Tag Archives: White House

No “Hostilities” But “Imminent Danger” Pay

23 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Libya, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

What’s wrong with this picture?

“The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”

[…]

Asked Monday whether the White House finding contradicted the Pentagon’s, an Obama spokesman declined to comment.”

Understandable. They’re busy re-defining “imminent” and “danger.”

Advertisements

Mammoth Cave Straight Ahead

03 Friday Dec 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The old Mammoth Cave:

The new Mammoth Cave:

“White House negotiators and congressional Republicans have the outlines of a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and federal unemployment benefits, which would end a partisan stalemate on Capitol Hill. Under the prospective deal, all the Bush tax cuts would be extended for two years and unemployment benefits would be extended for one, according to congressional sources.”

But the extension of unemployment benefits comes with a caveat:

“Senior Senate Republican aides said that an extension of all the income tax cuts was a foregone conclusion, but that a deal on jobless aid was possible if Democrats agreed to cover the cost.”

So Democrats agree to extend the tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits–provided the unemployment extension is paid for. No mention of paying for the tax cuts. What great negotiators those Democrats are, huh?

This comes a day after the House Dems take what they admit was a “symbolic” vote on only extending tax cuts for those making under $250,000 (a vote Senate Democrats are expected to take today) so as to make Republicans go on the record as being protectors of the rich—a month after the mid-term elections. A vote they refused to take before the election.

With strategery like that it’s hard to understand why they lost 60+ seats in the House.

There are some Democratic dissenters:

“I am opposed to extending any tax breaks for anybody over $250,000, period. That’s where I am,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “I would hope that the president would stand firm on what he campaigned on in Iowa.”

Hold on to that hope, Tom. Personally, I’m hoping to get a pony for Christmas. I think we have equal chances of having those hopes fulfilled.

What E.J. Dionne said:

“…every signal out of the White House is that it is prepared to cave in to Republican demands for a temporary extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for millionaires…What we are witnessing here is the political power that comes from the Republican Party’s single-minded focus on high-end tax cuts and the strategic incoherence of a Democratic Party that is confused and divided — and not getting much help from its president.

Obama seems to have decided that showing how conciliatory he can be is more important than making clear where he stands. The administration’s strategy is rooted in a fear of what the Republicans are willing to do, which only strengthens the GOP’s bargaining position.”

What Communication Problem?

29 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I keep reading about the Obama administration’s so-called “communication problem.” The latest being this piece in the LA Times by Richard Wolffe:

“[The] lack of agreement on economic fundamentals is a primary factor behind one of this White House’s most obvious failures: communications. As one senior Obama advisor told me the day after the disastrous midterms: “It was hard to find a single economic message when the economic team couldn’t agree on a single economic policy.”

I don’t get it. To me, the “economic message” has been crystal clear since the president began to name his team of advisors. The message has been and continues to be, save Wall Street by any means necessary. And to that I give a hearty “Mission Accomplished”:

Charles Ferguson, whose documentary about the financial crisis–Inside Job– is a must see, wrote in Salon:

“When Barack Obama was elected, he had an unprecedented opportunity to shape American history by bringing the country’s new financial oligarchy under control. Elected on a platform of change and renewal by a nation in crisis and with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, his election celebrated throughout the world, Obama could have done great things. Instead, he gave us more of the same. America will be paying for his decision for a very long time.

And now, nearly two years later, the Obama administration has established a clear record…It is, in short, overwhelmingly clear that President Obama and his administration decided to side with the oligarchs — or at least not to challenge them.”

Paul Krugman:

“No wonder we’re in such trouble. Obama must gravitate instinctively to people who give him bad economic advice, and who almost surely don’t share the values he was elected to promote. That’s what I’d call a structural problem.”

I’ll take it one fairly obvious (to me anyway) step further, President Obama doesn’t share the values he was elected to promote. (On a related note; if anyone’s looking for a Christmas present for the person who has everything, I’ll make you a good deal on some slightly used snake oil I bought two years ago). He’s the one who put that team in place and who continues to defend them (heckuva job Larry) on their way out the door. I have a difficult time believing that the replacements will be any different. A structural problem indeed.

Look in the Mirror, Democrats

02 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

If the election results go as expected tonight and Republicans take control of at least the House, the hand-wringing and ‘what happened?’ from the Democratic side of the aisle will commence shortly thereafter. In the search for someone or something to blame I suggest Democrats, including President Obama, need look no further than the nearest mirror. This blurb from Politico pretty much sums up the problem:

“…even White House advisers quietly admit a far more jobs-focused, targeted stimulus would have been more effective as a policy and political tool.”

Ya think? Do ya freakin’ think so? That epiphany comes about 18 months too late, but I guess better late than never. Maybe if the president had listened to someone outside of his inner circle jerk of “advisers” who were saying that from the get-go he wouldn’t be preparing to deal with a Republican Congress in January.

But that wasn’t the only serious misstep that put Obama and the Democrats in the situation in which they find themselves. It goes back to before Inauguration Day of 2009. Beginning when the candidate who said he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington named a poster child of the way business is done in Washington to be his chief of staff.

Then, faced with an economic crisis not seen in this country since the 1930′ s, he named as his chief economic adviser one of the main culprits in creating the conditions that led to the financial meltdown, Larry Summers. He then nominated as his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a protégé of another architect of the collapse, Robert Rubin. Enjoy your stay at the henhouse, Mr. Fox.

This was the change we could believe in?

When it came to the stimulus package there were a number of economists (outside of that sacred inner circle) who were saying that it needed to be bigger and focused almost entirely on spending to create jobs. They were summarily ignored. An arbitrary figure was arrived at–$1 trillion–which for political purposes the stimulus could not exceed. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, a good chunk of the package was made to include tax cuts. This was done to supposedly draw Republican support for the stimulus. How did that work out?

Just as an aside here, President Obama later said that he underestimated the size and intensity of the opposition from Republicans in Congress. Was he asleep during the 90’s when Republicans impeached a Democratic president for…well, you know what for. His estimation of the GOP opposition should have been Clinton X 10.

On health care reform, the candidate who ran on a public option and no individual mandate did a sudden 180 and became the president of no public option and an individual mandate. The candidate who promised lower prescription drug prices by way of drug importation from Canada and elsewhere cut a backroom deal with Pharma to insure their monopoly.

Also on health care reform, if the president and Democrats would ask those who supported them in ‘08 (instead of calling them whiners and telling them to buck up) they might find out that just as many, if not more, will tell them too little was done in the way of “reform,” not too much.

The candidate who railed against the Bush “war on terror” constitutional and civil liberties abuses not only continued those policies but now seeks to increase them by expanding the government’s wiretap powers and targeting American citizens who are suspected of terrorist ties for assassination. Not to mention tripling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan,  and expanding the drone war and covert operations into Pakistan, Yemen, and only God and the CIA knows where else.

And they wonder why there’s an enthusiasm gap?

Democrats in Congress don’t escape blame either. In two consecutive elections, 2006 and 2008, they were given overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof number in the Senate, plus the White House. Memo to Democrats: American voters didn’t  give you those majorities because of your sparkling personalities, they wanted things done.

Just for future reference, if and when you get that kind of power again—use it. Don’t squander it bickering amongst yourselves. Take a page from the Republican playbook and enforce some party discipline. By whatever means necessary. It would help to have a Senate Majority Leader with something resembling a spine. You had the Republican Party down for the count, but you let them up and look at what is about to happen.

Foreclosure Fraud Just the Tip of the Iceberg

12 Tuesday Oct 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Justice Department, Obama administration, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Dylan Ratigan, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker unravel foreclosure fraud:

To reiterate, the fraud in foreclosures that we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose is to try and cover up, and cover for, the fraud in the mortgage process all the way back to the origination of the mortgages, which were then packaged into securities and fraudulently sold to investors as AAA quality, a rating gained by paying off the ratings agencies. As our parents always told us, one lie requires another one to cover up the first one, which requires another lie to cover up the second one, and so on, and so on, and…….

In my opinion, that’s why the Senate tried to sneak through the legislation that President Obama vetoed—it would have given the big banks protection from liability in this entire mess. As an aside–again just my opinion– but the only reason the president vetoed the bill was because of the attention it received and the light that was shone on its alleged “unintended consequences” (and if you’ll buy that….) My cynical nature when it comes to politicians tells me that “sending the bill back for modifications” translates into, ‘We’ll try again when the heat’s off.’

It’s also why, according to David Axelrod, the hope in the White House is that “this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly.” And why the White House opposes a national moratorium on foreclosures. A moratorium would give investigators and especially some 40 states’ attorneys general time to delve back into fraud and deceit at every level of the process

As Mr. Denninger explained, the only remedy is to force the big banks to buy back the toxic securities that they sold to investors under false pretenses. They can’t do that, which means Chase, BofA, et al, are insolvent. Actually, they’re insolvent now but for the phony profits from peddling this garbage to unsuspecting investors.

There is a provision in the financial reform legislation for resolution authority, that is breaking up large financial institutions that pose a “systemic risk” to the entire economy. Will Congress use it or will they do what they have done in the past and bail out their Wall Street cronies and contributors—again. If Republicans take control of Congress will they hold true to their campaign rhetoric of “no more bailouts” or will they dance to the tune of their big donors on Wall Street?

We may soon find out.

Is 9% Unemployment the New Norm?

28 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Considering this:

“Nearly half of the unemployed—45.9%—have been out of work longer than six months, more than at any time since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1948…Overall, seven million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and most of them—4.7 million—have been out of work for a year or more.”

And this:


How do you get to this?:

“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the economy has now recovered sufficiently for government to begin to make way for private business investment.

Mr. Geithner’s comments on Sunday, which echo previous sentiments expressed by President Barack Obama, reflect a turning point in the government response to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a period marked by deep federal intervention in the financial, housing, auto and other industries.

“We need to make that transition now to a recovery led by private investment,” Mr. Geithner said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Led by private investment? Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion of profits now and unemployment is still hovering around 10%. Just when is this private investment going to kick in and start hiring?

“A survey last month of more than 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine showed that nearly 60 percent of those executives don’t expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later — even though they’re projecting a 12 percent rise in earnings and a 9 percent boost in capital spending over the next year.”

“2012 or later” huh? Something else significant is scheduled for 2012, isn’t it? Conspicuously convenient timing for the unemployment picture to start improving if you ask me.

Why aren’t corporations hiring now? The Chamber of Commerce claims it’s because of the “onerous regulations” being placed on them by the Obama administration. Now if one had a conspiratorial mind one might think that big business wants to keep the unemployment numbers high through 2012 so that they get a Republican Congress this year to be followed by a Republican president in 2012 who would cancel all those “onerous regulations.” One might think that, and one would be right, in my opinion.

Sadly, the administration seems to be willing to accept 9% or higher as the new norm:

“The White House said Friday it expects that unemployment will stay at or above 9% until 2012, but at the same time forecast that the economy will grow by at least 4% in 2011 and 2012.”

To whom it may concern at the White House:

If you seriously think that the economy has “recovered sufficiently” so that the government can get out of the way and let private investment take over on job creation; if you’re willing to accept unemployment at 9% or above through 2012; schedule the moving vans for the morning of January 20, 2013.

Fear of Glenn Beck Behind Shirley Sherrod’s Firing

21 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Fox News, Obama administration, Politics, Racism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Is this what the powers that be in Washington have sunk to?:

“Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced.

“They harassed me,” she said. “I got three calls from the White House. At one point they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.

[…]

Sherrod said the White House calls came from Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary for rural development. “The administration was not interested in hearing the truth. They didn’t want to hear the truth.”

And this? From Cook’s boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

“The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia…Our policy is clear. There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person.”

So federal government employees like Shirley Sherrod can be smeared by edited video tapes sent by an anonymous source to a well-known right-wing purveyor of doctored video tapes (see ACORN) Andrew Breitbart. They can lose their jobs without one shred of evidence or one second of investigation into whether or not the accusations are true. All because of adherence to a stupid-ass zero tolerance policy (as are all zero tolerance policies) where right or wrong doesn’t matter, just make it go away so it doesn’t show up on the Glenn Beck Histrionics Hour? What a bunch of weak-kneed, pants-wetting cowards.

Also, regarding this from the agriculture secretary; I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this afternoon took responsibility for firing an official, Shirley Sherrod whose appearance on video recalling her behavior toward a white farmer drew charges of racism, and whose immediate firing drew suggestions that the administration had over-reacted to an edited video clip. A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack’s decision — but that it was Vilsack’s alone. The official said the White House — contrary to the Sherrod’s charge — did not pressure the Department to fire her.”

Bullshit. This high profile of a firing done this quickly isn’t done by a USDA deputy undersecretary or even the Secretary of Agriculture without being run by somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shirley Sherrod is owed two things. First and foremost, her job back. Immediately. Secondly,  apologies from everyone involved. Both should come as quickly and as publicly as was her hasty dismissal. Let’s also hope a lesson has been learned here. When Breitbart releases a video and Fox News cranks up their RNC propaganda machine, will somebody please check out the veracity before the condemnations and firings begin?

Obama and Axelrod’s Mixed Messages

12 Monday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

To whom it may concern at the White House and the DNC:

If you want to lose the House and possibly the Senate in November, if you want to increase the possibility of the 2 most dreaded words in the English language—President Palin—becoming a reality in 2012, keep the lack of a cohesive message coming. And keep on waiting for the GOP to get on board.

First have President Obama come out on a Thursday with a speech focusing on job creation—saying how we can’t afford to give the keys back to the Republicans because they’re the ones whose policies “gave us the economic crisis” and drove the economy into the ditch. This is called firing up the base for the upcoming mid-term elections. (BTW, mid-term elections are all about turning out the base, and in case you haven’t noticed the Republican base is ready to vote today).

Then have David Axelrod go on This Week on Sunday and say that “there is no great desire on Capitol Hill” for more spending to stimulate the economy and that “we’re hoping we can persuade enough people on the other side of the aisle to put politics aside and join us.”  This makes your base throw up their hands (or just throw up) and say ‘For cryin’ out loud, somebody get a freakin’  clue. The Republicans don’t want anything that resembles economic growth, now or in the next 2 years. When are you guys gonna get it?’

Here are some steps you might want to consider and some advice you might want to listen to. First from Atrios:

“So let’s say Obama’s people have correctly deduced that there’s no chance in hell of getting anything through Congress. They have two basic options. First, they could get on the teevee every day and say, “This is my plan to help. Republicans in Congress won’t pass it.” They could hold rallies in Maine. Allies could run ads. At least people would know who is for and who is against…and just what it was that people are for or against.”

Option two is back off proposals you’ve previously made and have Axelrod get on the teevee and say, “there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

Paul Krugman adds:

“I have no idea what they’re thinking. It would be one thing if polls suggested a tolerable outcome in November, so that playing it safe could possibly make sense as a political strategy. But that’s not the way it is; and it’s hard to see what possible motivation there is for pulling punches.”

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:

“My sense is that President Obama really hates — and actively avoids — picking fights he fully expects to lose…The defeat would leave him weaker, exacerbate intra-party tensions, and at the same time signal that the White House lacks confidence in the strength of the economic recovery.

But the current alternative is far worse, especially given the fact that the White House should lack confidence in the strength of the economic recovery. It makes a lot more sense to push an ambitious jobs bill — like, now — invite Republicans to do what they always do, give Democrats something to fight for, and have the debate.

[…]

Yes, Republicans will block any measure intended to improve the economy, and it’s largely too late for a new stimulus effort to boost the economy before November. But it’s still worth having the fight — force the GOP to stand in the way of job creation, and show the public that Democrats are prepared to fight to improve on an unsatisfactory status quo.”

To sum up, you’re quickly approaching (if not already at) ‘nothing to lose’ stage. In sports terminology, this is not the time for basketball’s 4-corner offense or football’s prevent defense. (Long-time Houston fans can tell you how both of those work out, and it ain’t good. See UH–NC State and Oilers vs. Buffalo Bills). For those who don’t follow sports, let’s go with “faint heart never won fair maiden.” And faint heart never kicked the shit out of an obstructionist Republican either. It’s time to go bold and force the other team to re-act to you, not you to them.

Just my $0.02.

Politicization of the DOJ Hasn’t “Changed”

06 Tuesday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A trip down memory lane:

“Remember the plaintive cries of Democrats and progressives about the wrongful politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush/Cheney Administration? Remember the stunning chart Sheldon Whitehouse whipped out at a Senate judiciary hearing on Alberto Gonzales’ tenure as AG showing how politicized the hallowed independent prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ had become under Bush, Cheney and Gonzales? The one that Pat Leahy called “the most astounding thing I have seen in 32 years?

That was in late April of 2007, little more than three years ago.”

Fast forward to Sunday (emphasis added):

…the decision on where to hold the high-profile trials of Mohammed and four others accused of being Sept. 11 conspirators has been put on hold and probably will not be made until after November’s midterm elections, according to law enforcement, administration and congressional sources.

In an unusual twist, the matter has been taken out of the hands of the Justice Department officials who usually make prosecutorial decisions and rests entirely with the White House, the sources said.

“It’s a White House call,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “We’re all in the dark.”

Attorney General Eric Holder says it ain’t so:

“Holder, at a June 17 news conference, denied any political motive. “The conversations that we are having are ongoing,” he said. “The political thing . . . the fact of the elections, is not a part of the conversations at all.”

And if you’ll buy that…..

Democrats Cave on Torture Amendment: So What Else Is New?

26 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Constitution, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, torture, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

While all the attention in Washington yesterday was focused on the posturing and pontificating over health care reform, there was something else going on. Democratic Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, proposed an amendment to the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. The amendment is called the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Prohibition Act of 2010 which, in essence, does nothing more than codify what already exists in Articles 1 and 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. You know that treaty which under Article VI of the Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” but was signed and ratified pre-9/11 so is no longer applicable, apparently.

The amendment prohibits such acts as waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, and mock executions among others. In other words, pretty much the chart toppers on the Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld/Yoo/Bybee hit parade. It applies to any “U.S. national, or any officer, employee, contractor, or subcontractor of the Federal government,” with punishment for violation being “fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both,” unless death results. Then the imprisonment is “any term of years or for life.”

And right on cue, here came the torture defenders, led by Liz Cheney, playing the predictable “keeping us safe” card:

“Late last night, Democrats in the House of Representatives inserted a provision dubbed “The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Act of 2010” into the intelligence authorization bill. This new language targets the US intelligence community with criminal penalties for using methods they have deemed necessary for keeping America safe. These methods have further been found by the Department of Justice to be both legal and in keeping with our international obligations.”

Sorry Liz, but just because they were found legal by the pretzel logic of Daddy’s Justice Department (and sadly, found to be merely “poor judgment” by the current Justice Department) doesn’t mean they are legal. It just means that laws and treaties have become an a la carte menu in post 9/11 America. We now pick and choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore. Again, sadly.

According to Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, the amendment is also not popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (sigh):

“The White House isn’t happy; they’ve already threatened to veto the bill because it, in their mind, it infringes upon the rights of the executive branch by forcing the administration to disclose more about intelligence operations to more members of Congress.”

That sounds a lot like a previous administration to me. (Double sigh).

And speaking of right on cue, all House Republicans had to do was give the insinuation that they would accuse Democrats of being ‘soft on terror’ and ‘coddling terrorists’ and the gutless, spineless, Democratic leadership pulled the bill.