Last Call

As I've been saying, the downside of such a long recession is that unemployment benefits are running out for people. The NY Times is reporting about 1.5 million unemployed are going to slip through the system here before the end of the year.

Because of emergency extensions already enacted by Congress, laid-off workers in nearly half the states can collect benefits for up to 79 weeks, the longest period since the unemployment insurance program was created in the 1930s. But unemployment in this recession has proved to be especially tenacious, and a wave of job-seekers is using up even this prolonged aid.

Tens of thousands of workers have already used up their benefits, and the numbers are expected to soar in the months to come, reaching half a million by the end of September and 1.5 million by the end of the year, according to new projections by the National Employment Law Project, a private research group.

Unemployment insurance is now a lifeline for nine million Americans, with payments averaging just over $300 per week, varying by state and work history. While many recipients find new jobs before exhausting their benefits, large numbers in the current recession have been unable to find work for a year or more.

Calls are rising for Congress to pass yet another extension this fall, possibly adding 13 more weeks of coverage in states with especially high unemployment. As of June, the national unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, reaching 15.2 percent in Michigan. Even if the recession begins to ease, economists say, jobs will remain scarce for some time to come.

And the pain goes on and on and on. These people will be the next to contribute to the wave of foreclosures and other problems. Home prices will remain low or fall as more homes enter the market. That in turn will continue to drive more people out of their homes as their mortgages go underwater.

Despite the turnaround in the Dow, the reality is that the economy will be stuck in the doldrums for a very, very long time.

Zandar's Thought Of the Day

There isn't anything that a Wingnut can say on TV that will ever get them kicked off the air. Ever. It doesn't matter how large the lie is, or how many times they say it, they will end up right back on as a guest or a host to spew the same lies over and over again.

The more controversial, the more patently absurd, the more dishonest it is, the faster and more often you get your time on the TV to repeat your lie as the truth.

Not Content With The Content

Double G details the most concerning part of the "end of the feud" between GE and News Corp...errm...Olbermann and O'Reilly.

Though Olbermann denies he was part of any deal, the NYT says that there has been virtually no criticism of Fox by Olbermman, or MSNBC by O'Reilly, since June 1 when the deal took effect. That's mostly but not entirely true. On June 17, after President Obama accused Fox News of fomenting hostility towards his agenda, and Fox responded by saying that the "other networks" were pure pro-Obama outlets, Olbermann did voice fairly stinging criticisms of Fox as "more of a political entity than is the Republican National Committee right now, only it's fraudulently disguised as some sort of news organization."

But a review of all of Olbermann's post-June 1 shows does reveal that he has not ever criticized (or even mentioned) Bill O'Reilly since then and barely ever mentions Fox News any longer. And on June 1 -- the last time Olbermann mentioned O'Reilly -- Olbermann claimed at the end of his broadcast that he would cease referring to O'Reilly in the future because ignoring him (and "quarantining" Fox) would supposedly help get O'Reilly off the air ("So as of this show‘s end, I will retire the name, the photograph, and the caricature").

So here we have yet another example -- perhaps the most glaring yet -- of the corporations that own our largest media outlets controlling and censoring the content of their news organizations based on the unrelated interests of the parent corporation.

It's not surprising, of course. News outlets are businesses that are there to make money...or at least help the parent company make money through other means.

This is hardly the first time evidence of corporate control over the content of NBC and MSNBC has surfaced. Last May, CNN's Jessica Yellin said that when she was at MSNBC, "the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this [the Iraq War] was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation"; "the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives ... to put on positive stories about the president"; and "they would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive." Katie Couric said that when she was at NBC, "there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations" not to be too critical of the Bush administration. MSNBC's rising star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then fired after she criticized news media organizations generally, and Fox News specifically, for distorting their war coverage to appear more pro-government. And, of course, when MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show in the run-up to the Iraq war despite its being that network's highest-rated program, a corporate memo surfaced indicating that the company had fears of being associated with an anti-war and anti-government message.

And now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC -- ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer -- because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE. The corporations that own our largest news organizations have extensive relationships with the federal government. Anyone (like Charlie Rose) who denies that those relationships influence how these news organizations "report" on the government -- driven by the desire which corporate executives have to avoid alienating the government officials on whom their corporate interests depend, or avoid alienating potential customer bases for their products -- is completely delusional. GE's forcing Keith Olbermann to cease his criticism of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is a clear and vivid example of how that works.

A gentleman's agreement between two massive media companies. What could be more American?

Explains why the Village gets so testy when they are threatened with losing their gatekeeper role of what America is supposed to think. Corporations that control media empires don't take kindly to having to fight out in the open, so when the media fighting gets personal, the bosses get a little cranky.

Behind every Villager is a corporate agenda.

Alabama Bound (And Gagged)

Alabama's largest county faces massive layoffs and a near-discontinuation of most of the county's public services as Jefferson County, home of Birmingham, is now out of time and money.

It is hardly unusual these days for a government building to forgo a fresh paint job or regular lawn care to cut costs. But last week, the director of the Jefferson County public nursing home was told that the county could no longer afford to bury indigent patients.

Across town at the juvenile detention center, the man in charge was trying to figure out how to feed the 28 children in his custody when the entire cafeteria staff is let go. The tax collector warned local school districts to expect a six-month delay to get their share of property taxes. In family court, administrators plan to delay child support, custody and child abuse cases, leaving some children in the hands of the state indefinitely.

In every part of Jefferson County — Alabama’s most populous county and its main economic engine — government managers have been scrambling to prepare for Saturday, when two-thirds of county employees eligible for layoffs — up to 1,400 — will be lost in an effort to stave off financial ruin.

“Outside of the city of Detroit,” said Robert A. Kurrter, a managing director with Moody’s Investors Service, “it’s fair to say we haven’t seen any place in America with the severity of problems that they’re experiencing in Jefferson County.” Moody’s rates Jefferson County’s credit lower than any other municipality in the country.

In July, the county asked Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican, to declare a state of emergency. Mr. Riley declined, delicately explaining that his authority extended to tornadoes but not to tsunamis of red ink.

And keep in mind folks that this is Alabama, not California. It's the Republicans that run the show here. Yeah, there are Democrats involved too, but they're not the ones calling the shots, especially in the Statehouse. Jefferson County Republicans are blaming state Republicans and vice versa. At the heart of the problem is a "subprime" bond-swap blowup and a sewer system overhaul project that was riddled with corruption and kickbacks, plus a county "occupation tax" that exempted "professionals" like doctors and lawyers from having to pay, meaning in Jefferson County, the bulk of people paying the tax were poor. (Regressive taxes. Gotta love 'em.)

But the only reason the tax was repealed was that the state delegation from Jefferson County wanted to earmark that money for their own projects, not the county's. The county officials told them to go to hell, and the state lawmakers then repealed the tax out of pique. The county continued to collect the tax for another ten years after it was repealed in 1999 while the matter went to court.

Jefferson County lost in January. They lost big time. The repeal was ruled valid. And suddenly this huge, nasty good ol' boy situation turned into a Jerry Springer fight.

Now it's the folks of Jefferson County who have to pay.

Probate Court will shrink to 13 people, from 54, to process wills, adoptions, and commitments of the mentally ill. There used to be 488 people repairing roads and bridges; there will soon be 89. Doug McCutcheon, who has worked in the county maintenance department for 24 years, will be out of work, and so will his cousin Tim McCutcheon, who will have two daughters in college in the fall.

Adrilisa Steele, 34, a juvenile probation officer, said, “We are probably going to be standing in line for services like everyone else.”

Ms. Steele meant lines for unemployment insurance and food stamps, but at the courthouse, the lines for car tags or driver’s licenses were already very long. People waited for more than two hours, fearful that come Monday, those routine tasks would become much harder. The general attitude, not surprisingly, was one of indiscriminate disgust. Neither the commissioners, nor the legislators nor Wall Street escaped blame.

Will the county commissioners, state lawmakers or Wall Street titans lose their jobs? Eventually. But not this weekend like two-thirds of the county employees. And the solution?

Why, to try to reinstate that "occupational" tax on the county's poor...which would now ironically include the soon to be laid off county employees.

Gotta love it.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed its version of health care reform, 31-28.
• The economic crisis continues to his Cuba's fragile economy hard, prompting suspension of its Communist Party congress.
• President Obama has offered one of the U.S. Attorneys fired by Bush his old job back at the DoJ.
• Three more Bank of America board members have resigned, bringing the total to ten.
• A federal jury has awarded the RIAA $675,000 from serial music downloader Joel Tenenbaum.

Last Call

No matter what Barack Obama does, the GOP attacks him relentlessly. If he says something about race and America, he is attacked for being a racist and the GOP demands an apology.

Congress would demand that President Obama apologize to the officer the president said had "acted stupidly" in the arrest of a prominent Harvard professor under a resolution set to be introduced by one Michigan lawmaker.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) will introduce a House resolution on Monday demanding Obama retract and apologize for remarks he has made about Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley this past week.

If he tries to mends those fences like the GOP wanted him to by meeting with both parties, well he gets attacked for that too.

Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jan Larimer criticized President Obama Friday for his White House meeting with a professor and a police officer, saying the president needs to focus on more important issues.

"We are at war and Barack Obama is talking about beer in the White House," Larimer said at the RNC's Summer Meeting. "And it is wrong. It is not what our country is about."

You see folks? No matter what the man does, the GOP attacks in order to "win" the news cycle. They don't care about the state of the country, or the economy, or the unemployment figures, or the environment, or health care, or any of the things average Americans are concerned with.

All they care about is beating Barack Obama and destroying his agenda. Period. Keep that in mind in August that the plan is to attack, attack, attack Democrats over the recess:

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

It's all they care about. They could give a rat's ass about you or me, but they want to make sure the Democrats lose. That's all that ever matters to them. That's where our political system is these days: a battle between a political party and organized hecklers.

Mind Like A Steele, Trapped

Who's the leader of the Republican Party? Not this guy.

It's been a bad day for RNC chairman Michael Steele, with his authority having now been seriously weakened.

The Republican National Committee has now imposed new controls on Steele's spending, requiring him to set up competitive bidding on contracts costing over $100,000 and to get a second signature on those contracts.

The RNC also also voted to postpone until January any vote on the formation of a special ethics committee, which Steele had proposed as a way to ensure transparency. "My concern is with members appointed by the chairman, as he wanted to do, you potentially don't have the transparency he promised when running for chairman," said North Dakota chairman Gary Emineth.

You really do have to wonder how long Michael Steele is going to put up with being treated like nothing more than the token big tent court jester. Considering how some of the rank and file local and state party officials and organizers view African-Americans, you would think Steele would protest a bit. Then again, we've already established the guy lacks personal pride or shame or, well, basic competence but at some point he's going to just say "screw you guys" and quit.

In Which Zandar Admits He Was Wrong

Well, this morning as the news that the Cash For Clunkers program was going to get more cash broke, and that the House was going to take up adding $2 billion (and the measure did pass today) I said:

Still, even I would have to believe this will get through the Senate next week. Suicidal if they didn't. Even the GOP is not this dumb.

Guess I was wrong!

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, tries to take up the House-passed "Cash for Clunkers" bill next week, he will hit a series of bipartisan road blocks.

Fox has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, will oppose any move to take up the House bill. Around here, we call that a filibuster.

McCain told Fox earlier today, "I not only wouldn't vote for the extra two billion, I was opposed to the initial billion. "

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee who ran as a deficit hawk, said, "Within a few weeks we will see that this process was abused by speculators and people who took advantage of what is basically a huge government subsidy of corporations that they already own. "I can't imagine that any taxpayer of America would have thought that the TARP, the financial recovery money, would be used now to subsidize the sale of automobiles in America."

This move by McCain has the potential to tie the Senate into procedural knots, just as Reid is planning to take up the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be the next justice on the Supreme Court. This debate, alone, is expected to consumer three days, as the Senate heads into the monthlong August recess after next Friday.

Are you kidding me? John McCain is going to try to filibuster Cash For Clunkers? Is he insane? Does the GOP not have enough of a problem with the Party of No label? They're going to to get destroyed over this. The GOP complains that the stimulus isn't working fast enough, and the one blazingly obvious part of the stimulus that is working and working now, the GOP wants to kill.

Now, the article does go on to say that DiFi and a couple other Democrats may have some problems reauthorizing the bill because it's not environmentally strict enough (this is FOX News after all) but realistically, they're not going to kill this bill if McCain is going to walk right into the jet engine intake on this one.

You do that, Maverick Man. Watch what happens!

Obama's American Identity

Expanding on the Birther silliness from this morning, I have to admit that for a conservative, Daniel Larison makes a surprising amount of sense.

If the President were McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone and whose status is therefore very slightly more ambiguous than Obama’s, this movement would not exist. The same people leading the charge today would probably be shouting down anyone who had the temerity to “raise questions” about McCain’s citizenship. I won’t rule out that race may have some role, but nationality and nationalism are far more important. Never underestimate how closely some of these partisans identify their own particular ideology and party with being truly American. The only way to make sense of the explosion of this lunacy is to see it as a continuation of the belief that Obama, by virtue of what he believes, cannot be a “real” American, so the obsession with his place of birth is really an extension of the presidential campaign in which he and his supporters were considered not to be from “real” America.

I'd however have to disagree on that point I bolded above: I think the exact opposite is true. Nationality and nationalism are nothing more than a socially acceptable smokescreen for attacking Obama when the reality is there are people that primarily do not like Barack Obama because of his race. It's nothing more than applied Lee Atwater. Obama's birth certificate is simply an avenue that people can attack him on in order to delegitimize him. You see the GOP play this card all the time on immigration, for instance.

Also, I'd be much more willing to believe that Birtherism was less of a racial attack and more of a "real American" identity issue if it wasn't be accompanied by direct racial attacks on the President, and the woman leading the charge for the Birthers wasn't herself an immigrant from Moldavia via Israel, which nobody in the movement seems to have a problem with.

It's racism with a coat of goofy paint.

You Kids Get Off My Lawn

John Cole brings up a damn good point:

I read somewhere that the fact that our seniors are all covered by medicare really makes health care reform difficult. When the most reliable voting bloc already has their coverage paid for by the state, all the Republicans have to do is peel off a few other haves and convince the old folks that Obama wants to euthanize them.

Why should senior citizens want health care for everyone else? There's really nothing in it for them. If you assume there's a finite number of doctors in America (there is) and a finite number of hospital beds (there is) and the major thing keeping people out of using those resources is cost, if you reduce that barrier so that more of those resources are being used, then while that's great for people who don't have health care, it's not so great for the people already getting it.

And still, that Gallup Poll that John was referencing still has a plurality of all age groups convinced that health care reform will be more expensive and make their own health care worse. Sixteen plus years of health insurance companies promising that the "government will ruin health care" has taken too much of a toll at this point. It's been ingrained into Americans that government is incable of improving the situation, no matter how bad the current status quo is. And after eight years of Bush, well...government hasn't exactly acquitted itself. After Katrina and Iraq and Afghanistan and the everything, would you? Even I have to admit that I can perfectly understand why people would think this way.

The problem is we know that the status quo is unsustainable. Something has to be done, but people are convinced the solution is worse than the problem. If there's a lasting legacy of the Bush years, it's that people in my generation will never trust the government again, even if it's not Bush's government.

Epic Government Cheese Win

House Dem Anthony Weiner of New York called out the GOP on their hatred of government health care and boxed them in on a bill to eliminate Medicare.

Not a single member of Congress voted for the amendment, and Republicans were blasting it as a “political farce.” Last night, Weiner went on MSNBC and explained the GOP’s hypocrisy:

WEINER: Well, for some reason, I guess Republicans don’t like publicly funded, publicly administered health plans except for Medicare, and, I guess, except for the Veterans Administration and except for the health care that our military gets from the Department of Defense. The fact of the matter is, what we’ve learned is that government administered health care works pretty darn well. It’s got lower overhead and people like it.

So, when my Republican colleagues pound the drum and pound the podium about how they hate government-run health care, I guess they haven’t looked at what they get.

So, the good Congressman basically has every Republican on record as supporting government health care, and that the government health care that we have already works for millions of Americans. Despite all the claims to the contrary, not a single Republican will vote against government health care when it comes right down to it.

If that isn't check and mate on these guys, I don't know what is.

Mike Weiner (D-NY): Your EPIC WIN of the day.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

The GOP is no longer interested in any progress whatsoever for health care reform and are actively saying that those who cooperate will be punished, like Finance Committee Republican Chuck Grassley.

Some Republicans have begun to warn that Mr. Grassley should tread carefully on the health care bill if he wants to become the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, a post that he is in line to take in the next Congress, when his term on the Finance Committee will be up.

And there have even been suggestions that Mr. Grassley, who is up for re-election next year, could face a primary challenge because of unhappiness among conservatives in his state over his support of the $787 billion bailout of the financial system last fall.

So of course there's not going to be a bipartisan deal. The Republicans are no longer operating in any semblance of good faith. They are going to sink this bill. Why are Democrats acting like there's still any hope of a bipartisan compromise? What good would it do? The Republicans don't want any bill. Period. I've explained time and time what happens if a health care bill is signed: the GOP is done. The Democrats will run Washington for a generation. They understand what is at stake, and the Democrats are playing Kabuki theater with them anyway.

What is it going to take, guys?

Working For Chicken Feed

While the financial industry is pulling in record bonuses in 2009, keep in mind the rest of us saw the lowest rise in wages on record since 1982.

Employment compensation for U.S. workers has grown over the past 12 months by the lowest amount on record, reflecting the severe recession that has gripped the country.

The Labor Department said Friday that employment costs rose by 1.8 percent for the 12 months ending in June, the smallest annual gain on records that go back to 1982.

The department said that for the April-June quarter, its Employment Cost Index rose by just 0.4 percent, just slightly above the 0.3 percent rise in the first quarter, which had been the smallest quarterly gain on record.

Companies, struggling to cope during the current hard times, have been laying off workers, trimming wage gains and holding down overtime to save costs.

The 1.8 percent increase in overall compensation for the past 12 months included a record low 1.8 percent rise in wages and salaries, which account for 70 percent of compensation costs.

Benefits, which include such things as health insurance and contributions to pension plans, also rose by 1.8 percent during the past year, the lowest annual gain in this category since a similar increase during the 12 months ending in September 1997.

Of course, this recession hasn't hurt compensation for those lucky recipients of taxpayer money:

Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which each lost more than $27 billion in 2008, handed out, respectively, $5.3 billion and $3.6 billion in bonuses. They also received TARP funding worth about $55 billion. Fun fact: Citigroup handed out bonuses of $1 million or more last year to 738 bankers and traders. That still lagged behind Goldman Sachs, which bestowed bonuses worth at least $1 million to 953 employees. Laissez les bons temps rouler, anyone?

Speaking of Goldman, its bonus totals, as well as those at Morgan Stanley, and JP. Morgan Chase last year exceeded their institutions' individual net income.

• Goldman earned $2.3 billion and paid $4.8 billion in bonuses. It received $10 billion in TARP funding

• Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion and paid $4.5 billion in bonuses. It got $10 billion in TARP funding.

• JP Morgan Chase earned $5.6 billion and paid nearly $8.7 billion in bonuses. It received $25 billion in TARP funding.

Another takeawy: the party mindset which predominated during the boom carried over when after the sub-prime crisis hit. While the recession forced the rest of Corporate America to press the reset button, Wall Street - with the exception of a financial institution here and there going under - didn't rethink its compensation practices.

"For instance, at Bank of America, compensation and benefit payments increased from more than $10 billion to more than $18 billion in between 2003 and 2006. Yet, in 2008, when Bank of America's net income fell from $14 billion to $4 billion, Bank of America's compensation payments remained at the $18 billion level. Bank of America paid $18 billion in compensation and benefit payments again in 2008, even though 2008 performance was dismal when compared to the 2003-2006 bull market."

So while folks like you and me are going through the third year with no raise, these guys are making millions a piece, thanks to taxpayer TARP payments.

Something to think about when you are paying your bills here on the last day of July. All the TARP program did was make Wall Street safe for seven and eight figure payouts. Record bonuses for them, record low wage growth for us.

And people wonder how we're going to get out of this economic hole, and why consumer spending is in the toilet.

[UPDATE 3:58 PM] The House has passed a bill allowing company stockholders to have a vote on compensation and authorizing government regulators to limit executive pay.

The bill, which passed 237-185, came in response to public outrage over lavish pay received by executives at Wall Street firms that took billions in emergency aid from the government. But the measure faces a more difficult road in the Senate, where lawmakers have been expressing concerns about whether the bill would draw the government too deeply into the inner workings of scores of firms.

The bill would ban pay that "could threaten the safety and soundness of covered financial institutions" or that "could have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability."

It also would require that members of corporate compensation committees have greater independence than in the past and would empower U.S. regulators to ban pay that could encourage traders and executives to take "inappropriate risks." The bill would not apply to financial institutions with assets of less than $1 billion.

It's a start.

Not A Good Day

Several news outlets reporting that Sen. Chris Dodd has early-stage prostate cancer. Dodd is expected to have a press conference later today (2 PM EDT) on the subject.

Best wishes that he gets through it, and good news in a sense that it was detected early.

Blue Dogs Chowing Down On Corporate Money

Having long ago figured out that the House Blue Dog Dems were the go to guys to stop corporate reform, the Blue Dogs have been living large in the fundraising department in 2009 thanks to those same corporations making big donations.

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

And you wonder why there's no deal in the House yet. Look folks, despite the Blue Dogs smiling and nodding and getting "changes" made in legislation, none of these guys plan to vote for health care reform. They're planning to scuttle it, or force enough changes in the final house bill that the rest of the Democrats revolt and the bill breaks down completely.

Blue Dogs are no allies to Obama right now. They're just waiting for the right opportunity to scrap his entire agenda. The funny part is the Republicans that the Blue Dogs are helping out will be the first to turn on them as the 2010 election campaign heats up. It's the Blue Dogs who will find themselves in the doghouse here, and soon. These guys are working for the insurance companies, period.

I'm not sure why the White House and Pelosi are pretending otherwise. In the end, these dogs are rabid.

It's time to put them down.