Thursday Reads

Posted: October 27, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Catfood Commission, Super Committee | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 27 Comments

Good Morning!

It’s amazing what kind of nonsense the right wing can come up with when their interests and myths are threatened.  Here’s the latest Faux News canard about Occupy.  It’s an ACORN plot!  If any one believes that, I have a few bridges across the Mississippi I’d like to sell them.  The Crescent City Connection even comes with tolls!!

How can a group that folded 19 months ago secretly conspire to bolster Occupy protests? Apparently, “sources tell” Fox News that people who used to work for ACORN have now taken on roles helping organize Occupy protests. In fact, Fox News reports that the former director of New York ACORN and his aides are now working for New York Communities for Change (NYCC), which is turn supporting demonstrations.

I’m not sure why this would be especially interesting if true — if folks who used to be involved with one group then started playing a role with another, who cares? — but as it turns out, a spokesperson for Occupy Wall Street said the NYCC isn’t playing a role in the protests anyway. But don’t worry, Fox News’ unnamed “source” said the group really is up to secret misdeeds, adding, “And yes, we’re still ACORN, there is a still a national ACORN.”

It’s safe to assume that Fox News has reliable contacts among progressive activist organizations, right? There’s bound to be plenty of former ACORN staffers and Occupy activists eager to dish to the Republicans’ cable news outlet, right?

Please. It’s really no wonder at all why Fox News’ audience ends up believing so much nonsense.

They do believe the nonsense, which makes Fox News watchers very dangerous in the voting booth.

Dems on the Super Committee are offering up Medicaid and other ‘entitlements’ in order to get tax increases from Republicans.  It didn’t work, but you have to wonder exactly what all they’re willing to put on the table.

Republicans have pressured supercommittee members to reject any deficit-reduction deal that raises taxes — including stimulus spending for the economy would almost certainly be a non-starter for most in the party.

Democrats have said from the beginning that the supercommittee should produce a “jobs plan” that includes “investments” to help the economy.

The supercommittee is charged with devising a plan that will cut at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years from annual deficits, but deep divisions exist on the panel over whether to raise taxes and cut entitlements to meet that goal.

The members met again Wednesday afternoon and Democrats were looking to see if the GOP would present an alternative path to the grand bargain.

You may recall that the grand bargain was the giveaway President Obama offered to Boehner last summer during the debt ceiling talks.  More details are available at this WAPO link.

The panel has floundered since meetings began in September. If the supercommittee fails to reach agreement to trim borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion through 2021, automatic spending cuts of an equal amount would be triggered in January 2013. These cuts would strike especially hard at the Pentagon, an outcome that Republicans are eager to avoid.

Ralph B posted this tidbit downthread last night.  Chelsea Clinton is said to be considering a congressional run.

Clinton has been approached by “the right people” in the New York Democratic Party, according to one source in Albany. While no decision has been made, Clinton is said to be “actively considering” a Congressional run from New York State in 2012.

Chelsea Clinton, 31, is the only child of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The discussions of running Chelsea Clinton for a house seat grew out of the redistricting plans currently underway in the New York State legislature in Albany.

The plan is to identify an open seat for Clinton in or around New York City where she currently resides with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky. While no specific district has been determined, New York City and Westchester are said to be the focus with New York’s 18th District considered a strong possibility. The 18th encompasses much of Westchester County, just south of where her parents have maintained a home for the past 12 years.

The Daily Beast reports that Herman Cain was delinquent in paying taxes in 2006.  Additionally, he fought paying the bill.

According to court documents obtained by The Beast, Cain and his wife, Gloria, were served in February 2008 with a tax lien totaling $8,558.46 for unpaid income taxes and penalty due for the 2006 calendar year.

Gordon said Cain had filed with the IRS and won a six-month reprieve in paying his 2006 federal taxes as he was undergoing his treatment for stage four lymphoma and believed that filing should also have bought him time with the state of Georgia. “In Georgia, a taxpayer can submit a copy of his federal extension to request an extension of state income taxes,” Gordon said.

But instead, the state sent a notice of overdue taxes in October 2007, and then proceeded with the tax lien four months later, he said.

Cain’s accountant fought the Georgia Department of Revenue on behalf of his client well into 2008 and the two sides finally settled the matter in November 2008. A court formally withdrew the state tax lien on Dec. 8, 2008, court records show.

Gordon said the campaign was researching the exact date on which Cain made the payment to extinguish the lien

Robert Reich thinks that Wall Street is still out of control.

Dodd-Frank is rife with so many loopholes and exemptions that the largest Wall Street banks – larger by far then they were before the bailout – are back to many of their old tricks.

It’s impossible to know, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europe’s banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets – among them, derivatives originating on the Street – and may have to reneg on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks.

The Street says it’s not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG? The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors don’t believe the Street. This itself proves financial reform hasn’t gone far enough.

If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits. That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits. Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers.

Wasn’t this supposed to be illegal? Keeping risky assets away from insured deposits had been a key principle of U.S. regulation for decades before the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The so-called “Volcker rule” was supposed to remedy that. But under pressure of Wall Street’s lobbyists, the rule – as officially proposed last week – has morphed into almost 300 pages of regulatory mumbo-jumbo, riddled with exemptions and loopholes.

It would have been far simpler simply to ban proprietary trading from the jump. Why should banks ever be permitted to use peoples’ bank deposits – insured by the federal government – to place risky bets on the banks’ own behalf? Bring back Glass-Steagall.

The EU announced a Debt Accord late last night which caused a rally in both Asian stocks and the Euro.

The MSCI Asia Pacific Index gained 0.9 percent to 120.25 as of 11 a.m. in Tokyo, set for the highest close since Sept. 9. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures added 0.8 percent. The 17- nation euro climbed 0.5 percent to $1.3979 and rose 0.3 percent to 106.26 yen. Treasury 10-year notes erased earlier gains. Copper, zinc and lead jumped more than 1.4 percent in London and crude climbed 1.9 percent in New York.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the euro region’s bailout fund will be leveraged by four to five times, and investors have agreed to a voluntary writedown of 50 percent on Greek debt. Sarkozy plans to call Chinese leader Hu Jintao today to discuss contributions from the Asian nation to a fund European leaders may set up to fight the crisis, a person familiar with the matter said.

The news of a deal is “certainly mildly positive news for markets,” Adarsh Sinha, head of strategy for Group of 10 foreign exchange at Bank of America, said in a Bloomberg Television interview in Hong Kong. “We have got a plan out but a lot of the details aren’t in place.”

CNN announced the details late last night.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Greek bondholders voluntarily agreed to write down the value of Greek bonds by 50%, which translates to €100 billion and will reduce the nation’s debt load to 120% from 150%.

Sarkozy said the leaders agreed to boost the firepower of the EU bailout fund, known as the European Financial Stability Facility, “by four or five fold.” He added that officials have negotiated additional funding from the International Monetary Fund.

The writedowns were one of three inter-related problems political leaders must solve to devise a comprehensive solution to Europe’s debt crisis. They must also determine how to leverage a government-backed bailout fund and stabilize the banking sector.

EU leaders had pledged to resolve these issues Wednesday at their summit in Brussels. But given the bondholders’ resistance, it was unclear until the early hours of Thursday if the leaders would be able to follow through.

Earlier, the European Council issued a statement saying heads of state had agreed to raise capital requirements for banks vulnerable to losses on euro-area government bonds.

Under the terms outlined by EU officials, banks would be required to sharply increase core capital levels to 9% to create a buffer against potential losses. The amount to be raised would be determined after accounting for declines in the value of euro-area government bonds, including debt issued by Greece.

Based on market rates in September, banks will need to raise a total of €106 billion to meet the new targets, according to the European Banking Authority.

So, that’s the headlines that have grabbed my attention today.  What’s on your blogging and reading list today?

Elizabeth Warren: The Woman Who Would Throw Stones, Radicalize Your Firstborn And Make the Streets Run Marxist Red

Posted: October 26, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Republican politics | Tags: , | 14 Comments

It’s becoming clear that Elizabeth Warren is viewed as a major threat by the Republican political machine.  She’s never been a Wall St. favorite and was neatly disposed by a President too weak, too fearful of or beholden to the financial districts’ money to fight the good fight.  Obama would not and did not appoint Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency she developed and nurtured into being.  And so, rather than going quietly into that good night, Warren surprised many by tossing her hat into the political arena in Massachusetts, running for Ted Kennedy’s old seat and pitting herself against a Wall St. darling, the handsome pinup, Senator Scott Brown.

Personally, I don’t have anything against Brown.  He seems a decent sort from my long-distance view in Red State territory.  But Warren is my kind of candidate, even though she’s not as liberal as I am nor as liberal as many disenchanted, politically homeless Democrats.  Where she’s won hearts is through her consistent support for the middle-class, America’s working men and women. The working class is the spine of this country.  We lose them, we lose everything.

But now, Elizabeth Warren has really done it, committed another unpardonable sin.  She’s publicly stated that she supports Occupy Wall St.  She’s openly said that her work in the past set the groundwork, laid down the fundamentals that the Movement took to heart and rallied around.

Some people, perhaps a number of Democrats, would take issue with that.  A former Republican, Warren made a rather clumsy statement about OWS early on about people needing to follow the law.  Critics took that to mean she supported the police in all matters, public grievances be damned.

But this is minor in comparison to the reaction Warren’s most recent statement inspired:

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says. “I support what they do.”

OMG.  How could she?

For some progressives this statement has the whiff of conceit.  Far too Gore-like, they wail—Al Gore of the ‘I created the Internet’ fame.  An idiotic wail IMHO, but a complaint nonetheless.

But for the GOP?  We’re in major meltdown territory.  If Warren supports OWS, then the unreasonable can conclude she supports general mayhem, political overthrow, blood running thick and red through the streets.  Because creating hysteria and destructive class warfare is what OWS is all about.

Hello?

This ongoing spew of misinformation is laughable.  But also dangerous.  Trying to paint Elizabeth Warren as some fuming Marxist and the Occupy Movement as a bunch of mindless revolutionaries [or spoiled brats with romantic revolutionary notions], sets the stage for a political division we have not seen since those grand Red Scare days.  I wasn’t a conscious human being [beyond sucking my toes] during that infamous period, the glorious McCarthy years–our political witch burning era–but I’ve read enough to know we don’t want to go there.  Too many ruined lives, too much shameless posturing and a myriad of unAmerican activities transformed into a hideous art form by righteous accusers who saw Commies and Traitors and a sprawling Red Menace everywhere they looked. And pointed.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee [NRSC] hoping to reelect Scott Brown in 2012 jumped all over Warren’s OWS support statement:

“Warren’s decision to not only embrace, but take credit for this movement is notable considering the Boston Police Department was recently forced to arrest at least 141 of her Occupy acolytes in Boston the other day after they threatened to tie up traffic downtown and refused to abide by their protest permit limits,” wrote NRSC spokesman, Brian Walsh.

You can see where this twisted language logic takes you—Warren supports OWS.  Therefore, Warren is responsible for the police ‘forced’ to arrest 141 of her ‘Occupy acolytes.’

Can we take a break here?

The police acted independently of Elizabeth Warren.  They arrested citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free assembly to voice grievances against a Government and financial system that has betrayed them, betrayed us all.  They were arrested because they threatened to tie up traffic? Did they or didn’t they?  And as we all know refusing to abide by protest permit limits is a major offense.  Off with their heads!  Oh, and let’s not overlook that sweet phrase: ‘her Occupy acolytes.’

Holy Smokes!  Elizabeth Warren is not only an OWS supporter, she’s the Pope of Mayhem.

“Politics is a blood Sport.”

That quote is credited to a 20th century Welsh politician, Aneurin Bevan.  I recall Bill Clinton saying the same thing a number of years ago.  It’s probably true.  He or she who withstands the battle of a thousand tiny cuts, wins.  But let’s not confuse honest criticism with smarmy, unsubstantiated attacks and accusations.

Elizabeth Warren is not Marxist, anymore than the Occupy Wall St. movement is dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States. Are there some radical elements swirling around the edges of Occupy?  Probably.  Like moths, the fringe is drawn to the swirling lights.  But one would need to question who is on the side of violence with what happened in Oakland over the last several nights.

What Warren and OWS protesters have in common is a cry for economic justice, a return to the Rule of Law in a country where our Government and financial institutions have been overtaken by Big Money and corporate influence.  Warren and OWS’s support for middle-class equity and fairness is as American as Old Glory.

But here’s another reason I like Elizabeth Warren:

Because she really drives the GOP wild and highlights the shallow, ridiculous nature of their arguments and propaganda.

You go, Sister!

Once upon a time, there was an American Dream

Posted: October 26, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: income inequality | Tags: , , , | 8 Comments

and over the last three decades it has clearly been disappearing.

The US made incredible strides in the post World War 2 era by bringing huge numbers of American families into the middle class.  This has been clearly reversed over the last three decades according to a new report coming from the Congressional Budget Office.  The report shows that “the top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades”.  It also indicates  the role of government in creating the vast inequalities and the resultant stagnating economy, joblessness, and unsustainable federal spending.  Policy has deliberating pulled the rug out from under the middle class and placed a red carpet out for the very few.  The study was commissioned by Senators Max Baucus and Grassley.

In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.

“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.

Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.

The report, requested several years ago, was issued as lawmakers tussle over how to reduce unemployment, a joint committee of Congress weighs changes in the tax code and protesters around the country rail against disparities in income between rich and poor.

In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.

By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.

And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.

The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.

Rapid growth in the income of the very few has come from other factors too.  Of course, incredible bonuses and executive compensation has played a role.  Additionally, the increasing role of the financial services industry in the economy which mostly produces overhead in relationship to useable goods and services is another reason.  Another factor is capital gain with the preferential tax treatment it receives, its relationship to asset bubble and its disproportionate role in the incomes of the very wealthy.

The interesting thing is that the very rich can get richer from trade and globalization.  Huge businesses and capital can go any where these days.  Most Americans rely on their labor and are limited in their mobility.   If the KFC in Louisville has no customers, perhaps one in Beijing will. That is why it is essential that any attempt to stimulate the economy or create jobs happen in a way that ensures the money stay within communities.   There’s a bill coming up in to create an infrastructure bank in the US which would do just that.  It ensures that funds would be used on projects that would create jobs, tax revenues, incomes, and spending that stays within our borders.

On Tuesday, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) offered H.R. 3259, which would create the bank and fund it at $5 billion per year through 2015. Assuming that bill could be approved this year, that would provide $20 billion for the bank, double the initial amount of money Obama requested.

Democrats have said any money provided to an infrastructure bank could be leveraged to provide financial support to infrastructure projected valued at 10 times that initial amount, or more.

“Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, we all have infrastructure that is crumbling, and we have people in our districts who are eager to get back to work,” Fudge said. “This legislation allows us to target the large number of deficient bridges in our communities and other dangerous infrastructure for repair, making travel safer for our residents.”

Fudge said the bill would allow funding for transportation, drinking water and public housing projects. Her bill is the House companion to S. 1550, which Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced in September.

Of course, there’s one problem.

While the bill could move in the Democrat-controlled Senate, it would seem to have no chance of being considered in the House. Republicans in the House continue to insist on spending cuts, and no new federal spending programs. Neither bill provides for any offset in spending to create the infrastructure bank, and instead rely on new appropriations.

How did we possibly arrive at the point where elected officials will actively work against the interests of the people that elected them?

Details Emerge on Obama Student Loan Plan

Posted: October 25, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Domestic Policy | Tags: , , | 4 Comments

Some details on the Obama Student Loan relief program have been released prior to the President’s speech on Wednesday in Denver.  The new program expedites changes that were not to take effect until 2014. It  adds a few more provisions including the ability to consolidate loans into the direct government plan.

The plan also would accelerate imposition of a cap on payments at 10 percent of income for some people with federal education loans by having it take effect next year rather than in 2014, Melody Barnes, White House domestic policy adviser, told reporters.

For some workers burdened by student loans the changes “could reduce their payments by hundreds of dollars every single month,” Barnes said.

—

Under the loan proposal, people who have student loans through both the direct government loan program and the Federal Family Education Loan program would be able to consolidate what they owe into a single government loan with lower monthly payments and interest rates, Barnes said.

That could reduce by as much as 0.5 percent the interest paid by 5.8 million people, saving borrowers hundreds of dollars, she said.

The acceleration of the 10 percent income cap would affect an estimated 1.6 million borrowers whose type of loan and whose debt in proportion to income and family size makes them eligible for the federal student loan Income-Based Repayment Plan, according to a fact sheet released by the White House.

This program is aimed at reducing the number of defaulting loans that have now reached highs not seen since 1997.  Student loan debt has just reached 1 trillion dollars and rivals the level of credit card debt.

How Orwellian of them

Posted: October 25, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Domestic Policy, Surreality, Team Obama | Tags: , , | 20 Comments

Public access to government information is vital to a functioning democracy.  That’s probably why the Justice Department is proposing this change to the Freedom of Information Act.  They’re working on further disappearing people and information now.   Is having a functioning democracy politically inconvenient or simply expedient in this age of terrorist games? This is one change that we should be fighting tooth and nail.

A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government.

In a public comment regarding the rule change, the ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org, said the move “will dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people.”

Anne Weismann, the chief counsel of CREW, said the Justice Department has a legitimate purpose behind the rules: to protect sensitive information about ongoing investigations. However, she said lying about the records “is an overbroad and improper response.”

“The problem is, if you’re a FOIA requester and the agency says they don’t have the records, you have no reason to doubt that,” Weismann said.“But if they cite an exemption, you have the option to sue.”

I can think of a number of records pertaining to our current wars as well as a variety of domestic terrorism criminal suits that could conveniently be disappeared.  Would this also extend to the request that got the FED to pony up its TARP details, or say, the request to see who visited the White House during the Health Care Reform debates like all those Big Pharma folks?

This is vital to a free and functioning press.  I know we don’t have much of that left, but a few reporters still actually take their jobs as journalists seriously.  This is also important for academics, lawyers, and a host of others who need the details to determine potential wrong doing or innocence.  This certainly means the government would be able to interpret what it wants to give you under a FOIA request.  This is a very bad thing.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →