Category Archives: Congress

Billions for Big Oil, Nothing for the Unemployed

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, economy, Gulf Oil Spill, lobbyists, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics, special interests, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We can’t afford to extend unemployment benefits, but:

“…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”

Take, for instance, two of the major players in the Gulf oil spill—Transocean and BP:

“When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.”

Congress and the Obama administration are working (allegedly) on legislation that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks. The response from the oil companies? One wrong move and the economy gets it:

“Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

What are the chances of Congress eliminating these subsidies? Slim and none:

“Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.”

An example is Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the tax breaks, but:

“While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.”

Social Security Cuts Straight Ahead

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reading the road signs along the highway that leads to cutting or privatizing Social Security:

In December Blue Dog Jim Cooper, said a report which showed “that the governments unfunded liabilities are roughly $56 trillion” was “shocking.”  He called for a commission to address it.”

In January the White House signed on:

“[President] Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.”

In February, Jane Hamsher at Firedog lake reported that:

“…people who have been briefed on the administration’s plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.”

The president then packed the Debt Commission “with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.”

Among those are the chairman of the commission, Erskine Bowles, who sits on the board at Morgan Stanley, and whose wife sits on the board at JPMorgan Chase. Can you say conflict of interest? Seems to me both those firms stand to benefit handsomely if Wall Street gets its grubby fingers in the Social Security trust fund.

The rules are that the commission recommendation must be approves by 14 of the 18 members:

“There are certainly enough votes on the right to block any significant tax increase proposals. There certainly aren’t enough votes anywhere to propose deep spending cuts in the bloated military budget. The only real question is whether there are five votes — enough to block passage — against cutting social programs, particularly Social Security.”

And in what’s becoming a pattern in this administration, much of the commission’s work is behind closed doors. Openness and transparency, anyone?

Then last Thursday Speaker Pelosi, under the cover of funding for Afghanistan, sneaked in language calling for an up or down vote on the commission’s recommendation, by a lame duck Congress in December.

Now comes this from Crooks and Liars:

“It’s a cynical political strategy almost beyond belief, but it’s becoming obvious that President Obama and the Democratic leaders plan to let the Republicans do what they’ve tried to do since the days of FDR: Cut Social Security.

[…]

When I wrote about this last week, some readers insisted it would “never” happen, and questioned whether there was any logical reason Obama would support benefit cuts. So I talked to a couple of D.C. Social Security activists this week and posed that very question. I was told that Obama’s reelection strategy was based on allowing Social Security cuts to win over independent voters. (Apparently it polls well with the Tea Party crowd.)”

[…]

Now, seriously. How can any intelligent person convince themselves that the Obama administration isn’t backing this? The commission is stacked with deficit hawks; the national deficit is on track to be more fiscally sound if they let the Bush tax cuts expire; and Social Security, which is a tax-transfer program, doesn’t have a damned thing to do with the deficit.”

One solution I don’t see from the Debt Commission—lifting the Social Security earnings cap. According to John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, “eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would be sufficient to fully close the projected shortfall.”

And it would only affect about 6% of the population. But then again, those are the 6% who sit on these useless (for everyone but the elites) bi-partisan commissions and who write large checks to those in Congress who vote on their recommendations.

In Defense of Michael Steele—Sort Of

03 Saturday Jul 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I can’t believe this, but I’m going to defend the remarks of RNC Chairman Michael Steele, at least in part. Which is more than I can say for the response from the DNC.

Of course Steele’s accusation that Afghanistan is “a war of Obama’s choosing” is ridiculous. Afghanistan was a war of no one’s choosing, it was a response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. And the reason Afghanistan deteriorated into the situation President Obama inherited was because of the choices of the Bush administration, who neglected Afghanistan for 7 years in the misguided pursuit of the “war of their choosing” in Iraq.

But to be fair, President Obama has made some significant choices in relation to Afghanistan. He chose to increase the number of troops there soon after taking office. He chose to replace Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal, which included a choice to shift strategy from McKiernan’s more conventional approach to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan. Because of this change in strategy the president chose to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by another 30,000.

When Obama replaced McChrystal recently, the president chose to bring in Gen. Petraeus and stick with counterinsurgency despite a growing number of indications, including the grumblings by McChrystal and his staff included in the Rolling Stone piece, that it isn’t working.

Steele was right on the money with this part of his remarks:

“Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed, and there are reasons for that.”

That brought this reaction from the DNC:

“Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They’d also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

“And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are ‘comical’ and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

As Greg Sargent at Plum Line points out, (and Glenn Greenwald at Salon agrees) these charges are a tactic straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook, and one which the Bush administration often leveled at Democrats over the war in Iraq. That anyone who criticizes any aspect of the war is advocating for “cutting and running” and doesn’t “support the troops.”

Greenwald:

“Two points about this:   (1) there’s nothing “tough” or “rough” about the DNC statement; it’s actually lame, desperate and ineffective.  As I noted above, the 2006 and 2008 GOP-crushing elections both proved that these rhetorical insults do not work any longer.  Beyond that, attacking people for criticizing the War in Afghanistan is as dumb as when the Republicans attacked people who criticized the Iraq War.”

As Dave Dayen at Firedoglake points out, an amendment to the war supplemental in the House which called for a withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan got 162 votes, a majority of the Democratic caucus.

Greenwald concludes:

“I wonder what the DNC has to say about the fact that a majority of their Party’s House caucus are cowardly, solider-hating traitors who are betting against the Troops.”

Cowards, Hypocrites, and Fools

02 Friday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quickly approaching mad as hell stage:

We have a Congress packed with cowards, hypocrites, and fools—on both sides of the aisle. House Democrats have passed a budget that’s not really a budget, and projected a balanced budget that’s not really a balanced budget because it excludes interest payments on the debt. They left out the minor details of how to achieve that lofty goal, depending on recommendations from the debt commission to cover their collective asses and keep them from having to make what could be controversial votes in an election year. Profiles in courage.

That would be the deficit commission packed with Social Security privatizers, some of whom support investing as much as 20% of the SS trust fund in the stock market. Speaker Pelosi, in the interest of openness and transparency, last night sneaked in inserted language in the war funding bill that would allow the House to have an up-or-down vote on the deficit commission’s recommendations in a lame duck session after the November elections. Buck passing and CYA at its finest.

Republican deficit hypocrites, who never saw a spending program they didn’t like when they held power, have now become fiscal conservatives, allegedly. They, along with their lackey Ben Nelson, have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits despite the fact that new jobless claims have hit their highest levels since March, and the unemployment numbers due out today are expected to show an increase from the 9.7% we have now.

Both sides have their collective moistened fingers in the wind which tells them that voters are worried about increasing deficits, so these geniuses look for ways to cut spending, except for the untouchable Defense Department, that is. Wouldn’t want to be accused of being “soft on terror.”. Never mind that the stock market is headed back down, pending new home sales dropped 30% from April to May, credit is still tightening, and many states are facing budget crises that, without federal assistance, could result in the loss of 900,000 more jobs.

Add these to the anticipated rise in unemployment and the prospects of a double-dip recession are increasing by the day. Exactly the wrong time to even be considering spending cuts, unless you want a repeat of 1937. Fools.

We don’t need one Howard Beale, we need to become a nation of Howard Beales.

One Vote

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

One vote. That’s all more than 2 million Americans needed to have their unemployment benefits extended. One vote.  That’s all that was needed to prevent the unprecedented action by Congress of failing to extend benefits when unemployment is anywhere near our current rate of 9.7%, the previous high being 7.2% in 1983. One vote

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the votes of 57 Democrats, counting his own. He even had the votes of 2 Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And in the post-January 20, 2009 climate of Washington, D.C. that is a major accomplishment. He needed one vote to get the sixty necessary to break the filibuster and pass the extension before the Senate recessed until July 12. One vote.

Unfortunately, not only for Senator Reid but more importantly for those 2+ million Americans, that one vote was, and is, in the possession of possibly the biggest damn fool ever to occupy space in the Senate chamber, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Nelson’s reasons for his opposition:

“Tough choices are possible and necessary to not add to the deficit,” Nelson said. “Some also say we need more emergency spending now to keep the recovery going. But in my view it could jeopardize the recovery and would add to our already enormous deficit, likely to be around $1.4 trillion for the second year in a row…. Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout to the states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”

Do you know who’s making tough choices, you idiot? The long-term unemployed who now have to spend July 4th weekend wondering how, or if, they’ll be able to keep their house, or pay the rent, or keep the lights on. They’re not worried about passing bills on to their children; they’re worried about being able to feed their children.

Sharron Angle: Jefferson “Misquoted Out of Context” on Separation of Church and State

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Politics, Republicans

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle, was asked to defend a 1995 statement in which she said, “the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine.” Angle’s response was that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted…out of context.” Watch:

OK, here’s Thomas Jefferson in context, from his often-quoted letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Jefferson repeats verbatim the text of the First Amendment, that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” followed his own words, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Look up any definition of “thus” and you will see synonyms such as therefore, hence, and consequently. Substitute any of those words for “thus” in Jefferson’s letter and the meaning is crystal clear.

That’s Jefferson. What about the widely-acknowledged “Father of the Constitution” and the man who proposed the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—James Madison. What were his thoughts on the subject?

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Madison even saw the appointment of chaplains as a violation of the establishment clause:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

Ms. Angle, when it comes to matters of the Founders and the Constitution, speak not of what you know not. And don’t believe everything you read on a sign at a Tea Party.

Obstructionist Republicans and Gullible Democrats

30 Wednesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Scott Brown is a quick learner. In his short time in the Senate he’s become a master at the game of ‘How To String Along The Gullible Democrat’ aka Lucy and the Football.

Here’s how it goes: Obstructionist Republican says, “I would vote for this particular piece of legislation except for X.” Gullible Democrat believes Obstructionist Republican (although for the life of me I can’t figure out why) and changes or takes out X. Obstructionist Republican then says, “That’s all well and good, but I also don’t like Y. If you take that out too, I may vote for said legislation.” Gullible Democrat removes Y, and the process repeat itself over and over until said legislation is either dead or too weak to do anything remotely resembling its original intention.

The latest example is the so-called financial reform bill. Brown wanted a loophole in the Volcker Rule to exempt banks in Massachusetts from being subject to limits on risky investments. With the help of Barney Frank and (surprise!)  the Treasury Department, the loophole was inserted into the legislation. (BTW, also at the insistence of Senator Brown, another loophole was added to the Volcker Rule which may delay its implementation until 2022.)

Brown’s objection to the bill then shifted to a $19 billion fee to be collected from large financial institutions, calling it a “tax.” I’m sure Brown’s opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the $450,000 he received from executives at financial institutions in the six days before the election in Massachusetts. Strictly coincidence..

Guess what? The bank fee is out now, too

“Top Democratic House and Senate negotiators who worked out a deal on a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations regrouped Tuesday to eliminate a $19 billion fee on banks that had threatened to derail the legislation.”

Brown wasn’t alone. He had two other Lucies standing with him:

“Besides Brown, Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom also voted for the Senate bill last month, said they, too, had qualms about the bank assessment that negotiators inserted into the bill last week.”

I guess the only alternative to the Democrats being gullible and naive is that they are complicit and corrupt. That they don’t really want actual reform and are just using the guise of compromising with the Republicans to play their favorite game—giving the appearance of doing something while in reality doing nothing which might upset the goose that lays the golden eggs of campaign contributions.

Gullible and naive or complicit and corrupt? Either way it doesn’t bode well for the future of the Republic.

Lucy and the Football—Again

26 Saturday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t like to get my blood pressure up this early on a Saturday morning, but this latest action by the Senate in killing the extension of unemployment benefits really pisses me off. And every time one of these lying, elitist assholes opens their mouths it pisses me off that much more.

Like Olympia Snowe, who sent a letter to Harry Reid “urging” him to bring a stand-alone extension of unemployment benefits to the floor of the Senate next week. Nowhere in the letter did she say she would vote for it. That’s because she won’t. And neither would the other Republicans and that idiot Nelson. Snowe is just playing Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown—again. Reid should tell her to take a flying f*****g leap.

When are Snowe, Nelson, and the rest of the obstructionists going to compromise on something. Ever? The bill was watered down to accommodate them–just like the stimulus, health care, and everything else—and they still voted against it. Everything but the $33 billion for unemployment extension was offset, just like they wanted. Still they voted no.

This just in, you morons. People who get unemployment checks don’t put them in the bank. They spend every dime of it on rent, or the mortgage, or food, or clothes. It’s called economic stimulus, dipshits. Get a clue.

Then there’s Diane Feinstein who, even though she voted for the extension, gives ammunition to the obstructionists when she continues to say stupid-ass things like this:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance now. The question comes, how long do you continue that before people just don’t go back to work at all?” she said…“And there isn’t a lot of documentation on this. Last night for the first time I had somebody from a company tell me they’ve offered jobs to individuals and they said well, ‘I want to not come back to work until my unemployment insurance runs out.’ So we need to start looking at these things. And, we need to start paying for it.”

Bullshit. Nobody’s getting rich off unemployment, Di. The average check for one of Feinstein’s constituents in California is $450 a week. In San Francisco, where Feinstein and her rich hubby live, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1709 a month. Which leaves $91 a month for things like food, electricity, water—minor things like that.

And forgive me but “somebody” from some unnamed company who says that “they’ve” offered jobs to people who would rather stay on unemployment is bullshit too. The unemployment rate in California is 12.4%, there are 6 people for every job opening. People want to work, there just aren’t any jobs to be had. But when you’re sitting on top of a cool 40 mil, like the Feinsteins are, you have no idea what life is like in the real world where the peasants live.

I won’t even get into Nelson. The man is just a hopeless, clueless idiot with a terminal case of HUHAD (head up his ass disease). Why he doesn’t just switch parties and be done with it, I don’t know.

[End of rant]

The Real Cost of Killing the Tax Extenders Bill

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, George W. Bush, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The confederation of hypocrites and liars in the United States Senate, aka the Republican caucus plus Ben Nelson, voted today for the third time to kill the “tax extenders” bill which would have extended unemployment benefits, several tax credits, and Medicare funding to states facing budget crises.

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio, John Kyl of Arizona, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska all cited the cost of the bill and what it would add to the deficit, about $33 billion, as the main reason for their “no” votes.

Nice to see this new-found consternation about deficits from these four hypocrites. All four voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which cost approximately $2.5 trillion, not one dime paid for, all deficit financed. All four voted for Medicare Part D, also in 2003, which cost another trillion dollars, not one cent paid for.

Since these 4 are so concerned about cost, let’s take a look at what the price of their action today will be. From Suzy Khimm at Mother Jones:

“In addition to the millions of Americans who stand to lose unemployment benefits, a huge number of private and public sector employees will lose their jobs due to state budget cuts. Without federal help, states will have to pour in more money to prop up Medicaid, forcing them to make cutbacks in other parts of the budget. As a result, Moody’s chief economist estimates that 200,000 jobs could be axed without federal Medicaid support, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number as high as 900,000—jobs belonging to teachers, firemen, police, and social workers, among others.”

The Wonk Room has more:

“[The Atlantic’s Derek] Thompson pointed to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report stating that “without the extended Medicaid funding, Pennsylvania plans to cut funding for domestic violence prevention in half, eliminate all state funds for addressing substance abuse and homelessness, cut funding for child welfare by one-quarter, and cut payments to private hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors across the state — among other steps.” But Pennsylvania is not the only state that will have to take dramatic steps if Congress doesn’t act.

Arizona would have to cut funding for its state court system, Colorado’s likely cuts “include eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children, eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities,” while New Mexico “could eliminate a wide range of Medicaid services, including emergency hospital services, inpatient psychiatric care, personal care assistance for the disabled, prescribed medications, and hospice care.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, estimated that 200,000 jobs could be at stake in this debate over Medicaid funding. “If state governments don’t get additional help from the federal government in the coming fiscal year, then the job losses will be at least that large — in all likelihood, measurably larger than that,” Zandi said.”

Do the deficit hypocrites care? Hell no. A pox on all their houses.

Would the GOP Deliberately Sabotage the Economy? Is There Any Doubt?

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Commenting on a Huffington Post piece about how Republicans, and Ben Nelson (excuse my redundancy), appear poised to kill the tax-extenders bill in the Senate, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly writes:

“In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit — a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney — than the economy.

It’s unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it’s not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy.”

What’s to discuss? It’s true. Of course Republicans are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their mid-term election strategy, as well as their 2012 presidential election strategy. Republicans in Congress don’t care about deficits (see Dick Cheney) or the debt, except when they’re out of power. When they were in control of everything in D.C. from 2001-2007 what happened? Were there even any cursory attempts to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt?

Quite the contrary. With 2 wars and tax cuts and Medicare Part D, all on the credit card, the debt exploded.

You bet your ass the GOP wants the economy in the tank, as far in as possible. If unemployment is double what it is now and we go into a double-dip recession, or in their wettest dreams a depression, the champagne corks will be popping and ‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ will be blaring from the speakers in Michael Steele’s office. Do you think they care about the pain and suffering it would cause the American people? They care about one thing and one thing only—power. That’s it. If the “small people” have to bear the brunt of that quest, so be it.

Of course once they get it, their faux concern about the deficit and excessive spending will go out the door as they come in. Just like it did before.