As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.
After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.
But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.
Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
I got a weird little story about my friend Blitz Krieger to bring to you today.
He's had a crazy car problem, he has, and over the past few months he thought he had found a solution - in fact, he thought he had found the solution of his dreams - but in the end, he's discovered that the things you dream about often don't go according to plan.
The way it's worked out for him so far, it's been a lot of anticipation followed by a sudden wave of frustration, but I feel like he's a lot better off having his particular problem with his car...because if he'd had cancer instead, he'd surely be dead by now.
After doing a bit of mountain hiking a few days back, I had a chance to get involved in a great afternoon conversation with the Alliance for American Manufacturing's Mike Wessel, who also serves as a Commissioner with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; the conversation was about how we're doing when it comes to our relationship with China.
As it turns out, the two events went well together, because what I'm hearing from these guys is that we have a great big ol' mountain to climb if we hope to get back to a level playing field in our interactions with this most important country.
There's news to report across a variety of issues; that's why today we'll be talking about trade, human rights, cybersecurity, poverty and development, and the methods by which you can apply "soft power" to achieve hard results.
The entirely unanticipated result: all of this will reveal the naïveté of Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy; we'll discuss that at the end.
I don't feel very good about this country this morning, and as so many of us are I'm thinking of how Troy Davis was hustled off this mortal coil by the State of Georgia without a lot of thought of what it means to execute the innocent.
And given the choice, I'd rather see us abandon the death penalty altogether, for reasons that must, at this moment, seem self-evident; that said, it's my suspicion that a lot of states are not going to be in any hurry to abandon their death penalties anytime soon now that they know the Supreme Court will allow the innocent to be murdered.
So what if there was a way to create a compromise that balanced the absolute need to protect the innocent with the feeling among many Americans that, for some crimes, we absolutely have to impose the death penalty?
Considering the circumstances, it's not going to be an easy subject, but let's give it a try, and see what we can do.
I took a break to enjoy the holiday, as I'm sure many of you did, but my inbox kept busy, and on Friday came a doozy, courtesy of the Washington Post.
You remember that little bit of a banking crisis we had a couple of years back, where banks around the world might have possibly, maybe, just a little, conspired in a giant scheme to package toxic mortgage loans into Grade A, investment-ready securities instruments, which then blew up in everyone's faces to the tune of a whole lot of taxpayer bailouts?
Well all of a sudden, it looks like an agency of the Federal Government is looking to do something about it, in a real big way.
Last Friday the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced they're suing 17 firms (I'll give you a list, bit it's pretty much all the usual suspects); depending on who you ask the Feds are seeking an amount as high as $200 billion.
As Joe Biden would say, it's a big...well, it's a big deal, anyway, and that's why we're starting the new week with this one.
When last we met, it was to discuss a Big Idea that the Obama Administration might apply to get some job creation going, despite a difficult Congress; the Big Idea was to look at the "Buy American" provisions that exist in our laws, regulations, and Executive Orders and see if we could practice a bit of "jobs arbitrage" by not just meeting the "Made in USA" requirements when governments across this country make purchases, but exceeding them.
(As it stands today, pretty much any "good or service" with more than 50% Made in USA content qualifies as a Made in USA purchase, even if 49% of the "good or service" comes from somewhere else).
At the time, I told you that if all went well we could look forward to comments from both Labor and the Administration as to the practicality of the Big Idea, and as it turns out I have comments for you that hit close to that mark - and a bit more besides:
On Saturday I just happened to bump into Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09); in the course of that conversation I told him what we're doing here, and he wanted to offer a few thoughts of his own...and when you put all that together, I think we're going to have a lot to talk about.
"I am glad that we passed an agreement in time to avoid default - the consequences of which would have been disastrous for middle class families. And while I did earlier support a more responsible version of the agreement raising the debt ceiling, I could not support this legislation as I believe it will have a harmful effect on job creation and further weaken the economic security of millions of American families.
"The spending cuts specified in this deal will slash critical investments in education, infrastructure and research, among other things-- public investments critical to job creation and economic growth. The majority's insistence that these priorities are to blame for our deficit problems is simply untrue. The primary reasons deficits have grown so large is because revenues are lower than they have been in sixty years, thanks to the recession and the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, and we initiated two wars on the nation's credit card. If this majority were at all serious about deficit reduction, they would at least allow for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans and corporate special interests to share in the sacrifice rather than protecting them.
"Without assurances that Congress will pursue a balanced approach, the additional cuts called for in a few short months as part of the agreement will threaten the promises made to generations of hard-working Americans by ending Medicare as we know it, cutting Medicaid, and compromising the future of Social Security. I could not in good conscience support such an unbalanced approach that places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of middle class families and our seniors while further weakening our shaky economy."
Murphy:
"From the beginning of this manufactured crisis, I have said that I would be willing to support a compromise deal that fairly shares the burden of deficit reduction. This bill isn't a compromise - it places almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on Medicare beneficiaries, middle class families, and the poor. Not one corporate tax loophole is closed. Not one billionaire will pay a cent more in taxes. But seniors will lose Medicare providers, and programs for the poor and disabled will be slashed. That's not what my constituents believe is a compromise.
This deficit was created by two trillion-dollar wars and tax cuts for the rich. But the wars are exempted from these cuts, and the Bush tax cuts aren't touched either. This bill, which we all had about 24 hours to read and dissect, does virtually nothing to address the root causes of our deficit and instead asks middle class America to pay the check for decades of fiscal mismanagement."
Interestingly, the words "middle class" do not appear in either Himes' or Courtney's statements (assuming the Courant provided the statements in full).
"(Connecticut) has surpassed the $1 billion mark for funds now committed to a number of projects and initiatives," and that, "the federal stimulus act is providing the state of Connecticut and its cities and towns with much-needed resources to help us all weather this economic downturn and get Connecticut residents back to work."
Governor Rell continued,
"My administration has been committed and engaged from the start in pursuing every federal funding source available."
Governor Rell pointed out that by last August Connecticut had received $1.2 billion Medicaid assistance, $540 million in "educational stabilization", and more than $400 million for transportation initiatives.
If Debicella had bothered to check out Governor Rell's own official website recently for an update, he would have seen that by the governor's own count, Connecticut has now received more than $4 billion in assistance from the stimulus, which has directly created more than 6,600 jobs. Rell's website lists Connecticut as receiving $840 million for health and human services, half a billion for transportation initiatives, $180 million for unemployment and job services, and nearly three quarters of a billion dollars for educational assistance.
That's the truth Debicella refuses to tell. Or, perhaps, Debicella just doesn't care about the truth.
UPDATE ctblogger: Lets go back to the videotape and take a look at Shays in action during the hearing.
Once again, Connecticut is being treated to a hefty dose of conservative media-induced amnesia, this time at the hands of Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate shill Neil Vigdor. Vigdor conveniently paints former 4th district Republican congressman Chris Shays as a righteous voice who has been proved prescient by Roger Clemens' indictment on federal charges of lying to Congress under oath.
Former U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Friday gave Roger Clemens a taste of the chin music that the once-sure-fire Hall of Fame pitcher used to dish out on the mound, saying Clemens has no one to blame but himself for legal troubles hanging over him...
But when the heat was on Clemens during his actual testimony, Shays said that the inconsistencies became obvious, with Clemens acknowledging that he was injected with the anaesthetic lidocaine and vitamin B-12 -- both legal substances -- by his former trainer Brian McNamee.
"So he lied to me in the office," Shays said. "He just lost all credibility the moment he started to testify."
"It was very clear during the course of that day that he was untruthful to Congress and would ultimately have to pay the price," said Shays.
"I hope and pray Roger is telling the truth...He's a sports icon. He's a remarkable player. Brian McNamee is, frankly, kind of sleazy. I hope he's the one that is lying. I hope someone who a lot of Americans look up to is telling the truth."
In the congressional hearing Shays called Brian McNamee a "police officer who became a drug dealer," , while defending Clemens.
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Christopher Shays, a member of a congressional panel probing the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, said Thursday there is little to be gained by calling players to testify at hearings scheduled for next month.
"If we went back to every player, we would have to do research every morning, noon and night," Shays, R-Conn., said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "There's no way in my judgment we're going to be able to focus on the past. Only a real court can do that, in my judgment."
Exactly one year ago, Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays called Brian McNamee a "drug dealer." He was one of several GOP congressmen in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who sided with Roger Clemens during the lengthy and contentious Feb.13 hearing on the Mitchell Report and steroids.
Shays, R-Conn., was ridiculed in the media for getting facts about baseball and sports history wrong and incorrectly pronouncing the name of former slugger Rafael Palmeiro.
And the sports talk radio show "Mike and the Mad Dog" ripped into Shays after the hearings, calling him an embarrassment:
Mad Dog: "Here's the thing about Shays. I'm gonna go out of my way in November. We're gonna get him the hell out of Connecticut. We're gonna get Himes in there."
The article on Shays is one in a series from their shill-in-residence Vigdor. He is the character who repeatedly denigrated Ned Lamont during his 2006 senatorial campaign by almost unfailingly referring to him as a "political neophyte", disregarding his seven years of service in elective office in Greenwich and his run for state senate, or a "Greenwich millionaire", an appellation that he has virtually never attached to Greenwich billionaire and Republican state senator Scott Frantz, or to the two Greenwich billionaire Republican state representatives Livvy Floren Lile Gibbons. And this is the guy who almost invariably referred to former Democratic state house of representative candidate Ed Krumeich as with the conservative pejorative "trial lawyer", rather than attorney and long-time partner in one of the state's largest law practices.
This whitewashing Shays' participation in the Clemens hearings is certainly predictable, but it is still inexcusable. And yet another example of why the people in this state are fed up with right-wing shills like Vigdor and our conservative corporate press, including his employer Hearst Newspapers.
Really making the grade, Republican first selectman of Easton was named by the
NRCC as one of forty "third tier- on the radar" congressional candidates. Way to wow 'em, Tom!
"I will adamantly support state sovereignty...States need to nurture and assert home rule."
Funny that Hermann was touting states' rights just a few short blocks away from Greenwich's monument to its sons who fought and died to preserve the United States during the Civil War, which the Confederacy fought ostensibly in the name of states' rights.
In addition, he stated that he would not have voted to bail out the banks, though he didn't say what he thought would happen if the banking system were allowed to melt down a la 1929.
But the real fun part was his stance on health care reform. He stated that he would not have voted for the health care reform bill and that
"The health care bill is an entitlement...It does little or nothing to control costs....we need to focus on (controlling) costs first."
I suppose that the Congressional Budget Office's detailed studies that concluded that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by over a trillion dollars over twenty years, and most assuredly slow the rise in health insurance costs over the next several years escaped Mr. Hermann's notice.
The Washington Post has an article and interactive poll showing all members of congress, how they voted on the health care reform bill November 7, 2008, how much money they've accepted from the health care industry, the percentage of uninsured in their districts, and how they intend to vote on the final health care reform bill now coming before congress.
WAPO has Jim Himes as "undecided" on the final vote. Yet Jim has responded to me that WAPO has it completely wrong, that he'll be voting for the bill, and that he's
Forgive me for making a separate post, but I wanted to take issue at length with Congressman Himes' vote against the new jobs bill (HR 2847, December 16) that Congress barely passed. His office issued this explanation (as Jonathan Kantrowitz posted):
The Congressman voted against a $75 billion Democratic spending plan which largely expanded programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While the Congressman shares many of the priorities contained in the legislation, he was unwilling to authorize additional spending when over $545 billion, or more than two thirds, of Recovery Act funds are still being spent. This bill uses remaining funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for this expansion. The Congressman believes that TARP funding, which was regrettably requested by President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulsen, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke as critical to averting financial meltdown, should not be used for anything other than debt reduction unless the money is distributed through the full appropriations process.
"As many sectors of the economy begin to show clear signs of recovery, we need to get our fiscal house in order," said Congressman Himes. "The simple facts are that we have to pay our bills, and the only long-term path to continued improvement is to replace public spending with private-sector job growth."
I have to point out that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman takes the opposite point of view, and has for months. He has steadfastly pointed out, and I agree with him, that the initial stimulus bill was far too small. Though Congressman Himes suggests that the economy is "showing clear signs of recovery", I would suggest he focus on the nearly half a million new jobless claims that were made this week, and the double-digit unemployment rate. As Krugman has pointed out, we are in for years of subpar growth and unemployment and underemployment rates that are painfully high. Krugman put it starkly just a week ago:
I don't think many people grasp just how much job creation we need to climb out of the hole we're in. You can't just look at the eight million jobs that America has lost since the recession began, because the nation needs to keep adding jobs - more than 100,000 a month - to keep up with a growing population. And that means that we need really big job gains, month after month, if we want to see America return to anything that feels like full employment.
How big? My back of the envelope calculation says that we need to add around 18 million jobs over the next five years, or 300,000 jobs a month. This puts last week's employment report, which showed job losses of "only" 11,000 in November, in perspective. It was basically a terrible report, which was reported as good news only because we've been down so long that it looks like up to the financial press.
Unless, that is, our Democratic congress joins with Barack Obama and passes substantially greater job stimulus. Congressman Himes has taken the very disappointing position of the minority Republicans that the key economic problem is the deficit, while Krugman, whom I respect above all economists, has pointed out that the deficit is not the problem; the dismal job situation is.
Rosa DeLauro isn't pulling any punches. She's quoted in Politico as stating that she believes that Joe Lieberman ought to be recalled:
"No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.
John Larson also indicated that he finally "gets it" regarding Lieberman..sort of:
"It goes beyond frustration in Connecticut in terms of the way people feel," Larson said. "I have a great deal of respect and I have long admired Joe Lieberman. This goes against the grain of most of what he's fought for and stood for all of his life. It's thoroughly frustrating and disappointing for so many of us."
Thankfully, Connecticut voters have another chance to do what they should have done three years ago: vote for Ned Lamont, albeit for governor instead of senator. Can you begin to imagine how much better off this country would be today if Ned Lamont were in the United States Senate instead of Joe Lieberman? I hope we don't have to ask ourselves that question about the state of Connecticut three years from now.
Nine health care reform activists were arrested this morning while staging a sit-in inside Senator Joseph Lieberman's congressional office in Washington, D.C.
The activists were there representing an organization called Mobilization for Health Care For All.
Explaining their reasons for their actions, student activist Jason Ortiz said, "we staged a sit-in at Senator Lieberman's office this morning in order to ask him to return the $65,000 campaign donation that he recently received from the Aetna health insurance corporation and to ask him to represent the people of Connecticut, not the insurance companies."
The group was also there to protest Senator Lieberman's announcement last week that he will filibuster any health reform bill in the Senate that contains a public option.
In total there were 9 arrests made at approximately 10:15 a.m. EST, Thursday, November 5.
At 9:15 this morning the group requested a meeting with the Senator and refused to leave until they were given a chance to meet with him. They were told by Senator Lieberman's staff that they would not be given a meeting with the Senator, and that if they did not leave they would be arrested. Senator Lieberman's staff subsequently contacted law enforcement, and 9 activists were physically removed from the building and arrested.
Some members of the group went to a meeting of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (which Senator Lieberman chairs) to stage a protest in the presence of Senator Lieberman. They were asked to leave and did so without incident.
Of those arrested, one, Brittney Florio, is currently a University of Connecticut student, and one, John Mohrbacher, is an alumnus.
For more information, please call Jason Ortiz at (860)639-8101
Following is a comment I posted at Connecticut Local Politics, which, as usual, is being "held for moderation". Of course, the original posting that quoted a highly distorted and dishonest report by Teri Puhl was published right away. I think it's important to get the truth out, so here it is:
This report is a pack of lies. First, Teri Buhl did not attend Lawrenceville Prep with Jim Himes, because Jim Himes never went to Lawrenceville Prep. He attended and graduated from a public school, Hopewell Valley Central High School in New Jersey. Second, the strong majority of the audience was in favor of health reform and the public option. I was there, sitting half way up on the middle isle on the right side. No one who attended that meeting could suggest that the anti-reform people were in the majority. It was a clear lie. And the audience inside was closer to three hundred people counting all those standing in the back. It was also not true that anyone packed the venue. Lots of people showed up early enough to get in. The person at the front of the line to get in was against reform. That woman, who had a nametag with "Ann" on it, started out by defacing an entire sheet of stickers that said "I support the public option". Real class act! And according to Greenwich Post reporter Ken Borsuk whom I spoke with as we were leaving the meeting hall at the end, the crowd outside numbered about a hundred and were evenly split between supporters of reform and those against. So most of the people who wanted to get in did get in.
Furthermore, I went outside afterwards to the front of Town Hall where Congressman Jim Himes came out to address the crowd. There were not eight police officers out there. I could see the gathering clearly, as I stood to the left of the main entrance about ten feet away from the steps. There were about fifty people remaining, most of whom were against reform. There were three police officers: two who were stationed at the front door of Town Hall, and had been stationed there since before the meeting began, and one additional officer who stood at the back of the crowd. The suggestion that Jim Himes was somehow protected by a phalanx of cops is a lie, although that sort of dishonest reporting is the hallmark of Greenwich Time's Neil Vigdor, who reported that. There certainly was a need for police officers, however, because the people in the crowd were ugly and bent on trying to harass and intimidate anyone who disagreed with them. When Congressman Himes came out to talk with them, they yelled insults, shouted him down, and generally acted like the low-life thugs they were. They frequently refused to permit him to answer their questions, and shouted him down when he tried to. It was a thoroughly disgraceful display by people whose behavior treaded the line that could have had the cops putting them in handcuffs.
I attended the just-completed health care town hall meeting at Greenwich Town Hall attended by roughly 300 people. To summarize Congressman Himes did a very admirable job of explaining the problems with our health care system, explaining what health care reform is necessary, what Congress is debating, and what he intends to vote for. I'd estimate that about 40% of the people in the meeting room tonight were anti-health care reform. They started out interrupting, throwing out catcalls, and being rather disruptive. But Congressman Himes answered questions thoroughly, he used data, he explained his positions clearly, and by eight o'clock at the end of the hour and a half session, all participants were much more subdued, and it appeared that many of the anti folks in the audience had their fears calmed. Of course, you never know with these tin hat types, but the mood in the room certainly became more calmed as the meeting went on and I will have to credit Jim Himes for soothing the fears of many in attendance.
Himes made the following points:
In his introduction he pointed out that the average American family now pays nearly $15,000 either directly or indirectly for health care coverage, and in ten years it is estimated to rise to #30,000.
He stated that we cannot reform Medicare or get our fiscal balance under control without reforming our nation's health care system.
He stated that reforming our health care system and giving every child the opportunity to see a doctor is a matter of morality.
Disturbingly, however, Congressman Himes repeatedly referred to Medicare having $30 tn in unfunded liabilities in terms of the present value of promised care over the next 75 years. He also stated repeatedly that reforming Medicare will be difficult, involve difficult choices, and demand that services to Medicare beneficiaries be reduced in the future.
(Op-ed edited to meet Fair Use requirements. Use link provided to read the entire piece. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
Jim Himes has gone on record with his views regarding health care reform. Here is his oped that was carried in Greenwich Time today:
Health plan good start but must control costs more
By Jim Himes
...Health care reform must have two primary goals: provide Americans with stable access to high-quality care, and substantially reduce the costs in the system. Fail in the first goal, and we will continue to live with the moral and economic costs of a broken system. Fail in the second, and we will simply accelerate the unsustainable trajectory of this system.
The reform proposal being discussed in the U.S. House of Representatives does well on the first goal. It would cover almost all Americans, and provide subsidies to those households unable to afford it...
The public option has been the subject of much debate. Properly structured to assure a level playing field, a public option will provide much needed competition for the insurance companies and help bring down costs nationally..
Unfortunately, the proposal before the House is weak on the second key goal: cost reduction...
We must revisit our current fee-for-service, volume-based model, in which every provider at every step has powerful incentives to order test after test, procedure after procedure, with little regard for what is actually effective.
Instead we should reward hospitals and doctors who deliver higher quality health care. Doctors and patients need access to the best information and evidence on effectiveness. True health care reform must encourage proven best practices...
As you may have suspected, the Medicare-style public option that you thought you were fighting for isn't the same "public option" that's coming out of committees in the Senate and the House. Not even close.
In a must-read diary at the Physicians for a National Health Program blog, Kip Sullivan describes how Congressional Democrats, and even some progressive groups, are using a classic bait-and-switch to redefine the public option and sell us a useless watered-down version:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the "public option" proposed in the House "tri-committee" bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The "public option" proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the "public option." [...]
Obviously the "public option" in the Senate HELP committee bill (zero enrollees; 34 million people left uninsured) and the "public option" in the House bill (10 million enrollees (maybe!); 17 million people left uninsured) are a far cry from the "public option" originally proposed by Professor Hacker (129 million enrollees; 2 million people left uninsured).
Go read Sullivan's diary to understand how the original public option is nothing like what's coming out of Congress, including the one drafted by the Senate HELP Committee.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
Following is a draft of the Congressional Republicans' working plan for financial regulatory reform we've obtained. In particular, it aims to eliminate the Fed's ability to act independently in periods of financial crisis.
OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE
ON FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM
Overarching principles:
• The Republican plan will be designed to ensure that (1) the government stops rewarding failure and picking winners and losers; (2) taxpayers are never again asked to pick up the tab for bad bets on Wall Street while some creditors and counterparties of failed firms are made whole; and (3) market discipline is restored so that financial firms will no longer expect the government to rescue them from the consequences of imprudent business decisions. The Republican plan seeks to return our regulatory system to one in which government policies do not promote moral hazard, and insolvent financial firms are permitted to fail rather than become wards of the state.
MLN is powered by