Burn It All Down

The lovely folks that brought you California's Prop. 8 are now gunning for a clean sweep, saying that due to the legislation passing, California's courts have no choice but to annul existing gay marriages.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."

The really disturbing precedent here is that civil rights can be taken from a minority under the guise of "the will of the people." Under that logic, why not institute a new era of Jim Crow laws aimed at African-Americans or Latinos under a proposition vote? Why not put the practice of Islam in the US to a vote, and close down all mosques should the measure pass?

If you believe that you can take basic human rights like marriage away from a group based solely on sexual preference, you should be able to take rights based on religion, race, age, gender, or any other discriminatory criteria.

The danger that this effort represents is tantamount. The supporters of this effort will not stop there. Once you codify into law the ability of the many to take away the rights of the few, it will be used against any and every group. Once you've established a threshhold that one group cannot cross because of their minority status, all that remains is to steadily lower the bar until that group has no civil rights at all. Why not revoke the rights of gays and lesbians period? Why not apply the same standard to Muslims or Jews? Doesn't the Islamic or Jewish idea of marriage differ with the Christian one? Isn't that the argument used to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry?

Why stop there, Prop 8 supporters? Go for the whole ball of wax. Let's deny civil rights to everyone who is different.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition

• Florida officials confirm remains found last week are those of missing toddler Caylee Anthony.
• Dick Cheney refuses to turn over his records, citing 'personal and partisan' issues.
• Suspected mega-fraudster Bernie Madoff faces 24/7 surveillance after prosecutors warn he's a flight risk.
• Cable breaks have disrupted internet service in South Asia and the Middle East.
• The world may be running out of coal reserves much faster than previously thought.

Auto-matic Response

How much do the wingnuts like Malkinvania hate the UAW? Their brilliant idea is, no joke:

Instead of wringing their hands, I’d like to see fiscal conservatives in Congress put their money where their mouths are and file suit against this illegal, unconstitutional bailout.

That's right. Sue the US Government for the auto bailout. The reasoning? The auto bailout uses TARP funds. TARP funds are for "financial institutions". Treating GM and Chrysler's finance arms as "financial institutions" for this purpose is the worst thing Bush has ever done as far as these folks are concerned, instead of letting the horrible, terrible UAW die screaming and taking millions of jobs with them. It's so bad in fact Congress should sue Bush for this unconstitutional use of unchecked executive power.

Stop and think about this. Congress should sue Bush, she says. Not over illegal wiretapping. Not over torture. Not over Scooter Libby, not over Iraq, not over Afghanistan, not over Gonzo's US Attorney firings, nor any of the dozens of scandals over the last eight years. No, the outrage that prompted Michelle Malkin to say that Congress should stand up to the President is the outrage of refusing to kill the UAW.

Nothing that Bush has done before warranted being sued by Congress in her eyes. Nothing. Not a single thing. Until, in a lame-ass attempt to punt and spare the atomized wreckage of his "legacy", Bush went too far in his use of executive power for even Malkinvania to handle by committing the unforgiveable sin of failing to put a couple million Americans out of work by destroying an iconic American industry.

I salute you, Madam Malkinvania. Your infinite lack of humanity has even shocked and surprised the most cynical of observers such as myself.

I Got Your Resignation Right Here

Blago To Entire Known Universe: Screw you, die in a fire.

In an unwavering statement of innocence, Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Friday he will be vindicated of criminal corruption charges and has no intention of letting what he called a "political lynch mob" force him from his job. "I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong," Blagojevich said, speaking for about three minutes in his first official public comments since his arrest last week on federal corruption charges.

The Democrat is accused, among other things, of plotting to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat.

"I'm not going to quit a job the people hired me to do because of false accusations and a political lynch mob," Blagojevich said.

Nope. Not going away aaaaaaaanytime soon.

A Generally Revolting Situation

Via Steven D at the Frog Pond, an article by Gareth Porter on the Pentagon's plan for Iraq should frighten pretty much everyone. The bottom line? General Petraeus, General Odierno, and Secretary Gates have no plans whatsoever to obey their Commander-In-Chief come January.

United States military leaders and Pentagon officials have made it clear through public statements and deliberately leaked stories in recent weeks that they plan to violate a central provision of the US-Iraq withdrawal agreement requiring the complete pullout of all US combat troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by reclassifying combat troops as support troops.

The scheme to engage in chicanery in labeling US troops represents both open defiance of an agreement which the US military has never accepted and a way of blocking president-elect Barack Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office.

By redesignating tens of thousands of combat troops as support troops, those officials apparently hope to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Obama to insist on getting all combat troops of the country by mid-2010.

So, by classifying tens of thousands of combat troops as support troops, no troop withdrawals will be made, and there's not a thing anyone can do about it. Confident that they have Obama in a corner politically and that domestically, the President will have his hands more than full, they figure Obama won't want to fight this battle at all.

A source close to the Obama transition team has told Inter Press Service that Obama had made the decision for a frankly political reason. Obama and his advisers believed the administration would be politically vulnerable on national security and viewed the Gates nomination as a way of blunting political criticism of its policies.

The Gates decision was followed immediately by the leak of a major element in the military plan to push back against a 16-month withdrawal plan - a scheme to keep US combat troops in Iraqi cities after mid-2009, in defiance of the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

The New York Times first revealed that "Pentagon planners" were proposing the "relabeling" of US combat units as "training and support" units in a December 4 story. The Times story also revealed that Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 US troops would be maintained in Iraq "for a substantial time even beyond 2011", despite the agreement's explicit requirement that all US troops would have to be withdrawn by then.

Odierno provided a further hint on December 13 that the US military intended to ignore the provision of the agreement requiring withdrawal of all US combat troops from cities and towns by the end of May 2009. Odierno told reporters flatly that US troops would not move from numerous security posts in cities beyond next summer's deadline for their removal, saying, "We believe that's part of our transition teams."

His spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel James Hutton, explained that these "transition teams" would consist of "enablers" rather than "combat forces", and that this would be consistent with the withdrawal agreement.

But both Odierno's and Hutton's remarks were clearly based on the Pentagon plan for the "relabeling" of US combat forces as support forces in order to evade a key constraint in the pact that the Times had reported earlier.

Gates, Odierno and Petraeus are telling Obama to go to hell. Surely the GOP will back any play like this that the Pentagon and Gates make, saying that Obama should support out troops, listen to our commanders on the ground, etc. Should Obama wade into this one, they figure they will cut him off at the knees in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 75 years.

But wade in he must. Our republic is at stake here. If the generals win this battle, then we will never be out of Iraq, not in your lifetime. Obama will have to make it clear to the Pentagon that America intends to honor its agreement. If he does not, then we're under a military junta in all but name, with the neocons and the GOP war hawks running the country for good.

Dear America:

"Obama is totally clean, but the Blagojevich thing might mean that maybe he's actually the most corrupt politician in history, and it's his own damn fault for not making me 100% sure he's guilt-free on this. Therefore, until he proves a negative, I reserve the right to treat him as Worse Than Bush."

--Joe Conason, Salon.com

Fate In The Balance

Rumors around the Big Three are swirling today. One one hand, some are reporting a bailout deal is imminent and could come as soon as today. On the other hand, there's plenty of reporting that there's no deal coming and automakers like GM are facing an "orderly bankruptcy":

General Motors is likely to file for bankruptcy protection with government backing, giving bondholders a recovery of more than 25 cents on the dollar, according to Moody's Investors Service.

There is a 70 percent probability that the restructuring plan for U.S. automakers will consist of a prepackaged bankruptcy financed by government loans to get GM and Chrysler through to 2009, Moody's said in a report dated Dec. 15. Under that scenario, bondholders would be likely to lose less than 75 percent of their investment, Moody's said.

Either way, there are a lot of sectors of the economy in dire trouble. If Toyota is expected to be posting its first ever yearly loss today, you know things are bad for the automakers...all of them.

[UPDATE] Bush is apparently making a major automaker bailout announcement at 9 AM.

[UPDATE 2] The bailout is on, $17.4 billion in bridge loans.

The federal government will provide $13.4 billion in loans to automakers General Motors and Chrysler, the White House said Friday.

"Allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action," President Bush said Friday morning.

"The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate restructuring of our domestic auto industry, prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty, and protect the taxpayer by ensuring that only financially viable firms receive financing," according to a statement released by the White House.

An additional $4 billion may be available in February, the Bush administration said.

A senior administration official briefing reporters said he expects that GM and Chrysler officials will be signing the loan papers to access the cash later Friday morning.

GM and Chrysler have until March 31 to prove financial viability, or the loans are called in.

We'll see where this goes. The fate of the Big Three is now in Obama's hands.

StupidiNews!

• Watergate informant Mark "Deep Throat" Felt has died at the age of 95.
• Auto bailout news could come as early as today as Chrysler and GM look to stave off bankruptcy.
• The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is projecting an Al Franken Senate win by the narrowest of margins.
• The Pentagon is drawing up plans to close Gitmo in anticipation of Obama's widely expected decision to do so.
• Could Silicon Valley be the deciding blow against the Employee Free Choice Act?

Warren No Peace

Obama's choice of avowed bigot Pastor Rick Warren for his invocation has raised a couple of excellent responses from the Left, like Kos and John Aravosis.

Markos makes an excellent point, that goes far beyond the Warren controversy.

Obama wouldn't be out there making perhaps the strongest statement in support of gays and lesbians by a president (though he's still not technically one, I know) if it wasn't for the sturm and drang this choice generated. It is precisely this backlash that has forced Obama to clearly affirm his commitment to equality. And it will be continued pressure that will force him to do the right thing on the issue.

If we shut up, he'll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.

First off, Markos is correct. The sad lesson we're learning is that we're not going to get squat, any of us, gay or straight, if we don't beat the crap out of our elected officials on a regular basis.

I'm in total agreement with the both of them, of course. In the end, Obama is a politician. Politicians make calcuated political manuevers all the time, it's what they do. Obama's no different in that respect. Nobody ends up President who isn't a political animal, through and through.

I like the guy. But "better than Bush" is not acceptable. Not after the sheer level of damage wrought to our country, damage that will take decades if not longer to recover from. Obama is being held to a higher standard, fair or not. The situation dictates that he absolutely has to be, or America isn't going to make it. Period. The pressure on him is crushing. But he ran for the office and was elected, knowing full well all the work that has to be done for the good of the country right now.

So yes, when Obama or any other politician makes such a crude, stupid move, they get called on it...as they should.

Get To Dah Choppah!

Roubini vs. Helicopter Ben's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)!

Round One.

Fight!

The Fed decision to cut the target for the Fed Funds rate to the 0% to 0.25% range is just underwriting what was already obvious and happening in reality: While the target Fed Funds was until Tuesday still 1%, in the last few weeks--following the massive increase in liquidity by the Fed--the actual Fed Funds was already trading at a level literally close to 0%.

So the Fed just formalized what had already been happening for weeks now, i.e., that the Fed Funds rate was already zero and that the Fed had already moved to quantitative and qualitative easing (QE) in the form of a massive increase in the monetary base and aggressive use of monetary policy to reduce short-term and long-term market rates that are stubbornly high in a sign that the credit crunch is severe and worsening.

I predicted early in 2008 that the Fed Funds rate "would be closer to 0% than to 1%" in the midst of a severe recession. Now, 12 months into this severe recession--a recession that will last at least another 12 months (if not, as is possible, much longer)--the Fed Funds rate is already down to 0% (the beginning of the zero-interest-rate-policy, or ZIRP, for the U.S.) and the Fed has moved into uncharted unorthodox monetary policy as a severe stag-deflation is taking place.

And, as predicted by me over a month ago, the Fed is now committed to keep the Fed Funds rate close to zero for a long time (as a way to push lower long term Treasury yields); purchasing agency debt and agency MBS in massive amounts; and even considering purchasing long-term Treasuries as a way to push lower long-term government bond yields that are already falling sharply.

More aggressive policy actions may be undertaken by the Fed as a severe credit crunch shows no signs of relenting. In a 2002 speech on deflation, Ben Bernanke spoke even of helicopter drops of money, monetizing fiscal deficits and even buying equities.

The latter actions have already been partially undertaken: The Fed is effectively already monetizing U.S. fiscal deficits as the purchase of markets assets is financed with the Fed printing presses rather than the TARP program. And now, with the Fed considering the purchase of long-term Treasuries, such monetization of deficits will be made more formal.

Also, since the TARP has been turned into a program to recapitalize financial institutions (and thus boost their capital and market value), the U.S. has already effectively intervened indirectly in the equity market (by partially nationalizing a good part of the financial system). Once the Fed starts to buy the long-term Treasuries financing the TARP program, this indirect Fed purchase of U.S. equities will be even clearer.

While Fed actions to reduce mortgage rates--via purchases of agency debt and agency MBS--are partially successful as long-term mortgage rates are falling, most of the Fed purchases of private assets have been so far limited to very high-grade securities.

Thus, the gap between the yield on high-grade commercial paper purchased by the Fed and the one that the Fed is not purchasing is sharply rising; ditto for the gap between agency MBS and private label MBS. Also, while long-term Treasury yields are sharply falling, the spread of corporate bonds--both high-yield and high-grade--relative to Treasuries remains huge as a sign of a severe credit crunch.

Thus, as a next step, the Fed may be soon forced to walk down the credit curve and start buying private short-term and long-term securities with lower credit ratings. That would mean the Fed will take on even more credit risk than it is already taking on today while purchasing illiquid private assets. But desperate times lead to desperate actions by desperate policy makers.

Not good. In other words, the Fed plan is this:

1. Lower interest rates to zero.
   
2. Make shit up as we go along and hope it works.
   
3. Profit!

Which is a friggin' great plan, if, you know, you're not the central bank of the largest economy on Earth.

We're currently on Step 2 up there. We'll be there for quite some time.

More Tortured Logic

Via BooMan, we discover the NY Times Editorial Board has a problem with people who torture.

Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.

Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

That's no joke, folks, when the Gray Lady is calling for criminal charges against cabinet members. The Senate report itself is pretty damning.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the report states. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The report is the most direct refutation to date of the administration's rationale for using aggressive interrogation tactics -- that inflicting humiliation and pain on detainees was legal and effective, and helped protect the country. The 25-member panel, without one dissent among the 12 Republican members, declared the opposite to be true.

The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, the panel concluded, "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

The panel drew from congressional testimony and official documents, many of which were previously released during a nearly two-year probe. While many of the underlying facts were known, the report represented the most significant attempt by Congress to assess one of the defining controversies of the Bush presidency.

"These policies are wrong and must never be repeated," McCain said in a statement.

Rumsfeld seems to get the most of the criticism and deservedly so. Of course, he denies everything and blames Congress for even daring to investigate this sort of thing.

Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, rejected the report's conclusions and said it was the committee, particularly Levin, that had sullied the nation's image.

"It's regrettable that Senator Levin has decided to use the committee's time and taxpayer dollars to make unfounded allegations against those who have served our nation," said Keith Urbahn, an aide to Rumsfeld. He accused Levin of pursuing a politically motivated "false narrative" that is "unencumbered by the preponderance of the facts."

So the real question is will Bush pardon these assholes on the way out the door? I think it's a distinct possibility, because come January 20, the Democrats will have the leverage needed to start some real fireworks.

Besides, I'm thinking Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin, Michigan's senior Senator, may be looking for a little payback for the GOP at this point.

Dear America:

"Obama's crackpot 'green energy' plan? Are you kidding? Every President since Johnson has tried and failed miserably to get us off foreign oil. He's crazy, I tell you! TAXES! TAXES! JOB LOSS! BLAH BLAH BLOOGITY BLAH TAAAAAAAAAXES! HE MIGHT CAUSE A RECESSION!"

--Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal

Merry Christmas, You Unionized Bastards

Looks like the White House might now get around to a bailout decision before Christmas Day.

The White House and the Treasury are deep into negotiations with General Motors and Chrysler over reorganization plans that could result in freeing up more than $14 billion in emergency loans to keep the companies afloat through the first quarter of 2009, according to industry executives and a senior administration official.

The Bush administration appears to want an agreement with the automakers before Dec. 25. It was unclear, however, when all of the particulars might be worked out, said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the negotiations.

But the official indicated that the administration was inclined to do more than just keep G.M. and Chrysler alive until President-elect Barack Obama takes office, saying, “Giving them enough money to limp along doesn’t solve anything.”

In the negotiations, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., is effectively taking on the role of “auto czar,” which was envisioned in the carmakers rescue bill written by the White House and Congressional Democrats and approved by the House but blocked by Senate Republicans.

In the days since the White House said it would step in to prevent the collapse of G.M. and Chrysler, Treasury officials have been poring over detailed financial data in a meticulous exercise that one G.M. executive likened to “putting on the aqualung” and diving deep into the companies’ books.

One has to wonder if Citigroup, AIG, and the rest of the financials that quietly took hundreds of billions had anybody dive into THEIR books before they got any cash.

As one commenter said yesterday, "...I definitely lean towards survival of the fittest and seeing that they brought this on themselves in many ways. Bailing out might help (might!), but so would better practices and less waste." That's true. But my gut feeling is that the damage is done, and that the US auto industry won't be around in a couple of years in any form. I honestly forsee Big Three plants broken up, sold to foreign companies and liquidated. There may not be anything Obama can do to save them short of nationalizing the industry. I doubt even Obama is willing to make UAW workers into Federal employees.

As I've said, America in early 2011 is going to look a lot different from America early 2008.

StupidiNews!

• Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is not going over well.
• An FBI informant claims Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was a mob bookie in the 80's.
• Treasury says a New York City bank is really an Iranian front company.
• Obama's planned stimulus package may exceed $850 billion.
• How do you make money selling used digital property?

30 Days Of Night

Chrysler is furloughing all US plants for 30 days as of the last shift on Friday. The interesting reason behind the shutdown? No credit for people to buy cars.

"Chrysler dealers confirmed to the company at a recent meeting at its headquarters, that they have many willing buyers for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles but are unable to close the deals, due to lack of financing," the carmaker said in an announcement. "The dealers have stated that they have lost an estimated 20% to 25% of their volume because of this credit situation."

Auto sales have been hit hard by tight credit and the struggling economy. Overall auto sales in the United States were down 37% last month compared with November 2007. Chrysler's situation was especially bad. Its sales dropped 47%.

Chrysler's financing arm, Chrysler Financial, has tightened lending terms for buyers and earlier this year, it announced it would no longer offer leases.

Remember, just over two months ago, the President assured us that everything was fine, and the recession was just all in our heads. Chrysler's all but done, as is GM. An entire American industry is now on the brink and the government has pledged trillions and trillions of dollars to fix the problem over the last nine weeks or so. Trillions.

It will not be the last industry facing extinction. America a few years from now is going to be a very different place, like the difference between 1928 and 1932. We're going to have to reinvent our entire economy from scratch. Many of the old industries and jobs they represent will vanish for good over the next few years.

Our consumer consumption economy is dying before our eyes. What will replace it? That is Obama's true test...and Bush's true legacy of disaster.