinging by these companies. Again, they will complain no matter what as we have witnessed on Wall Street so Democrats might as well implement real change that brings real substance to the middle class again. How do the Democrats not see helping the middle class as a good thing? We all know that the GOP will bend over backwards to promote corporate greed so it would be great if the Democrats can help the other 99% of the population every now and then.
US companies face a “logistical nightmare” from a new rule forcing them to disclose the ratio between their chief executive’s pay package and that of the typical employee, lawyers have warned.
The mandatory disclosure will provide ammunition for activists seeking to target perceived examples of excessive pay and perks. The law taps into public anger at the increasing disparity between the faltering incomes of middle America and the largely recession-proof multimillion-dollar remuneration of the typical corporate chief.
S&P; 500 chief executives last year received median pay packages of $7.5m, according to executive compensation research firm Equilar. By comparison, official statistics show the average private sector employee was paid just over $40,000.
The argument that this may create "false comparisons" is laughable because this is precisely what the same people have been doing at the executive level for decades. They are afraid of a spotlight being placed on this obvious problem. End of story.
Read More......
I'm sorry, the family is trash. Yes, Americans love themselves a regular guy. But there's a difference between the redneck you like to drink with, and the family you want in the White House. This isn't just a sign of Bristol Palin's ongoing weirdness (not to mention, remember the whole "Leave Bristol Alone" thing - gee, guess the Palins got over that one fast), it's a sign that Sarah Palin is out for one thing, the money and the fame. The entire extended family is one big train wreck of a Playboy spread. I still can't understand why Republicans are always so willing to put trash on such a pedestal.
Read More......
This isn't news-news, but today the Professor gives a great simple answer to hyper-inflation freaks. There are two types of these:
The Big Boys, who will actually benefit if the lie is believed, The loudmouth in the next cubicle, or four bar stools away.
The first type has skin in the game; we're ignoring him, since he's willfully ignorant.
Instead, this little piece tells you what to say to the loudmouth.
Krugman's answer? If you "print money" (stimulate) in a supply-driven recession — one in which there are buyers but no supply — you do get inflation.
But if you "print money" (stimulate) in a demand-driven recession — i.e., sellers but no demand — you can't inflate the economy until there's a recovery. By definition, if no one buys, there can be no price moves, generally speaking.
I'll boil it down for the loudmouth below. Here's Krugman at the source (my emphasis):
[M]any economists these days reject out of hand the Keynesian model, preferring to believe that a fall in supply rather than a fall in demand is what causes recessions. But there are clear implications of these rival approaches. If the slump reflects some kind of supply shock, the monetary and fiscal policies followed since the beginning of 2008 would have the effects predicted in a supply-constrained world: large expansion of the monetary base should have led to high inflation, large budget deficits should have driven interest rates way up. And as you may recall, a lot of people did make exactly that prediction. A Keynesian approach, on the other hand, said that inflation would fall and interest rates stay low as long as the economy remained depressed. Guess what happened?
And for good measure he adds a nice picture of not–hyper-inflation, no red line shooting to the sky:
So the next time the loudmouth complains about "printing money" and "driving us into debt forever" — ignore the possibility that he just doesn't want "those" people to get "his" money.
Just ask him calmly, "Why are we in a recession? Is it because there's not enough stuff to buy, or because people are too poor (or unwilling) to buy it?"
If he says the latter, ask, "How can prices go up when no one is buying?"
