Category Archives: Politics

“Villain Rotation” in the Senate

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

I hesitate to even comment on the health care reform charade any more because that’s exactly what it is and has been from the get-go, a charade. But Glenn Greenwald had a piece in Salon yesterday which nailed the situation perfectly. The bottom line is this–there will be no real reform for one reason–those in power don’t want it. Sure they, meaning the president and Democrats in the Senate, want to give the appearance of being for substantial reform, but the fact is they all benefit too much from the status quo. They aren’t about to kill the corporate goose that lays the golden campaign contribution eggs, and especially now that the Supreme Court has allowed corporations, like the insurance industry, to spend unlimited amounts on advertising for and against candidates.

Greenwald cites Sen. Jay Rockefeller as the latest example of what he calls “Villain Rotation.”

“They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.”

From Politics Daily on October 4, 2009:

“Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He’s a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor — and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

“I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go,” Rockefeller told me in an interview. “There’s got to be a safe harbor.”

Jay Rockefeller Monday:

“Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that.”

Greenwald:

“In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor it doesn’t have 60) But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.”  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing…[B]ack in August the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it).  Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary–finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include?  The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:  Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.”

The problem was, and is, that the president and the Democrats in Congress are getting exactly what they wanted to start with. The backroom deal with PhRMA is intact. The individual mandate remains, forcing people to buy from private insurance companies. The president’s plan also raises the subsidies, which shovels taxpayers dollars to the same private companies, which in turn keeps the corporate contributions flowing and away from the Republicans.

If this plan passes, I would suggest buying stock in Aetna, WellPoint, United Health Care, et al. Maybe the dividends will help cover the cost of the premiums.

Kicking the (Yes We) Can Down the Road

23 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

President Obama, who told a group of nurses in July that when it came to health care reform, “We can’t kick the can down the road any longer,” is in his plan released yesterday…..kicking the can down the road.

“Mr. Obama…identified a tax on high-cost insurance plans as a key mechanism for curbing the growth of health-care costs. He was right. Unfortunately, in the legislative process the tax already was whittled down several times. Now the president proposes delaying it until 2018 — long after he leaves office — and raising the threshold at which it applies.”

Hmmm, I remember candidate Obama treating with scorn John McCain’s proposal to tax health care benefits during the 2008 campaign. Oh well, another campaign promise bites the dust.

“…Overall..the president has proposed a plan whose uncertain savings are made even less certain, and whose known costs are increased..Now it postpones the key savings mechanism. Administration officials argue that Mr. Obama deserves credit for not dropping the tax altogether. But when did he stand up and fight for the better approach? And what credit or credibility is due a president who endorses a tax but leaves to his successor the unpleasant task of collecting it?”

Stand up and fight? President Obama? Surely you jest. Unless it’s fighting for the pharmaceutical industry to keep its monopoly via the backroom deal with PhRMA, or fighting to deliver millions of new customers to private insurance companies through the individual mandate.

Yoo: The President Could Order the Massacre of a Village

22 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Politics, torture, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Michael Isikoff at Newsweek.com has more on the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report in which David Margolis, senior lawyer in the Obstruction of Justice Department, found John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of nothing more than “poor judgement” in authoring the torture memos.

The report also contains an excerpt of an investigator’s interview with Yoo on the subject of the expanded powers of the president:

“At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel, that the president’s wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

“Sure,” said Yoo.”

“What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? … Is that a power that the president could legally—”

“Yeah,” Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. “Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief’s power over tactical decisions.”

“To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?” the OPR investigator asked again.

CarolynC at The Seminal comments on the fallout from Margolis’ decision:

“Because of the actions of men like John Yoo, our country’s moral standing in the world has been eroded. The country of Washington, Lincoln has become a country where legal justifications of torture are now viewed as a matter of “poor judgment,” as the OPR report concluded in its findings.”

One can only conclude that the extermination of an entire village would also fall under the “poor judgment” umbrella as well.

“… But far from being condemned and disgraced, our domestic war criminals live in comfort and ease, their opinions are eagerly sought by our slavish media, and they are treated with the utmost respect in the corridors of power.

…thanks to John Yoo, the President can now commit everything up to and including genocide. Nothing seems to have changed, but everything has changed. Most of us were brought up to consider ourselves citizens of a democratic country; now we are dangerously close to being mere subjects of a monarchical leader, whose powers know no bounds.”

Dick Cheney is so confident that he is in no danger of being held accountable that he triumphantly broadcast his guilt on national television; he admitted last Sunday that he personally ordered the CIA to waterboard detainees. No matter. He will still be treated with deference as an elder statesmen by the Beltway Elite. And John Yoo will continue to practice law, teach, give interviews and write books on the virtues of unlimited executive power, and the books will be greeted with glowing reviews.

Spencer Ackerman’s Open Letter to Liz Cheney

22 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Constitution, Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, torture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent has an “Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture”:

Dear Ms. Cheney,

I don’t know if you saw ‘Meet The Press’ this morning, but a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

But hey. You’re a former deputy assistant secretary of state! You obviously know better than the man who implemented the surge in Iraq. Why don’t you enlighten Gen. Petraeus about all the glories of torture? And since you consider “enhanced interrogation” so necessary to secure the country, perhaps there’s a full page ad you’ll take out in a major newspaper?

Cordially,
Spencer

Would that Ackerman’s letter might get Ms. Cheney’s mind right. But I think the only means to that end would be Papa Dick in his rightful place before a war crimes tribunal. But sadly, the Obama Obstruction of Justice Department and the Look Forward, Not Back Doctrine of the Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief isn’t going to allow that to happen.

Sadly, we will continue to be subjected to the former VP, and by extension his daughter, proudly extolling the virtues of torture, undeterred by any thoughts of being held accountable.

Sadly indeed.

Are We No More The Home of the Brave?

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting contrast in Tuesday’s Salon. How the rest of the world deals with accused terrorists as compared with the United States. A few cases in point:

May 12, 2003:
“DENPASAR, Indonesia — The first suspect charged with the October 12 [2002] Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, has gone on trial in an Indonesian court.”

February 15, 2007:
“The trial of 29 people accused of involvement in train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 has opened in the Spanish capital, Madrid.”

April 11, 2008:
“LONDON — Three British Muslims accused of helping the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks on London’s transportation system in July 2005 went on trial on Thursday, in the first case against people accused of helping plan the attacks.”

July 21, 2009:
“The sole surviving gunman from last year’s Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani national, on Monday pleaded guilty at his trial, admitting for the first time his part in the atrocity that killed 166 people.”

Monday:
“SYDNEY – Five Muslims were sentenced Monday to 23 to 28 years in prison in Australia for stockpiling explosive chemicals and firearms for terrorist attacks on unspecified targets…The men, aged 25 to 44, were found guilty last October on charges linked to preparing a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005.”

In contrast, January 22, 2010:
“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.”

And February 1, 2010:
“WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham plans to introduce a bipartisan bill Tuesday to block funding for civilian trials of five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who are now being held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a military lawyer, said that eight other GOP senators had signed onto his legislation, along with Democrats Jim Webb of Virginia and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.”

Home of the brave?

Bi-Partisan Commissions: A Hiding Place for Gutless Politicians

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Generally speaking, bi-partisan commissions are a bad idea, with just a few exceptions. Those being when something is being investigated–such as the 9/11 Commission or the current Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The debt reduction commission, set to be unveiled today by President Obama, falls into the bad idea category, and for the usual reason.

Bi-partisan commissions are nothing more than a refuge for gutless politicians who are more concerned with the next election than the next generation, and who don’t want to go on the record with votes on controversial issues which might hurt their re-election chances. And there are no issues more controversial than what must be done if we hope to make any serious attempt at reducing the national debt. And I don’t mean re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic with so-called “spending freezes” on areas of the budget which amount to less than 20% of all spending.

Serious debt reduction has to take on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which together make up about 40% of the budget. And for the two biggest expenditures–Social Security and Medicare– there are only 3 options–raise taxes, reduce benefits, or raise the eligibility age.

Serious debt reduction has to cut spending across the board, no exceptions and no exclusions, including the Pentagon. The 2009 budget for the Department of Defense was north of $700 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the rest of the world’s military spending combined.

Serious debt reduction has to include tax increases. We, as a country, have been living on a credit card for the last 30 years–it’s time to start paying the bill.

Tough decisions all, and decisions we pay members of Congress to make, not shove off on “bi-partisan commissions” with no authority to do anything other than make recommendations.

Hypocrite of the Day: Chuck Schumer

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street), responding to a Washington Post—ABC News poll in which 8 out of 10 of those questioned said they disapprove of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising:

“If there’s one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it’s that they don’t want more special interests in our politics.”

This from a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, and the Subcommittee on Securities and Investment, and whose top contributor list reads like this:

Goldman Sachs $481,040
Citigroup Inc $415,616
Morgan Stanley $305,946
JPMorgan Chase & Co $297,600
Credit Suisse Group $258,744
   
UBS AG $236,950
Bear Stearns $231,350
Merrill Lynch $226,150
Lehman Brothers $181,450

 And who has received over $7 million in campaign contributions from the Securities and Investment Industries since 1989. No, we certainly don’t need more special interests in our politics, do we Chuck?

The Washington–K Street Revolving Door

17 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

No need to pass the hat for retiring members of Congress, they’re unlikely to join the ranks of the unemployed:

“Lawmakers retiring this year have little reason to fret the job market: Some of K Street’s biggest players have top openings with seven-figure salaries…At least four major trade associations are looking to hire for their high-profile jobs, each of which could command a salary in excess of $1 million a year.

The growing list of members who have decided not to seek reelection, combined with top-notch job opportunities, will only further the trend of ex-lawmakers lobbying for interests they once oversaw.”

Ah yes, the old D.C. revolving door:

“Public Citizen, a watchdog group, reported that 43 percent of members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became registered lobbyists, a figure that does not include political consultants who don’t register” [like former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.]

A few other examples:

“Retiring Democrats like Sens. Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.), and Reps. John Tanner and Bart Gordon, both of Tennessee, are names mentioned as possible hot prospects downtown.”

“Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) announced his retirement from Congress last fall and instead of finishing his term, he immediately took a job with law and lobbying firm DLA Piper (though he did not register as a lobbyist).

Then there’s the soon-to-be retired senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, who, “a day after he announced his retirement..declined to rule out a career as a lobbyist.” A good fit for Senator Bayh might be the job recently vacated by another former member of Congress who moved on to the greener pastures of lobbying, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) which was held by Billy Tauzin, and pays fairly well:

“Tauzin, a collegial dealmaker who entered Congress as a Democrat and left as a Republican, is resigning from a job that paid him a total compensation package in excess of $2 million a year, according to the association’s 2007 tax records.”

Since Senator Bayh’s wife sits on the board at insurance giant WellPoint, I suspect there might be a place for him there as a lobbyist if he so chooses. There is one small matter Bayh needs to clear up, what to do with the $13 million campaign war chest he has on hand. There are a few options:

a) keep the cash in his own account for a possible future run for office
b) transfer it to a newly-created PAC
c) return it to the donors
d) give it to charity
e) give it to the Indiana Democratic Party
f) give it to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or the Democratic National Committee (DNC)

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess (a). Just a hunch.

The Constitutional Scholar Considers Indefinite Detention Law

16 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Constitutional Scholar-In-Chief is ready to deal away Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in exchange for Lindsey Graham’s vote to close Gitmo. Well, not actually close it, just re-locate it to Illinois (emphasis mine):

“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

“I’m sure that that’s what Sen. Graham thinks [but] I don’t have any reason to think the administration has changed its view on this…said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “In both private conversations and in public, the attorney general and other people in the administration said they’re committed to driving the people detained without charge to zero. I think that would be inconsistent with a pledge to do that.”

…speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

…While Graham has long favored closing Guantanamo, he said Monday that his support for doing so is contingent on a new law to govern the detention of those the government wants to keep in custody outside the criminal justice system. He also said that, with such a statute in place, he could support Obama’s plan to convert a state prison in Illinois to a federal facility for former Guantanamo inmates.

…Some human rights advocates said Monday that they didn’t doubt Graham had discussed a detention statute with the White House, but were skeptical that officials there are actively considering it.

Right. It would be the height of inconsistency for this administration to backtrack on a pledge or a campaign promise. There’s nothing in the past year to make anyone think they might “change” their views or principles, as if they had any, in the face of the slightest amount of pressure, or in pursuit of another sellout compromise. Perish the thought.

Why Is This Man Not Facing a War Crimes Tribunal?

16 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Every time I see former Vice-President Dick Cheney interviewed on any news program, national or otherwise, I think to myself, ‘Why is this man here and not facing a war crimes tribunal?’ Cheney made a remark during an interview with Jonathan Karl Sunday on ABC’s This Week, a remark made almost in passing, that once again brought that question to mind:

KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?

CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you’re talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can’t…

KARL: … waterboarding, clearly, what was your…

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that…

KARL: And you opposed the administration’s actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

It never ceases to amaze me, although it’s not the first time it has happened and undoubtedly won’t be the last, that a former vice-president of the United States of America can openly and brazenly confess to something which the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture recognize as torture, something for which members of the Japanese military were punished after World War II. Torture, a punishable offense under U.S. Code 2340A by imprisonment or death. And he can do so without any fear of reprisal, thanks to the ‘look forward, not back’ policy of the Obama administration.

Shameful.

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish calls on Attorney General Eric Holder to take action or be considered an accessory, also a punishable offense:

“…the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.”

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn’t. Cheney’s clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.