AP is a d---

From Steve Benen:

Reuters caused a stir late yesterday when it reported, “Republicans have tentatively agreed to between $150 billion and $200 billion in increased revenues in budget talks, Republican Senator Jon Kyl said on Wednesday.” Around the same time, the Washington Post said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has signaled “flexibility on tax loopholes” as part of debt-reduction talks.

Reader M.J. alerted me to this Associated Press piece with an almost comical headline: “As GOP shows flexibility, Obama adopts hard tone.” (It’s this kind of ridiculous thinking that leads Mark Halperin to call the president a “dick” on national television.)

What in the world are these media outlets talking about? Well, it appears some reporters are a little confused, or at a minimum, taken in too easily by misleading rhetoric without paying attention to the details.

The “flexibility” that the media was impressed with yesterday was really just Republicans talking about trading some tax subsidies for other tax cuts. That’s all. Democrats want to end wasteful tax breaks and apply the new revenue to deficit reduction. GOP officials, including Cantor, only said yesterday that they’re willing to apply savings to “offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.”

Read the rest of this post...

DCCC warns GOP put Soc. Security cuts on the table as 3rd ranking House Dem put them there too

Got an email from the DCCC tonight with the subject line "Off the table":

I need your urgent help. Republicans are gearing up enact their radical plan to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, women and people with disabilities.

At this moment, Speaker Boehner is crafting a deficit deal that would gut Medicare and Social Security, while slashing benefits for senior and the middle class in order to make sure he protects tax breaks for millionaires. This is unacceptable and House Democrats will not stand for this....

Sign our petition right now and join me in telling Republicans that Social Security and Medicare cuts are off the table. [emphasis added]

We've got bigger problems than Boehner. President Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table.

And, the DCCC needs to meet James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House. He too said today that Social Security is on the table:

"When you say Social Security is 'on the table,' it's been on the table all the time," Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Huffington Post. "In the Biden talks we talked about whether we ought to do something like raising the caps. If you raise the caps it's a whole lot different than raising the retirement age."

Clyburn opened the door to means-testing, which would reduce or eliminate benefits for wealthy individuals based on income levels.

"That's the kind of stuff we ought to look at," he said. "Don't get nervous about Social Security being on the table -- that could very well be what the president is talking about, and I hope that's what the president is talking about."

Yep. Third-ranking Dem. in the House. Hearing this kind of talk makes us very nervous.

This shouldn't come as a complete surprise since Clyburn is an honorary co-chair of Third Way, the corporate, conservative group that's always trying to undermine the Democratic agenda. Apparently, Clyburn's more loyal to Third Way than the Democratic agenda. Bil Daley used to be on the Board of Third Way, too. That group is gleeful that Obama put Social Security on the table -- almost as gleeful as the GOPers who couldn't achieve such cuts under Bush. Since Third Way is undermining the Democratic base, maybe the group's staff should do all the volunteer outreach, lit drops and phone-banking for the 2012 reelection campaign. Wait, they can't. They've got no constituency except for their corporate benefactors. But they've apparently got a seat at the same table the Social Security cuts are on.

Can't wait to see the DNC, DSCC and DCCC fundraising emails if Democrats actually sell out on Social Security cuts. Read the rest of this post...

Only one state under 20% adult obesity rate

This is quite a change from 1995. The garbage that is being offered as food - chock full of chemicals and who knows what - has to be at the root of this problem. The health care costs alone are going to be staggering. While most of the GOP likes to make fun of Michelle Obama's initiative to work on this problem, it's a serious problem that needs attention.

By that measure, Mississippi is the fattest state in the union with an adult obesity rate of 34.4 percent. Colorado is the least obese -- with a rate of 19.8 percent -- and the only state with an adult obesity rate below 20 percent, according to "F as in Fat," an annual report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

While the number of states showing significant year-over-year increases in obesity has been slowing, no state chalked up an actual decline. Even Colorado does not win high marks -- its score means one in five state residents is at higher risk for conditions like heart disease and diabetes.

"Today, the state with the lowest adult obesity rate would have had the highest rate in 1995," said Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health.

Maybe it's time to spend more dollars on public cycling infrastructure. Read the rest of this post...

Taylor Marsh, 2007: Obama "wants to hold hands with the wingnuts to save some fantasy Social Security ‘crisis.’ "

John and Joe have done a great job of covering the Obama "Grand Cave" on Social Security and Medicare — from rumor to news to denial (three of the four basic food groups, politically speaking).

This leads to several questions: Is he really going to do it? Are Dems going to follow? How should progressives react?

On the first, there's plenty of evidence that he's going to try really hard, despite the denials. Thanks to the alert research of Matt Stoller, we find this from Taylor Marsh writing in 2006 (my bolding throughout):

[Barack Obama] is so far off the Democratic party reservation I don't know where he's planting his primary flag, but it's nowhere a progressive Democrat or our party should willingly go.

It's bad enough that Mr. Obama continues to use wingnut talking points on Social Security. ... Paul Krugman asked nicely, Why, Barack, Why?, then took him out.

[It is] just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It's a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

...

Here's the up shot, folks. If you are a Hillary hater there's one candidate who isn't the anti Hillary. His name is Barack Obama. So if you're in his camp and you think he's got the answers, I suggest you check your idolatry, because this guy isn't about Democratic ideology, that's for sure, which I told you months ago. He's a deal maker, first, last and on the bottom line. Social Security is in "crisis," according to Mr. Obama, nod to the Republicans, but don't forget that wink.

"What they want is somebody who understands the struggles they're going through, is going to be thinking every day about how to make their lives better, has a grasp of the issues that not only Democrats, but Republicans and independents are worried are not being attended to in Washington. And if I provide that kind of leadership, I think that they will feel confident that I'm going to be able to do the job."

- Barack Obama, Meet the Press (11.11.07)

What this Democrat wants is that our nominee passionately pursue Democratic party ideals, jamming them down the throat of Republicans if we have to, because those guy are clueless on how to implement policies that work for the American people, the world, as well as foreign and military policies that include, dare I say it, competency. Barack Obama isn't interested in that, however, he wants to hold hands with the wingnuts to save some fantasy Social Security "crisis."

That's 2007. I've already mentioned the Ken Silverstein Harpers article, Barack Obama, Inc., from 2006. My view — he wants it bad.

Will Congressional Dems follow along? Not sure. Some, like Van Hollen, are making noises like they won't, but Van Hollen is seriously suspect, as this interview shows. What will Pelosi do? Don't know; did she even get a tweet into yesterday's fabulous TweeterCon? And Pelosi gave us Steve Israel.

But the real question is, what should progressives do? Many believe, understandably, that Obama's won't lose to the "Republican clown car". I've stated publicly that I disagree, that he can lose, and under a variety of scenarios.

But that avoids the question. It's been argued that Obama must be primaried from the left to preserve the progressive name (I hate the word "brand"), and it's been said in these pages that the one who primaries Obama and loses in 2012 is the next Dem president, the next time a Dem is elected.

As regular readers know, I tend to the primary camp as a way to enforce discipline and cull the strays. To be sure, the consequences of primarying Obama are far greater than the consequences of primarying McCaskill.

But (1) how will we ever win if we don't take risks? And (2) how can Obama win if he keeps offending Democratic consciences, if he insists on removing what for many Democrats is "the last straw"? Because, in answer to this question, more and more Dems, pros and ams alike, will be forced to consult their consciences before saying Yes.

GP Read the rest of this post...

How Monica Lewinsky saved Social Security

There's a fascinating 2004 article at Counterpunch by Robin Blackburn called "How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security" (h/t Matt Stoller). The gist is that Clinton and crew wanted to do what Obama's trying to do, but in Clinton's case he Wienered himself.

Our 2011 route to salvation will probably have to be different. But the list of names that turns up in the article is (as they say) "ripped from the headlines." Here's a taste (my emphasis):

Had it not been for Monica's captivating smile and first inviting snap of that famous thong, President Bill Clinton would have consummated the politics of triangulation, heeding the counsel of a secret White House team and deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers. Late in 1998 or in the State of the Union message of 1999 a solemn Clinton would have told Congress and the nation that, just like welfare, Social Security was near-broke, had to be "reformed" and its immense pool of capital tendered in part to the mutual funds industry. The itinerary mapped out for Clinton by the Democratic Leadership Committee would have been complete. ...

We have this on the authority of high-ranking members of the Clinton Treasury who gathered in Harvard in the summer of 2001 to mull over the lessons of the 1990s. At that conclave it was revealed that on Clinton's orders a top secret White House working party had been established to study in detail the basis for a bipartisan policy on Social Security that would splice individual accounts into the program. Such was the delicacy of this exercise that meetings of the group were flagged under the innocent rubric "Special Issues" on the White House agenda. ...

The "Special Issues" secret team was set up by then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (later elevated to Treasury Secretary and now President of Harvard) and Gene Sperling, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers.

A similar piece by Jane Hamsher (one almost identically titled) adds other names, including:

By 1997, Bill Clinton felt he had the upper hand with Congress and it was time for him to make historic moves. He had replaced Leon Panetta as Chief of Staff with investment banker Erskine Bowles late in his first term, and as author Steven Gillon tells the tale, Bowles brought a sense of order to the White House. Bowles planned to return to the private sector as Clinton’s second term began, but Bill and Hillary implored him to stay on for one final task: “fixing” Social Security.

The list, of course, includes Bill Clinton himself. You remember Clinton, don't you? He's this guy:



Can't know the players without a scorecard.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Stiglitz on how tax cuts, wars, recession and health care bankrupted the country

And here's a surprise, it didn't have to. Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz in Slate:

A decade ago, in the midst of an economic boom, the United States faced a surplus so large that it threatened to eliminate the national debt. Unaffordable tax cuts and wars, a major recession, and soaring health care costs—fueled in part by the commitment of George W. Bush's administration to giving drug companies free rein in setting prices, even with government money at stake—quickly transformed a huge surplus into record peacetime deficits.

The remedies to the U.S. deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: Put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich. But the right will have none of this, and instead is pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in investments and social protection that put the future of the U.S. economy in peril and that shred what remains of the social contract. Meanwhile, the U.S. financial sector has been lobbying hard to free itself of regulations, so that it can return to its previous, disastrously carefree, ways.

Read the rest of this post...

Top Dem on House Budget committee: Dems won’t balance budget on backs of Soc. Security recipients

CNN:

Van Hollen on CNN: ‘Democrats Will Not Balance the Budget on the Backs of Social Security Beneficiaries’

Washington, DC – Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, today appeared on CNN’s American Morning to discuss the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations. You can watch the interview here. Below is the transcript:

ALI VELSHI, CNN: Congressman Van Hollen, thank you for joining us.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you.

VELSHI: Do you know anything about the reports the President is prepared to talk about Medicare and Social Security with the Republicans in exchange for their support to raise the debt ceiling?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Ali, I do not know the details on this. I saw the reports and will hear a lot more from the President around eleven o’clock when he meets with bipartisan group at the White House. I do know that the President has been looking for a comprehensive deal that gets about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That was along the lines of the proposal from the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. But with respect to the story that appeared this morning on Social Security I do not know what exactly the President is referring to. And I should be clear that Congressional Democrats are not going to support something that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries. What we have said is that if the President wants to adopt a separate track, just as Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, to strengthen Social Security, that’s one thing. But to try and balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries would be unacceptable and I’m pretty confident that is not what the President is referring to.

VELSHI: Let's set the stage what here with what kinds of things could you, and Congressional Democrats, with respect to Social Security might support. If we support an increase in the age when you get Social Security for people who are younger at this point so it phases in over some time. Is that the kind of thing we could be talking about?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: I think that would meet with a lot of resistance for this reason. It's easy for people who make a living like you and I do; talking, to retire a little bit later. It’s a lot harder for someone who has been doing back-breaking work. What we could do -- this is something part of the design of the existing system -- you don't take away the option to retire early but if you do retire early you do get a lower benefit over a period of time. That is part of the design in the current system. You could build on that. There are other options that we have discussed, for example, lifting the cap on the payroll tax. That would bring in more revenue, so there are ways to strength Social Security. Obviously, an important issue -- but don’t do that as way to balance the rest of the budget.

Read the rest of this post...

How Murdoch’s paper allegedly broke into voice mail of dead girl, gave parents false hope, and interfered with a police investigation

UPDATE: The paper is closing as a result of the scandal. Let's hope Fox News is next.

Murdoch's people allegedly deleted voice mails from family members to the murdered girl imploring her to get in touch with them (they didn't know she was dead already). The paper then found that the voice mail was filling up, and they wanted to hear more messages, so they deleted some of the current messages for the dead girl, making the family think the girl was checking her messages and was still alive. The paper then interviewed the family who talked about their hope that the girl was still alive, while the paper said nothing about how it had helped create this false hope.

From the Guardian:

The Guardian investigation has shown that, within a very short time of Milly vanishing, [Rupert Murdoch's] News of the World journalists reacted by engaging in what was standard practice in their newsroom: they hired private investigators to get them a story.

Their first step was simple, albeit illegal. Paperwork seen by the Guardian reveals that they paid a Hampshire private investigator, Steve Whittamore, to obtain home addresses and, where necessary, ex-directory phone numbers for any families called Dowler in the Walton area. The three addresses Whittamore found could be obtained lawfully on the electoral register. The two ex-directory numbers, however, were "blagged" illegally from British Telecom's confidential records by one of Whittamore's associates, John Gunning, who works from a base in Wiltshire. One of the ex-directory numbers was attributed by Whittamore to Milly's family home.

Then, with the help of its own full-time private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World started illegally intercepting mobile phone messages. Scotland Yard is now investigating evidence that the paper hacked directly into the voicemail of the missing girl's own phone. As her friends and parents called and left messages imploring Milly to get in touch with them, the News of the World was listening and recording their every private word.

But the journalists at the News of the World then encountered a problem. Milly's voicemail box filled up and would accept no more messages. Apparently thirsty for more information from more voicemails, the paper intervened – and deleted the messages that had been left in the first few days after her disappearance. According to one source, this had a devastating effect: when her friends and family called again and discovered that her voicemail had been cleared, they concluded that this must have been done by Milly herself and, therefore, that she must still be alive. But she was not. The interference created false hope and extra agony for those who were misled by it.

The Dowler family then granted an exclusive interview to the News of the World in which they talked about their hope, quite unaware that it had been falsely kindled by the newspaper's own intervention. Sally Dowler told the paper: "If Milly walked through the door, I don't think we'd be able to speak. We'd just weep tears of joy and give her a great big hug."

The deletion of the messages also caused difficulties for the police by confusing the picture when they had few leads to pursue. It also potentially destroyed valuable evidence.

Read the rest of this post...

Exxon lied about the depth of the broken pipeline

It doesn't say much for the regulation - or lack of regulation in this case - that Exxon was even given so much leeway with something as important as this. Either way, their assurances were about as valuable as any assurance from the oil industry. Self regulation doesn't work, but everyone already knows that.

Exxon Mobil Co. had reassured federal regulators and officials from a Montana town since December that an oil pipeline beneath the Yellowstone River was safe, buried deep enough to avoid any accidental ruptures.

Then, on Friday night, the pipe failed, spilling an estimated 42,000 gallons into the flooded river.

The cause of the accident remains under investigation, but the prevailing theory among officials and the company is that the raging Yellowstone eroded the riverbed and exposed the line to damaging rocks or debris.

Read the rest of this post...

White House pushes back on Social Security cut story

I'd like to believe them. I'm just not entirely sure why we should.  The President has never been one to hold firm to his convictions without some serious duress, so while a statement from the White House might possibly reflect where the President is today, it doesn't say anything about where he'll be tomorrow.  Yes, a girl has the right to change her mind, but in this case, it's less a right than a guarantee.  Which makes statements, and promises, from the West Wing somewhat less than reassuring.  From Sam Stein at HuffPost:

The Obama administration is pushing back against a Wednesday night report that the president is prepared to offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."

"While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."

That sounds a bit like "it's a lie that we're caving on Social Security today, we did that yesterday." Read the rest of this post...

Why aren’t the Democrats rebelling?

From David Frum writing on CNN.com. He's a conservative who rather often speaks sense.

Why aren't the Democrats rebelling?

The debt ceiling negotiations have amounted to a succession of retreats and concessions by President Obama.

How in the world did the president arrive at this disastrous predicament?

You can blame his opponents if you want. Yes, the House Republicans have played politics very rough. Not since the era of the Vietnam War has a house of Congress used the threat of national bankruptcy to gain its way on a policy point.

But the roughness of the president's opponents does not excuse the president's own mistakes and weakness. On the contrary: from the point of view of the president's supporters, the roughness of the president's opponents makes all the more inexcusable the president's mishandling of the situation.

As Marc Ambinder of the National Journal suggested at the time, the president could have included an increase in the debt ceiling in the December deal to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans dearly wanted that extension. Obama did not use leverage when he had it -- and so he became a victim of leverage when he lacked it.

Then, as Republicans discovered the power of their new tool, the president decided to assume they were bluffing, that they would never actually do anything so reckless. Waking up to the reality of the situation too late, he commenced bargaining by offering what he assumed would be an irresistible deal. Wrong again. The Republicans did resist. So Obama offered an even better deal -- which predictably only whetted the GOP appetite for still more.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table. Will Hill Dems go along?

The NYT confirms the news we first learned last night -- the President is going to propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Yes, the GOPers are getting from Obama what they could not get from Bush -- and it's not altogether clear what the GOPers are giving in return, if anything. Think about that:

The president’s renewed efforts follow what knowledgeable officials said was an overture from Mr. Boehner, who met secretly with Mr. Obama last weekend, to consider as much as $1 trillion in unspecified new revenues as part of an overhaul of tax laws in exchange for an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table.

The intensifying negotiations between the president and the speaker have Congressional Democrats growing anxious, worried they will be asked to accept a deal that is too heavily tilted toward Republican efforts and produces too little new revenue relative to the magnitude of the cuts.

Congressional Democrats said they were caught off guard by the weekend White House visit of Mr. Boehner — a meeting the administration still refused to acknowledge on Wednesday — and Senate Democrats raised concerns at a private party luncheon on Wednesday.

House Democrats have their own fears about the negotiations, which they expressed in an hourlong meeting Wednesday night with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

So, the President is cutting his own deal with Boehner -- and cutting out the Hill Democrats. I'm sure the geniuses at the White House have concocted some rational for the President's latest scheme, which none of the rest of us will ever understand. But, we'll get to see if Democrats in Congress stand up for their beliefs and values -- even if Obama won't.

At 11 AM, the President will be meeting with Congressional leaders (Reid, Durbin, McConnell, Kyl, Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi and Hoyer) to discuss the debt limit. Read the rest of this post...

Federal Reserve loaned $18 billion to Lehman from secret account

There really does need to be a lot more openness from the Federal Reserve. The taxpayers aren't an unlimited ATM for Wall Street yet that's how it works. So besides the $45 billion lent to Lehman, the parent company had this other significant loan from a double top secret Fed fund. Why is it always so easy for Wall Street yet for the middle class, all they get are Medicare and Social Security cuts?

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ)’s brokerage borrowed as much as $18 billion in four separate loans from a previously secret program of the U.S. Federal Reserve in June 2008, three months before its parent filed the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

The program, which peaked at $80 billion in loans outstanding, was known as the Fed’s single-tranche open-market operations, or ST OMO. It made 28-day loans to units of 19 banks from March 7, 2008, to Dec. 30, 2008. Bloomberg reported on ST OMO in May, after the Fed released incomplete records on the program. In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information Act request for details, the central bank disclosed borrower names, amounts borrowed and interest rates.

The Lehman brokerage, Lehman Brothers Inc., tapped the ST OMO program for as much as $5 billion in short term funding in March 2008, and lower amounts at other times during the month. It took as much as $10 billion in June as the credit crisis worsened, according to Fed data. The maximum outstanding for any period was $18 billion.

Read the rest of this post...

Rupert Murdoch's UK paper may have hacked into phones of dead soldiers

What a revolting bunch. The UK has finally talked about opening a formal inquiry but it's taken a long time due to the close links between the Murdoch newspaper management and current British PM David Cameron. It would not be far fetched to imagine the same kind of sick behavior from News Corp in the US.

Scotland Yard is investigating claims that families of members of the armed forces killed in Afghanistan and Iraq have been targeted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who worked for the News of the World.

The revelation is likely to further shock the public, who have already reacted with horror to news that the paper intercepted voicemails left on a phone belonging to murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and targeted the phones of families of victims of the 7/7 attacks.

MPH Solicitors, whose clients include Samantha Roberts, the widow of Sergeant Steven Roberts of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, said they had been contacted on Wednesday by a newspaper and told Roberts's phone may have been hacked, along with a mobile belonging to Geraldine McCool, her lawyer.

Read the rest of this post...

Greek bailout dividing EU

As much as everyone would like the Eurozone to stay in one piece, it's not likely nor does it even make much financial sense. The latest plan to ram through a bailout is opening up divisions inside the European Union. The Dutch are balking at the bailout and of course, everyone knows that once it's wrapped up the focus will be Portugal and beyond.

Speaking in London after a meeting with the chancellor, George Osborne, de Jager said it was "illusory" to hope that Europe's banks would voluntarily bear their fair share of the costs of a new bailout for Athens, and that President Sarkozy's current proposals let Greece's private sector creditors off too lightly.

Any evidence of a fresh split among European policymakers will increase anxiety in the financial markets, which were rattled on Wednesday by news that ratings agency Moody's had downgraded Portugal's debt to junk status.

"We do have concerns about the French scheme," de Jager said. "I think it's illusory to think of such a scheme as voluntary, so we have to work on solutions so that banks reach a level playing field.

Read the rest of this post...

Working America asks: "Have you ever had a really bad boss?"

Almost everyone who has worked has had a bad boss. D.C. is rife with stories about bad bosses. Really bad, egotistical, annoying bosses. I've had my share.

Working America is having a contest to name the worst of the worst:

Have you ever had a really bad boss?

We all have! That’s why we started the Bad Boss contest, where you can share stories about your worst Bad Boss experience—and have the chance to win some great prizes.

You can enter your story here. There are already lots of examples. There are some real nasty bosses out there. And, this demonstrates the need for workplace protections, which is a goal of Working America.

AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka and Family Values At Work Director Ellen Bravo are going to start announcing semi-finalists on Thursday. The big prize winner/loser will be announced on August 2nd. Read the rest of this post...