Yesterday I did better than I thought, despite oversleeping. I replied to all the comments here, and visited all the bloggers who had posted comments here plus a few more to boot. Today, I’m feeling really worn out, so I’m taking the day for religious meditation on Chargers, Jets, Cowboys and Vikings.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 4:07. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
Here’s your cartoon:
Have a great Sunday!
This was too long in coming.
President Obama will campaign in Massachusetts for Martha Coakley on Sunday, White House and Democratic Party sources tell TPMDC.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is set to announce the news at today’s press briefing, This past Monday, Gibbs had said that there were no plans to visit Massachusetts.
The polls have been all over the place on this election, but are in general agreement in the sense that the turnout model matters very seriously. If younger voters and more committed Democrats turn out, Coakley will win. If older and less Democratic voters make up a greater part of the electorate, Republican nominee Scott Brown will win. Obama’s involvement could potentially make the difference for Coakley in turning out his natural support base — and if it doesn’t, expect a lot of talk in the press about how Obama couldn’t win the race.
Late Update: As expected, Gibbs announced that Obama will stop in Boston Sunday after a visit to a Washington D.C. church earlier in the day.
Gibbs also took a swipe at Brown using the latest Democratic party talking points, and said Obama "sees a pretty clear distinction" between Coakley who he views as a fighter for Massachusetts and "a candidate on the other side who feels comfortable fighting for the insurance industry and big banks."
Asked about Coakley’s tanking poll numbers, Gibbs said Obama was "happy to have a campaign on whether you’re for the status quo, protecting insurance company profits, bank company profits."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
In my view, Coakley made the same error Hillary Clinton made, early in the Democratic primaries: she assumed the job was already hers. I certainly hope her campaign can be salvaged, because there can be nothing accomplished in the Senate if Brown wins. All our progressive causes will be dead in the water.
Let’s examine Brown’s support.
Major U.S. banks which instigated the financial crisis are set to pay out “record” bonuses and compensation — $145 billion by some estimates. State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate running for the special U.S. Senate election next week, announced yesterday that he would oppose the recently announced financial crisis responsibility fee on large banks.
Brown’s defense of the financial industry has not been ignored by Wall Street. Wall Street’s two largest political enforcers are also out fighting to elect him:
– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.
– The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals. The Club is also supporting a slate of candidates to repeal health reform, while its other endorsed candidates have opposed a financial truth commission.
According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Brown’s latest Federal Elections Commission disclosures (part 1, part 2, part 3), filed on Jan. 8 and 11, business executives and Wall Street executives have lavished Brown’s campaign coffers with 11th hour contributions… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Brown is the paid mouthpiece for the banksters and baggers, opposed to all things progressive, but to see just how far to the extremely ideologue right he is, consider this.
One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.
The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
The 9/11 attacks flared as an issue in the Massachusetts race today. The NRSC sharply criticized Democrat Martha Coaxley over a DSCC ad, first reported by Politico, that flashed an image of the Twin Towers. Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Brown today, also slammed Coakley over the ad, saying it was “unthinkable” and “offensive.”
On October 17th, 2001, Brown voted against a bill that would authorize “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” The bill gave 15 days of paid leave each year to state workers called up by the Red Cross to respond to disasters. At the time, state workers called for such emergencies were required to use sick and vacation days… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Plumline>
What a creep! It’s hard to goose-step with stiffer knees than this. The notion that this scum could win the Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy boggles the mind. Do you know anyone in Massachusetts? If so, please call them. Ask them to vote for Coakley. Ask them to contact all their local friends to vote for her.
Elizabeth Warren knows.
Unwinding the Treasury Department’s $700-billion rescue program will be difficult, so long as there is an "implicit guarantee" that the federal government will continue to save failing banks, according to a new report.
The 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has ultimately prompted banks to adjust "to the notion… [they] will be safe, no matter what," explained Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel that has been tracking those dollars.
"The whole market has adjusted to the notion that the big banks will be safe no matter what, and they can start planning their business approaches accordingly," Warren told CNBC on Thursday. "And thats dangerous."
"This business of regulatory reform that’s going through Congress… is really where this is going to all come down," she added, as those reforms would allow the federal government to "credibly say to any large financial institution, ‘If you screw this up badly enough, you really can be liquidated.’"
Without that legislation, "At the end of the day, when TARP is over, it’s not really over," the chairwoman continued.
Warren’s remarks on Thursday coincide with the Congressional Oversight Panel’s latest look at the TARP’s management and execution. The report, released this morning, stresses the legacy of the 2008 bailout program might be a lingering impression that the federal government will rescue failing firms that pose systemic risks to the nation’s economy… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Hill>
Here is a video in which she lays it out in terms that even an economic neophyte can understand. If you spend ten minutes watching it, you will come away with a clearer understanding of what needs to be done.
Note that when asked whether bankster banks should be broken up or provisions made for their takeover and orderly liquidation in the event of crisis, she favored a little bit of both. I wish Obama would dump Terrible Timmy and put Warren in his place.
Sadly, the environmental news remains bad.
Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.
Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."
Global warming is occuring [sic] twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.
Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people’s eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."
The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady…
Inserted from <Common Dreams>
I shudder to think that our grandchildren may not survive our complacency.
Yesterday was a mess. I had to wait over an hour in the doctor’s office. Then I had to wait over an hour and a half at the Sprint store for them to check and replace a my defective phone. That killed the day, so I did not even reply to comments here. Since religious meditation (football games) does not start until 1 PM, I’ll catch up on comments and visit as much as I can before then.
Today’s Jig Zone puzzle took me 4:59. To do it, Click Here. How did you do?
Here’s your cartoon:
What’s up for the weekend?
Although, this plan is not my first choice, it’s about time Obama took the gloves off with the banksters.
President Obama laid down his proposal for a new tax on the nation’s largest financial institutions on Thursday, saying he wanted “to recover every single dime the American people are owed” for bailing out the economy
With both anti-Wall Street sentiment and the budget deficit running high, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill welcomed the proposal, which could ultimately raise up to $117 billion to cover projected bailout losses. Republicans were uncharacteristically silent, their instinctive opposition to tax increases apparently checked by their fear of defending big bankers. And the financial industry lobby seemed splintered, with small community banks happily exempted.
The biggest question, then, might be whether liberals in Mr. Obama’s own party would press him to go even further than he and Democratic moderates wanted to go. About the same time that the president was announcing his plan at the White House, a group of House Democrats held a news conference to call for a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $50,000 at banks that took bailout money.
The administration has opposed taxing bonuses in the past, saying shareholders should determine corporate pay policies. Mr. Obama, in his remarks, suggested that his proposal to tax some of banks’ assets could have the same effect, by forcing them to shrink the size of their bonuses in turn.
Flanked by his economic advisers at the White House, Mr. Obama spoke in some of his harshest language to date about the resurgent financial industry.
“We’re already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair,” he said. “That by some twisted logic it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses.”
Mr. Obama continued, “What I say to these executives is this: Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities” — including by rolling back bonuses.
The proposed tax would apply to bank, thrift and insurance companies with more than $50 billion in assets and would start after June 30. It would not apply to certain holdings, like customers’ insured savings, but to assets in risk-taking operations. The levy would raise an estimated $90 billion over 10 years, according to the White House.
But it would remain in force longer if all losses to the bailout fund, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, were not recovered after a decade. The Treasury now projects that the losses from the $700 billion loan program, which was created in October 2008, could reach $117 billion, about a third of the loss that it projected last summer — an improved forecast that reflected the renewed strength on Wall Street.
The White House said that collecting $117 billion would take about 12 years, but Treasury officials said losses were likely to be smaller. Still, with postrecession deficits at levels unseen since World War II and Wall Street never broadly popular, the pressure on a future president and Congress to keep the tax in place is likely to be substantial. Administration officials did not outline any provision for having the tax expire once all the money is recouped.
Big banks object that most of them already have repaid the government with interest. The administration, anticipating that argument, called its tax a “financial crisis responsibility fee” aimed at those institutions whose risk-taking caused the problem in the first place.
The losses from the bailout fund are expected from money paid to rescue Chrysler and General Motors and the insurance giant American International Group, and from a program to help homeowners avert foreclosures. But big banks shared in the A.I.G. bailout, splitting about $60 billion to receive full repayment for their financial trades with the company.
Mr. Obama’s economic team began seeking a bank fee last August, even as the administration — and in particular the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner — was being attacked by critics on the left and right as too cozy with Wall Street. Criticism picked up last year after Mr. Geithner opposed an effort by the European Union to impose a global tax on financial transactions.
Mr. Geithner said such a tax would be passed through to customers. The administration now argues that big banks will not be able to pass on the costs of its levy without risking a loss of market share to rivals that are not subject to the tax.
The proposal, which Mr. Obama will include in his budget in February, would require Congress’s approval… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
I can understand Obama’s position that the setting of bonuses is the stockholders’ prerogative, not the government’s, so even though I have called for a tax on bonuses in the past, I recognize that crafting such a bill to apply to only banksters without effecting bonuses legitimately earned for innovative solutions in other industries would be difficult, because the Constitution disallows bills of attainder. However, I would prefer Yves solution to impose a windfall profits tax. This measure does not go far enough. Banksters need to be held criminally and civilly liable for the financial damage, in addition to the pain and suffering, they have caused everyday Americans. The banksters’ voracious greed in causing this crisis must not be overlooked. I’m inclined to support this plan, but only as a first step.
At any time, SCOTUS, still thoroughly polluted with conservative extremist ideologues, may clear the way for a devastating flood of corporate cash to propagandize the public. Alan Grayson stands in the gap.
Anticipating a Supreme Court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced five bills on Wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash.
"We are facing a potential threat to our democracy," Grayson said in an interview with HuffPost. "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable."
At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns. The case is pitting Citizens United, a conservative group, against the Federal Election Commission. The FEC banned ads for Citizens United’s film bashing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.
Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday — the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.
The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act would require public companies to report what they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their goods and services. The End Political Kickbacks Act would restrict political contributions by government contractors.
The other measures would apply antitrust regulations to political committees and bar corporations from securities exchanges unless the corporation is certified in compliance with election law… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
Grayson had done his homework here. These items are well considered and, if SCOTUS decides that corporate power trumps an honestly informed electorate, we need them if we would hold onto of any chance of meeting the goal to transform the US back from a corporate plutocracy to a democratic republic. I urge your support.
Could there be a light at the end of the Blackwater tunnel?
As multiple scandals involving Blackwater continue to emerge almost daily, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing to introduce legislation aimed at ending the US government’s relationship with Blackwater and other armed contracting companies. “In 2009, the U.S. government employed well over 20,000 armed private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is every indication that these figures will continue to rise in 2010,” Schakowsky wrote in a “Dear Colleage” letter asking for support for her Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act. “These men and women are not part of the U.S. military or government. They do not wear the uniform of the United States, though their behavior has, on numerous occasions, severely damaged the credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship with other governments.”
Schakowsky originally introduced the bill in 2007, but it only won two co-sponsors in the Senate: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Clinton—now Secretary of State— is currently the US official responsible for most of Blackwater’s contracts. “The legislation would prohibit the use of private contractors for military, security, law enforcement, intelligence, and armed rescue functions unless the President tells Congress why the military is unable to perform those functions,” according to Schakowsky. “It would also increase transparency over any remaining security contracts by increasing reporting requirements and giving Congress access to details about large contracts.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Common Dreams>
I support SOS, with one exception. It should also require that, after the President ‘tells Congress’, he cannot continue to use private security forces for more than 90 days without Congressional ratification. These are functions that ought to be carried out by service personnel, not mercenary soldiers of fortune.
