Last Call

Interesting theory. The reason why Norm Coleman can't quit? Al Franken's best selling book from the Clinton years: Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot.

Democrats Urinate On Themselves At Command

This whole "Democrats refuse to close Gitmo because the Republicans are making scary faces" thing is really, really pissing me off.

The Senate voted 90-6 Wednesday to strip money from emergency-spending legislation to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility, a clear concession by Democrats that they lacked the political muscle to shutter the prison.

A Senate committee last week proposed spending $80 million from the $91.3 billion war spending measure to begin the closing process, but Wednesday's vote eliminated that money.

Senate Democrats said they weren't necessarily giving up on closing the facility and moving its 241 detainees elsewhere, even as Republicans argue that it should stay open.

An amendment to the spending bill, which is likely to be similarly approved by the House of Representatives, prevents the Obama administration from releasing any freed detainees into the United States or transferring any of them to prisons in the U.S.

This was a complete failure by Senate Democrats to do the right thing. At this point Obama must now turn around and keep Gitmo open because 90 Senators are too scared of terrorists to put them in prisons inside the US.

They are dumping this off on the President. This one's not Obama's fault, either. You can put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid. As BooMan says, at this point Reid not only needs to go but that the netroots should in fact actively campaign against him in 2010.

I've been saying for quite some time now that Harry needs to go.

Zandar's Thought Of The Day

Two thoughts on this, actually.

One, is Newt Gingrich really the most qualified person to make ethical judgments on Nancy Pelosi,

Two, is Steny Hoyer allowed to speak truth to power to the Village like this?

"Republicans are going to stay on it as long as you guys keep printing it, as long as it continues to be a television item – not about the substance, but about the distraction," Hoyer told reporters Wednesday. "As long as you want to feed on it, the Republicans will continue to feed you."

And while I'm glad somebody is pointing this out, they're going to make him pay for that dearly.

The Village doesn't like being called out by politicians.

Default, Cali Style

Some things to keep in mind about California's budget disaster:

California cannot legally declare bankruptcy. No state can under US law. Cities and counties can and have done so before, but a state cannot declare bankruptcy.

A state however can default on loan payments and wreck their credit rating as a state. That means getting state bonds issued to fund spending will be wildly more expensive. We're about to see if California will be the first state to actually default on a bond payment, and what happens to the people, cities, and counties within as a result.

California will want to get billions in loans from Wall Street...but I can't imagine any Wall Street firm wanting to loan California a dime. That means Obama will have to step in and cut a deal with Treasury. With nearly all 50 states running deep in the red, I can't imagine too many Democrats in Congress are going to object ("There but for the grace of God go I" and all). Republicans of course will do everything they can to bury California and blame the Dems.

Obama will get his deal however. There are too many country club Republicans and corporate interests in the state to let California default. It will be ugly however, and there's the little matter of what California is going to give up in order to get the money...perhaps having to come up with a specific plan to get back in the black like the automakers did...or else.

Defaulting on said bonds would almost certainly cause a raft of lawsuits to be filed against the state forcing them to pay. At some point, somebody's going to have to decide who gets paid, California or its creditors.

That will certainly have to go to the Supreme Court.

[UPDATE] Megan McArdle has a point: once Obama bails out California, it's implied that he will bail out every city, county, and state government currently buried in red ink.

Those Who Can Afford The Least Give The Most

When you think of "the poor", most Americans have images that come to mind: the hard-working immigrant family, the inner-city single mother, the panhandler hanging around outside the office building where you work, the old veteran living under the bridge overpass.

Whether your mental image is from "The Wire" or "The Grapes of Wrath" or from personal experience, the word you probably least likely associate with the poorest 20% of Americans is "philanthropy".

Which is a shame, because it turns out the Americans with the least income give more than twice the percentage of their meager incomes as the wealthiest Americans do.

"The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity," said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington-based association of major nonprofit agencies. "The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."

Indeed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of America's households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.

The figures probably undercount remittances by legal and illegal immigrants to family and friends back home, a multibillion-dollar outlay to which the poor contribute disproportionally.

None of the middle fifths of America's households, in contrast, gave away as much as 3 percent of their incomes.

"As a rule, people who have money don't know people in need," saId Tanya Davis, 40, a laid-off security guard and single mother.

I'm fairly shocked by that personally, but I know my parents regularly give a substantial amount to the local Catholic church and volunteer plenty of time, serving on several committees. They'd fall squarely into that second-highest tier and still give quite a bit.

Then again, the kind of folks earning $200k a year are the folks that work 80-100 hours a week too. Does that make them better people? If you're spending all your time working to earn money you don't have time to enjoy, or you don't have the inclination to give back, you have to wonder.

Money can't buy you happiness.

Followed Up By A Sucker Punch

To accompany today's "CIA as the victim here" leak story in the WaPo, we have WaPo's own columnist Michael Gerson to lead the Village scolding offensive.

Is there any precedent for a speaker of the House of Representatives seeking political shelter by blaming national security professionals? Or for a commander in chief exposing intelligence methods at the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union? Actually, such treatment has precedents. In 1975, the Church Committee nearly destroyed the human intelligence capabilities of the CIA. In the early 1990s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan urged closing the agency entirely. The Clinton administration imposed massive budget cuts, leaving behind a demoralized institution.

And now Obama has described the post-Sept. 11 period as "a dark and painful chapter in our history." In fact, whatever your view of waterboarding, the response of intelligence professionals following Sept. 11 was impressive. Within days, the CIA had linked up with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and begun preparations to remove the Taliban. The counterterrorism center run of out CIA headquarters was the war on terror in the months after the attacks, making daily progress in capturing high-value targets. Now the president and his party have done much to tarnish those accomplishments. So much for the thanks of a grateful nation.

You know what must have really been demoralizing for the CIA?

Working for Bush and Cheney. Having the President ignore the CIA on 9/11 chatter preceding the attack and saying "Well, you've covered your ass." Having the Joker and the Penguin there twist their hard-earned intel to justify starting a war. Having them torture people to get evidence they knew was false, trapping them in a no-win situation. Having them purge the ranks of those career agents who resisted being the propaganda arm of BushCo instead of America's intelligence defense.

What Obama and the Democrats are doing to the CIA is painful, but necessary. The last remnants of the Bush cancer must be excised. But let's not forget who got the CIA into this untenable situation in the first place, Mr. Gerson.

It wasn't the Democrats.

StupidiNews!

• California voters soundly rejected multiple budget measures, meaning the state must now take draconian action.
• Banks are paying bonuses through taking out life insurance on their employees.
• Senate Democrats have rejected funding to shut down Gitmo, saying the President has no solid plan.
• The Obama administration is considering creating a consumer protection board for financial products.
• A new study by Microsoft shows your answers to password reminder questions can be easily forgotten...or hacked.

Last Call

WaPo's Walter Pincus rolls out the CIA's targeted leaks as the intel community fires another shot across Obama's bow.

The agency's defensiveness in part reflects a conviction that it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor. Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview that CIA managers and operations officers have again been put "in a horrible position." Hayden recalled an officer asking, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?"

Although President Obama has said no CIA officers will be prosecuted for their roles in harsh interrogations if they remained within Justice Department guidelines in effect at the time, agency personnel still face subpoenas and testimony under oath before criminal, civil and congressional bodies.

As part of an ongoing criminal inquiry into the CIA's destruction of videotapes depicting waterboarding, CIA personnel will appear before a grand jury this week, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case is continuing. The Senate intelligence committee is pursuing its investigation into whether harsh interrogations, including waterboarding, brought forward worthwhile intelligence, as agency and Bush administration officials have maintained.

The CIA plays the victim card like the all-time pros they are, and right on cue the Wingers go after the Dems for daring to question these patriots fighting America's terror war on the front lines.

Poor babies! How dare Obama and Congressional Dems try to inflict oversight on these heroes! What gives them the right to call the CIA liars? How dare he rob the CIA of their ability to torture people into giving false information to start a war of aggression! I mean after all, these Muslims are sub-human...why should we bother to treat them with human dignity?

At some point Obama and CIA director Leon Panetta need to have a little talk.

I'm Steele Standing

...or not.

Today at 1:00 p.m. ET, RNC chairman Michael Steele will be giving a major speech meant, in part, to reassure Republicans that he has control over the party. He is facing internal challenges from RNC members, including “a new set of checks and balances” on his power to “dole out money.” Today in an interview with Fox News, Steele suggested that if too much of his power is taken away, he may resign:

They can contemplate all they want to, but the reality is if they want a figurehead chairman you can have a figurehead chairman, but it won’t be Michael Steele.

As I said earlier today, that's a hollow threat Steele is making. The RNC clearly wants him gone. They don't want to follow his version of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. They want to purify the party and expect the rest of America to follow them, because they believe that Democrats and the people that empower them are enemies of America, plain and simple.

Steele might as well go ahead and quit. He'll only be replaced by somebody far more rabid and far less intelligent (not that Steele is any kind of genius to begin with.) Please quit and then let the RNC vote in Rush Limbaugh.

No Backup Plan

Over at TNR, Jonathan Chait ponders the GOP Plan.

The economy, of course, will have much more short-term influence over Obama's popularity. And, yes, a lot of conservatives these days think that the government hiring people and buying goods can't do anything o reduce unemployment or stimulate demand. But what if the economy recovers anyway? Isn't it possible? I mean, I thought George W. Bush's economic policies were unlikely to stimulate long-term growth and out of line with public priorities, but I wasn't certain that they'd cause short-term economic pain or make him unpopular by the end of his second term. (They did do that, but the outcome wasn't preordained.)

I'm not saying the economy will recover or that Obama will stay popular. Quite possibly, four years from now we could still be mired in a worldwide depression and Obama could be facing dismal -- who knows, even Bush-like -- popularity ratings. The world is unpredictable. But isn't there a pretty decent chance that the economy will have recovered, and Obama's policies will look fairly wise in retrospect? Do Republicans want to make any political plans for this contingency?

I've been talking about the GOP Plan for months now, and it's not "Short Obama" as Chait puts it, but Destroy Obama. The reason the GOP isn't making any contingency plans is simple: if Obama actually passes anything that remotely resembles universal health care, climate change legislation, and the EFCA, then the GOP is toast. They don't have a contingency plan because they are facing political obliteration if they fail. The GOP has to stop Obama, or the Democrats control Washington for a generation. Period. This wouldn't be a minor setback like the Bush backlash. This would be a generational shift that would bury the GOP so deep in the political wilderness, they would be powerless. They know this. They aren't fighting a popular Preaident, they are fighting for survival. After FDR, the Democrats controlled Congress for almost 60 years. The GOP knows this.

Either Obama goes down in flames, or the GOP does. That was true in January, it's true now, it'll be true as long as Obama hasn't passed his key legislation yet. There's a reason that that GOP is trying to do everything they can to kill Obama's proposals...because they will mean the end of the Republicans' political power in this country for decades.

Steve Benen has more on this.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

FOX Business asks:

Is stock analysis objective?

If you have to ask that question, the answer is no.

More Nancy Drew Files

It's impressive what a little actual journalism can turn up in the NANCY IS A LIAR case (emphasis mine):

Here's yet another reason (as if more were needed) to doubt that that CIA briefings document perfectly reflects what lawmakers were told about torture back in the early days of the war on terror.

Almost every briefing described in the document -- including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that's directly at issue -- refers to "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn't used until at least 2006.

That's not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being "disingenuous," trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a "formal and mechanical program." In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn't until 2006 that -- amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration -- the EIT program was formalized, and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were properly defined and given a name.

Surprise, surprise! The CIA didn't use the term EIT until four years AFTER the time Pelosi was briefed.

Which means the briefing that the CIA produced to throw doubt on Pelosi's claims is in and of itself as fishy as a mountain trout stream. Once again, even a little legwork has blown holes in the claim that the CIA's briefing is correct, and gives ample room to explain Pelosi's side of the story as being true.

But you want catch our Liberal Media Steno Pool expending the energy to even bother checking up. Instead they give plenty of press coverage to the Republican effort to force her resignation.

California Rolled

California's raft of budget proposals to try to close the gap between a $21 billion shortfall and merely a $15 billion one is up for a vote today. Needless to say, the measures are looking to go down in flames.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called that deficit estimate "certain" on Thursday, warning the budget gap for the next fiscal year would swell to $21.3 billion if voters reject budget-related ballot measures in a special election on Tuesday.

Surveys suggest voters will reject the measures.

In either case, the most populous U.S. state faces sharply reduced spending, with Schwarzenegger, a Republican, seeking deep cuts in education and health and human service programs. Additionally, 5,000 state employees will receive pink slips and the state will need to borrow $6 billion with a revenue anticipation warrant.

Lawmakers responded with vows of fiscal austerity. But Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico said a more dramatic effort may be needed.

"We are in dire need of streamlining," he told Reuters. "We should have a conversation about what our priorities are as a state. ... I don't think we can go through this budget and try to offend the least amount of people."

Naturally, the winger response is "Let California rot" starting with Malkinvania:

The Taxinator is in D.C. with his hands out — and his figurative gun to the head of the rest of the country’s taxpayers. As I noted last week, California wants TARP money. They’ll argue, as every other successful bailout recipient has, that the state is Too Big Too Fail.

California did itself in. It deserves to suffer the consequences.

Tell your congressional representatives to tell the muscle man looking to pump up his puny state coffers with everyone else’s money:

Not one dime.

Let one-seventh of America fall apart! After all, it's a blue state, so it's not really America anyway. Why should folks in Utah or Tennessee or North Dakota care about them in the first place?

After all, California must be the only state facing financial problems this year...

States are facing a great fiscal crisis. At least 47 states faced or are facing shortfalls in their budgets for this and/or the next year or two. Combined budget gaps for the remainder of this fiscal year and state fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are estimated to total more than $350 billion.

...Right? It's not like any Red states are in trouble or anything...

Steele The One

RNC head Michael Steele has once again voiced his opposition to the "Let's Call Them The Democrat Socialist Party!" stupidity, which of course only assures that the resolution will pass.

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on Tuesday strongly came out against a resolution supported by some committee members calling on Democrats to re-name their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."

Even though Steele has, in the past, accused Democrats of having a socialistic approach to government, he has so far distanced himself from the controversial resolution that is scheduled to be voted on Wednesday at meeting of the full committee. In an appearance on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, the party chief said the resolution is not "an appropriate way to express out views on the issues of the day."

Asked on Tuesday if he is in favor of the effort to re-brand Democrats as socialists, Steele said, "No, I am not. I am not for that at all."

"I have mentioned that to folks inside the party and said that, you know, we should be smart and strategic about that," Steele said of the resolution on Fox News. "A lot of people have passions and the beauty of the Republican party is you get to express those passions in various ways."

Like calling Obama a Socialist instead of a Fascist, Hitler, or Chairman Maobama, you mean.

Gotta love GOP "open-mindedness".

[UPDATE] Via Atrios, Steele goes off the Steele Reserve.


If you mean "change" as in the Republicans kick your ass out for being too damn moderate for them and too damn crazy for the rest of us, then yes, that change is probably coming and soon.

[UPDATE 2] Actual Michael Steele quote from his op-ed in today's Politico:

"The Republican Party has turned a corner, and as we move forward Republicans should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan always believed Republicans should apply our conservative principles to current and future challenges facing America. . For Reagan's conservatism to take root...."

Turning the corner and looking forward, alright. Right into the headlights of the oncoming freight train.

Give Them The Gas Face

The wingers are going nuts with the whole ZOMG OBAMA FASCIST CAR TAX!!! plan to increase CAFE standards.

The reality is that in the long run, you'll save money on the car when gas goes back up to $4-$5 a gallon (and it will, maybe not this summer, but it will) and it has some major additional benefits:

* 5% per year increase in fuel efficiency
* An increase form 25 MPG fleet average to 35.5 MPR fleet average
* 1.8 billion barrels of oil saved
* A reduction of 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
* The equivalent of 177 million cars off the road--or 194 coal plants shut down

Seems like a winner to me. Some back of the napkin numbers: 15,000 miles a year at 35 miles to the gallon is 428 gallons compared to 25 MPG, that's 600 gallons a year, you save 172 gallons of gas a year. At $4 a gallon, the OBAMA CAR TAX OF DOOM pays for itself in...23 months.

Everything after that is money you save. Plan on owning the next new car you buy for more than two years? I would think so. When you're saving $688 a year in gas in a car that should last you ten years or more, you tell me if that $1300 is worth it in the long run.

$1300 now versus $6880 later AND you save the planet? You do the math. Wingers I guess aren't smart enough to handle the numbers.