Let Vegas and Disney find their own marketing money

This $10 fee that the Senate thinks is so great will be a slush fund for the deepest pockets in the tourist industry. Please. Other businesses have to figure out business plans and marketing budgets so it's unclear why taxing foreign tourists to fund new foreign tourist marketing pitches makes sense to anyone other than an idiot. As I said the other day, the EU and other countries will surely start doing the same thing. Is it possible for Congress to live outside of their small minded little world? And yes, this silliness is bi-partisan including Harry Reid. Did Vegas not really plan for a rainy day?

Members of Congress would like to attract more international travelers to the United States, but the welcome mat would come with a $10 price tag.

The Senate took up legislation Tuesday to establish a nonprofit corporation that would coordinate programs promoting international travel to the U.S. Millions of visitors would be charged the $10 assessment to help fund the corporation.

The bipartisan bill, which has 53 co-sponsors, cleared a key hurdle when senators approved a motion 80-19 that will allow senators to consider final passage of the bill as early as Wednesday afternoon.

Read the rest of this post...

What the Insta-Polls said about last night's speech

From DKos:

Obama helped himself last night by going over the heads of the media and his brain-dead opposition (the visuals of Joe Wilson's Billy Crystal's Princess Bride imitation - Liar!! - went over very badly, as did Eric Cantor's texting) directly to the Amercian people.

Good start. It'll take three days of traditional polling to put this in context, so check back on Sunday and beyond.

Lots more analysis on the page. Read the rest of this post...

Remember the Dixie Chicks?

Reader JR writes:

I write to you from time to time when I am really angry about something. Nothing changes, but I feel better.

Does anyone but me remember the Dixie Chicks ? One of them said something about g w bush (not a typo) that by today's discourse was not only mild but polite. What happened to them was disgusting. The same talking heads that wanted the Dixie Chicks thrown out of the country are now saying the most vile and outrageous things about President Obama.

What happened to the "you can't criticize the President in a time of war" ? Was that really code for you cannot criticize a republican president?

Where is this coverage?

Read the rest of this post...

New US ambassador to Germany arrives in executive jet

Classy. Who doesn't love a flashy Goldman Sachs executive arriving like this to represent a new style of government? Like the new US ambassador in London - the top post - the new arrival to Germany is a banker. Banksters of the world, unite!

Former Goldman Sachs chief Philip D. Murphy evidently arrived in the style to which he is accustomed last month to take up his new post as U.S. envoy to Germany, touching down in an ostentatious top-of-the-line executive jet that left German Chancellor Angela Merkel grinding her teeth over President Obama's gift of ambassadorships to wealthy donors.

Sources familiar with the incident said the arrival of Murphy, his wife and four soccer-uniformed kids on what some said was a Gulfstream V executive jet came just as the German press was describing how top embassy posts in the Obama administration were going almost exclusively to wealthy campaign donors.

Read the rest of this post...

This is the last time?

Yglesias via Hotline:

I thought this line from last night's speech was great speechwriting, but not terribly accurate: 'I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.'

The problem is that at other points during the speech the president was at pains to reassure people that, actually, under his plans very little would change. That's nice and it's politically smart. Most people mostly don't want their health insurance to change very much. But the flipside of that is that while what Obama proposed would ameliorate many problems with the current system and solve a few of them, it would fundamentally leave a lot of the dysfunction of the current system in place. The nature of your health insurance would still be very closely tied to your job, the system would still pay doctors for just doing stuff rather than for curing things, Medicare will still be on a path toward bankruptcy, Medicaid quality would still be extraordinarily hit-or-miss, etc., etc., etc. This means that whether reform passes or fails, we're almost certainly going to need to revisit this issue again in 5-10 years in a pretty big way.

Read the rest of this post...

FOX's Glenn Beck is on a witch hunt for "communists" in the Obama administration

Read the rest of this post...

RNC chair Michael Steele upset that Obama read Kennedy's letter, per Kennedy's wishes

You see, Michael Steele was only thinking about Vicki Kennedy. Perhaps Steele felt the need to say something stupid since Limbaugh and Palin and that Joe Wilson guy were getting all the bad press instead of him. Read the rest of this post...

Jobless claims slightly better than expected

Every little bit counts. The numbers are still awful though in this case, fewer are better. CNNMoney:

The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance fell last week, and ongoing claims also dropped, the government said Thursday.

There were 550,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Sept. 5, down 26,000 from a revised 576,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said in a weekly report.

A consensus estimate of economists surveyed by Briefing.com expected 560,000 new claims.

Read the rest of this post...

Krugman on the politics of the public option -- and how it can prevent a backlash

I do wish someone at the White House (e.g., the President) would heed the advice of Paul Krugman every now and then. Today, he has an excellent post titled, Why the public option matters, which rebuts some of the arguments and excuses used against that proposal. It matters for several reasons, but, importantly, Krugman offers some sage advice on the political need for a public option:

Third — and this is where I am getting a very bad feeling about the idea of throwing in the towel on the public option — is the politics. Remember, to make reform work we have to have an individual mandate. And everything I see says that there will be a major backlash against the idea of forcing people to buy insurance from the existing companies. That backlash was part of what got Obama the nomination! Having the public option offers a defense against that backlash.

What worries me is not so much that the backlash would stop reform from passing, as that it would store up trouble for the not-too-distant future. Imagine that reform passes, but that premiums shoot up (or even keep rising at the rates of the past decade.) Then you could all too easily have many people blaming Obama et al for forcing them into this increasingly unaffordable system. A trigger might fix this — but the funny thing about such triggers is that they almost never get pulled.

Let me add a sort of larger point: aside from the essentially circular political arguments — centrist Democrats insisting that the public option must be dropped to get the votes of centrist Democrats — the argument against the public option boils down to the fact that it’s bad because it is, horrors, a government program. And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it’s bad.

As usual, many of the professional Democrats in D.C. (members, staffers and political consultants) are misreading the politics of the public option issue. In fact, the public option can actually help politically, but that defies the "conventional wisdom" among the D.C. crowd. Too many of the professional Democrats still cower when the GOPers attack and they always try to accommodate the pundits. They're usually wrong. And, on this issue, their mistake could be very costly to Democrats.

The public option polls very well, still, even after all the attacks on it. Yesterday, I posted an excerpt from Markos' latest column in The Hill, the base expects Obama and the Democrats to deliver:

If Democrats abandon the public option, they risk a demoralized, cynical base, one unwilling to do the work to get Democrats elected and which will stay home on Election Day.

That's right.

So, dropping the public option could be a double whammy: It would demoralize the base and there would be nothing in place when insurers start jacking up rates. The political brain trust at the White House and on Capitol Hill should factor that in to their strategy. Read the rest of this post...

Harry Reid's seat now a toss-up

From Taegan. Read the rest of this post...

Limbaugh wishes Wilson hadn't apologized; Specter wants Wilson censured

Maybe it takes a former Republican to know how to fight back. And here is Limbaugh's latest:

Read the rest of this post...

Obama: The public option's impact shouldn't be exaggerated (then why did Obama demand that it be included in the bill six weeks ago?)

Here is what President Obama said last night:

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

Our confusion is understandable since it was President Obama himself who "exaggerated" the impact of the public option just six weeks ago when he was the "left" who demanded that any health care reform bill include a public option. Via Ezra Klein:

"[A]ny plan I sign must include... a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest."

Now the President is telling us that such a demand is "bickering" and "a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles." All sarcasm aside - what does this President believe? Anything? He tried to criticize the core of the Democratic party last night for defending his own words of six weeks ago. Liberals are not upset with the President because they are intransigent ideologues. We are upset with the President for repeatedly flip-flopping, going back on his word, and seemingly being unable or unwilling to be defend his views, ever. Our views are not extreme and ideological. Our views are - were - his views only six weeks ago.

I hope that last night was the beginning of a new Obama. A man who stands by his words, and fights for them. But it's extremely confusing trying to figure out which Obama is today's Obama. Is it too much to ask for the man we voted for? Read the rest of this post...

ABC: Democratic Senators Summoned to White House

This is a good first step, and finally a sign of the Obama administration taking the health care debate seriously - if they lay down the law. If they simply express that the President is desperate for a deal, then these 16 Senators will become just as bad and demanding as Chuck Grassley and the rest.

ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House....

Many of these senators have expressed concern about if not downright opposition to key elements of President Obama's health care proposals, particularly his push for a government-run public health care option to compete with private insurers to drive down costs.

Read the rest of this post...

Joe "That's a lie!" Wilson's allies claiming PTSD

Or something akin. Oh puh-lease. Read the rest of this post...

Palin invokes 9/11 to attack Obama

Perhaps it's time for someone at the White House to impale this woman. Or would they like to spend the next month debating whether Obama dissed 9/11 victims last night? Yes, Palin is a nut. And she's also the nut who started the "death panels" lie that dogged Obama for a good month because he refused to go nuclear on her and those promoting her bs views. Read the rest of this post...

Goldman CEO: pay backlash 'appropriate' but no changes

As always, plenty of excuses from Wall Street and yes, they are kicking around ideas about reducing the bloated bonus plans, which is positive news. The downside is that when you look at the actions behind the words it's obvious that not only has the bonus culture not changed for the better, it's getting worse. Goldman and others on Wall Street still talk about paying big money to retain talent and the actual dollar amounts being set aside for bonuses is increasing. Wall Street doesn't care what Obama's "pay czar" has to say because he is irrelevant for the likes of Goldman. They've already won the lobbyist battle and will not be restricted in any way despite receiving billions both directly as well as indirectly through the bailout of AIG. The deeper pockets won and Congress folded as they always do.

In the speech Wednesday, Blankfein laid out compensation principles that he said should apply throughout the financial industry. They included: making the largest pay packages more performance-based, deferring compensation to reflect long-term performance, banning contracts that guarantee high bonuses, and making top managers keep most of their pay in stock until they retire.

New York-based Goldman first released the standards in May. They are similar to ideas under discussion at the Federal Reserve, which is developing new guidance for compensating financial executives.

But as it has returned to health, Goldman has set aside significantly more to pay its employees. Goldman's costs for compensation and benefits rose to about $11.4 billion in the first half of 2009, up 33 percent from a year earlier. All of that wasn't paid out; the company can use it for discretionary compensation at the end of the year.

Read the rest of this post...

The proof is in the pudding

What to say about President Obama's speech?

I just watched it this morning, Paris time (it was on at 3am last night over here). It was fine. I wasn't blown away. I wasn't horribly disappointed. He spoke well. He gave some details. He gave a price tag. He promised to be tough. All good. Many of the pundits I've read this morning are saying that the speech was exactly what Obama needed to do. I think that's premature.

(Though I do think the Republican member's outburst "Lie!" was probably the most effective part of the entire evening - should the White House take advantage of it. I fear, however, that they won't. Someone advising Obama has likely already said "the media is handling it just fine without our help." The media never handles it just fine without your help. Bimbo eruptions are always fed from the outside, usually by the GOP since they understand the game. Democrats need to learn the art of PR, the art of creating and fanning explosions in the media that help to assure victory, and stop relying on the media to do our job for us. /rant)

Obama's problem won't be solved by a speech, though it can be solved by his actions. Currently, the Republicans think that Obama is a pushover. That he's someone who sometimes makes strong claims publicly, but who will back down at the first sign of trouble, at the first sign of opposition, because he is constitutionally averse to conflict. That perception won't be refuted by a speech promising to take on the lies, promising to take on the insurance industry, and promising to fight to the end to make things better for all Americans.

The only way for President Obama to kill the growing perception that he is a "wimp" is for the President to actually do something to follow through on these promises. Here's how...

Start responding to the lies forcefully and promptly. Start standing up to the special interests, rather than letting their number one senator (Max Baucus) be your chief negotiator (and his former chief of staff be your number two aide in the White House), and rather than cutting secret backroom deals with big Pharma to permit them to continue charging Americans ridiculously inflated prices for drugs. And start leaning on members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, to support the health care promises you made during the campaign, rather than permitting them to lean on you.

This last point is crucial. If the President takes a tabula rasa approach to health care reform - meaning, everything he's said before no longer counts, but what he says now "boy does he mean it" - then per se the Republicans and the Blue Dogs and the insurance industry will roll him again. You can't tell people to believe in your promises today after you've told them to ignore your promises of yesterday.

I want to believe. But our President has pulled the football away one too many times. Barack Obama needs to prove that he's a man of his word. And he needs to prove that he has guts. I'm happy to keep an open mind. The next few weeks will speak volumes.

What were your reactions, now that you've slept on it? Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

I do think Obama seized the initiative in the health insurance debate last night. Now, he has to keep it. As we've seen, it takes more than a speech. It takes action. And, ostensibly, I'm one of Obama's "progressive friends" who supports the public option. My advice to him is to keep it -- and don't fall for gimmicks concocted by insurance industry allies to ruin it.

One thing about the speech last night: The Republicans sure showed their true colors. They were like spoiled kids who aren't getting their way. While there's a lot of talk about bipartisanship among the D.C. political punditry, there's not much acknowledgement of just how crazy the remaining Republicans, especially in the House, have become. Last night, the whole world saw it.

Florida gets its new U.S. Senator today. George Lemieux, a very close ally of Governor/Senate candidate Charlie Crist, will be sworn in to replace Mel Martinez. Crist just wants Lemieux to keep the seat warm.

Let's get started... Read the rest of this post...

Foreclosures jump in August

Even with the recent good (or at least stable) news about real estate, the increasing foreclosure rates are problematic. Unemployment will continue to increase and stay high into 2010 and that is sure to bring another round of difficulties for this sector.

Home foreclosures in August jumped 18 percent from a year ago, but decreased 0.47 from the previous month, according to a new report by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace for foreclosure properties.

In all, 358,471 properties in the United States received foreclosure fillings in August, just slightly below July's record level of 360,149 properties.

Read the rest of this post...

Big Oil fills the coffers of Myanmar junta

Keeping brutal regimes in power, one country at a time. Cash goes a long way in Myanmar though somehow, not beyond a few people.

The Burmese military junta has earned almost $5bn from a controversial gas pipeline operated by the French oil giant Total and deprived the country of vital income by depositing almost all the money in bank accounts in Singapore, a new report claims.

Campaigners say Total has also profited handsomely from the arrangement, with an estimated income of $483m from the project since 2000. Campaigners say that the windfall from the Yadana pipeline, operated by Total and two other partners, has been so huge that it has done much to insulate the country's military rulers from the impact of international sanctions imposed over its human rights abuses. The report from EarthRights International (ERI), published today, argues that this makes Total and their partners a major factor in reinforcing the regime's intransigence. And it claims that while their people suffer some of the worst standards of living in Asia, with miserable state investment in health, education, infrastructure and everything else that affects the lives of ordinary people, the self-perpetuating military elite has grown obscenely wealthy.

Read the rest of this post...

UK Royal Mail joins carbon emissions campaign

That's a lot of people to add to the 10:10 program that even the conservatives are agreeing to over there. Funny how they're not having debates about how real the problem is. Then again, you don't hear about many people debating Jesus living with dinosaurs either. The Guardian:

The Royal Mail has become the latest major business to sign up to 10:10, the national climate change campaign to reduce carbon emissions in the UK by 10% in 2010. With 176,000 employees, it is the largest organisation to commit to 10:10 so far.

Royal Mail will not only seek to reduce its CO2 emissions in 2010 but will encourage its staff and business customers to do the same. The company says it has already reduced its operational emissions by more than 5% over the past three to four years.

In the next 12 months Royal Mail intends to: roll out more double-decker delivery trucks, which can carry more items per vehicle; improve route planning to reduce the total distance travelled; encourage its staff to reduce their emissions at home as well as at work; and offer cost savings to business customers that commit to only sending mail using sustainable paper and fully recyclable packaging.

Read the rest of this post...

Federal Reserve reporting positive news

They're not seeing growth in all of the twelve districts but half is a very nice start. If only the jobs would start forming but that will take a bit longer. Reuters:

Dallas, Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Richmond and San Francisco noted gains. Other areas reported the economy was stable or showing signs of stabilization while St. Louis said the pace of economic decline appeared to be moderating.

"Most districts noted that the outlook for economic activity among their business contacts remained cautiously positive," the Fed's Beige Book survey said.

Read the rest of this post...

Banking reform unlikely in 2009

The more distance between the crash of last year and whenever they get serious, the more watered down and lobbyist-infested this will become. In other words, expect nothing of significance to happen. The former FDIC chairman in this story may not have correctly predicted the serious meltdown and sure, he's a Republican partisan but there is still nothing happening that suggests anything beyond talk. Even the big talk that Congress loves so much is gone. Wall Street has already used their TARP money to kill reform and unless Wall Street crashes again as it did last year, this issue is gone. CNBC:

Sweeping regulatory reform of the financial sector—thought to be a 2009 legislative given just four months ago—may now come down to a piece-meal approach, with the White House and its allies happy to see a couple prized components signed into law this year.

“I think it’s unraveling,’ says former FDIC Chairman William Isaac. “It is hard for me to see how this legislation gets done this year.”

Though no one is saying that publicly on Capitol Hill, advocates are facing a lack of momentum going into the current session.

Read the rest of this post...