Massa flirts with the right, but Beck isn't tickled

By Dana Milbank
WashPost
Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Just seven minutes into Glenn Beck's hour-long interview of Eric Massa on Tuesday evening, things had already gone very wrong.

Conservatives had hopes that the now-former Democratic congressman from Upstate New York, who resigned abruptly under an ethics cloud, would deliver the goods about corruption and strong-arm tactics in the Obama White House and Congress. But instead, Massa served up an icky new confession.

"Now they're saying I groped a male staffer," he volunteered. "Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday."

Beck looked aghast. "Was your wife at that one?" the Fox News Channel host asked.

"No, this was in a townhouse; we all lived together, all the bachelors and me," Massa explained. "My chief of staff had a conniption and said, 'You can't live there, that's not congressional.' "

(More here.)

State Insurance Experts See Flaw in Obama’s Plan to Curb Health Premiums

By ROBERT PEAR
NYT

WASHINGTON — At the heart of President Obama’s drive to rein in health costs is a proposal for federal review and regulation of health insurance premiums, with a new agency empowered to block excessive rate increases.

State officials are leery of the proposal, which raises a host of questions: How would Congress define “excessive”? How would the new federal power relate to state insurance regulation?

The proposal has great political appeal. But experts see a serious potential problem: Federal officials will focus on holding down premiums while state officials focus on the solvency of insurers, the ultimate consumer protection.

Economists say that holding down premiums does not necessarily hold down the cost of care, which reflects the prices charged by doctors and hospitals and the volume of services.

State officials worry that they would be left to police the solvency of health insurance companies while federal officials pressured insurers to reduce premiums, as Mr. Obama has done in recent days.

(More here.)

Modest, far-reaching cost control

Ezra Klein
WashPost

Harvard economist (and former Obama campaign adviser) David Cutler runs through the 10 most promising cost control ideas of the past few decades and notes that six of them are fully included in the bill, three of them are at least partially present, and only one of them -- the public option -- is totally absent. "No one knows precisely how much medical spending increases will moderate," Cutler concludes. "But one cannot doubt the commitment to try. What is on the table is the most significant action on medical spending ever proposed in the United States."

One addendum to Cutler's op-ed: Cutting health-care costs is hard. And it needs to be distinguished from simply capping spending. When liberals say that single-payer will save a bazillion dollars, or conservatives point to Paul Ryan's plan and say that will save a bazillion dollars, they're talking about capping spending. Liberals do it on the provider side, saying that government will only pay so much for medical services people need, and the system will just have to adjust. Conservatives do it on the consumer side, saying that government will only give individuals so much for the coverage they need, and if that proves insufficient, then tough. But voters haven't evinced much appetite for either proposal.

So smart people have spent the past few decades trying to figure out softer ways to cut costs without cutting things that people need. One popular idea is to change payment systems so that they don't reward doctors for volume. That's in the bill. Another is to build more competitive insurance markets so that insurers have a more direct incentive to keep costs down in comparison to one another. That's in the bill. Another is to try to bring individuals closer to the true cost of the insurance coverage, which is currently hidden by employers. That's in the bill. And so on.

(Original here.)

A Sign of the Times

Coupon clipper Erin Libranda of Katy, Texas, after she saved more than $1,000 on a midnight shopping trip to two supermarkets.
Hard Times Turn Coupon Clipping Into the Newest Extreme Sport
By TIMOTHY W. MARTIN

Under a futon in her Charleston, S.C., apartment, Stacy Smith has stashed boxes of soy bars, bags of potato chips, bottles of vitamin water, canned vegetables, soup, barbecue sauce and antibacterial wipes. Her bedroom closet is jammed with soda and shampoo, her bookcase with garlic salt and meat marinades.

The redemption of coupons spiked 27% from 2008 to 2009. WSJ's Timothy Martin has more insight on the craze, which appears to be about more than just saving money.

No, Ms. Smith isn't stocking up for a hurricane. The 39-year-old's apartment is stuffed with groceries because she's one of a growing flock of "extreme couponers."

These discount devotees have formed vast online communities that collectively unearth and swap digital, mobile-phone and paper coupons. The cleverest shoppers combine dozens of coupons and go from store to store buying items in quantity, getting stuff free of charge.

"If you can get 100 packs of toilet paper for free, you're going to," says Erin Libranda, 38. When the resident of Katy, Texas, has amassed enough coupons to buy many months' supply of eggs, she puts tiny cracks in them, adds lemon juice and freezes them.

(More here.)

Massa under investigation for allegedly groping male staffers

By Carol D. Leonnig
WashPost
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the former lawmaker date back at least a year, and involve "a pattern of behavior and physical harassment," according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

Massa had said that the allegations were limited to his use of "salty language" with his staff. He apologized for making some inappropriate comments and argued he was being unfairly villified. Days later, Massa accused the White House and Democratic congressional leaders of trying to oust him from office to improve their chances of passing health care reform legislation. Massa could not be reached for comment Tuesday, and no one answered the phone at his home in New York or his campaign office. Staff at his former congressional offices declined to relay messages to him and said they did not know how to reach him.

According to two sources familiar with the probe, Massa's former deputy chief of staff Ron Hikel provided the information about the staffers' allegations to the House ethics committee three weeks ago. Hikel had earlier sought advice from Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office about brewing internal complaints, the sources said, and had been urged to report the allegations to the committee.

(Continued here.)

The GOP's Dirty War

How Republicans have risen from the dead by distorting Obama's agenda and shutting down the government

TIM DICKINSON
RollingStone
Posted Mar 03, 2010

Only a year ago, the Republican Party had been given up for dead. Top GOP strategists despaired that their party — decimated by two consecutive bloodbath elections — was leaderless, dominated by Southern conservatives and lurching rightward into irrelevance. "The Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned his colleagues. "In politics, there's a name for a regional party: It's called a minority party."

As the embittered remains of the GOP caucus locked arms against President Obama and a stimulus plan designed to put Americans back to work, the Party of No seemed no match for Yes We Can. Stuart Rothenberg, one of the Beltway's top handicappers, derided as "lunacy" the boast last April by Rep. Eric Cantor — architect of the Republican strategy of obstruction — that the GOP would soon return to power. "The chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero," Rothenberg declared. "Not 'close to zero.' Not 'slight' or 'small.' Zero."

What a difference a year makes: Visions of a generation of Democratic dominance have been eclipsed by a brutal economy and the party's internal gridlock. Despite the $787 billion stimulus, unemployment remains stuck in double digits. Health care reform — Obama's centerpiece legislation — has jumped the rails, and every day spent seeking to get it back on track is a day not focused on the economy, stupid. "Barack Obama spent seven months talking about something other than the most important issue to voters: jobs and wages," says party strategist Simon Rosenberg. "Democrats left the door open for the Republicans."

As a result, the GOP is poised to take back the House in November. There are 59 congressional seats in play, and 53 of them belong to Democrats. "We are seeing 28 to 38 Democratic losses, and it's getting worse," says Charlie Cook, a top political forecaster. "Right now the trajectory is going over 40" — the number of GOP pickups required to flip the House. Even in the Senate, all bets are off following the election of Tea Party darling Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the unexpected retirements of red-state Democrats Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Evan Bayh of Indiana. "Democrats are demoralized, and independents think we're incapable of governing," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive political forum DailyKos. "We're going to get punished."

(More here.)

Waterboarding for dummies

Internal CIA documents reveal a meticulous protocol that was far more brutal than Dick Cheney's "dunk in the water"
By Mark Benjamin
Salon/AP

Self-proclaimed waterboarding fan Dick Cheney called it a no-brainer in a 2006 radio interview: Terror suspects should get a "a dunk in the water." But recently released internal documents reveal the controversial "enhanced interrogation" practice was far more brutal on detainees than Cheney's description sounds, and was administered with meticulous cruelty.

Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

(More here.)

Way Too Big to Save

Simon Johnson
HuffPost

Listening to US officials, talking to legal experts, and waiting for an intense Senate debate on financial reform to begin, you can easily form the impression that "too big to fail" adequately describes our most serious future systemic banking problems. It does not.

In September 2008, the large banks and quasi-banks at the heart of our financial system faced failure -- and they were saved in the most immediate sense through actions taken by the Federal Reserve, but TARP (passed by Congress and run Treasury) also played a significant supporting role.

The Bush administration threw a small fiscal stimulus into the mix in early 2008, hoping to stave off recession; the Obama administration committed a much larger package at the start of 2009, aiming to prevent anything like a Second Great Depression. This fiscal policy response was in direct reaction to problems caused by the overextension and near failure of the financial system

(More here.)

'Al-Qaeda 7' smear campaign is an assault on American values

By Eugene Robinson
WashPost
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The word "McCarthyism" is overused, but in this case it's mild. Liz Cheney, the former vice president's ambitious daughter, has in her hand a list of Justice Department lawyers whose "values" she has the gall to question. She ought to spend the time examining her own principles, if she can find them.

A group that Liz Cheney co-chairs, called Keep America Safe, has spent the past two weeks scurrilously attacking the Justice Department officials because they "represented or advocated for terrorist detainees" before joining the administration. In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law.

Liz Cheney is not ignorant, and neither are the other co-chairs of her group, advocate Debra Burlingame and pundit William Kristol, who writes a monthly column for The Post. Presumably they know that "the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre" -- in other words, older than the nation itself.

That quote is from a letter by a group of conservative lawyers -- including several former high-ranking officials of the Bush-Cheney administration, legal scholars who have supported draconian detention and interrogation policies, and even Kenneth W. Starr -- that blasts the "shameful series of attacks" in which Liz Cheney has been the principal mouthpiece. Among the signers are Larry Thompson, who was deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft; Peter Keisler, who was acting attorney general for a time during George W. Bush's second term; and Bradford Berenson, who was an associate White House counsel during Bush's first term.

(More here.)

Former congressman Massa says Democrats set him up over health care

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Conservative activists rallied Monday to the side of a liberal New York Democrat who had resigned from the House, after he charged that his party's leaders had conspired to oust him over his opposition to President Obama's health-care legislation.

Eric Massa's resignation Monday came after an ethics investigation into his conduct, and allegations of sexual harassment of staffers, became public. And his remarks on a Sunday radio show were only the latest in a series of explanations of why he was leaving the House.

Nevertheless, conservative blogs touted his accusations against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as the latest evidence of Democrats' bare-knuckled political machinations to get a health-care bill to Obama's desk.

Conservatives have complained about other examples of what they see as illegitimate deal-making to secure votes: what they call the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" in the Senate to line up Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), respectively, and Obama's appointment last week of a Utah professor -- the brother of Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), an opponent of the health bill -- to the federal appeals bench.

(More here.)

The Emotion of Reform

By DAVID BROOKS
NYT

We all have our emotional hot and cold spots. If you asked me about the New York Mets, you’d see a glow in my eyes. If you asked me about banking reform, words might come out of my mouth, but you’d notice me nodding off midsentence.

For the Democrats, expanding health care coverage is an emotional hot spot. Over the past year, Democrats have fought passionately for universal coverage. They have fought for it even while the country is more concerned about the economy, and in the face of serial political defeats. They have fought for it even though it has crowded out other items on their agenda and may even cost them their majority in the House.

And they’ve done it for almost no votes. The 30 million who would be covered under the Democratic proposals are not big voters, while the millions who would pay for the coverage are strikingly unhappy.

There is something morally impressive in the Democrats’ passion on this issue. At the same time, it’s interesting to compare it to their behavior on other issues in which they have no emotional investment.

(More here.)

Gone, Solid Gone

By ROGER COHEN
NYT

HELSINKI — President Obama learns with interest that Europe now has a phone number. He’s told that, responding at last to Henry Kissinger’s famous jibe, the European Union has appointed a President named Herman Van Rompuy from Belgium and given him a 24/7 phone line.

So, Obama decides to try out Europe’s phone number. Henry will be tickled. But the president forgets about the time difference and gets an answering machine:

“Good Evening, you’ve reached the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy speaking. We are closed for tonight. Please select from the following options. Press one for the French view, two for the German view, three for the British view, four for the Polish view, five for the Italian view, six for the Romanian view. ...”

Obama hangs up in dismay.

(More here.)

Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
NYT

PUERTOLLANO, Spain — Two years ago, this gritty mining city hosted a brief 21st-century gold rush. Long famous for coal, Puertollano discovered another energy source it had overlooked: the relentless, scorching sun.

Armed with generous incentives from the Spanish government to jump-start a national solar energy industry, the city set out to replace its failing coal economy by attracting solar companies, with a campaign slogan: “The Sun Moves Us.”

Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.

Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.

(More here.)

High standards at The Washington Post

By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com

By publishing a book that clearly and unapologetically defends the Bush torture regime, Marc Thiessen catapulted himself from obscure, low-level Bush speechwriter into regular Washington Post columnist, joining fellow torture defenders Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol. Today, Thiessen's column defends the Liz-Cheney/Kristol smear campaign against DOJ lawyers and says this:

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. . . . Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy . . . . The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

So any lawyer who represents accused Terrorists and argues that the Government is violating constitutional limitations in its Terrorism policies is -- all together now -- an "al Qaeda lawyer" (even if those detainees were innocent, as most were). Worse, these "al Qaeda lawyers" -- which includes large numbers of long-time members of the U.S. military -- are "undermining our military's" efforts to keep us safe. That sounds like treason to me. It's great to see the leading newspaper in the nation's capital serving as the primary amplifying force for this McCarthyite smear campaign. Does it get any more reckless and repugnant -- or primitive and stunted -- than that? Does The Post have any standards at all?

(More here.)

Sure-Fire Crowd Pleaser: Reining in Wall Street

By JOHN HARWOOD
NYT

For President Obama and Congressional Democrats, public opinion this past year has mostly gone in the wrong direction — on his job performance, on health care and economic stimulus, on midterm elections.

But there’s one conspicuous exception: the president’s call for reining in Wall Street. The nation’s continuing angst over bailouts, bonuses and bad mortgages has made sure of that.

Three-fifths of Americans supported tougher regulation of Wall Street in April 2009, according to Pew Research Center polling. Despite rising disaffection with government, three fifths still supported it last month.

That explains why Senate Republicans, after throwing up a wall of opposition on health care, continue negotiating with their Democratic counterparts on financial regulation. It also explains why the White House, Democratic leaders and liberal activists believe they hold the upper hand — and an issue that could limit their expected November losses.

(More here.)

Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

Sam Stein
HuffPost

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

(More here.)

A bipartisan push to clean up the Supreme Court's mess

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
WashPost
Monday, March 8, 2010

In a city where the phrase "bipartisan initiative" is becoming an oxymoron, the urgency of containing the damage the Supreme Court could do to our electoral system creates an opportunity for a rare convergence of interest and principle.

At issue is the court's astonishingly naive decision in January that allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. Its 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United case was a shocking instance of judicial overreach and reflected an utter indifference to how politics works.

Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort campaign spending from businesses. Is it really so hard to imagine a congressional leader quietly approaching a business executive and suggesting that unless her company invested heavily in certain key electoral contests, this regulation or that spending program might be changed at the expense of her enterprise?

That's why both parties should join to pass a bill that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) hope to introduce this week placing some rules around the new electoral casino that the Roberts court has opened. The proposal is expected to win Republican co-sponsorship. And it should.

(More here.)

Healthcare overhaul comes down to Pelosi and Obama

The bill's fate depends on whether the House speaker can land enough votes - and whether the president can take control of the debate, which Democrats say he has not done.

By Janet Hook and Noam N. Levey
LA Times
March 8, 2010

The fate of healthcare legislation turns on the endgame skills of two Democrats who bring vastly different assets to the task: President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Obama's signature ability to inspire fellow Democrats and Pelosi's well-honed ability to read their parochial needs will be tested as they tackle the job of finding the last stubborn votes for the healthcare bill.

The final push is giving Obama a chance to redeem himself among Democrats who have complained that he has been too detached from the nitty-gritty of crafting the healthcare bill. In recent weeks, he has taken control of the debate, giving his party a second chance after a string of setbacks.

And Pelosi, while notably lacking in Obama's public communications skills, has displayed her ability to corral votes in the Capitol's inner sanctums, which will be a crucial asset.

(More here.)

An Irish Mirror

"...we need a sea change in attitudes, a recognition that letting bankers do what they want is a recipe for disaster. If that doesn’t happen, we will have failed to learn from recent history — and we’ll be doomed to repeat it."

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NYT

Everyone has a theory about the financial crisis. These theories range from the absurd to the plausible — from claims that liberal Democrats somehow forced banks to lend to the undeserving poor (even though Republicans controlled Congress) to the belief that exotic financial instruments fostered confusion and fraud. But what do we really know?

Well, in a way the sheer scale of the crisis — the way it affected much, though not all, of the world — is helpful, for research if nothing else. We can look at countries that avoided the worst, like Canada, and ask what they did right — such as limiting leverage, protecting consumers and, above all, avoiding getting caught up in an ideology that denies any need for regulation. We can also look at countries whose financial institutions and policies seemed very different from those in the United States, yet which cracked up just as badly, and try to discern common causes.

So let’s talk about Ireland.

As a new research paper by the Irish economists Gregory Connor, Thomas Flavin and Brian O’Kelly points out, “Almost all the apparent causal factors of the U.S. crisis are missing in the Irish case,” and vice versa. Yet the shape of Ireland’s crisis was very similar: a huge real estate bubble — prices rose more in Dublin than in Los Angeles or Miami — followed by a severe banking bust that was contained only via an expensive bailout.

(More here.)

We're in Trouble When the Radical Is Paul Volcker

Robert Kuttner
HuffPost

You couldn't blame Paul Volcker for feeling ill-used. He was one of the first of the financial Brahmins to endorse Barack Obama, back when Hillary Clinton was a sure thing for the nomination. Volcker was an earlier adviser to Obama than Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Bob Rubin, or the rest of the Wall Street gang. Then, after Obama became the Democratic nominee, Volcker was trotted out as a senior advisor and his prestigious name was dropped for a top administration post.

But then the dust settled, Volcker was given a largely ceremonial position as head of an advisory committee that didn't even meet until May, and his advice was largely ignored. Volcker's wise counsel was for much tougher regulation, including the restoration of the Glass-Steagall wall between commercial regulation and more speculative activities such as securities underwriting and proprietary trading -- a wall whose dismantling in 1999 laid the groundwork for many of the abuses that led to the great financial collapse.

This counsel ran counter to the views of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. Only when Obama found himself in political trouble in December and January, as a president who seemed hopelessly in bed with Wall Street, did the administration turn to Volcker.

Volcker is no radical. He is the former Fed chairman who raised short term interest rates to 21.5 percent as a cold-bath cure for inflation. He has a tightwad's view of monetary policy, even in a severe recession. But he has been around long enough to know that Wall Street speculators are capable of terrible mischief when regulations are dismantled. When the most radical person on the scene is Paul Volcker, it tells you just how politics have moved to the right.

(More here.)

Conservatives Caused Huge Deficits, Blame Obama

By Dave Johnson
CFA

Headline at Drudge Report: Obama policies projected to add $9.7 trillion to debt by 2020... points to this story, National debt to be higher than White House forecast, CBO says,

President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.

So here is the deal. This Drudge headline, saying Obama's spending "adds to the deficit" is a trick. Here is how it works. Suppose you take over a company that is losing $100 million a year, and your jobs is to turn it around. So perhaps the second year the company only loses $70 million, $30 million the third year, and breaks even in year four. You saved the company. But in those years the company "lost" another $100 million. Should you be fired?

President Obama took office as President of a country with a $1.4 trillion deficit - thanks to the failure of conservative policies. Their tax cuts, wars, military buildups, corruption and incompetence drove the borrowing WAY up, and then their deregulation, corruption and incompetence destroyed the economy, driving the borrowing up into the stratosphere.

(More here.)

100 Percent of Fish in U.S. Streams Found Contaminated with Mercury

by David Gutierrez, staff writer
NaturalNews

In a new study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), every single fish tested from 291 freshwater streams across the United States was found to be contaminated with mercury.

"This study shows just how widespread mercury pollution has become in our air, watersheds and many of our fish in freshwater streams," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that builds up in the food chain at ever higher concentrations in predators such as large fish and humans. It is especially damaging to the developing nervous systems of fetuses and children, but can have severe effects on adults, as well. The pollutant enters the environment almost wholly as atmospheric emissions from industrial processes, primarily the burning of coal for electricity. It then spreads across the plant and settles back to the surface, eventually concentrating in rivers, lakes and oceans, where it enters the aquatic food chain.

The number one cause of human mercury poisoning in the United States is the consumption of fish and shellfish.

(More here.)

Mom, Apple Pie and Mortgages

By ROBERT J. SHILLER
NYT

FOR decades, the federal government has subsidized housing — particularly owner-occupied housing. This has been especially true during the continuing financial crisis, with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration propping up the housing market by issuing guarantees for investors on most new mortgages.

But what is the long-term justification for putting taxpayers on the line to subsidize homeownership? Is this nothing more than a sacred cow in American society — a political necessity because so many voters own homes and are mindful of their resale value?

In fact, there is much more to the history of subsidizing housing. While the crisis in the housing market shows that our current approach is far from perfect, there is a certain wisdom behind it, related not only to economic stimulus but also to the preservation of a sense of national identity. It’s important to remember this as we consider re-engineering our institutions as the crisis ebbs.

Federal subsidies for housing essentially began in the Great Depression with, among other things, the creation of the F.H.A. in 1934 and Fannie Mae in 1938. It all started for a simple reason: more than a third of all the unemployed were identified, directly or indirectly, with the building trades. At the time, there seemed to be no way to reduce unemployment without stimulating housing, and much the same is true today.

(More here.)

Bending the rules of reconciliation and filibusters, the Senate got twisted

By Ezra Klein
WashPost
Sunday, March 7, 2010

Ask a kid who just took civics how a bill becomes a law and she'll explain that Congress takes a vote and, if a majority supports the bill, the bill goes to the president. That's what we teach in textbooks, but it's not what we practice in Washington. In reality, the Senate has become a battleground to determine who's better at manipulating the rules. The party that wins gets to decide if a bill becomes a law.

For the minority, everything depends on their skill with Rule XXII. For the majority, it's all about their understanding of the budget reconciliation process. For the country, it's a mess.

Rule XXII is more commonly known as the filibuster. In theory, the filibuster is there to protect the minority's ability to speak its mind. This was particularly important in the days before airplanes and television cameras. The majority could rush something to a vote while crucial members of the opposition were back home in their states. The filibuster gave the minority time to slow the process and rally its troops.

As time went on, the filibuster became more common as a tool of pure obstruction. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson convinced the Senate to limit it: Now, two-thirds of the Senate could vote to invoke "cloture," which would close debate. In 1975, Congress lowered the threshold to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes.

(More here.)

Romney’s ‘No Apology’ Outlines Foreign Policy for Fantasy World

New Book Was Meant to Bolster National Security Credentials

Spencer Ackerman
Washington Independent

Mitt Romney’s just-published book, “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness,” is a bid to bolster the former Massachusetts governor’s nonexistent national-security and foreign policy portfolio ahead of a possible 2012 presidential run. But a glance through the remarkable conflation of conservative shibboleths, paranoid global fantasies and deterministic myopia in “No Apology” makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the perennial GOP candidate might have been better off saying nothing at all.

Romney’s central contention is that there are four “strategies” for global power: the United States’ blend of benevolent, market-based hegemony; the Chinese model of political autocracy and unrestrained industry; Russia’s energy-based path to resurgence; and the “violent jihadists,” an agglutination of scary Muslims. Trouble in paradise, according to Romney, comes from President Obama’s “presupposition” that “America is in a state of inevitable decline.” As a result, Romney must warn the nation to continue to lead the world, lest one or more of these competitors overtake America. “[T]here can be no rational denial of the reality that America is a decidedly good nation,” writes Romney, or perhaps a third grader. “Therefore, it is good for America to be strong.”

So many things are wrong with Romney’s view of an imperiled America that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the idea that the U.S. is locked in a struggle for global supremacy with “violent jihadists” overlooks the exponential differences in economic resources, military strength, and global appeal between America and an increasingly imperiled band of Waziristan-based acolytes of Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda can attack us; it cannot displace the U.S. as a global leader. It manufactures nothing, trades with no one, and has absolutely nothing to offer anyone except like-minded conspiratorial murderers. In order to disguise these glaring asymmetries, Romney has to use an empty term — “the jihadists” — which he cannot rigorously define and with which he means to absorb the vastly different aims and ambitions of rival terrorist groups and separate nations like Iran.

Updating our political dictionaries

Steve Benen
from Political Animal

Josh Marshall had a very short item the other day that I've been meaning to mention. He was helping readers understand the new political "lexicon."

"Jamming it through": to vote on a bill.

It got me thinking about how we should all update our understandings of political terms that had fairly straightforward definitions up until fairly recently.

• "Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.
• "Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.
• "Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."
• "Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.
• "Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.
• "Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating reproductive rights or gays.
• "Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.
• "Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.
• "Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our budget in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.
• "Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.

See how fun this is? Consider this an open thread for your own submissions.

(Original here.)

Why Stupak Is Wrong

The Senate bill doesn't fund abortions. Here's why he thinks it does.

By Timothy Noah
Slate.com
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010

A central puzzle of the health reform debate is why Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., keeps saying that the Senate-passed bill allows taxpayer dollars to be spent on abortions. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says it, too. This dispute concerns (or at least pretends to concern) matters of fact, not belief. The question of whether the government funds a given medical procedure is not like the question of whether human life begins at conception. It's empirical, not ideological. And Stupak happens to be wrong.

Stupak's and the bishops' claim is important because abortion is the single likeliest issue to scuttle the bill. Stupak says that "at least" 12 pro-life House members who previously voted aye on health reform, including himself, will vote against President Obama's package, which is based on the Senate bill, unless it contains abortion language that he inserted into the House bill. The trouble is, Stupak's language can't be shoehorned into President Obama's package, because it's nonbudgetary and therefore ineligible for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill. Republican Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate victory made reconciliation the only possible vehicle for passing health care reform.

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loses a dozen pro-life votes, then health care reform will fail. Already health reform's five-vote House victory margin in November is down to three due to the resignations of three representatives and the death of a fourth. Take away just Stupak and Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana (the only Republican who voted aye, who is similarly threatening an abortion-based nay vote), and health reform lacks even that narrow majority. Pelosi may pick up a few Democrats who voted against the bill last time, but it's extremely doubtful that she can pick up 11, which is what she'd need to compensate for losing 12. (That's before we even consider possible attrition among Blue Dog Democrats who voted aye last time, or the possible resignation of the pro-reform Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who's in hot water for breaking the House gift rule and just gave up the chairmanship of the House ways and means committee.)

Given these stakes, it's worth making some effort to find out what led Stupak and the bishops to think that health reform would spend federal funds on abortion.

"If you go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 [of the Senate bill]," Stupak told George Stephanopoulos on March 4 on Good Morning America, "you will find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management-enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of one dollar per month toward reproductive rights, which includes abortions." Stupak is here referring to the exchanges created under health reform and to a nonprofit plan managed by the Office of Personnel Management that would be sold through the exchanges. The latter was a consolation prize to supporters of a public-option government health insurance program that didn't make it into the bill.

(Continued here.)

At the Tea Party

By Jonathan Raban
New York Review of Books

People who watched the Tea Party Convention in Nashville on television in early February saw and heard an angry crowd, unanimous in its acclaim for every speaker. Standing ovation followed standing ovation, the fiery crackle of applause was nearly continuous, and so were the whistles, whoops, and yells, the Yeahs!, Rights!, and cries of "USA! USA!" Inside the Tennessee Ballroom of the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, it was rather different: what struck me was how many remained seated through the ovations, how many failed to clap, how many muttered quietly into the ears of their neighbors while others around them rose to their feet and hollered.

It wasn't until the last night of the event, when Sarah Palin came on stage, that the Tea Party movement, a loose congeries of unlike minds, found unity in its contempt for Barack Obama, its loathing of the growing deficit as "generational theft," its demands for "fiscal responsibility," lower taxes, smaller government, states' rights, and a vastly more aggressive national security policy. "Run, Sarah, Run!" everyone chanted, though if Palin could have seen inside the heads of the 1,100 people at the banquet, she might have felt a pang of disquiet at the factional and heterogeneous character of the army whose love and loyalty she currently inspires.

I went to Nashville not as an accredited reporter but as a recently joined member of Tea Party Nation. (I had my own quarrels with big government, especially on the matter of mass surveillance, warrantless wiretapping, and the rest, and I counted on my libertarian streak to give me sufficient common ground with my fellow tea partiers.) When I presented my Washington State driver's license at the registration desk, the volunteer said, "Thank you for coming all this way to help save our country," then, looking at the license more closely, "Seattle—you got a lot of liberals there." I accepted his condolences.

As we milled around in the convention center lobby, we might easily have been mistaken for passengers on a cruise ship. We belonged to a similar demographic: most—though by no means all—of us had qualified for membership of AARP a good while ago; 99.5 percent of us were white; in general, smart leisurewear was our preferred style of dress. (The TV cameras made far too much of the handful of exhibitionists in powdered white pigtail wigs and tricorn hats, and of the peculiar, bug-eyed gentleman from Georgia, who was sometimes costumed as an eighteenth-century American revolutionary, sometimes as a kilted Highland chieftain, his copper tea kettle lashed to both outfits, and spoke to his many interviewers in a hokey and ponderous English accent.) Few of us would see much change from the $1,500–$2,000 we'd spent on travel to Nashville, the $558.95 convention fee with service charge, a room at the hotel, and a couple of drinks at the hotel bars, where a glass of the cheapest wine or whisky cost $12. Seen as a group, we were, I thought, a shade too prosperous, too amiably chatty and mild-mannered, to pass as the voice of the enraged grassroots.

(More here.)

The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency

By FRANK RICH
NYT

WEDNESDAY’S health care rally was one of President Obama’s finest hours. It was so fine it couldn’t be blighted even by his preposterous backdrop, a cohort of white-jacketed medical workers large enough to staff a hospital in one of the daytime soaps that refused to be pre-empted by the White House show.

Obama’s urgent script didn’t need such cheesy theatrics. At last he took ownership of what he called “my proposal,” stating concisely three concrete ways the bill would improve America’s broken health care system. At last he pushed for a majority-rule, up-or-down vote in Congress. At last he conceded that bipartisan agreement between two parties with “honest and substantial differences” on fundamental principles wasn’t happening. At last he mobilized his rhetoric against a villain everyone could hiss — insurance companies. In a brief address, he mentioned these malefactors of great greed 13 times.

There was only one problem. This finest hour arrived hastily and tardily. At 1:45 p.m. Eastern time, who was watching? Of those who did watch or caught up later, how many bought the president’s vow to finish the job “in the next few weeks”? We’ve heard this too many times before. Last May Obama said he would have a bill by late July. In July he said he wanted it “done by the fall.” The White House’s new date for final House action — specified as March 18 by Robert Gibbs, the press secretary — is already in jeopardy.

“They are waiting for us to act,” Obama said on Wednesday of the American people. “They are waiting for us to lead.” Actually, they have given up waiting. Some 80 percent of the country believes that “nothing can be accomplished” in Washington, according to an Ipsos/McClatchy poll conducted a week ago. The percentage is just as high among Democrats, many of whom admire the president but have a sinking sense of disillusionment about his ability to exercise power.

(More here.)

Arabia: Inshallah, Obama

By MAUREEN DOWD
NYT

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

With two little words, Barack Hussein Obama thrilled the Muslim world.

“Salaam aleikum,” he said, offering the traditional Arabic greeting “Peace be upon you” at the start of his Cairo speech last year.

The address of the first American president with Muslim roots was a bravura attempt to leech out the poison between the Islamic and Western worlds, and revive the moribund Middle East peace talks. But now, many disillusioned Muslims are echoing the all-talk, no-action refrain first popularized by the woman who became secretary of state.

“He said all the right words in his speech,” said Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister. “But the implementation took traditional roads.”

(Continued here.)

The Spread of Superbugs

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NYT

Until three months ago, Thomas M. Dukes was a vigorous, healthy executive at a California plastics company. Then, over the course of a few days in December as he was planning his Christmas shopping, E. coli bacteria ravaged his body and tore his life apart.

Mr. Dukes is a reminder that as long as we’re examining our health care system, we need to scrutinize more than insurance companies. We also need to curb the way modern agribusiness madly overuses antibiotics, leaving them ineffective for sick humans.

Antibacterial drugs were revolutionary when they were introduced in the United States in 1936, virtually eliminating diseases like tuberculosis here and making surgery and childbirth far safer. But now we’re seeing increasing numbers of superbugs that survive antibiotics. One of the best-known — MRSA, a kind of staph infection — kills about 18,000 Americans annually. That’s more than die of AIDS.

Mr. Dukes, 52, picked up a kind of bacteria called ESBL-producing E. coli. While it’s conceivable that he touched a contaminated surface, a likely scenario is that he ate tainted meat, said Dr. Brad Spellberg, an infectious-diseases specialist and the author of “Rising Plague,” a book about antibiotic resistance.

(More here.)

Dreaming the Possible Dream

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
NYT

The thing I love most about America is that there’s always somebody who doesn’t get the word — somebody who doesn’t understand that in a Great Recession you’re supposed to hunker down, downsize and just hold on for dear life. I have a couple of friends who fit that bill, who think a recession is a dandy time to try to discover better and cheaper ways to do things. They both happen to be Indian-Americans — one a son of the Himalayas, who came to America on a scholarship and went to work for NASA to try to find a way to Mars; the other a son of New Delhi, who came here and found the Sun, Sun Microsystems. Both are serial innovators. Both are now shepherding clean-tech start-ups that have the potential to be disruptive game changers. They don’t know from hunkering down. They just didn’t get the word.

As a result, one has produced a fuel cell that can turn natural gas or natural grass into electricity; the other has a technology that might make coal the cleanest, cheapest energy source by turning its carbon-dioxide emissions into bricks to build your next house. Though our country may be flagging, it’s because of innovators like these that you should never — ever — write us off.

Let me introduce Vinod Khosla and K.R. Sridhar. Khosla, the co-founder of Sun, set out several years ago to fund energy start-ups. His favorite baby right now is a company called Calera, which was begun with the Stanford Professor Brent Constantz, who was studying how corals use CO2 to produce their calcium carbonate bones.

If you combine CO2 with seawater, or any kind of briny water, you produce CaCO3, calcium carbonate. That is not only the stuff of corals. It is also the same white, pasty goop that appears on your shower head from hard (calcium-rich) water. At its demonstration plant near Santa Cruz, Calif., Calera has developed a process that takes CO2 emissions from a coal- or gas-fired power plant and sprays seawater into it and naturally converts most of the CO2 into calcium carbonate, which is then spray-dried into cement or shaped into little pellets that can be used as concrete aggregates for building walls or highways — instead of letting the CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and produce climate change.

(More here.)

Reconciling With the Past

By THOMAS E. MANN, NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN, RAFFAELA WAKEMAN and FOGELSON-LUBLINER
NYT

WITH President Obama and Congressional Democrats intent on one last push for health care reform, the main Republican talking point is outrage over the likely use of the reconciliation process to pass a separate House-Senate compromise. The Republicans’ best hopes of killing health reform rest on the use of a filibuster in the Senate. But bills considered under reconciliation cannot be filibustered and therefore can pass the Senate by a simple majority vote.

Bill Frist, a former Senate majority leader, called reconciliation an “arcane” procedure that Congress has “never used ... to adopt major, substantive policy change.” Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee asserted that this parliamentary tactic was unprecedented for a bill like health reform. Senator John McCain of Arizona said that the use of reconciliation would have “cataclysmic effects.”

So, would reconciliation represent an anomalous and dangerous power grab? The accompanying chart, which lists 15 major reconciliation bills passed by Congress since the process was first used in 1980, provides evidence for assessing that charge.

(More here.)

Obama Wields Analysis of Insurers in Health Battle

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
NYT

WASHINGTON — To bolster the case for a far-reaching overhaul of the health care system, the Obama administration is seizing on a new analysis by Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, recommending that investors buy shares in two big insurance companies, the UnitedHealth Group and Cigna, because insurance rates are up sharply and competition is down.

White House officials on Saturday said that the Goldman Sachs analysis would be a “centerpiece” of their closing argument in the push for major health care legislation. The president and Democratic Congressional leaders are hoping to win passage of the legislation before the Easter recess. Republicans remain fiercely opposed to the bill.

The Goldman Sachs analysis shows that while insurers can be aggressive in raising prices, they also walk away from clients because competition in the industry is so weak, the White House said. And officials will point to a finding that rate increases ran as high as 50 percent, with most in “the low- to mid-teens” — far higher than overall inflation.

The analysis could be a powerful weapon for the White House because it offers evidence that an overhaul of the health care system is needed not only to help cover the millions of uninsured but to prevent soaring health care expenses from undermining the coverage that the majority of Americans already have through employers.

(More here.)

School’s Shake-Up Is Embraced by the President

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and SAM DILLON
NYT

A Rhode Island school board’s decision to fire the entire faculty of a poorly performing school, and President Obama’s endorsement of the action, has stirred a storm of reaction nationwide, with teachers condemning it as an insult and conservatives hailing it as a watershed moment of school accountability.

The decision by school authorities in Central Falls to fire the 93 teachers and staff members has assumed special significance because hundreds of other school districts across the nation could face similarly hard choices in coming weeks, as a $3.5 billion federal school turnaround program kicks into gear.

While there is fierce disagreement over whether the firings were good or bad, there is widespread agreement that the decision would have lasting ripples on the nation’s education debate — especially because Mr. Obama seized on the move to show his eagerness to take bold action to improve failing schools filled with poor students.

“This is the first example of tough love under the Obama regime, and that’s what makes it significant,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, an educational research and advocacy organization.

(More here.)

Breaking With Scientology

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
NYT

CLEARWATER, Fla. — Raised as Scientologists, Christie King Collbran and her husband, Chris, were recruited as teenagers to work for the elite corps of staff members who keep the Church of Scientology running, known as the Sea Organization, or Sea Org.

They signed a contract for a billion years — in keeping with the church’s belief that Scientologists are immortal. They worked seven days a week, often on little sleep, for sporadic paychecks of $50 a week, at most.

But after 13 years and growing disillusionment, the Collbrans decided to leave the Sea Org, setting off on a Kafkaesque journey that they said required them to sign false confessions about their personal lives and their work, pay the church thousands of dollars it said they owed for courses and counseling, and accept the consequences as their parents, siblings and friends who are church members cut off all communication with them.

“Why did we work so hard for this organization,” Ms. Collbran said, “and why did it feel so wrong in the end? We just didn’t understand.”

They soon discovered others who felt the same. Searching for Web sites about Scientology that are not sponsored by the church (an activity prohibited when they were in the Sea Org), they discovered that hundreds of other Scientologists were also defecting — including high-ranking executives who had served for decades.

(More here.)