Pentagon to announce 'year long' review of DADT, including whether DOD will be forced to recognize gay marriage

Yep, the Pentagon is invoking marriage. They're running circles around the White House. Or worse, the White House is complicit. Either way, Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't going to happen under Barack Obama's watch unless we force him keep his promise. The real question is whether the Human Rights Campaign will help us, or continue to provide cover for a president who seems increasingly afraid to lead. Read the rest of this post...

The Roman Army Knife - predates Swiss Army knife by 1800 years

It's amazing to think that the examples here are from the Roman empire. It's doubtful they were actually used by anyone in the military unless they were very senior because the price must have been enormous. They look like something that could have been produced in the 1800s. Here's the story behind these very cool museum pieces. In the first link there's also what looks like a modern reproduction.

The world's first Swiss Army knife' has been revealed - made 1,800 years before its modern counterpart.

An intricately designed Roman implement, which dates back to 200AD, it is made from silver but has an iron blade.

It features a spoon, fork as well as a retractable spike, spatula and small tooth-pick.

Read the rest of this post...

Corporation to run for Congress

Read the rest of this post...

Paulson: Banker's pay 'out of whack'

If only he had been in a position to influence the problem while at Goldman or running Treasury. CNBC:

Paulson has a new book on the crisis called "On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System."

"What I say in the book is that when I ran with Goldman Sachs, even during benign times, I had felt the compensation in the industry seemed out of whack, and I would occasionally go off in partners meetings and say something to the effect, 'I hope you guys all understand,' and remind them, 'people don't like you. Very few people do,'" Paulson told CNBC.

"When the government did what it did and saved the entire financial system … these paychecks just seem so out of whack and out of tune with what's going on with the public," he added.

Read the rest of this post...

Orszag told me DADT savings were so small that they wouldn't be included in the budget. Then why were even smaller savings included?

Budget Director Peter Orszag told me today that I shouldn't be surprised that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't in the President's budget. Why? Because the savings I cited from repealing DADT - $30m to $60m a year - are so small, in the grand scheme of the Pentagon budget, that they'd be considered nothing more than "a rounding error." Too bad a document on the White House Web site brags about even smaller rounding-error savings in the Pentagon budget, suggesting that there's another reason the President isn't keeping his promise in the budget. More on AMERICAblog Gay. Read the rest of this post...

More signs of life from the FDA

The Obama FDA is worlds apart from the business-focused Bush FDA. It has to be one of the highlights of the Obama administration so far. If only we saw the same movement from some of the other teams that answer to the president.

Under the Obama administration, the F.D.A. has stepped up scrutiny of drug advertising, dispatching many warning letters about misleading commercials and online marketing efforts. But this is believed to be the first time the agency has warned an individual investigator — a medical researcher who oversees a clinical trial — for apparently promoting an unapproved drug.

Dr. Baumann is far from the only cosmetic doctor to have jumped the gun. Some talk show hosts and beauty editors (including this reporter in her previous job at W magazine) have often turned to clinical investigators for news of the latest cosmetic medical treatments.

Now, some industry experts say the F.D.A. warning may curb the media enthusiasm of certain cosmetic doctors who until now have provided scoops about coming medical products — or have talked up the latest unapproved cosmetic uses for drugs and devices that the agency had approved only for other purposes.

Read the rest of this post...

Are DNC donors funding ads praising Ben Nelson for diluting real health care reform?

To the tune of nearly $500,000.

Last month, Ben Nelson did a TV ad defending his vote on health care. He talks straight to the camera and disses those "who wanted a government takeover." That sounds like an attack on people who supported the public option, because that's as close as Congress got to a "government takeover." You'll recall that Nelson helped kill the public option in the Senate and the Medicare buy-in (after he'd already agreed to it), insisted on the inclusion of harsh anti-abortion language, and then threatened to join the Republicans in filibustering the conference report on the deal he already cut. That Ben Nelson.


Turns out, though, that it's not a Ben Nelson campaign ad. It's hard to read the disclaimer, but the ad was paid for by the Nebraska Democratic Party. It's one of a series of ad touting Nelson's "courageous" effort to bring down real health care reform. More of the ads can be seen here and here.

So, one wonders, where did the Nebraska Democratic Party get the money to pay for these TV ads?

Today, it looks like we got the answer: the Democratic National Committee. According to the Nebraska Democratic Committee's latest FEC report, it received a contribution of $459,760.00 from the DNC on December 28, 2009. Here's a screen capture from the FEC report, which can be seen in full here (It's the "Year-End" for 2009. Check pages 28 - 30 of the report):

There's another contribution from the DNC to the Nebraska Democratic Party for $20008 on December 31, 2009.

Yes, the DNC and Organizing for America (OFA) have been asking supporters to chip in for the fight to pass real health care reform, including a public option. But, who does it look like benefited from those donations, your donations? Ben Nelson, the guy who worked to kill real reform. And he got the money after he killed real reform, almost like it was a pay off.

Nelson announced his support for the much-weakened Senate health care bill on December 19, 2009. He cast his vote for final passage on December 24, 2009. The DNC transferred money to the Nebraska party on December 28, 2009. You do the math.

So, not only did Nelson get bought off with Medicaid funding from the federal treasury, it now appears he got TV ads, paid for by supporters of real health care reform, praising him for killing real reform. As David Dayen noted last week, Nelson was fully prepared to torpedo the bill anyway.

Most state parties would greatly appreciate a $500,000 infusion of cash from the DNC. That doesn't happen very often. And, I think it's safe to say the DNC doesn't spread money around like this to state parties, particularly during non-election years (it was right between Christmas and New Years, not a hot bed of election activity). I'm sure a lot of Democratic candidates running in 2010 would appreciate that kind of spending on their behalf, too. Nelson, however, isn't up for reelection until 2012, so why get the money now, only four days after Nelson voted for the weakened health care bill?

For the record, at the end of December, when the DNC gave the Nebraska Democratic Party almost $500,000, Martha Coakley was running for the Senate. She would have been a vote for real reform. And, her TV ads really sucked.

Talk about a misuse of resources. I don't give to the DNC because of Obama's failure to really address LGBT issues. But, if I did, I'd be really ticked right now.

Someone needs to provide some answers. Read the rest of this post...

Axelrod: I 'hope' health care reform isn't dying

And I hope Barack Obama realizes he's President of the United States and no longer a junior Senator. Read the rest of this post...

CREW calls on Obama/Congress not to attend National Prayer Day used by cult-like group as recruiting tool

I've heard about this National Prayer Day ever since I arrived in DC over two decades ago. I did not know, however, that the group that was running it some creepy secretive arch-religious cult-like organization whose hands were in, among other things, Uganda's recent "kill the gays" legislation.

CREW explains:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) urged President Obama and all members of Congress not to attend this year’s National Prayer Breakfast, scheduled for February 4, 2010. The breakfast, designed to appear as if government-sanctioned, actually serves as a meeting and recruiting event for the shadowy Fellowship Foundation.

The Fellowship, also known as “The Foundation” and “The Family,” is run by Doug Coe, a spiritual advisor to past government officials who uses the organization to push his unorthodox brand of Christianity within government circles. The Fellowship operates the infamous C Street House, a congressional residence and meeting place on Capitol Hill that has been a frequent haunt of some ethically challenged elected officials, including Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and former-Rep. and now-Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC).

The organization operates under an intense veil of secrecy, staying largely out of the public eye and hiding its donors’ identities. The Fellowship has used its government clout to facilitate backdoor meetings between U.S. and foreign officials, improperly claimed tax exempt status for the C Street House, and has persuaded members of Congress, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) to conduct Fellowship-sanctioned evangelizing while traveling at taxpayer expense. Members of the Fellowship also have been involved with legislation in Uganda calling for the death penalty for gays.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said, “The National Prayer Breakfast uses the suggested imprimatur of the elected leaders who attend to give the Fellowship greater credibility and facilitate its networking and fundraising.” Sloan continued, “The president and members of Congress should not legitimatize this cult-like group – the head of which has praised the organizing abilities of Hitler and Bin Laden – by attending the breakfast.”

Read the rest of this post...

The budget is online

This is the budget for fiscal year 2011 (starts in the fall) that President Obama just submitted to Congress. It's online. The budget is a huge deal in Washington. I remember when I worked in the Senate, we were ordered to wait, on pins and needles, until the budget came out, then we'd have to scour it quickly and summarize how it would affect the various agencies under our jurisdiction. It's a big deal, in terms of showing what the President's priorities are for the year. And the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't in it. Read the rest of this post...

Expect GOP outrage over budget because Wealthy and Banks lose

We're going to hear a lot of whining and complaining from the Republicans over Obama's budget. They're really upset because two of the GOP's most important constituencies, the wealthy and the banks, are considered losers in Obama's budget, according to an analyis by Reuters:

LOSERS

* The wealthy - If your household earns more than $250,000 a year, start saying goodbye to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Obama's budget lets those cuts expire seeks to raise $678 billion over 10 years to set against the deficit.

* Banks - In case there was any doubt about Obama's threat to make banks pay taxpayers back for the bailout program, the goal is now enshrined in the budget. The administration expects to earn $90 billion over 10 years from a fee it plans to levy on big financial institutions.

Read the rest of this post...

Report: Goldman CEO to receive $100 million bonus for 2009

If this report is true, it might be enough to trigger enough voter outrage to force Congress to finally do something serious. Goldman and some others on Wall Street like to talk about how they didn't need the TARP cash and were forced to accept it. We know that's not completely true because if Goldman didn't receive billions related to their AIG investments, they would have been in serious trouble. They accepted both the direct and indirect TARP money and then bought out the market at its bottom. These investments were practically the only profitable sectors of their businesses in 2009.

It's time to change the rules of the game with Wall Street since they can't manage to show an ounce of decency. Why it has taken Obama and his economic team so long to come around and do something other than talk is a head scratcher. The only people outside of Larry Summers' team who like this approach are on Wall Street and CNBC. Enough is enough.

Goldman Sachs, the world’s richest investment bank, could be about to pay its chief executive a bumper bonus of up to $100 million in defiance of moves by President Obama to take action against such payouts.

Bankers in Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF) told The Times yesterday they understood that Lloyd Blankfein and other top Goldman bankers outside Britain were set to receive some of the bank’s biggest-ever payouts. “This is Lloyd thumbing his nose at Obama,” said a banker at one of Goldman’s rivals.

Goldman Sachs is becoming the focus of an increasingly acrimonious political and financial showdown over the payment of multimillion-pound bonuses.Last week the US President described bonuses paid out by some banks as “the height of irresponsibility” and “shameful”.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama's 2011 budget: $3.8 trillion includes $100 billion for jobs with a $1.6 trillion deficit

Lots of number flowing from the Office of Management and Budget today as the President submits the 2011 budget. Since it's the news-of-the-day, we might as well be primed. So, here's some background and perspective courtesy of the traditional media. The Washington Post leads with the budget's total and its goals:

The $3.8 trillion budget blueprint President Obama plans to submit to Congress on Monday calls for billions of dollars in new spending to combat persistently high unemployment and bolster a battered middle class. But it also would slash funding for hundreds of programs and raise taxes on banks and the wealthy to help rein in soaring budget deficits.

To put people back to work, Obama proposes to spend about $100 billion immediately on a jobs bill that would include tax cuts for small businesses, social-safety-net programs, and aid to state and local governments. To reduce deficits, he would impose new fees on some of the nation's largest banks and permit a range of tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, in addition to freezing non-security spending for three years.

The New York Times, however, leads with the deficit:

The deficit for the current fiscal year will reach nearly $1.6 trillion, a new post-World War II high, with the addition of about $100 billion in additional tax cuts and public works spending that President Obama has proposed to spur job creation, according to the administration.

But that will be the peak, officials say. The new budget that Mr. Obama is proposing on Monday for fiscal year 2011, which begins in October, will put the government on a “smooth glide path” to lower annual deficits over the next decade, according to his budget director, Peter R. Orszag.

We are slowly crawling out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. But, watch Republicans start railing against the deficit and the national debt, as if they played no role in it. They did. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's Federal Budget day. The President, by statute, must submit his 2011 spending plan to Congress by the first Monday in February. We'll be hearing a lot about it all day and all week. It's a $3.834 trillion budget with a projected deficit of 1.267 trillion. (The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not included in the budget.)

Tomorrow, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The question is whether they follow the directive of the Commander-in-Chief to end the policy or try to slow-walk it.

On Thursday, the creepy "Fellowship Foundation" a.k.a "The Family" hosts the National Prayer Breakfast, which has a guest list that includes the President, cabinet members, leaders in Congress and the diplomatic corps. Now, the "Fellowship" has been getting a lot more exposure lately, in part, because of its role in spreading homophobia around the world. Uganda is a prime example. I never knew the "Fellowship" hosted this major event until recently. It's surprisingly disturbing that such an organization holds this much sway.

At the end of the week, the Democratic National Committee holds its Winter Meeting in DC. The Republican National Committee just wrapped up its Winter Meeting in Honolulu.

Going to be a fun week... Read the rest of this post...

UK had Iraq plan with US two years before invasion

Perhaps someone can ask Blair about this when he comes back for additional testimony. Not that he won't deflect and spin again, but it would be interesting to hear more about this joint US-UK plan since he has testified that 9/11 changed everything. The Independent:

Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.

Read the rest of this post...

Global climate deal 'impossible' in 2010

After the failure in Copenhagen, we heard plenty of talk about how people were going to take action and have this back on track soon. By "soon" they apparently meant 2011 or beyond. Obviously it's not much of a priority for anyone, including the US. The Guardian:

Many of those contacted say only a legally binding deal setting "top-down" global limits on emissions can ultimately avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures. But a global deal at the next major climate summit in Mexico is impossible, says the former deputy prime minister John Prescott, now the Council of Europe's rapporteur on climate change. "I don't care if it's government ministers or NGOs, if they think you can get a legal agreement all signed up by November in Mexico, I don't believe it."

Similar opinions are being expressed worldwide. "In 2010 perhaps we'll manage some success, but I think a definitive deal is very difficult," said Suzana Kahn, a key negotiator in Copenhagen and Brazil's national secretary for climate change.

The change in rhetoric compared with just weeks ago is stark. On the eve of the Copenhagen summit last year, Gordon Brown wrote in the Guardian: "Our aim is a comprehensive and global agreement which is then converted to an internationally legally binding treaty in no more than six months."

Read the rest of this post...