Politics Plus

A new poll surveying veterans yielded results that defy so-called common wisdom.

As the Pentagon prepares to survey soldiers about President Obama’s decision to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a new poll of military personnel who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars has finds that sexual orientation is “not a burning issue that overwhelms veterans’ lives.”

The new poll, commissioned by The Vet Voice Foundation and conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, finds that most veterans are “comfortable around gay and lesbian people, believe that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties, and would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Fifty-eight percent of veterans said they served alongside gays or lesbians, and only 22 percent thought they had not:

– 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” Only 29% disagree.

– 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Only a quarter (25%) would find it unacceptable.

– 73% Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say “they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.” Only a quarter (23%) is uncomfortable, and hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%).

The survey, which sampled 45% self-identified Republicans and just 20% Democrats, suggests that military personnel are more comfortable serving alongside openly gay and lesbian troops than previously thought… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Since it’s now clear that our troops have no qualms about serving alongside gay and lesbian service people, the only people remaining opposed to the repeal of DADT are homophobic bigots from the rabid religious right and their GOP lackeys.  This injustice has gone on far too long.

I’m sure most of you remember that I labeled the Baucus version of HCR BARF (Baucus Against a Real Fix).  I’ve decided to label Dodd’s financial regulation bill DARE, but more on that later.  The bill is not all bad.

…The idea for a consumer panel grew out of the writings of Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University bankruptcy law professor who now heads a special Congressional Oversight Panel to oversee how taxpayers’ bailout dollars are spent.

Warren and other consumer advocates objected to some parts of Dodd’s approach, such as letting banks with assets of less than $10 billion escape regulation by the new panel, and giving some veto power to financial regulators over the consumer unit. However, Warren praised Dodd’s bill overall.

"Despite the banks’ ferocious lobbying for business as usual, Chairman Dodd took an important step today by advancing new laws to prevent the next crisis. We’re now heading toward a series of votes in which the choice will be clear: families or banks," Warren said in a statement.

Gail Hillebrand, a director of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, said tougher language is still needed.

"We need a government watchdog with real authority to protect consumers. Lawmakers should strengthen the Dodd proposal by making sure that the banking regulators who failed to prevent our current financial crisis can’t stand in the way of needed consumer protection," she said.

The Senate bill differs from the House version in how it would guard against risks to the broader financial system. The House bill would grant broad new powers to the Federal Reserve to police the entire financial system for risks.

Dodd’s bill calls instead for a nine-member Financial Stability Oversight Council, to be chaired by the Treasury Department with other members drawn from other financial regulators, to watch out for risks. It would make recommendations to the Fed for strict rules to prevent banks from growing so large that their failure would pose a risk to the financial system. The September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers and subsequent rescue of insurer American International Group heightened attention to this concept of financial firms being "too big to fail."

Dodd’s bill would broaden the Fed’s powers over large banks, with assets greater than $50 billion, and would allow it to regulate big non-bank institutions such as AIG.

Before the newly empowered Fed would be permitted to break apart a financial institution it deemed "too big to fail," two-thirds of the nine-member oversight panel would have to approve.

Given that regulators failed to communicate effectively among themselves before the crisis, there’s skepticism about the umbrella approach now.

"Each of the agencies has their particular mindset that they bring to the table. It doesn’t stick the authority in one place and say ‘you’re responsible for this,’" said Kevin Jacques, a 14-year veteran of the Treasury Department.

Like the House, the Senate bill would create a fund, paid for by banks, to cover the cost of dissolving large financial institutions. The House calls for a $150 billion fund; Dodd, for a $50 billion fund.

The Senate bill goes further than House legislation in attempts to rein in large, complex financial institutions. Dodd largely adopted a proposal from former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, now an adviser to Obama, to prevent large institutions from trading in their own funds if they also trade on behalf of clients.

Under the Dodd bill, regulators would issue rules to prevent banks and bank holding companies from owning a hedge fund, private equity fund or from conducting proprietary trading… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

There are considerable differences between the three versions of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), as this table from Think Progress shows.

Now for my critique.

Preventing large banks from trading in their own funds is a good idea.

Preventing banks and bank holding companies from owning a hedge fund or private equity fund, and preventing them from conducting proprietary trading is a good idea.

Placing the CFPA under the Federal Reserve is like making the Henhouse Protection Agency a division of Fox, Inc.  Funding it through the Federal Reserve gives Banksters the ability to starve the CFPA to the extent that it cannot perform it’s function.  Giving the Financial Stability Oversight Panel (FSOP) veto power (with a 2/3 vote) over CFPA rules could emasculate the CFPA.  Banksters have a proven talent to get their lackeys appointed to key regulatory posts.  Should they gain control of the FSOP, as they surely would in a Republican regime, any consumer protection measure could be artificially deemed a threat to financial stability.  Rules must apply to all banks and non-banks.  Otherwise Banksters will spin-off non-regulated subsidiaries.  The CFPA must have full enforcement authority.  Allowing banks with less that $10 billion in assets leeway to rip-off consumers makes no sense.

This bill approaches TBTF from the wrong direction.  While it is good that it provides for the orderly dissolution of a failed institution to prevent another taxpayer bailout, Banksters can still create new bubbles.  Those bubbles can still burst and cause significant damage to our economy.  Banksters can still escape the meltdown with their pockets full of cash.  Taxpayers will still be left paying for the damage done to the economy, before the meltdown occurred.  In short the bill ignores the a basic principle. Too big to fail is too big to exist.

Finally we come to my label, DARE: Derivatives Aren’t Regulated Either!  While some derivatives are beneficial to a market, it was the improper use of derivatives, such as credit default swaps, that nearly bankrupted the nation.  Banksters have already returned to high-stakes speculation in derivatives, conducted on private exchanges, out of sight of federal regulators.  According to Wikipedia, there are currently $684 trillion in outstanding privately traded derivatives.  This is over 50 times our GDP.  Unregulated derivative trading is the greatest single threat our economy has ever faced, and this bill does not even touch the issue.

While the bill represents a step in the right direction, US financial stability demands a truly independent CFPA, the breakup of TBTF Banksters, and tight regulation of the shadow derivative market.

Technically there is nothing illegal about this.  However, the impropriety of the obvious conflicts of interest that arise here is unprecedented.

As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.

"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama’s "hard-left agenda."

But Thomas is no ordinary activist.

She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., [Teabaggers delinked] a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation’s highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.

Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn’t attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.

Experts say Virginia Thomas’ work doesn’t violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.

"I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics," said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. "Scot" Powe, a court historian.

He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. "I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it," Powe said.

Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage.

"We expect the justice to make decisions uninfluenced by the political or legal preferences of his or her spouse," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics.

Virginia Thomas declined to comment in detail about her plans for LibertyCentral.org, which she said would fully launch in May. In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.

"I don’t involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there’s a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <LA Times>

Perhaps she won’t influence Thomas’ decisions to much of an extent, because he always votes with the activist Roberts, Scalia, Scalito block, extreme ideologues intent on dismantling what’s left of the Bill of Rights, the civil liberties of the poor and middle classes, and economic equality of opportunity.

Why couldn’t the Senate have paid more attention to Anita Hill?!!? 😡