Am I the only lefty who thinks it was a bad idea for President Obama to ask Congress for a resolution authorizing military action in Syria? (Over Syria?) I am not asking if the military action itself is a bad idea, I just don't think the President should have gone to Congress about it.
What do ATK's 1.6 million liberal readers and 2.3 conservatives think?
I have repeatedly said that the components of the health care reform bill are more popular than the rhetoric of the whole.
For decades Democrats have run successfully in support of many of the components of the health care bill. So, why is it any different now that they can claim success? I think Democrats ignore the issue at their own peril and essentially wave the white flag. E.J. Dionne, agrees and points out that some Democrats are now running on the components of health care, many of which just kicked in. I predict those who don't hide from their vote will be the most successful in November and those who do will be tossed out.
We will see.
ALSO: FiveThirtyEight's analysis of this issue is here.
Republicans are once again in a tizzy regarding the rights of the accused.
This in Politico:
Congressional Republicans want to know whether the Pakistani-born American arrested in the Times Square car bombing plot was read his Miranda rights, with Sen. John McCain saying it would be a “serious mistake” if the suspect was reminded of his right to remain silent.
These guys act like one must be read their rights to actually obtain them. Seems to me that NOT reading him his rights might set up the accused for some sort of defense.
To the lawyers and soon-to-be lawyers at ATK: Am I missing something?
Lieberman to vote against the public option and support a filibuster.
Would you ass-hats in Connecticut get rid of this scumbag?
Read at Politico and then rant.
UPDATE: If you are a consitutent of Jerk-off Joe, you can reach him here.
UPDATE 2: Joe is a "complete fucking asshole."
The left-leaning (according to the article) watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), recently put out a list of the most corrupt members of Congress. While I think that lists like this one make for interesting conversation, I usually take them with a grain of salt. They are often pretty partisan and subjective. This one seems pretty good, though. There may be more corrupt members of Congress, but there is no denying that the people listed here haven't done some rotten stuff or at east have behaved in a way that isn't ethical.
"With the economy in a free-fall, unemployment rates at record highs and health care solutions still nowhere in sight, members should be spending their time looking for answers to the nation’s problems, not finding new ways to enrich themselves," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.
Sorry I haven't been much of an active participant in recent months, but my first year of law school took up some time (as did my Mahjongg group and book club). Several people have asked me what I've learned thus far, and I can sum it up like this: the law is a clusterf*ck. For a case in point, I offer you the following scenario.
It's a Monday, and you're hung over. You think about going to work... but it's gonna be a slow day in the office, there's a House marathon on cable, and you could really use a haircut. So you call your boss and tell him that you've got the flu, and you tell him you'll be in tomorrow if you're feeling better.
Congratulations, you've just committed wire fraud.
That's right; your actions constitute a federal offense. You are now liable for large fines and a long, long prison term in a Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison. Tell Roger Clemens we said 'hi.'
Under 18 U.S.C. 1343, wire fraud is defined as the use of a phone (or the internet, fax machine, or pretty much any form of communication invented after the Pony Express) to create a scheme to defraud someone of 'stuff'. Section 1346 clarifies that part of 'stuff' includes the "intangible right of honest services." Ipso facto, presto changeo: a federal crime that is defined as being dishonest to someone to whom you shouldn't be dishonest.
It used to be that Honest Services fraud (which can be of the mail or wire variety) was only used to nail elected officials who sold out their constituents. Think Rod Blagojevich. But in the last decade, things have really picked up for honest services fraud in the private sector. You may remember a little company called "Enron" that had some troubles back in the day. Jeff Skilling, former CEO, is in jail for Honest Services fraud. So are at least a half-dozen of other corporate execs, and hundreds of other private-sector individuals.
The problem is that there is no definition of "honest services" in the statute, nor is it clear to whom the duty is owed. In theory, anyone who lies to his employer has committed fraud, even if (a)the employer is not financially harmed, (b) the employer does not find out about it, or (c) the employee does it to help the company. It's gotten so bad that last year, Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent to the refusal to grant cert to review an honest services conviction, claiming that the law was out of control.
Last month, the high court agreed to hear the appeal of Conrad Black to review the scope of the law. Conrad Black, though generally an almost Dickensianly dickish character, was thrown in jail for recieving payments (to which he was legally entitled) from one of his companies in a form that allowed him to minimize his Canadian tax liability. This did not violate Canadian tax law, and the payments were upheld as justified. But the fact that he didn't tell the company WHY he wanted the payments to be labeled a certain way sent the guy to jail for three to five years.
For a quick summary, I suggest you read this article on the topic. I'll be working on the issue for a good portion of the summer with a professor here. In the mean time... I suggest you refrain from pissing off your boss.
From the WaPo:
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.On the cynical side, this move was done purely to save his own skin. Republicans would otherwise try to unseat him (many are supporting his rival in 2010, a former Republican Congressman Pat Toomey) as not being pure enough of a conservative despite a fairly conservative 3-decades in Congress. His only chance of survival in an increasingly Democratic state is to switch parties now well ahead of the 2010 election, stave-off serious Democratic opposition, and sail back into the Senate. The WaPo agrees. It's definitely a self-serving, self-preservative move.
Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
I wonder if today’s Arlen Specter party switch, this time to the president’s party, won’t end up being bad for President Obama and the Democrats. With the likely seating of Al Franken from Minnesota, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving Obama unambiguous governing majorities in both bodies. He’ll be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington -- and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change won’t likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not. So, losing Specter may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.So see? Losing Specter is a good thing because certainly, the majority party...the party in majority...must certainly be so wrong about governance that the True Believers will soon be back in power. So they can keep Specter because without him, they can all clap louder. Remember how many Democratic "gaffes" were "good for republicans" during the election? Face it, Kristol. Spray painting gold over shit doesnt make it gold. Specter, a 30-year republican veteran, left because of self-preservation and a larger national movement away from hard-Right Wingnuts. This is bad for Republicans. Read more...
Plus, now the Democrats have to put up with him.
It would seem, based on yesterday evening's conversation between NPR's Robert Siegel and Representative Jane Harman (D - California), that Rep. Harman is in a heap of trouble. If you missed the interview, here's a transcript.
Rep. Harman is the Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, but at the time of the offense in question, during the Bush administration, she was the ranking Democrat on the committee. It appears as though two lobbyists (damn lobbyists...) were accused of espionage, and someone called Harman to ask for lenience. And the National Security Agency recorded (read: wiretapped) the call. According to the article: "...the caller offered political help to Harman in her hopes of becoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee and asked that she call the Justice Department on behalf of the two lobbyists." The WaPo reported that the Fed Prosecutors were considering dropping the charges aginst the lobbyists.
The fun begins:
Robert Siegel: First, do you remember the phone call in question? Who is the other party and is that a fair description of what was discussed?So...despite deatiled recordings and multiple reports, you aren't sure if this phone call ever existed?? More fun:
Rep. Jane Harman: We don't know if there was a phone call. These are three unnamed sources, former and present national security officials, who are allegedly selectively leaking information about a phone call or phone calls that may or may not have taken place. I have to say I am outraged that I may have been wiretapped by my government in 2005 or 2006 while I was ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. [emphasis added]
Siegel: The New York Times reports today that in a call, the caller offered to get Haim Saban, a big political donor and a supporter of Israel, to tell Nancy Pelosi that he wouldn't donate money if you didn't get the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.What do you mean "how do we know??" You were there, right? Or are you pulling a Reagan?
[Harman chuckles.]
Siegel: Any conversation like that, ever?
Harman: Well, how do we know?
Siegel: But here are some quotations attributed to the transcript of the wiretap of your conversation that CQ reported. At the end, you say to the caller, "This conversation doesn't exist." But that's after you're quoted as saying that you "would waddle into the matter" — that is, of Rosen and Weissman —if you "think it would make a difference." Can you recall saying that, or is that a fair conversation to have with someone?Yup. Looks like it.
Harman: No. I can't recall with any specificity a conversation I may have had...
I found myself in DC last week for work. I met up with an old friend, who also happens to be a US Congressman. He was really upset with AIG for giving bonuses (or, retention payments…whatever you choose to call it). Because they were given out in the form of contracts, there was nothing the government could do to retract them, even though they were paid for by taxpayer bailout dollars. So, he had the idea that the government would tax the bonuses. Technically, the bill he introduced would tax bonuses (retention payments) for companies that have a certain percentage of ownership by the federal government (70%, I think). Thus, this will pertain to AIG and to Fanny and Freddie (thus preventing this from being punitive to one company only).
He argued that this company shouldn’t be using taxpayer bailout dollars for bonuses to the people who got us in this mess in the first place and almost decimated the economy.
The opponents said that the retention payments are needed to keep talented people at AIG in order to clean up the mess. They also said that this punishes anyone in the company who was not involved in the bad stuff that AIG did.
The House of Representatives passed a very similar bill on Friday, and the Senate will take it up and the President has said he would sign it.
Someone else told me, upon hearing about this bill, that “good public policy never gets in the way of populist angst” and that he thought this was more political than policy.
I think this is good policy and good politics, but I am open to hearing the other side. I know that the general public wants this done (I heard so at an irish bar on St. Patrick’s day!). What do you think? Good policy, or just good politics?
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP
