Eclectablog » Obama Administration

While everyone was distracted with Tax Day, Congress repealed disclosure requirements in the STOCK Act

Eclectablog — Sun, 05 May 2013 14:11:56 +0000

Sunlight extinguished

Jefferson Memorial photo by Anne C. Savage

A couple of weeks ago on Tax Day, April 15th, Congress passed a bill that gutted the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed just last year to stop insider trading by government employees and elected officials. Later that day, President Obama signed it into law. The justification for the removal of disclosure provisions in the STOCK Act is that putting the financial information of congressional aides and executive branch staffers would endanger national security.

While Congress might be stuck in a deadlock on just about every issue imaginable, there’s one piece of legislation that both Democrats and Republicans hate unanimously: the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed last year designed to prevent insider trading among lawmakers and government officials by requiring them to post disclosures of their financial transactions online.

Both parties and both houses of Congress hated the disclosure portion of the law so much that it was repealed on Friday without debate—the measure was sent to the president by unanimous consent. The ordeal took about 10 seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House, according to official records.

The STOCK Act would have required members of Congress, their aides, and other federal employees making more than $119,554 a year to disclose their financial dealings in an online database. It was supposed to prevent government officials from using insider knowledge about policy-making to profit from stock trades and other investments.

OpenSecrets.org details what this bill changes:

The bill doesn’t just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database.

The elements of the STOCK Act that were removed include:

Creation of searchable, sortable disclosure of the information contained in reports even for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates.

Required electronic filing for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates, as well as high-level executive and congressional branch employees. Even images of the staffers’ filings will not be available for viewing on the web.

Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper — an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public’s access.

This is not true disclosure.

The President used a report by the National Academy Of Public Administration (NAPA) that indicated a security risk involved with the disclosure requirements. The report said these disclosures could lead to “negative outcomes to the missions of national security and law enforcement agencies and their staff members” because enemies of the USA could exploit the information in the database to threaten government officials.

Government transparency advocates are not pleased:

“They used the NAPA report and said ‘this is a bad idea let’s undo all the disclosure parts of this bill,’” says Lisa Rosenberg, a Washington lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation. “What we had advocated is if you are really worried about certain categories of jobs then maybe we need to exempt them with carve outs.” Adds Rosenberg: “There is a much more targeted way of addressing the security concerns, we are not dismissive of the security concerns, but putting the information in file cabinets is not fixing the security concerns.”

This is a truly disappointing move. The flaws in the original bill could easily have been fixed with some targeted changes. Instead, a major step forward in government transparency has been walked back and the shade of secrecy has deepened considerably.

H/T Adam Z.

The Obama administration rules out raising Medicare eligibility age, cat food stocks plummet

Eclectablog — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:57:24 +0000

Garment-rending about a Cat Food Commission just ran headlong into the Obama Reality

Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefty concern trolls who are convinced that President Obama is going to feed your grandma a steady diet of cat food once she retires, the Obama administration today unequivocally ruled out raising the eligibility age for receiving Medicare.

I realize that this won’t quell the yammering from the left about how this President, a man with absolutely no history whatsoever of doing things to harm our country’s most vulnerable populations, is going to sell seniors down the river to cut the deficit. But I thought it would be worth, you know, getting the actual facts out there.

From the press briefing today with Press Secretary Jay Carney:

MR. CARNEY: Jon Karl from ABC.

Q Jay, yes, can you just clarify for me very clearly — is the President open to raising the eligibility age for Medicare?

MR. CARNEY: No.

Q Absolutely not?

MR. CARNEY: The President has made clear that we don’t believe that that’s the right policy to take. The President has made clear in the proposals he put forward to John Boehner, that John Boehner walked away from late last year, that he’s willing to make tough choices with regards to entitlement reform.

Q But not that choice?

CARNEY: That’s correct.

[CC image credit: Francisco Diez | Flickr]

Sen. Reid & Obama administration target biggest example of “choosing winners” we have: Big Oil subsidies

Eclectablog — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:48:57 +0000

Big Oil subsidies are, simply put, indefensible

Conservatives who are dead set against making any investments in new technologies that can help propel our country and its economy forward are famous for using the argument that this is “picking winners and losers”. The irony is that, in order to even be considered for federal government subsidies, new technologies — like renewable energy projects, for example — must have already proven themselves as winners that are simply in need of a kickstart to make them affordable and profitable.

With negotiations over the upcoming sequester — automatic, across the board budget cuts — ready to dominate the headlines, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration are suggesting that it’s time to end one the most glaring examples “picking winners” that we have in this country today: $4 billion in subsidies to Big Oil companies.

The White House took jabs at oil-and-gas subsidies Wednesday, calling for an end to the incentives as part of a deal to avoid automatic spending cuts from sequestration.

“The idea that you need to subsidize an industry that has enjoyed record profits — that taxpayers have to subsidize it — just doesn’t make sense in a time when we have to make choices about how best to use our resources,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Unless Congress acts to stop sequestration, federal spending will be slashed by about $110 billion on March 1, with half the total coming from the Pentagon.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made similar comments about the subsidies. The remarks indicate Democrats plan to take another stab at axing the subsidies, this time as part of an effort to dodge the automatic spending cuts, after legislative efforts failed last Congress.

It is truly astonishing that an industry that is reported to have made $80 billion in profit last year still manages to squeeze the American tax payers for $4 billion a year. What, $76 billion split among a handful of companies isn’t enough???

There simply isn’t an example you can give of a more unnecessary subsidy or a more egregious example of “picking winners” than these subsidies. Republicans were able to shoot down President Obama’s effort to end them last year. Hopefully this year, with the political winds at his back, he’ll be more successful.

Obama administration shoots down the idea of a planet-destroying Death Star — in the most epic way imaginable

Eclectablog — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:46:57 +0000

This right here? THIS IS THE COOLEST THING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS EVER DONE YESIMSHOUTING

On November 14th, a petition was submitted to the White House on their We the People website that said this:

“Those who sign here petition the United States government to secure funding and resources, and begin construction on a Death Star by 2016.

By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.”

The White House policy is to respond to petitions that 25,000 signatures within 30 days. This one has over 34,000 signatures so the White House responded. Their response can be read HERE but, it’s so epic and awesome, I’m reproducing it here on the blog:

This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For

By Paul Shawcross

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.

The Administration does not support blowing up planets.

Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

However, look carefully (here’s how) and you’ll notice something already floating in the sky — that’s no Moon, it’s a Space Station! Yes, we already have a giant, football field-sized International Space Station in orbit around the Earth that’s helping us learn how humans can live and thrive in space for long durations. The Space Station has six astronauts — American, Russian, and Canadian — living in it right now, conducting research, learning how to live and work in space over long periods of time, routinely welcoming visiting spacecraft and repairing onboard garbage mashers, etc. We’ve also got two robot science labs — one wielding a laser — roving around Mars, looking at whether life ever existed on the Red Planet.

Keep in mind, space is no longer just government-only. Private American companies, through NASA’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO), are ferrying cargo — and soon, crew — to space for NASA, and are pursuing human missions to the Moon this decade.

Even though the United States doesn’t have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, we’ve got two spacecraft leaving the Solar System and we’re building a probe that will fly to the exterior layers of the Sun. We are discovering hundreds of new planets in other star systems and building a much more powerful successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will see back to the early days of the universe.

We don’t have a Death Star, but we do have floating robot assistants on the Space Station, a President who knows his way around a light saber and advanced (marshmallow) cannon, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is supporting research on building Luke’s arm, floating droids, and quadruped walkers.

We are living in the future! Enjoy it. Or better yet, help build it by pursuing a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field. The President has held the first-ever White House science fairs and Astronomy Night on the South Lawn because he knows these domains are critical to our country’s future, and to ensuring the United States continues leading the world in doing big things.

If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star’s power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Paul Shawcross is Chief of the Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget

They have an actual government space office called C3PO! Squee! I’m totally geeking out over this (as you can obviously tell.)

[CC Death Star image: Fernando Toucedo | Fotopedia]

Obama to Congressional Republicans: Go Cheney yourselves

Eclectablog — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:03:05 +0000

John Boehner: between a tea bag and a hard place

John Boehner has been negotiating all week with President Obama and his staff to resolve the “fiscal speedbump” issue. President Obama took a step toward Speaker Boehner in the negotiations by allowing the Bush tax cuts to remain in place for incomes over $400,000/year (up from $250,000), making some cuts to entitlements to be named later and agreeing to a different way to calculate Social Security cost of living increases that would lower how much our seniors get in their monthly allocation by a smidgen — the so-called “chained CPI”.

In return, Boehner offered to extend the debt ceiling for two years and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for income over $400,000.

This was, however, a bridge to far for his tea party leadership team, according to Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. So, he offered what he’s calling “Plan B” and the response from the White House was a resounding “screw you”.

Here’s what Press Secretary Jay Carney had to say on behalf of the President:

The American people have been clear that they will not accept an economic approach that places too big of a burden on the middle class, seniors, students and the most vulnerable Americans while asking too little of the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Republican “Plan B” legislation continues large tax cuts for the very wealthiest individuals – on average, millionaires would see a tax break of $50,000 – while eliminating tax cuts that 25 million students and families struggling to make ends meet depend on and ending critical incentives for our nation’s businesses. It would also cut off a vital lifeline of unemployment assistance to 2 million Americans fighting to find a job just a few days after Christmas, while deeply cutting Medicare. The deficit reduction is minimal, and perversely, given its authors, solely through tax increases with no spending cuts. This approach does not meet the test of balance, and the President would veto the legislation in the unlikely event of its passage.

The hypocrisy on this issue among the Republicans borders on comical. As The Daily Dolt points out, Republicans are apoplectic that the White House is counting decreases in the amount of interest the federal government will pay when the national debt is reduced:

While the President claims his spending cuts add up to $1.2 trillion — roughly equal to the $1.2 trillion he seeks in added tax revenue — Boehner insists the cuts only add up to $930 billion because the interest savings don’t count:

“Interest savings from higher taxes is not a spending cut. I wish the folks at the White House would work as hard to actually cut spending as they do trying [to] look like they are.”

However, back when they were ranting and raving against the stimulus package, Republicans thought that interest was a big hairy deal. Here’s Speaker Boehner had to say then:

If you think about where we’ve been this year, we had the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus plan, when you look at the interest that’s going to be paid on it.

And here’s Paul Ryan:

We are about to vote on a trillion-dollar spending package. Yes, a trillion dollars, because the Congressional Budget Office just told us today (that) just to pay for the interest on this bill is another $350 billion.

So, we appear to be back to square one. And, funny thing is, President Obama still holds all the cards.

Heh, heh…

House GOP continues their political death march to prevent the top tax bracket from rising by less than 4%

Eclectablog — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:16:12 +0000

At least we know who they work for now — they’ve made that clear

House Republicans have released a counter-proposal to President Obama’s budget plan to avoid plunging us off the fiscal ~~cliff~~ speed bump. Unsurprisingly, it raises tax revenue but doesn’t allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. In fact, according to analysis by the Washington Post, it appears to lower taxes for the top tax bracket.

The proposal calls for $800 billion in higher tax collections through an overhaul of the tax code next year that would push the top rate below the current level of 35 percent and raise cash by wiping out loopholes and deductions.

The plan also seeks $600 billion in health savings. One option, GOP aides said, would be raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. It also includes $300 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as farm subsidies. And it would save $200 billion by applying a less generous measure of inflation government wide, including to Social Security benefits, which would rise more slowly as a result.

The GOP plan also seeks another $300 billion in cuts to agency budgets on top of the $1 trillion in cuts already enacted. All told, it would produce $2.2 trillion in new savings, or $4.6 trillion when measured against the same yardstick as the president’s proposal.

So, let’s do a quick tally here:

Winners: America’s most wealthy citizens. Their tax rate would actually drop rather than going up the tiny 3.9% that would take them to where they were during the boom years of the Clinton administration.

Losers: Social Security recipients and future Medicare recipients. To pay for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place for the super-wealthy, people will have to wait longer to be eligible for Medicare and will see a slow-down in their social security cost of living increases.

In other words, our most vulnerable citizens take a hit so that the most secure citizens pay no cost at all.

Oh and, big surprise, as as Jed Lewison points out, they aren’t providing any specific details about all the savings they are going to achieve, either.

From their letter here’s the heart of their so-called “proposal”:

For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts. He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.

Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy. Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates. On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.

This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform. Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.

If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.

That’s not a proposal. It’s barely enough for a bullet point. It’s not something a legislator came up with. It’s something from a P.R. flack.

This brings into sharp relief who the Republicans in the House answer to: The Very Rich. Big Money. Nobody with any credibility still believes that the fate of our economy hinges on them maintaining a 3.9% lower tax rate. If that were the case, our recession would never have happened and our economy would be roaring because they have had that tax break for more than five years.

This past weekend at the RootsCamp conference, I heard White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett speak. During her speech she said this very clear and unequivocal terms:

President Obama WILL NOT allow the Bush tax cuts to be renewed for the richest two percent of Americans.

No “unlesses”. No “except fors”. A simple, unequivocal, direct statement.

WILL. NOT.

The White House is saying the same thing through other channels, as well.

UPDATE: White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer has issued the following statement:

The Republican letter released today does not meet the test of balance. In fact, it actually promises to lower rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve. Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires. While the President is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates. President Obama believes—and the American people agree—that the economy works best when it is grown from the middle out, not from the top down. Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won’t be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs.

I’d call that “dead on arrival”, wouldn’t you?

Oh, and while we’re talking House budgets and hypocritical Republicans, news is out today that Paul Ryan has a new budget out himself. Remember that $716 billion that he and Mitt Romney beat the hell out of President Obama about during the campaign? Well, it’s still in Paul Ryan’s budget.

Totally not kidding.

During the campaign, candidate Romney repeatedly hammered President Obama for cutting $716 billion from Medicare as part of his signature healthcare law. Romney pledged to repeal those cuts in a break from his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman, had preserved Obama’s Medicare cuts in two consecutive budget proposals that repealed the rest of the Affordable Care Act. Ryan is now back at work crafting his next budget, and Republicans on his committee say the $716 billion in Medicare cuts will likely survive.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) said the $716 billion cut is part of the committee’s over-arching plan to save and reform Medicare. He said he doesn’t expect Ryan to back away from any part of that goal just because Romney was on a different page.

I’m not sure where Woodall and the journalists who wrote the piece, Sam Baker and Elise Viebeck, were during the last six weeks of the campaign. They act as if Ryan himself didn’t attack President Obama over this very same $716 billion in Medicare savings. Remember, this chunk of money comes from elimination of waste and duplication and not a single penny from reduced benefits. Paul Ryan was right there with Mitt Romney with his stunningly hypocritical attacks. Let’s just be clear about that.

[Photo by Chris Savage | Eclectablog]

Obama administration & Dems play Good Cop, Bad Cop with Norquist-worshipping Republicans

Eclectablog — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:07:05 +0000

Pay no attention to the lobbyist behind the curtain

As LOLGOP pointed out this morning, there are Republicans who handily won re-election in their gerrymandered districts who do not fear the fiscal cliff. They can serve their two-percenter masters without fear that plunging our country into another recession will hurt their political careers in any way. But President Obama has a couple of things going for him. The first is that most Americans WILL blame the Republicans for “going there” if we do, indeed, go off the mythical cliff. Then there’s the fact that he won the election largely because he promised the super-wealthy would no longer be allowed to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

Democrats are beginning to show some real spine in this debate. Politico reports today that many of them are ready to use their success on November 6th to restore some sanity to our budget.

Democrats in Congress, led by incoming Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, are much more aggressive in their approach to the fiscal cliff. The Washington Democrat has said that going off the cliff is one way to “get past” the impasse over fiscal policy on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Vermont’s Peter Welch have backed Murray.

Rockefeller led a liberal revolt before Thanksgiving by circulating a letter, along with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), insisting that any deal include $1 in revenue for every $1 in spending cuts.

Rockefeller said Monday that numbers like those in the White House report are concerning, but he urged Democrats to maintain a hard line on ending the Bush tax cuts for top earners.

“I do know this: Holding the line on raising taxes on the wealthy, that’ll probably raise taxes on about 7,000 families in West Virginia as opposed to everybody else,” he said.

The report that Rockefeller refers to is a White House report suggesting that raising taxes on everyone, including the 98% of us that aren’t fabulously wealthy, runs the risk of sending our economy right back into a solid recession. So, while they play “Bad Cop”, the White House is playing “Good Cop”, trying to find a way through this potential hostage situation the Republicans are once again instigating.

Even before releasing Monday’s report, the administration had been downplaying the idea that going off the cliff would be a win for Democrats. In a press conference earlier this month, Obama said failure to get a deal would provide Americans with a “rude shock” that could trigger another recession.

“It would be a bad thing,” he said. “It’s not necessary.”

Today, at the White House, he put the options in plain English:

Right now, as we speak, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody’s. And that means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime. Ninety-eight percent of Americans, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up by a single dime.

Even the wealthiest Americans would still get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. So it’s not like folks who make more than $250,000 aren’t getting a tax break, too. They’re getting a tax break on the first $250,000 just like everybody else.

Very reasonable. And it’s a good strategy. President Obama can afford to be seen as reasonable on this issue because, the fact is, he holds nearly all the cards. If the Republicans won’t budge, everyone’s taxes go up and the Republicans’ claim to be against tax hikes will be seen for the sham that it is. They are, as LOLGOP showed clearly earlier this week, only against tax cuts for their wealthy masters — the two-percenters.

I call the fiscal cliff mythical because it doesn’t exist. The instant taxes go up Congress can immediately pass a bill to restore any or all of them. House Democrats will simply put forth a bill that restores the breaks for the 98-percenters and force the Republicans to vote against it. Then, in the midterm election two years from now, we tell them how we feel about it if they DO vote against. That includes the tea partiers.

Don’t think the President doesn’t know this. On Friday, he will make his case in Pennsylvania.

On Friday, November 30th, the President will travel to Montgomery County, Pennsylvania to continue making the public case for action by visiting a business that depends on middle class consumers during the holiday season, and could be impacted if taxes go up on 98 percent of Americans at the end of the year. As we enter the holiday season, the White House continues to urge Congress to act to renew middle class tax cuts so families have a little more certainty at this critical time for our economy.

President Obama will tour and deliver remarks at The Rodon Group manufacturing facility in Hatfield, PA. The Rodon Group is the sole American manufacturer for K’NEX Brands, a construction toy company whose products include Tinkertoy, K’NEX Building Sets and Angry Bird Building Sets. The Rodon Group and K’NEX Brands, both third-generation family businesses, employ over 150 people at their Hatfield facilities.

Ironically, some Republicans think going off the cliff-that’s-not-a-cliff will benefit them.

Republican Rep. Tom Cole urged colleagues in a private session Tuesday to vote to extend the Bush tax rates for all but the highest earners before the end of the year — and to battle over the rest later.

The Oklahoma Republican said in an interview with POLITICO that he believes such a vote would not violate Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge and that he’s not alone within Republican circles. {…}

[H]e told POLITICO, Republicans should fight the president over tax rates for the top earners after everyone else is taken care of. That would rob the president of the argument that Republicans are holding up tax cuts for all but the top earners, Cole said.

“Some people think that’s our leverage in the debate. It’s the Democrats’ leverage in the debate,” he said.

Have no fear, though. John Boehner isn’t having it. So, as he and his bought-and-paid for pals in Congress worship at the altar of Grover Norquist and his decades-old “no taxes” pledge, the Democrats and the Obama administration can use the bully pulpit and some good old fashioned Good Cop/Bad Cop action to make their case to the American people.

It’s nice to have the upper hand for once, isn’t it?

Can I get an amen?

Norquist painting by Michael D’Antuono, used with permission. D’Antuono has this artist’s statement about his painting which can be seen with his other political art at ArtAndResponse.com.

Has Grover Norquist Put The GOP In An “Uncompromising” Position?
We’ve all been warned about the looming fiscal cliff. During the campaign, the Republicans would often point to a clock counting off to the moment of our economic apocalypse. That may be a bombastic way to hype a self-inflicted financial disaster. But it is true that if the Republicans and Democrats can’t come to some sort of compromise by December 31, we will be in a economic pickle of no one’s liking.

And there’s that word – compromise. It’s an important one. I even snuck it in the title of this blog. Birds do it. Bees do it. Even educated Democrats do it. Unfortunately, 95% of the Republicans in office have signed a pledge to a lobbyist named Grover not to compromise when it comes to raising taxes. That means not agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for 98% of Americans if the top 2% don’t get to keep them. They’ll tell you that it’s because without the lower tax rate, “job creators” won’t be able to create jobs. It seems to me that the job creators created a lot more jobs without it under the Clinton administration than they have since. But the real reason is because if they renege on their pledge to the Great and Powerful Grover, he will not allocate any money to their next campaign. After all, they want to save jobs … their own. Unfortunately, that stubbornness has created the gridlock that has downgraded our economic status and stalled our recovery.

Since the election hasn’t really gone their way, the GOP are beginning realize that the people aren’t particularly fond of gridlock. As more people become aware of their subservient relationship with the lobbyist, some key Republicans are subtly starting to distance themselves from Grover. As an artist, I’ve tried to do my part to help that process along with my painting “Who The Hell Is Grover Norquist?” Do your part and pass it around. Let’s convince the Republican leaders to lead instead of following a lobbyist like junkies to their dealer. It might put them in a more “compromising” position.

Michigan Tea Party Republicans play chicken with Obama administration on health insurance exchanges

Eclectablog — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:08:27 +0000

Letting ideology trump protecting our most vulnerable citizens

Michigan’s Tea Party Republicans are doing everything in their power to block the formation of a state-run health insurance exchange. These state exchanges are mandated by the Affordable Care Act and, if they are not formed, the federal government will do it for them, taking away the state’s ability to control their own destiny. As I wrote last summer, this self-defeating behavior is harmful to Michigan’s most vulnerable citizens.

Leading the charge is Gail Haines, the chair of the House Health Policy Committee. You may recall that it was Haines who prevented pro-Choice women from giving testimony at a hearing on a package of extremely regressive abortion bills last summer, sparking a huge rally at the Capital.

Haines is a tea party darling. She herself says she is a proud member:

Gail Haines, state representative from District 43, said the Tea Party still has a presence in Michigan.

“I am very involved with my local tea party and they support me,” Haines said. “I go to as many of their events as I can.”

The Waterford Republican has used her position as chair of the House Health Policy Committee, to delay formation of the exchanges with Republicans saying they wanted to wait to see the results of the November 6th election. Now that the election has come and gone with no particular change in the balance of power, Michigan still faces a deadline this Friday that, according to Michigan Radio, will come and go with no action by our lawmakers.

Michigan is not likely to meet a Friday deadline to tell the Obama administration whether the state will operate its own insurance exchange under the federal healthcare law.

The exchange is where businesses and individuals will shop online for coverage.

A key Republican decision-maker says she won’t be pushed by federal deadlines without first getting more questions answered.

The Affordable Care Act passed in March of 2010. These Republicans who say they need questions answered have had two and half years to do the research needed but that’s clearly not their true goal here. Their goal is to avoid having their names associated with “Obamacare” at all costs, even if it means harming Michiganders who need these exchanges in order to have affordable health insurance.

With tea partiers sending out emails with titles like “ALERT, ALERT, ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” (I’m not kidding, that’s a cut-and-paste from an actual email), Haines and her tea party Republican comrades are being given the cover they need to act like complete jackasses at the expense of poor folks.

In the interview with Michigan Radio’s Rick Pluta, Haines says this about Friday’s deadline (AUDIO HERE):

That is if the federal government stands by that deadline. How many deadlines have we seen changed?

Playing chicken with the federal government doesn’t take courage. It is an act of childish petulance and the Top Petulant Child is Gail Haines. As I wrote in July:

These people are not patriots. They are self-absorbed, selfish and ill-informed about the very things they say they are fighting for.

Obama issues Executive Order to accelerate investment in industrial energy efficiency

Eclectablog — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:27:10 +0000

We can’t wait…

President Obama is smart enough to know that we can dramatically lower our dependence on foreign fossil fuels through energy efficiency and conservation. Yesterday, he signed an Executive Order intended to further that process by accelerating investments in industrial energy efficiency.

“Today, we are taking another step to strengthen American manufacturing by boosting energy efficiency for businesses across the nation,” said President Obama. “This action will cut costs, increase efficiency, and help our businesses create strong, middle class jobs. We’ll continue to do everything we can to put more people back to work and build an economy that lasts.”

From the White House press release:

Today, President Obama signed an Executive Order to facilitate investments in industrial energy efficiency that will strengthen American manufacturing and help create jobs. These efforts to boost industrial energy efficiency, including combined heat and power systems, can save manufacturers as much as $100 billion in energy costs over the next decade, improving their bottom lines and strengthening U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. These types of efficiency measures will reduce energy consumption and reduce harmful emissions. {…}

Today’s Order also establishes a new national goal of 40 gigawatts of new combined heat and power capacity by 2020, a 50% increase from today. Meeting this goal would save energy users $10 billion per year, result in $40 to $80 billion in new capital investment in manufacturing and other facilities that would create American jobs, and would reduce emissions equivalent to 25 million cars.

This is a smart initiative, one that will take our country FORWARD. It’s in sharp contrast to the Republicans’ “drill, baby, drill” mantra.

Here’s the relevant bit from the Executive Order (read the entire thing HERE [pdf]):

The Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall coordinate policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency in order to reduce costs for industrial users, improve U.S. competitiveness, create jobs, and reduce harmful air pollution. In doing so, they shall engage States, industrial companies, utility companies, and other stakeholders to accelerate this investment. Specifically, these agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(a) coordinate and strongly encourage efforts to achieve a national goal of deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost-effective industrial CHP [combined heat and power] in the United States by the end of 2020;

(b) convene stakeholders, through a series of public workshops, to develop and encourage the use of best practice State policies and investment models that address the multiple barriers to investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP;

(c) utilize their respective relevant authorities and resources to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP, such as by:

providing assistance to States on accounting for the potential emission reduction benefits of CHP and other energy efficiency policies when developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve national ambient air quality standards;

providing incentives for the deployment of CHP and other types of clean energy, such as set-asides under emissions allowance trading program state implementation plans, grants, and loans;

employing output-based approaches as compliance options in power and industrial sector regulations, as appropriate, to recognize the emissions benefits of highly efficient energy generation technologies like CHP; and

seeking to expand participation in and create additional tools to support the Better Buildings, Better Plants program at the Department of Energy, which is working with companies to help them achieve a goal of reducing energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years, as well as utilizing existing partnership programs to support energy efficiency and CHP

(d) support and encourage efforts to accelerate investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP by:

providing general guidance, technical analysis and information, and financial analysis on the value of investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP to States, utilities, and owners and operators of industrial facilities;

improving the usefulness of Federal data collection and analysis; and

assisting States in developing and implementing State-specific best practice policies that can accelerate investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.

In implementing this section, these agencies should consult with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as appropriate.

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

Eclectablog — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 01:00:01 +0000

Mitt Romney is a shameless liar.

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

Let’s look at that again: Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

What was once just “flip-flopping” has now become full on, in public, repeated without shame or any concern that anyone will care, lying about President Obama. I’m not talking about the standard fair bending of the truth that we have come to expect from nearly ANY political campaign. I’m talking about make-shit-up, completely fabricated and provably so LYING.

Romney has been picking around the edges of the LIAR scab for a very long time but this past week showed us in no uncertain terms that Mitt Romney is making up lies about President Obama and repeating them over and over again in front of cameras. It’s now time for every major media outlet to acknowledge what is clearly obvious to thinking people:

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

The first blatantly egregious lie, one that is easily, demonstrably and unequivocally provable as a lie, was Romney saying that President Obama is trying to disenfranchise Ohio members of the military.

At the time, Bob Cesca called it his “biggest lie so far”:

In addition to sounding like a Patrick Bateman speech, that’s arguably the biggest Romney lie so far. There’s nothing here that’s even remotely close to the truth. The Obama administration is absolutely not doing what Romney says its doing — in any way. The president is actually trying to extend weekend voting to everyone, including the troops. Romney has used twisted Orwellian Karl Rove style backwards logic to trick his supporters into buying this hooey while reinforcing the myth that the president — the commander in chief of the armed forces — hates the military. At the same time, he’s reversed the Voter ID debate by making it seem as if the Democrats are trying to disenfranchise voters.

Get that? The Obama administration is suing Ohio to force them to extend weekend voting privileges to EVERYONE. Everyone INCLUDING military members. Military members already have that privilege. If the Obama administration is successful in their suit, everyone in Ohio will. In fact, if this lawsuit succeeds, nothing at all changes for members of the military.

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

Here’s what Obama for America Veterans and Military Family Vote Director Rob Diamond had to say about this blatant and provable lie:

Mitt Romney and his campaign have completely fabricated a claim that the Obama campaign is trying to restrict military voting in Ohio. In fact, the opposite is true: the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit to make sure every Ohioan, including military members and their families, has early voting rights over the last weekend prior to the election. The case filed with the court could not be clearer on this point.The real story of what is happening in the Buckeye State is that Mitt Romney supports the Republican effort to stop people from voting by restricting their access to the polls. In 2008, more than 93,000 Ohioans utilized early voting in the three days before the election. In complete disregard of the will of Ohio voters expressed last year through the referendum process, the Republican legislature is attempting to remove from the vast majority of voters — including veterans of our armed services — the early voting rights they enjoyed in 2008. This latest Republican attack on rights of voters is shameful — and so is Mitt Romney’s endorsement of it.

“Completely fabricated” is probably as close to “lie” as we’re likely to get. But it is saying, loud and clear:

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

The second lie, and clearly Bob Cesca’s piece came out before this lie was trumpeted across the country because THIS is Mitt Romney’s most astonishing lie yet, started with an ad that literally said that President Obama had secretly removed a requirement that people on welfare try to find jobs and work. It is a clear perversion of a response by the Obama administration to requests REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS that they be given more freedom to design their own welfare programs. The Obama administration agreed to their request as long as the new programs generated 20% MORE jobs. Romney’s lie is that they actually REMOVED the requirement to work. It is very literally the exact opposite of what the Obama administration did. And it was something that he himself asked for when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Here’s Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog (where you can watch the odious ad if you wish):

It’s important to realize this is as dishonest an ad as you’ll ever see — in 2012 or in any other campaign cycle. {…}

Romney’s lying. He’s not spinning the truth to his advantage; he’s not hiding in a gray area between fact and fiction; he’s just lying. The law hasn’t been “gutted”; the work requirement hasn’t been “dropped.” Stations that air this ad are disseminating an obvious, demonstrable lie.

All Obama did is agree to Republican governors’ request for flexibility. That’s it. Indeed, perhaps the most jaw-dropping aspect of this is that Romney himself, during his one gubernatorial term, asked for the same kind of flexibility on welfare law that Obama agreed to last month. Romney, in other words, is attacking the president for doing what Romney asked the executive branch to do in 2005.

The entire line of attack is simply insane.

Benen and other commentators (including Rachel Maddow in an amazing piece last night) have pointed out the equally blatant racist angle to this attack. It’s no secret that “welfare recipient” is Republican codespeak for “black people”. There is a long and hideous past full of examples of this. If you need to be reminded, click The Rachel Maddow Show link.

Here’s the Obama campaign’s simple response:

“It’s false.” “Flexible on the truth.” What they are saying is:

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

Bill Clinton who is featured in Romeny’s ad in a favorable way responded with this:

Governor Romney released an ad today alleging that the Obama administration had weakened the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. That is not true.

The act emerged after years of experiments at the state level, including my work as Governor of Arkansas beginning in 1980. When I became President, I granted waivers from the old law to 44 states to implement welfare to work strategies before welfare reform passed.

After the law was enacted, every state was required to design a plan to move people into the workforce, along with more funds to help pay for training, childcare and transportation. As a result, millions of people moved from welfare to work.

The recently announced waiver policy was originally requested by the Republican governors of Utah and Nevada to achieve more flexibility in designing programs more likely to work in this challenging environment. The Administration has taken important steps to ensure that the work requirement is retained and that waivers will be granted only if a state can demonstrate that more people will be moved into work under its new approach. The welfare time limits, another important feature of the 1996 act, will not be waived.

The Romney ad is especially disappointing because, as governor of Massachusetts, he requested changes in the welfare reform laws that could have eliminated time limits altogether. We need a bipartisan consensus to continue to help people move from welfare to work even during these hard times, not more misleading campaign ads.

Perhaps the most maddening part of this is that mainstream media organizations seem incapable of calling Mitt Romney a LIAR when it is some demonstrably true that he is. CNN’s headline on this? “Romney hits Obama for welfare changes”. (By contrast, their headline for what they say is a false Obama ad is “Ad linking Romney to death of the wife of a laid off steelworker not accurate”.)

Even if they won’t call him out as the LIAR he is, CNN is still reporting on this issue. When he was asked about Clinton’s rebuke today, he clammed up and wouldn’t answer the question:

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

What’s unclear at the moment is whether or not he is going to get away with it. Are American voters so uninformed that they don’t know he’s a blatant LIAR? Are they so jaded that, with help from a pathetic media environment, they think ALL politicians lie this blatantly? Is Romney, as some have suggested, lying so much that journalists simply can’t keep up with the debunking?

What IS clear is that Romney is cleaning Obama’s clock in the fundraising department. Check out this frightening chart:

He’s getting killed in the fundraising department. Sure it’s mostly from wealthy individuals and Super PACs, but it’s still a hell of a lot more money than Obama is raising.

Will it make the difference? Can Mitt Romney overcome being the most dishonest politician ever to run for president by simply buying the election?

Mitt Romney is a blatant liar and he is running for president of the United States.

Will we let him win?