Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Does anyone believe the Republicans won't open up a full assault of the Democrats over this in November, despite the fact that nearly all the Republicans will vote against it too?

After passing health care legislation to make health care more affordable, deficit hawk Democrats have let COBRA subsidies lapse for millions of Americans, who will lose their health insurance as a result.

Some conservative Democrats, however, say they don't understand why the government should subsidize workers who lose jobs with employer coverage and not others who are equally deserving — for example self-employed people priced out of the private market.

"You're paying 65 percent of (one) family's health care costs, but the neighbor next door, there's no help for," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif. "So we're picking and choosing. There's an inequality there between our constituents." Not to mention that Congress has treated the program as emergency spending, adding its cost to the deficit.

In Marietta, Ohio, boiler operator Neil Davis is facing the loss of his job as the coal-burning power plant he works at prepares to shut down for good. Davis, 33, has marketable skills but he's unsure how quickly he'll be able to find comparable work. His wife is a stay-at-home mom raising two elementary-age children.

"Being able to have coverage at an affordable rate, we wouldn't be afraid to take the kids to the doctor if they get sick," said Davis. "The economy might be getting better some place, but I don't know where at."

Those folks aren't exactly going to be inclined to think the Dems are any better than the Republicans come November. They're going to not vote at all, or worse, vote for the Republicans just to make a point of firebagging the Dems.

I'm sure the Republicans have the best interests of the Democrats in Congress when they advise conservative Dems to vote against health insurance subsidies, too.  The problem is plenty of Democrats believe it...or are believing in it as a way to justify being deficit hawks when doing so now will knock the blocks out from what little recovery there is going on.

Oil's Well That Doesn't End Well For This Oil Well, Part 17

The Coast Guard has given BP until the end of the weekend to come up with a plan to contain the rest of the spilling oil as Alabama beaches are now under assault by wave after wave of tarballs.

The Coast Guard initially sent a letter to BP on Wednesday asking for more details on its plans to contain the oil. BP responded, saying a new system to trap oil spewing from the well should be complete by mid-July.

That system's new design is meant to better withstand the force of hurricanes and could capture about 2 million gallons of oil daily when fully built, the oil giant said.

But Watson said he was concerned that BP's plans didn't maximize resources or "go far enough to mobilize redundant resources" in the event of an equipment failure or another problem.

"BP must identify in the next 48 hours additional leak containment capacity that could be operationalized and expedited to avoid the continued discharge of oil," Watson wrote.

BP spokesman Jon Pack said the company received Watson's letter and would respond to it as soon as possible.

Mid-July isn't going to be good enough.  But what can the Coast Guard actually do if BP doesn't go faster?  I'm thinking "not much of anything."  The reality is hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil are still escaping BP's cap, and unless another measure is put in place, the damage will spread to Florida next.

We're well past the point of simply threatening BP.

World Cupdate

In Group B action, South Korea put on a clinic for the Greeks as the Reds sink the Pirate Ship (hey, nicknames are universal, folks) winning 2-0, and and early goal by Gabriel Ivan Heinze gives the Gauchos the 1-0 win over Nigeria.

But the big news is after England went up in the 4th minute after Steven Gerard dashed past the keeper Howard, an even sloppier bit of keeping from England's Rob Green allowed Clint Dempsey to equalize at the 40th.  Neither team played very well in the second half, just banging it out.  Landon Donovan however does get serious credit for the USA as he was the bright spot in an otherwise middling contest.

Tim Howard kept the USA in this game.  In all seriousness it should have been 1-0 England, but the USA played well above their usual level and England below, especially keeper Green and James Milner, who played like a rookie and got yanked after 31.

Still, a point is a point, and both teams are lucky to be walking away with that much from the draw.

The Newest Winger Outrage

Orange Julius doubles down on the Republican "fiscal responsibility" record by saying Obama has shown a "stunning failure of leadership".

You know, unlike the last time we had Republicans in charge.

In this week's Republican internet and radio address, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, takes on President Obama and congressional Democrats over federal spending.


Among other things, Boehner notes that the Democratically-led Congress is yet to produce a budget more than two months after the historical deadline for doing so.

“This is a stunning failure of leadership – the kind of leadership President Obama promised to provide," Boehner says in the address.

I like how the Republicans have abdicated any responsibility for America right now.  On one hand they vow that things like the filibuster are necessary for the Republicans to "protect Democracy" and on the other hand they use it so often that nothing gets accomplished in Washington and then they complain that it's the Democrats' fault.  Verbatim stupid from Orange Julius:

"“Real economic growth requires creating jobs in the private sector, and to do that we need to start reining in Washington’s out-of-control spending spree. Less spending, more jobs – it’s that simple."

If it was that simple, why haven't you magically done it yet?

Talking It Over

President Obama is set to have a discussion about BP with new British Prime Minister David Cameron today.  While a lot of focus has been on Obama's response to the massive oil geyser, this is Cameron's first big international test and so far he's been playing the protectionist card publicly.

With tensions simmering on both sides of the Atlantic, BP's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is set to top the agenda of talks Saturday between US and British leaders.

The White House said that President Barack Obama is to call British Prime Minister David Cameron from the Oval Office.

The two men will likely seek to ease tensions after Obama stepped up his criticism of BP over the spill, the biggest man-made environmental disaster in the United States, and Cameron threw his support behind a "financially strong" BP.

Obama has summoned BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to meet with him in Washington next Wednesday, criticized chief executive Tony Hayward, and fired a warning over shareholder payouts.

British newspapers in turn have demanded that Cameron stand up to Obama in the phone call.

I fail to see how this should really some sort of international pissing contest (unlike today's England/USA World Cup matchup later today.)  Cameron should of course defend his country's interests, but the bottom line here is that BP literally blew it and will have to pay for it whether Cameron likes it or not.  Rallying around BP here is as much a loser internationally as it is here in the states.

Secondly, how does Cameron "stand up" here?  Surely the corporate community in the UK doesn't want him to threaten trade sanctions or something lunatic like that, right?  Cameron's got enough problems on his plate with his whole crazy Neo-Hoover cutback scheme.  If anything he's going to have to tread lightly here, because BP is clearly in the wrong.

We'll see.

Birth Of A Nation

As I said yesterday, the demographics are grim for the Republicans.  America is growing less and less white and the GOP sees that as a direct threat to their power base.  The "cultural protectionist" card that they have been playing for the last couple of decades is now starting to backfire tremendously as antipathy towards African-Americans, Latinos, and gays (and hey let's not forget Republicans attacking their own either over race) are driving more and more minorities away from the GOP for good.

The Republicans see the key to this not changing their own ingrained bigotry, but by denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants in violation of the 14th Amerndment (and hoping for the Roberts Court to approve of it.)  Once again, the laboratory of democracy bigotry is the state of Arizona.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

If you have any doubts that Arizona is the vanguard of a coordinated, national effort by Republicans to rid the country of "undesirables" who will not vote GOP, I'm sure the actions of the Arizona GOP has put that to rest.  This should bury it for good:

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans. 

Republicans complained bitterly about Obama's creeping fascism and the dangers of his coming police state tha would bend America to his will, screaming about dark fantasies involving concentration camps and the coming armed rebellion...and these are the same people who see no problem subverting the Constitution to get rid of Latinos whose children may grow up one day to really, really not like the Republican Party.

The larger question is that all this will be going before the Roberts Court for certainty.  The fact that would almost certainly be four of the five votes in favor of making Arizona's discriminatory laws the new national standard on day one is exactly what the Republicans are counting on here.  For all their complaining of activist judges, Republicans are looking to recreate Jim Crow laws for the 21st century, and are expecting the Supreme Court to find a way to make it legal.

If your citizenship under the Constitution can be denied you under the laws of states, then America is in deep, deep trouble.  And you can bet Republicans are eager to define who qualifies as a "real American".

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• A series of global protests against BP will take place today in over 50 world cities.
• New legislation is forcing Amtrak to come up with plans to allow passengers to carry guns on commuter trains or face shutdown.
• Republican anger over the health care legislation debate could lead to Obama's pick to head Medicare to be blocked.
• Australian farmers are facing a horde of locusts which could damage the world's wheat supply.
• The FDA wants to regulate consumer-level genetic tests, saying they qualify as medical devices.

Last Call

At some point, the people of Minnesota are going to have to admit to themselves that Michele Bachmann is just too damn embarrassing to represent them in Congress.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said that she could take out President Obama if she were ever caught in the mind-boggling and improbable scenario of engaging the nation's leader in a physical fight.

Bachmann touted her toughness in an interview Thursday with Ben Shapiro of BigGovernment.com:

SHAPIRO: I want to ask you, speaking of his violent language, and he's been brutal on BP, talking about putting his boot on the throat of BP, talking about how he wants to go down there and kick someone's ass -- frankly, Michele, I think you could take President Obama, off the record. 

BACHMANN: Hey, I took karate when I was 17 years old, I am dangerous.

Oh, it gets worse.

"The only thing is people wish Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, because they'd honestly love to have a chance to throw him out of office," Bachmann said. "Everywhere I go, people ask me, "Michele, can we impeach the president? They want a referendum on him."

The woman is a joke.  She casually talks about impeaching the President for no good reason other than she disagrees with him.  That's the kind of "democracy" she wants.

Luckily, the people of Minnesota get to have a referendum on Michele Bachmann first.

To Leak Or Not To Leak

The story of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is getting pretty Tom Clancy-like here.  Wikileaks is the site that broke the story of a military video from a US Apache helicopter showing two Reuters journalists killed back in April.  The Defense Department tracked down the military source of that video, an Army intel analyst named Bradley Manning, who was arrested at his base in Iraq earlier this week.

Here, the story gets really, really weird.  The Pentagon believes Manning leaked a hell of a lot more than just that video, and they want to stop Wikileaks before they potentially compromise US national security.  That means the DoD wants to have a little chat with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast.

The officials acknowledge that even if they found the website founder, Julian Assange, it is not clear what they could do to block publication of the cables on Wikileaks, which is nominally based on a server in Sweden and bills itself as a champion of whistleblowers.

The cables themselves, as you can guess from Manning being in Iraq, are of the very sensitive "involving our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan" kind of thing.

As The Daily Beast reported June 8, Manning, while posted in Iraq, apparently had special access to cables prepared by diplomats and State Department officials throughout the Middle East, regarding the workings of Arab governments and their leaders, according to an American diplomat.

The cables, which date back over several years, went out over interagency computer networks available to the Army and contained information related to American diplomatic and intelligence efforts in the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the diplomat said.

American officials would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now. "We'd like to know where he is; we'd like his cooperation in this," one U.S. official said of Assange.

In other words, these cables date back to the Bush years, and if wikileaks does drop this little nuke, it could seriously harm our ongoing relations with, oh, let's say everybody.

I've seen arguments on both sides of this.  On one side, if Bush and Cheney (and yes, even Obama and Hillary) cut some sort of really horrible deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. then the American people need to know about it.

On the other hand, we kinda do have a couple hundred thousand US troops in the way right now, and if these cables are as bad as people are saying they are, then our troops could be in real trouble.  (I mean more than they already are, being in what amounts to a permanent war zone.)

As much as I despise the wars, pragmatic reality is that should these cables be really, really damning to the point of destabilizing what remains of the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and especially nuclear-armed Pakistan, we could be in a hell of a lot of trouble.

The ends do not justify the means.  The didn't when Bush was President, they don't now.

World Cupdate

South Africa opened play as the host country in Group A action in the 2010 FIFA World Cup with a surprising 1-1 tie with Mexico, and that was only because a late equalizer saved Mexico.  Meanwhile, France's Les Bleus Les Blew it and just couldn't get anything done in the second Group A match, drawing 0-0 with Uruguay in an ugly game.

Host team has got to be feeling good after today, drawing up Mexico like that.

Tomorrow:  Group B, S. Korea vs Greece and the Gauchos take on Nigeria, and the Big Match for us in Group C in the late game, England vs the U.S.

If You Walk Down The Middle Of The Road...

...eventually you'll get flattened by a semi truck.  The voters in Arkansas are driving that truck in 2010, and Blanche Lincoln is skipping down the center line, seemingly oblivious.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) may have hoped she'd put the primary behind her, but it will continue to haunt her for weeks to come. Now that she's running full-time in the general election against Rep. John Boozman, Lincoln is once again shoring up her right flank, tiptoeing away from the rhetoric she used to defeat Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. The results are...awkward.

For instance, in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Lincoln tried to dispel the notion that she cast the deciding vote for health care reform, which remains unpopular in Arkansas.

"I wasn't the deciding vote," Lincoln said. "I was among a handful of five Democrats that worked on getting consensus."

There's some truth to that. But where did the Democrat-Gazette get the notion that Lincoln tipped health care into the Democrats' win column? From Blanche Lincoln, who in the below ad said, " I grew up in an Arkansas family where we were taught to solve problems, not through hate and anger, but by coming together and getting something done. That's why I cast the deciding vote to pass health care reform."

No really, that's exactly what her "I'm a good Democrat!" primary ad says.

And less than 4 days after the primary, Blanche Lincoln is already running away as far as possible from her health care reform vote after claiming she was the person that cast the deciding vote. Democrat or not, that's pretty scuzzy.

Not going to be particularly sorry to see her lose in November either. 

Play It Again, Orange Julius

Stop the presses!  John "Orange Julius" Boehner has solved the country's financial problems with a seemingly brilliant plan:  more tax cuts like the ones that ruined our economy and added trillions to our debt in the first place.  Brian Beutler calls shenanigans:

"You equate the idea of lowering marginal tax rates with less revenue for the federal government," Boehner cautioned. "We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment, and more people paying taxes. And if you look at the revenue growth over those 30 years, you've got a prime example of what we've been talking about."

This is practically the reverse of the truth. In the years after the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, economic growth and employment were significantly lower than they were after Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increases. According to Michael Ettlinger and John Irons of the Center for American Progress, "Over the seven-year periods after each legislative action, average annual growth was 3.9 percent following [Clinton's 1993 tax increase], 3.5 percent following [Reagan's 1981 tax cut], and 2.5 percent following [Bush's 2001 tax cut]."

But beyond the factual contradiction, Boehner appeared to be in denial about the real impact of the Bush tax cuts. Another reporter followed up: "Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts didn't effect the deficits that we're in now?"

Boehner halted for a moment, then shrugged: "The reductions in '01 and '03 were to respond to an economic problem. '01 was done before 9/11. '03 was done in response to what happened to the economy. But that's not what led to the budget deficit. It's not the marginal tax rates. If you look at the problem that we've got here, it's a spending problem, that has grown over the last five or six years. A real spending problem. "

I've got news for you there OJ, the "spending problem" is your "Bush Tax Cuts" problem.

The Bush tax cuts got us into this mess. MORE tax cuts will not get us out. Besides, listening to the economic theories that created this mess and then repeating those same mistakes seems like a pretty stupid idea if you think about it. What kind of shape would our economy be in if we weren't still bogged down in two wars and dealing with Bush's multi-trillion dollar gift to his buddies?

Only now, the Serious Washington Centrist have decided that somebody needs to pay for it through massive spending cuts.

PS, the massive spending cuts aren't going to affect the people who can afford to live without them.

That Deflated Feeling

Hey look, after folks like myself and the Kroog and Roubini and anyone who's been paying attention to the economic situation at hand here, even the Wall Street Journal's cementheads have figured out that the problem is not inflation, it's deflation and it always has been.

Deflation makes it harder for consumers, businesses and governments to pay off debts. Principal repayments on debt are fixed but deflation is marked by falling incomes, so as deflation sets in the burden of paying off old debts gets greater.

Officials fret about deflation because it is hard to stop. Interest rates are already near zero in the U.S. and elsewhere, so policy makers can't use the traditional tool of rate cuts to spur growth and stop deflation.

That's an acute worry today. In addition to government debt, U.S. households are still trying to work off large debt burdens built up in the last two decades. A Federal Reserve report Thursday showed households cut their borrowings in the first quarter to $13.5 trillion, down from a peak of $13.9 trillion in 2008.

One leading indicator, Ireland, which has already experienced deflation amid severe fiscal austerity, reported Thursday that consumer prices were down 1.1% from a year earlier in May, though the declines have moderated in the past few months.

In the U.S. the threat looks more remote, but economists are beginning to warn that if the recovery falters, the risk of a deflation bout will increase.

In one sign of rising alertness to the threat, yields on 10-year Treasury bonds—which fall when inflation worries recede and rise when inflation worries increase—have dropped from nearly 4% in early April to about 3.3%.

We can't cut interest rates to stimulate the economy because we're already at zero.  Demand is dropping due to increasing unemployment.  Increasing unemployment is making people nervous and they are buying less stuff...hence a decrease in demand, prices have to be pushed down, and deflation rears its ugly head.

We're at the point where government spending to defibrillate the economy is the last resort.  Yes, this will mean raising short-term deficits.  We have to put money back into the economy because so much wealth has been removed by falling real estate prices and the banks losing trillions more playing the Big Casino.  This is going to mean more spending is necessary, or we're going to lock up like an engine without any oil.

If even the WSJ is talking about deflation, then you know it's a concern to the big players in the financial world.  The pushback against the deficit hawks is beginning, and not a moment too soon.  Let's hope that the Democrats are listening.

Every Little Bit Helps

The good news: a California company says it can manufacture a powder that will soak up oil and wants to know why BP and the government hasn't tapped it for help.

The company, Mobius Technologies, grinds foam from desk chairs and car seats into a powder. Applied to oil, the powder — called micronized polyurethane powder — quickly absorbs the oil and forms a cake that floats on water indefinitely.

"We're just the best sorbent solution that hasn't been applied," said Mobius manager Brian Hennessy.

The company submitted its idea to BP online several weeks ago but hasn't received a response. BP spokesman Mark Proegler said it received 80,000 such suggestions from the public. He said he hadn't heard of Mobius.

Now the company has enlisted the help of Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, who is backing its push to get its powder tested by BP for possible use in the gulf. Matsui wrote a letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson on Monday urging Jackson to look into BP's lack of response.

The bad news: given the 80 million plus gallons out there in the Gulf now, it's going to take 160 million pounds of this power to sop up all the oil.  They don't have nearly that much.
Mobius said it has 2 million pounds of the powder in warehouses that could reach the gulf within five days. That amount would soak up about 1 million gallons of oil – or roughly 25,000 barrels, Hennessy said.

The company can produce 1 million pounds every 10 days after that, said its media director Michael Cudahy.
This thing is blasting out at least that much oil per day.  Slurping up the oil into floating bricks of yellow sytrofoam would be a great idea if we had, oh, another 80,000 tons of the stuff.

Still, every bit has to help and it has to be better than allowing this stuff to hit the coast.

I hope.  The really obnoxious part is that we're down to plan Z here on the cleanup, which is "throw everything we have at this crap and pray".  Doesn't the fact we have to rely on this type of technology mean we have to invest far more in safely drilling, and even more than that in getting off oil period?

Dumber Than A Bag Of Hammers

Via the Rumpies, meet Darren Wesley Huff, America's newest example of yet another right-wing birther-obsessed gun-toting moron trying to take his armed Obama Derangement Syndrome revenge out on an entire Georgia town.

Armed to the gills, this Georgia militiaman declared himself ready to die for the cause - vowing to seize control of the tiny town of Sweetwater and round up the traitors blocking the indictment of President Barack Obama for his treasonous turn as commander-in-chief.

It was a plan Darren Wesley Huff revealed over and over again to a slew of people, from a bank manager in his hometown to the FBI to Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers to a talk-radio audience.

Thanks in large part to his public confessions, Huff faces his own indictment on federal charges of ferrying guns and ammunition across state lines with the purpose of inciting riotous violence.

The man who Huff said inspired him to act - Monroe County resident and "sworn Obama enemy" Walter Fitzpatrick - also faces indictment in state court.

Yeah, this joker went around telling everyone he could find that he was plotting to take over the town and die for his cause doing so.  It gets worse:

It all started last year when Fitzpatrick, a retired military man whose beef with the government goes back two decades when he faced a court-martial, tried to get a Monroe County grand jury to indict Obama for treason. The grounds? Obama, Fitzpatrick contended, was not really born in the U.S.


When the grand jury refused to consider the case, Fitzpatrick began issuing a series of "complaints," naming some two dozen federal, state and local officials, all of whom he accused of misconduct for failing to arrest, charge or remove the president from office.

He and fellow "birthers" showed up in early April at the Monroe County Courthouse to begin effecting his own "citizen's arrests" when, according to the FBI complaint, he wound up arrested instead on charges that include inciting a riot.

The FBI alleges Huff, a Dalton, Ga., man who claims membership in a militia, decided to join Fitzpatrick's cause and told anyone who would listen - including FBI agents - that he and fellow militiamen intended to show up at Fitzpatrick's April 20 preliminary hearing to seize the town if necessary to free Fitzpatrick and help him carry out his citizen's arrests.

And there's plenty more idiots out there like Huff that have become so deranged that they are now a danger to themselves and others, people that had no problem with Bush's illegal wiretapping of Americans or his two wars or torturing people are willing to now martyr themselves to get Barack Obama out of the White House.

You know, there's a word we have for people who try to incite changes in government policy through campaigns of armed resistance and martyrdom to show loyalty to their cause.  We just refuse to apply the word "terrorist" to Americans who want to do it.

When I say America has a serious domestic terrorism problem, this is exactly what I mean.