The gay groups in California, who lost Prop 8, want you to give them more money

Rex Wockner has more.

Read the rest of this post...

Limbaugh attacks Gingrich

He really can't shut up. I love it.

"I'm frankly getting tired of talking about Newt. I mean, it's a pointless exercise," Limbaugh said of Gingrich's dismissal of him on "Meet the Press." "I'm surprised by nothing when I'm dealing with people in the media who think they're in politics. ... They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time — and you can't count on them. You can't depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they'll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time."

"I mean, next week Newt could come out and profess his total admiration and love for me if it would serve his purposes," he continued. "They're running TV ads against me. Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him."

Ben has the entire transcript - go read it. Read the rest of this post...

Obama orders review of Bush signing statements

Again, be damn glad we won.

In a memo to senior government officials, Obama said they must check with Attorney General Eric Holder before relying on any of Bush's signing statements for guidance. Bush often issued a statement when signing a bill into law, and critics said the statements at times showed government officials how to circumvent the law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.

Read the rest of this post...

The question isn't whether Obama gets it - it's whether the Republicans get it, or even care to

There are an interesting series of blog posts and news articles in the past few days about whether the stimulus package was big enough, and whether Obama "gets it" that the first package wasn't big enough. Paul Krugman has written a few pieces about this recently, including a NYT article, Larry Summers seems to be suggesting that more money may be needed, and Josh Marshall weighs in as well about a Washington Post story that says the stimulus may not be big enough to counter the unemployment numbers.

There are a few important points to consider. First, this isn't news. Krugman showed a few months back that the stimulus package wasn't big enough to meet the hole in demand that the recession is causing. Second, the larger concern, one I share, isn't whether Obama gets it - I think he does - it's whether the Republicans, and Americans at large, will let us have a second bite at the stimulus apple. Let's first talk about Obama. Krugman isn't convinced that Obama gets it. I think that's wrong. Obama isn't an idiot, and his advisers aren't ideologues. They must have the same data Krugman has, and they must realize how bad things are out there. I suspect, and hope, that any reticence on Obama's part, about talking about needing more stimulus later on, is a tactical move. Americans, and their reps in Congress, weren't ready to hear that we actually needed a $2 trillion stimulus package, rather than a $750bn package. I think Obama got what he could get THIS TIME, and that he has every intent on going for a second package if and when we need one later this year, or early next year (in fact, Joe and I both wrote, I believe, that we read between Obama's lines, perhaps during the first press conference, that he knows he may have to go back for a second package). The bigger problem, which Krugman notes, is the following:

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

The Republicans have made clear that saying-no is their only shot at being relevant. They didn't want this stimulus package, and they're really not going to want the next one, regardless of whether that position sends us into an even worse economic crisis. We learned over the past eight years that the GOP is more than happy to sacrifice country for party. Everything is ideology with them. And a big depression is a small price to pay for getting their majority back in Congress and their president back in the White House.

That is Obama's challenge. Not recognizing the gravity of the crisis, or the need for more stimulus. It's maneuvering now in a way that so marginalizes the Republicans that they will have zero standing to block his further efforts to revive the economy in the future. It's a zero sum game in Republican-land. And no amount of Obama goodwill or good wishes is going to change that.

One more point. There's another wrinkle as well. The only obvious way to bowl over the Republicans is to keep talking about how bad the economy is, how desperate we are for a fix, and hopefully so freak out the American public that they demand action. Only problem? Creating such a sense of doom and gloom that consumer demand falls even further, that businesses cut back even more, thus making the crisis deeper and longer. Read the rest of this post...

More Warren Buffett on the economy

AP:

Fear and confusion have been driving consumer and investor behavior in recent months, Buffett said.

The nation's leaders need to clear up the confusion before anyone will become more confident, and he said all 535 members of Congress should stop the partisan bickering about solutions....

"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.

Whatever the government does to help the economy will likely benefit some people who made poor financial decisions, but Buffett said Americans should realize that everyone is in the same boat.

Interesting points. Namely, that we've psyched the public out, and that needs to stop, and turn around. Two, we need to end the partisanship. That's impossible. But perhaps we can sufficiently beat into submission those who would be partisan, just as Bush did with the aftermath of September 11. He effectively shut down opposition for years. Three, Obama needs to look the part. Not that he doesn't, but this feeds into point 2. When Obama speaks about the economy, the perception needs to be that their commander in chief is speaking about the war. Authoritative, and untouchable. And four, Buffett is right, some morons are going to benefit from whatever plans we come up with. And I'm okay with that. If only because we have no choice. The alternative is letting things get much worse.

But, what I keep writing about is that I'd like to see people who didn't screw up, people who didn't overextend themselves, people who actually pay their mortgage (and on time) - I'd like to see all of those people somehow rewarded for their positive behavior. I worry about a future in which people who did the right thing pay for people who didn't do the right thing - neither is given an incentive to do the right thing the next time around.

Not to mention, it's one thing to adjust the interest rate on a mortgage for someone who loses their job, etc. It's another thing to keep that rate artificially adjusted down, four or five years from now, for someone who is back on their feet, earning a good salary, etc. Those people will be paying less for their mortgage than you're paying for yours. And that is unfair. It's something understandable that we all have to accept now, when we're trying to avert a more serious downturn. But it's not justifiable once things are back on track, and once people are back on track. Or, at the very least, then provide some kind of mortgage benefit, tax benefit, or something, for people who didn't need the bailout. Our government should help everyone. Read the rest of this post...

Goldman CEO OK with nationalized banks - other banks

Typical and as you would imagine from the freeloaders at Goldman. Goldman, of course, was the subject of numerous rumors last autumn as the next Lehman. More recently Goldman has been the subject of another round of rumors related to banks most at risk if AIG was not propped up by the US government. Goldman is a company living on the edge so of course they would love to promote other banks for nationalization so they then use that against the banks for business advantage. Maybe Congress ought to balk at that next AIG $30 billion and see how long it takes to quiet Goldman.

Goldman Sachs' chief executive said he opposed the full nationalisation of banks, but thought government stakes could be sensible in extreme situations, in an interview with German weekly Welt am Sonntag.

"I don't think that nationalisation is a good solution. It is decisive that the financial system is being stabilised and governments have to act in a pragmatic manner," Lloyd Blankfein was quoted as saying.

"In extreme situations, it can be meaningful when the government takes a stake. However, full control should be avoided," he added.

Asked about the case of stricken German property lender Hypo Real Estate, which has already received 87 billion euro ($110 billion) in state guarantees, Blankfein said: "There can be extreme situations, where there is no alternative. Then the following must apply: If the tax-payer raises the whole capital of a company, it has to belong to him. Otherwise, the state is in danger of taking only risks, without having the opportunities."

Right. And what opportunity and reward are American taxpayers receiving by bailing out AIG, thus Goldman? Maybe he would care to comment on that situation next time. Read the rest of this post...

GOP legislative priority isn't to pass any legislation to help America, it's to drive down Democratic poll numbers

Well that's one way to focus like a laser beam on the economy. Not to focus on it at all. From the Plum Line:

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.

McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):

“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.

I guess when you're guaranteed a government-paid salary of $170k or so a year - and get a raise just two months ago - you can afford to focus on more important things than the health of the nation. Read the rest of this post...

Obama signs executive order on stem cells

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SIGNING OF STEM CELL EXECUTIVE ORDER
AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

East Room

11:47 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please, have a seat. Thank you much. Well, I'm excited too. (Laughter.)

Today, with the executive order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. (Applause.) We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. (Applause.) And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions: to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome -- that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It's a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. And that is why I am signing this executive order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend all of them who are here for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them -- actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new front of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. (Applause.)

By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. And that is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

And that's why today I'm also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making -- (applause) -- to ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That's how we'll harness the power of science to achieve our goals -- to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science and expand funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized and raised awareness and kept on fighting -- even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause -- people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. And it read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn't do it. For everyone who said it's impossible. See you at the finish line."


Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: If you came back here 10 -- "If you came back here in 10 years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."

Now, Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day -- maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime -- but maybe one day, others like Christopher Reeves might.

There's no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us -- the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are potentially retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Before I sign, I want to just note the people who are on the stage with me. In addition to our outstanding Secretary of Energy, Secretary Chu; we also have Dr. Patricia Bath; we have Dr. H. Robert Horvitz; we have Dr. Janet Rowley; Dr. Harold Varmus, who's going to be the co-chair of my President's Council on Science; we've got Dr. Michael Bishop; and we also have Dr. Peter Agre. So these are an example of the outstanding scientists who we hope will guide us through this process in the years to come.

And with them standing beside me, I'd also like to invite some of my colleagues from Congress who have done just such extraordinary work to share in the limelight, because you guys are still going to have some work to do, and -- but it's because of the leadership of so many of you across partisan lines that we've been able to accomplish so much already.

So thank you very much, everybody. Let's go sign this. (Applause.)

(The executive order is signed.) (Applause.) Read the rest of this post...

What kind of moron uses a teleprompter?

Read the rest of this post...

Catholic hypocrisy on display: Republican Judges who order death are never challenged; Democrats who are pro-choice are attacked.

Meet Texas Judge Sharon Keller:

Judge Keller, 55, has always kept her own counsel; her colleagues at the court have given her the nickname Mother Superior because of her reserved and diligent demeanor and her devout Roman Catholic faith.

So, how does a devout Roman Catholic judge in Texas operate:

In 1998, Judge Keller wrote the opinion rejecting a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA tests after his trial showed that it was not his semen in the victim.

“We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,” she later told the television news program “Frontline.” “We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”

Now, that's very Catholic. I don't purport to be a religious scholar, but I have a hard time thinking Jesus would share that view. Judge Keller is currently on trial for judicial misconduct:

Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk’s office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.

So, here's the question? Where's the outrage from the Catholic hierarchy? Has Judge Keller been denied communion? Has the Catholic version of Rush Limbaugh, the racist, homophobic Bill Donohue, been bloviating about Keller? Of course not. The hypocrisy in the church is rampant. Can't criticize Keller. She's a Republican.

Instead, the Catholics have been aiming their fire at Kathleen Sebelius, who will be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bigot Donohue, who basically has an organization of one person and a fax machine, led the charge, along with one of those whack job, Communion-denying bishops in Kansas.

If the church isn't going to attack Keller, it shouldn't attack Sebelius. But, consistency and intellectual honesty aren't hallmarks of the Catholic hierarchy.

See, if it's not about abortion or gay bashing, the leaders of the Catholic Church keep quiet. There is almost no such thing as Catholic criticism of Republicans. (That might make the real leader of the Catholic Church in the U.S., Bill Donohue, mad. ) Read the rest of this post...

US Census spokesperson calls being gay a "lifestyle"

Well that was rather stupid, and quite 1980s of her. In addition to her language being quite offensive, the reason she mentioned the gay "lifestyle" was because we won't be in the 2010 census. Why?

"This is all about the numbers. This not about lifestyle or anything else," says U.S. Census spokeswoman Cynthia Endo.

Gee, are you counting the black lifestyle and the Asian lifestyle? How about the male and female lifestyles? Idiot.

I'm particular disturbed by the article's mention of the Defense of Marrriage Act stopping the Census from counting gays or gay couples. Oh really? Here's what the relevant part of DOMA says:

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

That has zero to do with counting individual gay people or gay couples in the census. DOMA says the feds can't treat same-sex relationships as marriage. The census is already counting "unmarried partners," and they're including unmarried gay partners in the larger mix (they're not telling gay people not to include their partners there). The problem is that they're including straight partners too, so the numbers don't tell you much. But, in any case, counting gay couples, counting individual gay people, counting gay people who call themselves married doesn't not "endorse" gay marriage, nor does it "treat" those relationships the same as marriage. Why? Because the census counts lots of things that it doesn't treat the same as marriage. It counts how many Latinos we have in the country - is that because counting Latinos somehow treats Latinos as "marriage"? No. The census can count things without "endorsing" things. It could even count gay married couples in order to help stop the spread of God-awful gay marriage (snark, but true).

If there's still time, it would be nice for someone to fix this before 2010. And give Census spokesperson Cynthia Endo the DVD set of Will & Grace. Clearly her lifestyle needs a little updating. Read the rest of this post...

GOP hypocrisy on display: Lindsey Graham flip and flops on earmarks: He really hates earmarks, but earmarks are okay for South Carolina

The Republican Senators are filibustering the omnibus spending bill -- a bill that couldn't get passed last year because of Bush. It's the spending bill for the current year. All of the sudden, Republican Senators are concerned about fiscal discipline. It's a newfound, totally political, perspective.

And, the GOP's hypocrisy on this subject was captured yesterday on "Meet the Press." Think Progress got the video.

Watch as, within the span of a few seconds, on national t.v, Lindsey Graham does a complete 180 on earmarks. See, Lindsey hates earmarks, unless they're his earmarks. Then, it's okay:

Republicans are just so disingenuous on this subject.

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Today, President Obama will overturn George Bush's ban on using federal funds for stem cell research. That move has a lot of people very excited including scientists -- and people affected by diseases that could be cured by stem cell research. It's really one of the ugliest vestiges of the very ugly Bush administration. When historians and humanitarians look back at the abuses of George Bush, his refusal to let scientists find cures for diseases will be viewed as one of his worst decisions. I know Obama hasn't even been president for two months, but the Bush years almost seem long ago and out of a different, distant, dark time. Science matters again. And, caring for the sick does, too.

What else does the new week bring? Read the rest of this post...

Lloyds pays $113 million in bonuses

Not too shabby for a bank that's about to be rescued by the government and nationalized. Gordon Brown has been angry about bankers cashing in during such times so this is definitely a situation to watch.

The deal is likely to cause anger among taxpayers and shareholders as previous deals for bailed out bankers have been described as rewards for failure.

The Government is about to take a 77pc stake in the business in return for effectively underwriting £260bn of 'toxic debt' in the Treasury's asset protection scheme.

UK Financial Investments (UKFI), the Treasury agency which will hold the bank shares for the taxpayer, has agreed to a deal that means junior staff will continue to get bonus top-ups on a quarterly basis.

More senior managers will have to wait up to three years before collecting payments linked to their performance last year.

According to a banking source, the agency felt it was unfair to penalise branch staff and other junior employees, who are paid an average of £17,000 a year, for the crisis facing the group.

The bank's executive directors have already agreed to waive their bonus rights.

More than 40,000 junior staff will collect bonuses of around £1,000 this year, making up more than half of the bonus pot, while more senior managers will get the first of three payments next year unless their performance slips.

The rescue deal follows the heavy losses uncovered by Lloyds after the takeover of rival HBOS and means two of the big four High Street banks - Royal Bank of Scotland is the other - are now effectively 'nationalised'.

Banks have learned that it's best to promote the cases of the lower wage earners but more often than not, the big money somehow trickles up. Read the rest of this post...

GOP pleads for total economic collapse

The banks the Senator Shelby is suggesting to fail are the mega banks that are well known around the world. Those banks are in fact, too big to fail. (Year to date the US has closed at least 17 banks, so plenty have failed.) At this point in time it's only going to make matters worse if the US was to allow a Bank of America or Citi-like bank to fail. Shelby ignores the issue from Japan in the '90s which many are already talking about resolving in the US. The Japanese spoon fed just enough money to the banks to keep them alive, but not much more. The term "zombie banks" referred to such banks and that's why many are calling for nationalizing the US banks, cleaning them up and privatizing them. Shelby's interpretation of the Japanese model is failed, but how often is he right? And McCain? My goodness. Can you imagine how bad things would have become with him in charge?

The United States should let some big troubled banks fail rather than commit more federal funds to prop them up, two key congressional Republicans said Sunday.

Senator Richard Shelby, top Republican on the banking committee, said the United States should not mimic Japan, which in the 1990s propped up failing banks and prolonged its economic downturn.

"Close them down, get them out of business. If they're dead, they ought to be buried," Shelby told ABC's "This Week" program. "We bury the small banks. We've got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market."

Financial authorities have been under increasing fire as hundreds of billions of dollars of loans and capital infusions into distressed institutions have failed to halt the economic downturn, which has only accelerated in recent weeks.

Senator John McCain, who remains a Republican leader after losing the 2008 White House race to President Barack Obama, criticized the new administration's response to the banks.

"I don't think they made the hard decision and that is to let these banks fail," McCain told "Fox News Sunday." As the U.S. government boosts its stakes in major banks such as Citigroup, talk of nationalization has stirred a debate over how far regulators will go to help the ailing financial system.

Shelby did not mention any banks by name but, when asked about Citigroup, he said: "Citi's always been a problem child."

Read the rest of this post...

Lower wages next?

Unfortunately that seems very likely. For those few companies that are hiring, it's a buyers market. Many other companies are cutting staff or salaries to remain competitive. Surprisingly, mega-bonuses seem limited to only the Wall Street failures.

With "no end in sight" for U.S. job losses amid a recession that could stretch into 2010, American workers will soon have to contend with another blow to their confidence: stagnant, or even falling wages.

Job seekers—already coping with the highest unemployment rate in a quarter century, their savings mugged by a plunging stock market—can also expect lower pay once they land a new job, labor market experts say, because the current downturn shows no signs of turning around anytime soon.

"There's no end in sight," said Tig Gilliam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, the third-largest U.S. employer behind Wal-Mart and the postal service.

"March is going to be the same, and I don't see anything that will make April better." Lower wages, in turn, could further erode the outlook for the U.S. economy by hurting consumers' spending power.

Read the rest of this post...