Yesterday I went to my Pulmonologists office. If you remember, I had a cat scan awhile back, and I learned what the cat had to say. First, I do not have cancer. That’s welcome news indeed. Second, I’m ugly. Since I already knew that, it’s no big deal. By the time I got back from there and visiting blogs, I only had time to reply to comments here. Today I will fall further behind in returning blog visits, because it’s volunteer day at the therapy group for former prisoners. Please be patient.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle tool me 4:18. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
Robert Gibbs demonstrated the he can learn from the Twitter Twit:
There has been considerable discussion about Obama’s proposed health care summit, on camera, with the GOP. I have commented here and on several other blogs that the Republicans lack the courage to go through with it. The following is an excerpt from a letter to the White House from House GOP leaders, Boehner and Cantor:
…Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.
If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.
Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.
Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.
The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?”
Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?
Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?… [emphasis original]
You can find this on the House Republican Leader website. I refuse to provide that goose-stepper linkage.
Assuming the President is sincere is a backhanded way of saying that, if Obama does not answer ‘Yes’ to all the questions, he mist not be sincere. Then this convoluted logic follows that, if he is not sincere, there is no basis for a meeting. In short, these are demands to which Obama must agree, or there will be no televised meeting.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. Consider what Keith Olbermann and Ezra Klien have to say:
Just for the sake of absurdity, lets assume that Obama were to accede to these demands. What would happen? The GOP would agree to only two reforms. First, allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. In the absence of federal regulation, only state regulation now holds insurance abuses in check, and that in some states only. This reform would allow insurance companies to sell only in states with no regulation, thus circumventing what state regulation there is now and freeing them to commit even more abuses. Second, they want tort reform to allow insurance companies to form networks of providers offering sub-standard care, but immune from suit for their malpractice. This is the GOP solution.
Boehner and Cantor are asking Obama to surrender in advance of the meeting. Were they to make these absurd demands to Harry Reid, I trust he would give-in. But Obama will not, and the Republicans know it. Therefore, this whole elaborate scheme is nothing but a ploy to avoid the meeting in which they would make fools of themselves on camera.
The GOP was doing well as the Party of NO, but in a desperate attempt to prove that they really do have ideas, they have given us something to compare.
GOP Rep. Paul Ryan handed House Democrats the perfect wedge issue last week, and they’re going to use it.
House Democrats want to kick House Republicans where it hurts, and are exploring ways to force the minority party to take a stand on Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget "roadmap" that has become a political minefield in advance of this fall’s elections.
A Democratic leadership source told TPMDC they are considering options for turning the Ryan plan into a bill. Once that’s done the Democrats would put the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to vote for or against a plan they don’t want to talk about.
Why is it such a minefield? Because he wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, and has put GOP leadership in a very difficult position: of course Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, it’s been their raison d’etre since the programs were established. But they’re coming off of a year in which their loudest opposition to the Democrats’ healthcare reform bill was "Medicare cuts." Yglesias links to a Roll Callstory:
Republican leaders bashed the Democratic health care plans for cutting more than $400 billion out of Medicare, but GOP budget hawks view controlling Medicare costs as essential to balancing the budget.
A Republican who asked to have his name withheld said the party’s leadership and rank and file aren’t ready to follow Ryan’s lead. “There’s a lot of worry that we beat the Democrats up on health care for cutting Medicare and now we’re going to turn around and do it,” the Republican said.
As Matt says, the major difference here is that the Dems had very targeted cuts aimed at whittling away at inefficiencies in Medicare, while Ryan’s budget "just goes after Medicare with a chain saw." And he’s doubling down on his plan, despite opposition in his own party.
A floor vote on Ryan’s Republican budget could be the best thing that’s happened for Democrats in months… [emphasis added]
Do you remember John Thain and his infamy? Like fair-weather friends on payday, he’s back.
John Thain is getting a second chance.
CIT Group Inc., the lender that is trying to regain its former stature after almost collapsing during the financial industry crisis, said late Sunday it has hired the former Merrill Lynch & Co. CEO as its chairman and chief executive.
Thain is also trying to repair his own image. He brokered Merrill’s sale to Bank of America Corp. as the credit crisis peaked in the fall of 2008, but was forced to resign after the deal closed because of controversy over employee bonus payments and mounting losses at the investment bank.
CIT, which lends to more than 3,000 businesses including supermarkets and department stores, went through bankruptcy reorganization late last year after it failed to restructure billions of dollars in debt. It was also hurt by rising loan losses as more customers fell behind on repaying loans.
Thain, 54, is taking over a company that has seen its business shrink dramatically as customers fled. He’ll have to find a way to bring in new customers. And he’ll have to find new sources of funding because short-term lending known as commercial paper essentially disappeared during the credit crisis and has yet to revive.
Analysts say Thain’s experience makes him an ideal candidate to rebuild CIT’s business. He was able to get Merrill shareholders the best possible price for their stock in the Bank of America deal. And as CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, he expanded the stock market through a series of mergers and acquisitions.
"He’s taking on an extremely challenging situation," said Steve Hagenbuckle, managing principle of private equity fund TerraCap Partners. "If he survives and rights the ship, then I think his legacy has been written. It’s a perfect storm to come out a hero or come out a failure."
Thain took over Monday. He replaced interim CEO Peter Tobin, who will remain on CIT’s board of directors. Tobin had served as CEO since Jeffrey Peek retired Jan. 15.
Hal Reichwald, co-chair of the banking and specialty finance practice group at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, said Thain’s job will be made easier by the fact that few other lenders picked up the business the company lost as it headed toward bankruptcy.
"No institution has stepped up to challenge CIT," Reichwald said. That could be because banks are still tentative about lending.
"The marketplace needs a CIT," Reichwald said. But, he said, CIT can only be viable long-term if it finds new sources of funding.
Thain, a former president of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., might have been brought in because of his extensive connections on Wall Street. His experience in investment banking may help CIT find a new partner or even parent, Hagenbuckle said.
CIT will pay Thain an annual cash salary of $500,000. He will also receive $5.5 million in stock annually, of which $2.5 million will be subject to a one-year holding period. The remaining $3 million cannot be sold for three years.
Thain could also receive up to $1.5 million in bonuses based on the performance of the company. The board will determine whether to award the performance-based bonuses.
Thain’s deal to sell Merrill was considered a lifesaving move at the height of the financial crisis. But he was criticized for having paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses to Merrill employees just before the deal closed, and for spending more than $1 million to redecorate his office at Merrill despite its massive losses.
Thain resigned as head of global wealth management of the combined company in January 2009, after news of the bonus payments surfaced. Bank of America last week agreed to settle a case with the Securities and Exchange Commission over claims it misled shareholders about the bonuses and more than $15 billion in fourth-quarter losses at Merrill to ensure the deal would be approved… [emphasis added]
It seems that no matter how much these banksters fail, no matter how far their companies fall, and no matter out outrageous their abuse, they always have a multi-million dollar job waiting.
Yesterday I caught up on comments and returning blog visits. I expect to fall behind today, because I have an an appointment with my Pulmonologist’s LNP to review the results of my cat-scan.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 3:41. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
In yesterday’s Open Thread, I noted that I had seen Sarah Palin, aka Mooseolini, aka Caribou Barbie, aka the Dingbat Diva, aka Snake Oil Sarah looking at her palm, as though there were crib notes on it. It turns out that I was right. Here’s video:
Now I couldn’t quite make out what was there, but I also found a close up:
Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There’s also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out.
One of the things I remember from her speech was mocking us hopey changey people for following a man that had to use a teleprompter. I guess she figures her audience did not see him obliterate GOP representatives at their retreat with no teleprompter. Isn’t it ironic that the only reason Moosie Woosie doesn’t use a teleprompter is that it’s too techie weckie for her.
Last week, right-wing web and radio and the GOP Reichsministry of Propaganda, Faux Noise, have been parroting a false claim in Reuters that the Obama administration has embedded hidden tax increases for most Americans in the budget. No doubt this wing-nut media frenzy will continue, because they are counting on public ignorance of this:
The journalist who wrote an article on Monday that turned into an embarrassment for Reuters has left the wire service, the company said Friday. A Reuters spokeswoman declined to say whether the journalist, Terri Cullen, left voluntarily, or why. “I can’t really go into any detail,” said the spokeswoman, Courtney Dolan.
Ms. Cullen stepped down less than a month after being hired for the newly created position of wealth management editor. She had worked for more than a decade for The Wall Street Journal Online.
Her article said that President Obama’s budget amounted to a backdoor tax increase for middle-income and even lower-income people, based largely on the scheduled expiration of income tax cuts passed in 2001. But the president had actually proposed keeping those cuts in place for all but high-income families. [$250,000 up]
After a complaint from the White House, Reuters withdrew the article, stating that it was inaccurate. But by then, some prominent conservatives had seized on the article, and a few — notably Rush Limbaugh — insisted that the retraction meant simply that the media were protecting the president.
Now, stripping away the diplomatic niceties, what we see is this. A Rupert Murdoch operative from one of his propaganda outlets (WSJ) infiltrated a respectable news wire (Reuters) to plant the GOP’s favorite big lie: “Obama will raise your taxes.” Reuters, properly chagrined, retracted the story and fired the liar. No matter. The damage is done. You can be sure that Terri Cullen will resurface somewhere in Murdoch’s media empire. I am also confident that we will have to counter this claim with the facts over and over throughout the Presidential campaign of 2012, The only lower and middle class tax Obama has supported is the smokers tax in SCHIP. He would have been better served to tax Big Tobacco directly.
Human Rights Watch said on Sunday that Israel has failed to properly investigate alleged crimes committed during last winter’s devastating Gaza war as demanded by the United Nations.
"Israel claims it is conducting credible and impartial investigations, but it has so far failed to make that case," said Joe Stork, HRW’s New York-based group’s deputy director for the Middle East.
"An independent investigation is crucial to understand why so many civilians died and to bring justice for the victims of unlawful attacks," Stork said in a statement.
About 1,400 Palestinians were killed during the 22-day onslaught launched by Israel on December 27, 2008, aimed at halting rocket attacks from the Islamist Hamas-ruled enclave. Thirteen Israelis were killed in the fighting.
The UN General Assembly in November called on Israel and Palestinian armed groups to investigate alleged war crimes detailed in a UN report by the respected former international war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone.
But UN chief Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday that he had not yet determined whether both sides had adequately probed the accusations.
Last Friday, the UN chief received a 46-page report from Israel in which it denied violating international law but admitted "tragic results" due to the "complexity and scale" of fighting in heavily populated areas.
In his report, Ban highlighted Israel’s assertion that two of its senior officers — a brigadier general and a colonel — were disciplined for the firing of white phosphorous shells toward a UN compound during the war.
Also on Friday, the UN secretary general was handed a preliminary report from the Palestinian side in which it said a commission had been set up to look into allegations that Palestinian militants committed war crimes.
Hamas also carried out an investigation into the conflict, and has previously absolved its fighters of any wrongdoing, saying they did not deliberately target civilians.
HRW has rejected Hamas’s claims, saying that most of the rockets fired during the war hit civilian areas. "Civilians were the target," the group said, and "deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime."… [emphasis added]
I readily acknowledge that war crimes were committed on both sides, so I’m not placing all the blame on Israel. However, we need to consider the scale of the atrocities here. Palestinian rockets have killed just a few Israelis. Without minimizing the tragic loss to the families involved, it does not begin to compare with the 1,400 Palestinians killed. The use of white phosphorous against civilians is particularly heinous. I could give a dry description of that horror weapon, but I’ll leave it to one of our Vietnam Vets, who have seen it in action, to give a first hand description in a comment.
A full, independent investigation into war crimes needs to be conducted. I call on the US to stop covering for Israel’s crimes through the use of our veto in the UN Security Council.
