Grrrr!!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I repeat… Grrrr!
Feb 182010
Feb 182010
Yesterday, by the time I returned from the therapy group where I volunteer, I had only enough tome to to reply to comments here. This afternoon I gave field vision tests with my ophthalmologist to determine the extent of my glaucoma. I’ll reply to comments and, hopefully, do some visiting before I leave. The last time they did this, about eight years ago, they blurred my vision so badly that it was almost 24 hours before I could read again, so I may have to skip a day. If there are no new articles up tomorrow, that’s why. Please don’t worry.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 3:42. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
Short Takes:
The CPUKE conference opens today. Batten down your tin foil hats because the rabid right has special plans: a Nancy Pelosi piñata and a Harry Reid punching bag. I want the bag when they’re done. The opening keynote speaker will be Mark Rubio, the Florida teabagger.
Rick “man on dog” Santorum plans to run for the presidency, as he has scheduled several trips to early primary/caucus states, South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire. You’d better lock up your dogs if you live in one of those locations.
Cartoon:
What have you been up to?
Feb 172010
The stimulus is beginning to work. There’s certainly more stimulus required. How do I know? If not, why are GOP politicians grubbing for the money?
The Wall Street Journal has followed up on The Washington Times report about Republican lawmakers who publicly opposed the stimulus but privately sought stimulus funds to create jobs in their states and districts. Some nuggets:
Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."
Republican Reps. Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio sent letters in October asking for consideration of funding requests from local organizations training workers for energy-efficiency projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency received two letters from Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asking for consideration of grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston. Mr. Cornyn is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. One of the letters was signed jointly with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, also of Texas.
The agency also appeared to have received eight identical letters from Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah recommending infrastructure projects in his state, seven of which were sent before stimulus legislation was passed by Congress.
The entire congressional delegation of Alabama, including its two Republican senators, wrote to then-Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell asking for $15 million for cogongrass eradication and control programs in the state. The state ended up getting a $6.3 million grant.
It’s not just the WSJ and Washington Times that are paying attention. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Gov. Tim Pawlenty used stimulus funds to balance his state’s budget. TPM notes new Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has privately thanked the administration for offering stimulus funds to his state.
Based on these and other reports, the Obama Administration is mounting an aggressive defense of the stimulus program, pointing to the ‘slam it in public, beg for it in private’ hypocrisy of its Republican critics… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
I know you’ve seen that chart before at other blogs, but the Democratic Party sent it to me in email and asked me to spread it around, and it does fit this article perfectly. As bad as things still are, that condition is a result of the disaster Bush and the GOP left Obama and the Democrats to clean up. Long term readers who were here during the previous incarnation of Politics Plus will remember that, during the last year of the Bush/GOP regime, I often speculated that the GOP, knowing they would face major losses in 2008, intentionally allowed the economy to tank, even including the misuse of their half of TARP spending, to leave a mess behind that was so bad that they could blame Democrats for the effects of their own policies and use that blame in an attempt to regain power. While In have no proof that was their intent, inductive logic indicates likelihood. Look at that chart again. Things are not as bad as they used to be.
Bear in mind that these reports of GOP duplicity regarding the stimulus are not coming from left wing sources. Both papers are bastions of the right.
Two of my favorite people had a field day with this story.
First, here’s Rachel Maddow with DNC Chair, Tim Kaine.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Next, here’s Keith Olbermann with Eugene Robinson.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I hope you watched both.
Now the next time a rabid right winger tells you that the stimulus is _________ [insert GOP lie at hand], you are now armed with the truth. Let them have it with both barrels.
Feb 172010
As Latin America moves to free their people from US corporate slavery, corporate crimes are finding their way to court.
A federal judge recently refused to dismiss a civil suit filed against Chiquita which charges that the company paid leftist (FARC) guerrillas operating near its plantations in Columbia — during a period when the FARC killed four American missionaries, according to CNN.
The company’s position — which it has held consistently since it voluntarily disclosed the payments to the Department of Justice — has been that both left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries forced the company in an extortionate manner to make the payments "to protect the lives of its employees."
But that’s become an increasingly untenable position — especially since some of the same paramilitaries who took the payments have come in from the cold, disarming and submitting to Columbia’s "Justice and Peace" process — which allows them to receive reduced jail time for confessing to all of their terrorist crimes. The problem for Chiquita — and now for Dole (and potentially for Del Monte) — is that the confessions reveal a much different story.
One of the ex-paramilitaries — Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo (aka "Carlos Tijeras") — was the former commander of the William Rivas Front of the United Defense Forces ("AUC") — the group that operated in northern Columbia, in the zone where the companies and their suppliers grew bananas. In a sworn statement Tijeras described the AUC’s relationship with the multinational banana companies as "an open public relationship" involving everything from "security services" to the kidnapping and extrajudicial assassination of labor leaders fingered by the companies as "security problems."
Tijeras’ statement — which reads like the confessions of a corporate death squad leader and directly refutes his paymasters’ version of events — has now been entered into the record in a case filed against Dole last April in California by attorneys with Conrad and Scherer:
"I’ve been told that Chiquita has asserted that they paid the AUC funds, but that this was coerced and was a form of extortion. I have also heard that Dole claims to have never paid us any funds. Both of these assertions are absolutely false. In fact, my agreement with Chiquita and Dole was to provide them with total security and other services."
Tijeras is not a lone whistleblower by any means. Salvatore Mancuso, the overall commander of the AUC, also testified in early 2008 that Dole and Del Monte, like Chiquita, had been providing major support to the AUC since its inception. He repeated the accusation to "60 Minutes," which originally aired the segment in September, 2008.
According to these and other witnesses as well as investigators familiar with the bloody history of Columbia, the AUC was originally hired by the companies to drive the leftist FARC guerillas out of the banana-growing region and protect their plantations from "the gangs of common delinquents that robbed their supplies and equipment." (Tijeras) Once the FARC was vanquished and order restored, the banana companies continued to pay the AUC to "pacify" their work force, suppress the labor unions and terrorize peasant squatters seeking their own competing land claims.
Tijeras: "After we restored order and became the local agents of law enforcement, managers for Chiquita and Dole plantations relied upon us to respond to their complaints…We would also get calls from the Chiquita and Dole plantations identifying specific people as "security problems" or just "problems." Everyone knew that this meant we were to execute the identified person. In most cases those executed were union leaders or members or individuals seeking to hold or reclaim land that Dole or Chiquita wanted for banana cultivation, and the Dole or Chiquita administrators would report to the AUC that these individuals were suspected guerillas or criminals."
According to Tijeras, for years the companies provided up to 90% of the AUC’s income.
When a case was filed by the families and heirs of dozens of victims against Dole this past April (2009), the company immediately rejected the charges as "baseless allegations" that "are the product of the most untrustworthy sources imaginable" and "nothing more than the false confessions of convicted terrorists from Columbia, who had every motive to lie about their activities in order to minimize their jail time."
(The plaintiffs’ complaint is a horrific litany of summary executions, off-the-bus abductions, forced-entry murders and kidnappings, ghoulish disappearances and other crimes committed against trade unionists and land reform activists.)… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <AlterNet>
Frankly, I hope these companies are soaked for an arm, a leg, and other body parts that shall remain unmentioned. If ever there were a case that proves that corporations’ special status having the privileges of personhood without the responsibilities needs to be revoked. Greed machines have no soul. Were it up to me, I would extradite the CEO, COO and CFO of each of these companies to Columbia to face trial and imprisonment there. If that means that my three bananas a week double… triple… quadruple in cost. So be it.
I suspect that the upshot of this will be that these corporate criminals will hire the GOP SS, aka Blackwater (now Xe) to commit their murders.
Feb 172010
As doubtful as I am that this will have any effect, at least he’s on our side.
…
LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.
As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.
These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.
Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.
A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.
A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.
A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.
If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform — and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market — both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
Respectfully,
Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator
[emphasis original]
Inserted from <whipcongress.com>
At times like this I feel proud that my grunt work on his campaign helped elect him and unseat the Republican hypocrite, goose-stepping Gordon Smith.
Feb 172010
By the time I finished my errands yesterday, I had time only to reply to comments here. Today is my volunteer day at the therapy group, so I’ll just have to see how I feel when I return.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 4:06. To do it, Click Here. How sis you do?
Short Takes:
The Hill has an article about the lucrative opportunities on K Street for retiring politicians. I wonder if they know something about Bayh.
There will be no Democratic primary for the Indiana Senate. The contender who claimed she had sufficient signatures to put her on the ballot had only three.
Here’s a great chance for a progressive primary challenge to the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid. The rabid right will be split, because the tea baggers have qualified as a third party; they plan to nominate Jon Ashjian for that seat.
Cartoon:
Happy hump day!
Feb 162010
Here are the results of the ‘support Obama poll’:
And here are your comments:
From Jo on February 14, 2010 at 1:24 pm.
Since I am a Canadian and not qualified to make a comment, I will say that since Obama is your President, you folks should support him on all issues, as long as he is your President. You voted for him, now he needs your support. Isn’t that how it is supposed to work? If you don’t like his issues, then you vote for someone else you can support.
I don’t like the man personally, I think he was all blunderbuss and no fire, and I think for the most part he has let you down, but while he is still in office, you folks need to support him. You guys hired him for the job.
From Oso on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 pm.
Supporting Obama means supporting Wall Street’s financial policy,UHC’s health care policy and George Bush’s foreign policy. He can crawl up Lloyd Blankfein’s ass to make his next speech.
From Gwendolyn H. Barry on February 7, 2010 at 4:17 pm.
Overall, TC, I still support my President… but I watch closely now. Ya know what I mean?
From Lisa G. on February 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm.
I’m going with most issues. I don’t want to blindly say all issues without evaluating them first.
From chris williams in reply to Lisa G. on February 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm.
I think that most white people, want obama to fell. so they can blame it on the black man. his on party is his biggest problem. white people ganging up to protest a black man is not a new idea. only difference they dogs and clan members in white.
From Vigilante on February 1, 2010 at 10:02 am.
I find myself in easy agreement with BHO on most issues. But there are glaring exceptions: Afghanistan being a major one.
From Kevin on January 31, 2010 at 4:58 pm.
I think that Obama needs the most support when faced with obstructionist actions undertaken by the GOP and their conservative misinformation machine. The Democrats lack an adequate structure to respond to the GOP garbage and will end up losing to the hordes of ignorant tea party sheep.
From Otis on January 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm.
I think that the only way to truly evaluate any politician is on an issue by issue basis.
When I put this up, it was a trick question, intended to make a point. In my opinion, a patriot supports whatever is the best policy for the country regardless of the source from which that policy arises. The only way that this can be done is to base support on an issue by issue basis.
Overall, I find myself supporting more of Obama’s policies than I oppose. Overall, I find myself opposing virtually all GOP policies. I think most of us agree on that. However, when we believe that Obama is wrong about an issue, isn’t it our patriotic duty to oppose him on that issue, even though we support him overall?
Kudos to Otis. You nailed it, my friend.
Feb 162010
I thought this was the case, but now there’s support for that opinion.
One of the greatest obstacles to passing progressive legislation in Congress has been the use of the filibuster in the Senate. With upwards of “40 cloture votes since the start of the 111th Congress in January, this Senate is on pace to record the second-largest number of filibuster roll calls,” transforming what was intended to be a seldom-used procedural tactic into an all-out tool for obstructionism. Now, a new CBS/New York Times poll finds that more Americans support ending the filibuster and requiring legislation to pass by a simple majority:
As you may know, the Senate operates under procedures that effectively require 60 votes, out of 100, for most legislation to pass, allowing a minority of as few as 41 senators to block a majority. Do you think this procedure should remain in place, or do you think it should be changed so that legislation is passed with a simple majority?Should remain 44Should be changed 50[Don’t Know] 6Changing the filibuster would not be without precedent. In 1975, the filibuster threshold was lowered from 67 to 60… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
When I’m wrong, I say so. Please accept my apology. I have previously reported that there are three ways to end the filibuster: by rule change (67 votes), by statute (60 votes)and by changing the rule on the first day of a new session (51 votes). Chris Hayes explained the nuclear option on Rachel Maddow’s show. I had previously misunderstood it.
So if a Senator raises a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional, and if the President of the Senate (VP Biden) concurs, the Democrats could end it today with 51 votes. With that in mind, how should we handle those GOP filibastards?
.