Sherman's Blog - Political & Social Commentary

Health Care: Further actions this week that supposedly will lead to passage within a week to ten days. Yet, while the Democrats are projecting confidence, they admit that they don’t yet have the votes.

Democratic leaders scrambled Sunday to pull together enough support in the House for a make-or-break decision on health-care reform later this week, expressing optimism that a package will soon be signed into law by President Obama despite a lack of firm votes for passage.

The rosy predictions of success, combined with the difficult realities of mustering votes, underscore the gamble that the White House and congressional Democrats are poised to make in an attempt to push Obama's health-care plans across the finish line. The urgency of the effort illustrates growing agreement among Democratic leaders that passing the legislation is key to limiting damage to the party during this year's perilous midterm elections.

But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pledged to do "everything we can to make it difficult for them, if not impossible, to pass the bill." He also joined other Republicans Sunday in warning that Democrats would pay for the legislation by losing even more seats than expected in November.

The most optimistic talk on Sunday came from the White House. Obama senior adviser David Axelrod predicted that Democrats "will have the votes to pass this," and press secretary Robert Gibbs declared that "this is the climactic week for health-care reform."

But Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the Democrats' chief head-counter in the House, cautioned that the party has not yet found the 216 votes needed to win approval of the health-care bill passed by the Senate in December.

"We don't have them as of this morning, but we've been working this thing all weekend," Clyburn said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I'm also very confident that we'll get this done." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031402793_pf.html

Those Unsuccessful Massachusetts Tax Cuts: Few jobs created and many simply took the money and ‘ran.’ Kudos to the Boston Globe for a [rare] sterling news section.

Over the past 16 years, Massachusetts has given away hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax breaks for more than 1,300 development projects under its Economic Development Incentive Program, which aims to encourage companies to invest here and create jobs. Often the incentives work and new jobs result. But far too often taxpayers have not come close to getting their money’s worth, a Globe review has found.

Hundreds of the projects delivered fewer jobs than promised, and some companies actually slashed employment. Many firms won subsidies for projects they were set to build without state assistance; in some cases, incentives that were approved long after the projects were underway or complete. And many got generous packages though they agreed to create only a handful of low-paying jobs.

A review of state records found that more than 40 percent of the companies that received tax breaks pledged to create 10 full-time jobs or fewer, including nearly four dozen that promised only to add one full-time job. Often, the companies planned to pay new workers little more than minimum wage.

Among the tiny projects singled out for subsidies were a pizzeria in Ware, a liquor store in Plymouth, an auto body shop in Fall River, a video store in Somerville, a laundromat in Brockton, a self-storage facility in Somerset, and a hair salon in New Bedford.

“It’s one thing to use this program to attract a state-of-the-art pharmaceutical facility,’’ said Michael Widmer, president of the nonprofit Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “It’s quite another to reward pizza parlors and hair salons.’’

Other projects that sounded great on paper, such as the Nortel expansion plan, have fallen far short of what was promised. A Fall River rubber parts maker pledged to create 20 jobs, but cut 36 instead. A manufacturer in Orange promised to add five full-time jobs, but cut a half-dozen or more instead. But even when jobs are cut, the state often takes years to end a tax break, if it takes any action at all. And officials could not name a case in which they asked a company to repay subsidies already pocketed.

“Oversight is practically nonexistent,’’ said Neil Cohen, Massachusetts’ deputy inspector general, whose office has been critical of the program in the past. “The state must ensure that it is getting something for what amounts to an investment.” http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/03/14/jobs_program_lost_its_way__and_tax_money/

Saving the Public Sector: Boston Libraries One of the victims of the conservative bankrupting of the country is the de-funding of all matters public. The libraries, though, do have their champions.

The Friends of the Boston Public Library staged a read-in yesterday at a branch in Roxbury and announced a plan to try to avert library closings by asking voters next year to approve a tax increase to fund the city’s libraries.

The organization’s president, David J. Vieira, told a crowd of about 50 supporters at the Egleston Square library that if city and state officials cannot fully fund Boston’s 26 neighborhood library branches by the end of April, he will launch a Proposition 2 1/2 override initiative with hopes of putting it on next year’s municipal ballot.

If passed by Boston voters, such an initiative would allow the city to override the state-imposed cap on property tax increases, which is currently set at 2.5 percent.

“I think we’ve been mainlining on outside resources for too long,’’ said Vieira, who represents Friends groups citywide. “We’ve got to fund our own resources here. We have to look to the citizens, we have to look to our neighbors, we have to look to ourselves.’’

The Friends are nonprofit groups formed to help city libraries by providing private-sector resources and volunteers.

Amy E. Ryan, president of the Boston Public Library, announced last month that the city may have to close as many as 10 branches because of a $3.6 million budget shortfall for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Ryan said she wanted to focus resources on the remaining branches to make them better, with more books, computers, and services. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/14/supporters_not_ready_to_close_book_on_libraries/

IRS: Refocusing on the Wealthy After years of being directed to diligently scrutinize the returns of those filing the Earned Income Tax Credit, the IRS is directed to chase the big money. A not insignificant symbol of shifting values.

The Internal Revenue Service is intensifying its scrutiny of wealthy Americans.

The federal agency increased its audits of taxpayers who earned $1 million to $5 million by 33 percent last year compared with 2008, new I.R.S. figures show.

The numbers, released late Thursday in the agency’s 2009 annual data book, also show that the I.R.S. increased its audits by 16 percent for those earning $5 million to $10 million last year. Audits of those who made at least $10 million rose by 8.5 percent, according to the data.

The figures are the strongest evidence yet that the agency is honoring a vow by the I.R.S. commissioner, Douglas H. Shulman, to increase scrutiny of wealthy taxpayers.

Taxpayers who earned at least $1 million a year made up 0.25 percent of the more than 144 million individual federal returns filed last year, the data showed, but affluent Americans account for a far greater share of the underpayments in federal income tax returns. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/13tax.html?sq=Lynnley%20Browning&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

Texas Textbooks: “Progress” being made towards revamping in a conservative direction

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

…The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?sq=James%20%20C%20McKinley&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

Mrs Clarence (Virginia) Thomas Starts a Tea Party… and welcomes corporate funding, courtesy of the Citizens United case.

As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.

"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."

But Thomas is no ordinary activist.

She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,3190750,full.story

Health Bill: Scott Brown Masters the GOP Talking Points: The new senator claims that the Democratic plan will "completely transform America's health care system," creating "federally controlled health care” through a “bitter" and "destructive" process. Furthermore, the legislation "raises taxes by a half trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement" and will thus "leave America trillions of dollars deeper in debt." As per all such scripts, that’s all false- b.s. straight from the Frank Luntz playbook.

Iraq Elections: From here? Much disagreement as to whether these elections will lead to a political stand-off with many months needed to form a government, or whether it was further proof that stability is in evidence and the U.S. troop withdrawal can continue on schedule. On balance, caution, if not nervousness.

With results still trickling in slowly from Iraq’s parliamentary elections last week and no clear winners likely to emerge anytime soon, public frustration here seems to be growing. American officials have privately expressed concern that even a fair election might be made to appear unfair.

Political officials continue to make public accusations of election fraud, including the alleged stuffing of ballot boxes and forgery.

In the absence of final results, months of careful preparation could be threatened. Both the United States and the United Nations spent millions of dollars to ensure that the election was viewed as transparent and credible. “One way to reassure someone who fears the results are being rigged is to get results out there,” said a Western observer working on election issues.

The many checks put in place by Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission are laudable, said the official, who added, “but if taken too far it will backfire and erode public confidence by further delays.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print

Control of Iraq's parliament hangs in the balance as the latest election results show the coalitions of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, and his chief rival, Iyad Allawi, leading in important but geographically distinct regions.

If the preliminary results from last week's elections hold when final tallies come in later this month, the vote could split largely between al-Maliki's State of Law and Allawi's Iraqiya coalitions.

The Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) announced on Sunday that State of Law was leading in predominantly Shia Muslim Basra, while Iraqiya was dominating in the heavily Sunni Muslim province of Anbar in the west and in Kirkuk in the north. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/03/20103141826791678.html

-R

Israel: Biden Visits as the Israelis go ahead with provocative settlement building. It wasn’t a productive visit.

The US vice-president has said there should be no delay in resuming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Speaking at Tel Aviv University on Thursday, Joe Biden said the "most important thing is for the talks to go forward promptly and go forward in good faith".

"We can't delay because when progress is postponed, extremists exploit our differences," he said.

Biden's remarks came amid media reports that tens of thousands of housing units in Jerusalem neighbourhoods are in various stages of planning and approval.'

The reports in Haaretz newspaper followed the announcement earlier in the week of construction of 1,600 units in the occupied territories, a development that has derailed Israeli-Palestinian "proximity" talks. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/03/201031185438950547.html

An open diplomatic row during the visit of Vice President Joe Biden has shined a spotlight on the U.S. failure to rein in Israeli settlement ambitions and deepened Palestinian suspicions that the United States is too weak to broker a deal. Biden's handshakes and embraces gave way to one of the strongest rebukes of Israel by a senior U.S. official in years after Israel's announcement during his visit that it plans to build 1,600 homes in disputed east Jerusalem. Israel apologized for the poor timing but is sticking to its plan to build the homes, enlarging one of the settlements that have impeded negotiations with Palestinians.

The vice president on Wednesday assured Palestinians the U.S. is squarely behind their bid for statehood and urged the sides to refrain from actions "that inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of talks." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

So, peace talks remain moribund

The Palestinians pulled out of a new round of indirect peace talks last night, even before they had begun, as a protest at Israel's decision to announce approval for hundreds of new homes in a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. The decision to pull out, announced in Cairo by Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, represents a major setback to months of diplomacy by the US administration and comes after the US vice-president, Joe Biden, delivered an unusually strong rebuke to Israel.

Amr Moussa said he had been told by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, that even this low-key process of so-called "proximity talks" could not start unless Israel stopped expanding its settlements. "The Palestinian side is not ready to negotiate under the present circumstances," Moussa said.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have not held direct negotiations since Israel's war in Gaza last year. The White House had won agreement on Monday from the two sides to begin the indirect talks, hoping they would lead to face-to-face meetings. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/palestinian-peace-snub

Afghanistan: Kucinich Proposes, Patrick Kennedy Scolds Media Overdue debate in the House and welcomed criticism of the infotainment press.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) railed against the Washington press corps today on the House floor for paying more attention to the likes of scandal-ridden Eric Massa than the war in Afghanistan.

"There's two press people in this gallery," Kennedy yelled during a debate over an anti-war resolution. "We're talking about Eric Massa 24-7 on the TV, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press."

"You want to know why the American public is fit?" he continued. "They're fit because they're not seeing their Congress do the work that they're sent to do. It's because the press, the press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. It's despicable, the national press corps right now."

Kennedy's comments came during a three-hour floor debate over a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that would force President Obama to bring troops home from Afghanistan within 30 days, or longer if it were necessary because of safety issues. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000251-503544.html

Greece: Massive protest against Government’s policies dealing with their significant debt crisis. If 1,000,000 Greeks can protest the shafting of “Main Street,” you’d think / hope that a comparable number of Americans would raise their voices.

A general strike starting from Wednesday midnight in protest of the government's new austerity measures crippled the Greek capital Thursday.

The 24-hour strike, the latest in a series of protests called by two biggest trade unions, the civil servants' union ADEDY, and the country's umbrella labor union GSEE, was in reaction to plans of tax increases and reductions in holiday pay in the public sector.

The plans, which were aimed at solving the country's debt crisis, cleared the Parliament last Friday. The move was welcomed by the European Union which is expecting an early fiscal improvement in Greece.

More than a million people took to the streets in Athens to vent their anger, accusing the government of making an unwise sacrifice of common people's interests.

…Prime Minister George Papandreou said he was sympathetic to the strikers, but his government has no other choice but to resort to austerity measures.

Tax hikes and spending cuts were "inevitable after many years of negligence," he said. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-03/11/c_13206879.htm

GOP’er: Madoff and Social Security, Ponzis All. The Colorado GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton terms Social Security a "Ponzi scheme.”

Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Senate, called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" at a recent public event.

Appearing at a Tea Party-hosted Republican candidate forum on Tuesday, Norton was asked to name federal programs that she thought were unconstitutional, under the scope of the federal government's enumerated powers, and also whether it was constitutionally permissible for the government to run the Social Security program as it exists now, with the government controlling the money.

"The federal government is fundamentally out of control," Norton answered. "They are seizing control of things like car companies, banks, insurance companies. They're encroaching in areas of education, of the EPA and its endangerment finding, circumventing the rule of law, circumventing legislative processes. They are absolutely out of control. With regard to Social Security, it has turned into a Ponzi scheme. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/co-sen-gop-candidate-jane-norton-social-security-has-turned-into-a-ponzi-scheme-video.php?ref=fpblg

S.C. vs Executive: Roberts Fans the Flames Irked by Obama’s speech, he wonders if the Supremes should attend future SOTU speeches.

When President Obama ripped the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision during his State of the Union address in January, Justice Samuel Alito, for one, appeared to be none-so-pleased.

But Chief Justice Roberts? During the telecast, the chief sat impassively, hands at his sides, while many of our nation’s elected leaders cheered. But on Tuesday, the chief confirmed that the incident left a bad taste in his mouth, calling the scene “very troubling” and saying that the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”

The remarks came during the Q&A portion of a speech Roberts gave Tuesday at the University of Alabama law school. Responding to a question, according to the AP, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

According to the story, Roberts pushed forward, wondering if the justices should continue the tradition of attending the speech. “I’m not sure why we’re there.” Justice Antonin Scalia seems to agree with Roberts — he no longer attends the speech. Only six of the nine justices attended Obama’s address in January.

During his remarks, Roberts also criticized the Senate’s method of confirming new justices, saying, according to the AP, that senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees are ethically barred from answering. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/10/roberts-on-the-state-of-the-union-im-not-sure-why-were-there/?KEYWORDS=john+roberts

Reid to McConnell: Rare Bluntness from the Senate leader:

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree. http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=323016&

-R

Taking on the Banks: Critical Administration/Democratic Failure: Jobs, Wall Street and Banks: The Administration Achilles

(1) Oversight of Big Banks Remains with Fed Weakened reform, as consumer protection won’t be an independent agency

Banks with more than $100bn of assets will be overseen by the US Federal Reserve under a regulatory reform plan that represents a partial victory for the central bank after months of attacks in Congress.

Chris Dodd, the Senate banking committee chairman, had proposed hiving off all bank supervision to a single regulator but is set to propose this week that the 23 largest institutions stay under the Fed’s oversight, according to people familiar with the plans.

At issue over the weekend was the regulation of several hundred state chartered institutions that also want to remain under the Fed’s supervision.

While attention has been focused on an argument between Democrats and Republicans over the powers and location of new consumer protection functions, which may also be housed within the Fed, other elements of regulatory reform – deemed more important by many institutions and policymakers – are close to fruition.

A new “resolution” regime to deal with failing, but systemically important, institutions would allow the government to wind up a company quickly to avoid contagion spreading through the financial system.

But in a concession to Republican fears about giving government too much power over business, a bankruptcy judge would provide checks and balances. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f1b6822-2a2c-11df-b940-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

(2) Katrina Vanden Heuvel

…there is no better measure of how craven and corrupt our politics have become than the news that the proposal for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is about to be abandoned in the Senate. Republicans opposed it from the start, while shamelessly peddling themselves to Wall Street's deep pockets. In the House, not one Republican voted in favor of the diluted reform bill that includes an independent CFPA. And in the Senate, Republicans announced that the price of bipartisan agreement was to shelve any notion of an independent agency. Instead, they're pushing for a new presidentially appointed watchdog to be put inside the Federal Reserve -- with rule-making subject to objections by the very same regulators who failed so consistently and ignominiously to protect consumers in the past. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd is trying to get Democrats to sign on to an only slightly toothier version of this compromise. Barney Frank, Dodd's counterpart in the House, had the better reaction: "I thought it was a joke at first, to be honest."

In this debate, the president has been largely absent without leave. Mired in the interminable health-care debate, he has been unable or unwilling to provide Americans with a clear explanation of what needs to be done to dig our way out of the hole we're in. Without a White House willing to fight hard for reform, Republicans and corporate Democrats pay little price for catering to the bank lobby.

"I have been most struck by how invisible the issue has been as part of the public debate," Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, told the New York Times. If voters don't "understand what it is and why it matters," he added, "it's unlikely to have much consequence in the campaign."

With The Post, the Times and "60 Minutes" all assuring us that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political genius, this White House failure is truly befuddling. Surely, nothing is more vital to the economy's future, or to the Democrats' political fortunes, than to take on the banks, get them under control, provide consumers with some protection, and make banking a boring profession once again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030901718_pf.html

Where the Jobs Went: Long Live Monoplies! The overlooked- and key- factor: For 29 years we’ve shelved the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, i.e. since the ascendancy of Reagan and his radical conservative handlers

…while the mystery of what killed the great American jobs machine has yielded no shortage of debatable answers, one of the more compelling potential explanations has been conspicuously absent from the national conversation: monopolization. The word itself feels anachronistic, a relic from the age of the Rockefellers and Carnegies. But the fact that the term has faded from our daily discourse doesn’t mean the thing itself has vanished—in fact, the opposite is true. In nearly every sector of our economy, far fewer firms control far greater shares of their markets than they did a generation ago.

Indeed, in the years after officials in the Reagan administration radically altered how our government enforces our antimonopoly laws, the American economy underwent a truly revolutionary restructuring. Four great waves of mergers and acquisitions—in the mid-1980s, early ’90s, late ’90s, and between 2003 and 2007—transformed America’s industrial landscape at least as much as globalization. Over the same two decades, meanwhile, the spread of mega-retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot and agricultural behemoths like Smithfield and Tyson’s resulted in a more piecemeal approach to consolidation, through the destruction or displacement of countless independent family-owned businesses.

It is now widely accepted among scholars that small businesses are responsible for most of the net job creation in the United States. It is also widely agreed that small businesses tend to be more inventive, producing more patents per employee, for example, than do larger firms. Less well established is what role concentration plays in suppressing new business formation and the expansion of existing businesses, along with the jobs and innovation that go with such growth. Evidence is growing, however, that the radical, wide-ranging consolidation of recent years has reduced job creation at both big and small firms simultaneously. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.lynn-longman.html

Virginia: States Rights on the March South Carolinian John C. Calhoun, Mr. States Rights 1832, is smiling from the grave. Virginia is in the midst of a sharp counter- revolution which harkens back to days of post 1954 Virginia that had steadfastly refused to comply with the Brown v Board of Ed de-segregation decision. They’ve led the charge of conservative states who are now vowing to block any federal imposing of the individual insurance mandate, key to the Democrats’ health care legislation.

Aside from blocking health care, the new administration has been systematically removing anti-discrimination measures only recently provided for gay employees.

The administration of Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is doubling down on its anti-gay reputation, telling the state's colleges and universities to scrap policies that ban discrimination against gay employees.

In a letter to the state's institutions of higher learning, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argues that the schools lack the legal authority to ban anti-gay discrimination, because only the state legislature can do so, the Washington Post reported over the weekend. That's a step that the GOP-controlled legislature recently declined to take.

Last month, McDonnell, a socially conservative Republican, rescinded an executive order, promulgated by the previous governor, Democrat Tim Kaine, that prohibited discrimination against gay state workers.

… last month, Cuccinelli angered Democrats and environmentalists by filing suit against the EPA, alleging that it lacks the legal authority to regulate global warming pollution. He was one of several state attorneys general to do so. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/virginia_ag_to_state_colleges_scrap_protections_fo.php

Assault on Unemployment Benefits: It’s the New Welfare! Welfare has long been demonized by the Right; social insurance- Unemployment and Social Security- has endured less scorn. But, now:

…complaints that extending unemployment payments discourages job-seeking have begun to bubble into the political debate. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) recently single-handedly held up the latest extension, a bill to keep unemployment benefits in place for another 30 days, saying Congress should find other cuts to cover its $10 billion price tag.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) did not join Bunning's effort, but he defended his colleague's point of view. Kyl told the Senate he questioned why anyone would see unemployment benefits as helpful to the economy, or to the jobs market.

"If anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said. "I am sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue it is a job enhancer."

Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Center, says there's a good reason people are out of work for so long. There are six unemployed Americans for every available job, he said.

"The primary reason people are out of work so long is a lack of jobs," Stettner said.

…"It is appropriate and natural for Congress to extend the time limit of unemployment insurance with the job market as bad as it is," said James Sherk, a labor economist at the Heritage Foundation. "But by quadrupling it, it is no longer an unemployment insurance program but a welfare program." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030804927.html?hpid=topnews

Japan Edges Toward China Adaptation. The ruling DPJ party is cozying up to China as they view the Chinese as having smarter trade, economic policies than the struggling U.S.

China is about to overtake Japan as the world's second-largest economy. The country's national debt has hit an awesome 180 per cent of gross domestic product, (un)comfortably the highest in the world among rich countries - and there is no credible plan in place to hack it back. Toyota, a company that used to embody Japan's reputation for quality, is enmeshed in a safety and public relations nightmare. Last year, the Japanese economy shrank by more than 5 per cent. And the high hopes that surrounded the reformist government of Yukio Hatoyama, the prime minister who was elected last summer, have quickly dissipated. Mr Hatoyama's approval ratings are sinking and the Japanese business and civil service establishment seem eager to dismiss him as an ineffectual clown.

How Japan reacts to this new sense of weakness - exaggerated though it may be - will matter to the whole world. The country's size and strategic importance make it critical to America's Pacific strategy and to China's geopolitical calculations.

As it adapts to Japan's new circumstances the Hatoyama government has, almost unwittingly, initiated a debate about the value of Japan's alliance with the US. Some western observers in Tokyo muse that perhaps Japan is once again following its historic policy of adapting to shifts in global politics by aligning itself with great powers. Before the first world war the country had a special relationship with Britain. In the inter-war period Japan allied itself with Germany. Since 1945, it has stuck closely to America. Perhaps the ground is being prepared for a new "special relationship" with China? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74e9b3cc-2b1a-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0.html

Trade War with Brazil: Brazil moves to protect its industries; their tariffs have always been there- 20%, commonly, while ours is closer to 2%, long the practice here, especially since Clinton’s terms. Now the Brazilians are doubling it so as to protect their industries.

Brazil moved to raise tariffs on a wide range of American goods on Monday, potentially igniting a trade war with the US over cotton subsidies after eight years of litigation at the World Trade Organisation.

The decision takes effect next month, starting a 30-day period during which US and Brazilian officials will attempt to negotiate a solution to the dispute.

Under the Brazilian plan, duties would rise most steeply on cotton products. Many that are currently taxed at between 6 per cent and 35 per cent would be taxed at 100 per cent.

The tariffs on beauty products would double, from 18 per cent to 36 per cent. Duties on household goods such as cookers, refrigerators, TVs and video cameras would also double, from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. Duties on cars would rise from 35 per cent to 50 per cent.

Brazil is allowed to impose the tariff increases – worth $560m – after winning a case at the WTO last year. Brazil challenged the legality of direct subsidies to US cotton farmers to protect them against fluctuations in global prices and a loan guarantee programme for international buyers of US cotton. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dbf4284c-2afa-11df-886b-00144feabdc0.html

Health Insurance/Care Reform: A Two-For? Stop (some) Insurance Abuses and Say Good bye to Rush Limbaugh?

I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica. – Limbaugh http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/09/limbaugh-exile-health-care/

-R

Health Care/Insurance Bill: Stupak The Michigan congressman is threatening to derail the bill, pledging to rally 11 others to reject it as it promotes public payment for abortion. Of course the bill doesn’t do that, and Stupak is actually trying to deny health coverage to anyone who uses private money to pay for an abortion.

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.

…What really rankles Stupak (and the bishops) isn't that the Senate bill commits taxpayer dollars to funding abortion. Rather, it's that the Senate bill commits taxpayer dollars to people who buy private insurance policies that happen to cover abortion at nominal cost to the purchaser (even the poorest of the poor can spare $1 a month) and no cost at all to the insurer. Stupak and the bishops don't have a beef with government spending. They have a beef with market economics. http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/pagenum/2

Theda Skocpol: All “Democrats” should support the health care bill

The next two to three weeks will determine whether the United States gets on a better track toward including all citizens in health coverage and controlling costs in the public interest. This is NOT the moment for Democrats to posture and bargain -- remember, this is in part what lost us MA, that mess in the Senate over the Cornhusker Kickback and other unseemly deals. Scott Brown made use of these deals -- he pointed to Democratic dysfunctionality. Speed and simplicity are crucial right now, as Obama and the House and Senate leaders put together what they must to get this done. This is a time for the Indians to listen to the Chiefs.

At the risk of irritating people on the left, this is NOT the moment for "progressives" to demand a public option. Nor is it the moment for either pro-choice feminists or pro-life Democrats to derail reform.

PROGRESSIVES need to cut the posturing over a currently unattainable (and in any event already hollowed out version of the) "public option." To get legislation now that includes massive subsidies for the uninsured and a new regulatory framework for the future requires that Nancy Pelosi -- the real heroine in all this -- persuade shakey conservative Dems in the House. The legislation cannot include a public option if she is to succeed. Yet if this new framework passes through House action and a reconcliliation side-car, that will open new political possibilities in the future. Before long, it will become very possible to enact Medicare extensions or a public option through majority budget votes, because they will be deficit-fighters. Especially "Medicare for More" which will be my new slogan. At this juncture, I hate to get emails from so-called progressive advocacy groups pushing for anything other than supporting Obama in the current end-game. Criticizing what is now attainable is the real defeatism, Adam Green! Conservatives are hammering wavering moderate Dems; use your resources to run moderate ads against private insurers in their districts. Praise the President's plan and help him get the votes. Same for MoveOn.

As for PRO-CHOICE versus PRO-LIFE advocates, give us all a break from your extremist posturings, please. Health care for all is probably the single most important issue for women and families and actual babies and children. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/05/all_dems_including_progressives_need_to_back_obama/?ref=fpblg

Romney: Squirming Aside from telling the expectable lies- the current line that the Democrats are trying to use the ‘nuclear option’ to pass health care reform- he’s been on the trail denying that the Massachusetts plan is at all similar to the current health care bill:

Former Massachusetts governor and likely 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is insisting that the universal health care plan he championed in the Bay State has virtually nothing in common with the plan President Barack Obama is urging Congress to adopt.

"There a big difference between what we did and what [President Obama] is doing. What we did I think is the ultimate conservative plan," Romney said on Fox News Sunday. In response to a polite but somewhat incredulous grilling by anchor Chris Wallace, the ex-governor and 2008 presidential candidate painted Obama's plan as a takeover of the health care system and his plan as an effort to do make it impossible for people to consume health care resources as "free riders." http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0310/Romney_Mass_health_plan_entirely_different_than_Obamas.html?showall

U.S. to Visitors: Pay Up Did they really just pass a bill that bills tourists $10? This is the way to make up for the decline in tourism?

The US yesterday passed a new law designed to boost dwindling numbers of foreign tourists - it will start charging them for the privilege of entering the country.

The bizarre move has prompted controversy on both sides of the Atlantic and warnings that it could backfire. Under the Travel Promotion Act signed into law by Barack Obama yesterday, a new national marketing body will be set up to promote US holidays abroad, a job that until now has only been done piecemeal by individual states. However the money to pay for the "multi-channel marketing campaign" is to be raised in part from visiting tourists, by charging them $10 for permission to enter. The rest of the funding will be raised in private sector contributions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2010/mar/05/us-charge-tourists-to-enter

Iraq Elections: …‘heavy turnout and deadly violence’

On a day that began with the thundering explosion of insurgent mortar rounds and ended with outbursts of celebratory gunfire by hopeful political activists, millions of Iraqis voted Sunday to elect lawmakers who will rule this country for years as U.S. forces withdraw.

Voter turnout appeared to be modest, as many Iraqis chose to stay home out of fear and a sense that democracy has brought them more misery than blessings.

Still, many voters said they went to the polls despite their disdain for Iraq's political establishment and their deep apprehension about the future of a vibrant democracy saddled by the weakness of its institutions.

Like past Iraqi elections, Sunday's vote will almost certainly be followed by fierce and protracted jockeying as coalitions recalibrate alliances and wrangle over top jobs. The process is expected to drag on for months, with political fights potentially spilling back into the streets and deepening sectarian and ethnic divides as Iraqis enter an era in which the United States will be increasingly powerless to shape events.

"It's certainly possible that the losers will not accept their defeat," said Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group. Results are not expected for a day or more. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/07/AR2010030700515_pf.html

Iraq: What from here? Juan Cole:

Al-Maliki, however, may well have to pay a price for remaining prime minister, if he can manage to do so, since that outcome would certainly require that he make a post-election coalition with the Shiite religious parties of the National Iraqi Alliance. The latter include the Sadr Movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadr movement, said Saturday on the Iran-based al-Alam satellite channel that he would only support a prime ministerial candidate who agreed to accelerate the departure of the US from Iraq. Based on its performance in last year's provincial elections, the Sadr Movement could well get half of the seats gained by the National Iraqi Alliance; if Sadrists did that well, they could be essential to putting together the 51 percent al-Maliki (or any other prime minister) would need to govern. Scroll down to see a translation of Sadr's remarks, which are the first entry for Sunday below.

Moreover, it is not just al-Sadr. I detect a change in the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, now led by Ammar al-Hakim after the death from lung cancer of his father, Abd al-Aziz. The father had been sanguine about the presence of US troops in Iraq, and called for them to stay in the country, seeing them as a guarantor against the return of the Baathists (the secular Arab nationalists led by Saddam Hussein before his overthrow in 2003). Ammar al-Hakim was brought up in Iran and is close to Iranian hard liners. The US military once arrested him as he was sneaking across the border from Iran after a secret visit to Tehran that appears not to have involved any visas or border stations. In Ankara last winter, he referred to the US military as "occupation forces" and gave partial credit to ISCI for forcing them to withdraw on a timetable. But as late as January, even he was saying that the US presence in Iraq is not a major issue, since it has departed and the bases are being closed (he probably meant that it has decided to depart). He also, however, praised armed resistance to Israeli occupation and, on a trip to Beirut, laid a wreat at the tomb of Imad Mughniya, a radical Shiite whom the US and Israeli categorized as a terrorist. www.juancole.com

The Liberal Media Eric Alterman takes us back to golden moments when the Mainstream Media revealed their liberal bias (jk):

Consider as a couple of not-so-random examples two appearances on two networks with two famous hosts by the extremist and occasionally delusional Republican ex-presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. The man who likes to call himself “America’s mayor” went on ABC’s "Good Morning America" and insisted, “We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.” Alas, this nutty statement went entirely unchallenged by the show’s host George Stephanopoulos, who happened to be a long-time Democratic aide to various congressmen and to President Clinton.

I was reminded upon hearing Giuliani’s statement of another of his appearances, this one just before Christmas in 2001. He was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to discuss America’s response to the 9/11 attacks with First Lady Laura Bush and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of the Archdiocese of Washington. Rudy found himself being asked by Tim Russert, a former aide to liberal Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whether George Bush had been given the election in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote by divine intervention. I swear I’m not making this up. There was no mention of the antidemocratic shenanigans of the likes of Katharine Harris and Antonin Scalia and the mobs who interfered with Florida vote counting. Interestingly Mrs. Bush demurred at this crazy question, but Rudy took the bait. “I do think, Mrs. Bush, that there was some divine guidance in the president being elected,” was his expert opinion.

Chris Matthews, who was also an aide to a top Democratic politician Tip O’Neil, has demonstrated a similar tendency to fall in love with right-wing politicians. George W. Bush reminded him of Ernest Hemmingway, he said. Really. Here’s Matthews’s tough-minded critique of Bush’s ability to throw a strike at Yankee Stadium: “There are some things you can’t fake,” he explained breathlessly. “Either you can throw a strike from 60 feet or you can’t. Either you can rise to the occasion on the mound at Yankee Stadium with 56,000 people watching or you can’t. On Tuesday night, George W. Bush hit the strike zone in the House that Ruth Built...This is about knowing what to do at the moment you have to do it—and then doing it. It’s about that ‘grace under pressure.’” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/ta030510.html

GOP Lawmaker Demands Recall of Car That Drove Him to Gay Club

Andy Borowitz:

Anti-gay California State Sen. Roy Ashburn today demanded a sweeping recall of the vehicle that drove him to a gay nightclub this week.

Sen. Ashburn, a Republican who has consistently voted for anti-gay legislation, said that the car drove him to the club “against my will.”

“If we are recalling cars for problems with their brakes and power steering, then surely we should be recalling vehicles that force their drivers to go to gay nightclubs,” Sen. Ashburn said.

The state senator said not only did the car drive him to the gay nightclub, but it forced him to enter the club and party there for hours, resulting in his later arrest for DUI.

“I can’t tell you what a menace this car is,” he said. “It really is the gayest car I’ve ever seen.”

In addition to calling for a recall of the gay car, Sen. Ashburn said he would sponsor legislation mandating that all California vehicles be fitted not only with GPS but gaydar.

In other news, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin offered this appraisal of her standup comedy performance on The Tonight Show: “I was like, I’m not going to quit my day job, but then I remembered I already did.” http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/03/05/gop-lawmaker-demands-recall-of-car-that-drove-him-to-gay-club/

-R