Daily Kos

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:56:04 GMT

What you missed on Sunday Kos ....

In On Cancer Screening, Politics, and Communication, DemFromCT waded into the controversy surround the newest recommendations about frequency of mammograms and pap smears, and wound up tempted to suggest that "if you want people to get mammograms, tell them they can't, and if you want to get people not to get flu shots, tell them they have to."

In Trick'n, DarkSyde tricked readers into reading an explanation as to how climate change deniers were distorting emails between environmentalists and scientists in order to claim a great global conspiracy concocting global warming had been perpetuated over decades.

In Resistance is Futile, DarkSyde explained the relationship between our complex immune systems and how evolution contributed to common auto-immune disorders.

In Strategy Can Be Ideology, But the Party is Not a Movement, Laura Clawson explored the definitional and practical differences between terms that are being thrown around loosely--and often inherently insultingly--in the health care reform discussion.

In The Atomic Rulebook: Iran and IAEA Safeguard Violations, Plutonium Page discussed the founding and purpose of the IAEA, its rules and how Iran is reacting to notifications from the agency--and what this might mean about that country's activities and the IAEA board meeting slated for November 26.

In Playing Chess With Russia: An Update on the New START Agreement, Plutonium Page briefly outlined the origins of the first START treaty with Soviet Russia, which has led to a significant reduction in the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia. A missed deadline looms, however, for a new treaty and she discussed possible scenarios that may result.

Purity Now, Purity Tomorrow, Purity Forever ...

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:06:04 GMT

It's official: the Republican Party has lost its collective mind:

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to "Obama’s socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

And in case you were wondering why they settled on three as the proverbial straw, it's based on the gospel according to St. Ronicus, who believed:

... that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.

If nothing else, we must give credit to the GOP for consistency -- three strikes and you're out.

So, what are the ten steps to political purity?

There's the old, tired pretense that the GOP stands for smaller government, debt, deficits and taxes, never mind their history of doing just the opposite -- unless you're among the very rich -- because then you'll get a tax cut, oppose health care reform because we have the best darn system in the world, even though we don't, drill, baby, drill, screw the unions, English only, and then:

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Translation: Republicans want to be ruled by military junta -- oh, and while they're very concerned that some unauthorized brown person might visit a doctor, they are not at all worried about where the next trillion dollars is going to come from to pay for that still undefined "victory."

They also must want to bomb the Axis of Evil du jour, make sure their marriages aren't threatened by other people's happiness, oppose non-existent death panels, and they really want to keep their guns even though no one is trying to take them away.

In a nutshell? They're all teabaggers now.

Foes of Afghan Escalation Step Up Opposition

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:16:04 GMT

Add David Obey to the increasingly vocal foes of General Stanley McChrystal's proposed escalation of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a group that includes Arlen Specter and the 57 Congresspeople who signed Massachusetts Congressmen James McGovern's letter to the President.

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

Obey isn't alone in proposing a tax for the war. Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has suggested putting a levy on upper-income brackets for this purpose:

An "additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000" a year, could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s "Political Capital With Al Hunt," airing this weekend.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. "They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can" instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.

Since Levin opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan, his tax proposal, like Obey's, seems actually designed to put up a roadblock to escalation, because the chances of such a tax being passed are slim to nil. The chances of blocking an escalation, if that is the path President Obama chooses, may be equally unlikely. During the Iraq war, congressional foes never could get a majority to cut off funding for everything except withdrawal. Such a move would be even less likely for U.S. military action in Afghanistan, a war that has always had more support in Congress and among rank-and-file Americans than Iraq did.

Meanwhile, the costs keep rising. As David Dayen reports, U.S. special forces may be spending as much as $1.3 billion to fund anti-Taliban Afghan militia as was done in the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. As Dayen points out, the last time the United States funded local fighters in Afghanistan, it "created the structure for Osama bin Laden to flourish..."

This spending, as well as Levin's and Obey's tax idea, spotlight a continuing problem - figuring out how much the war actually costs. In addition to the $65 billion allocated in the 2010 fiscal year budget for military purposes in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is seeking "emergency" funds that could run as much as $50 billion. It is spending billions of already-approved dollars for what appears to be permanent bases there. If Afghanistan really is to be the focal point of "the long war," Obey and Levin better make their proposed tax a really big one.

The White House will hold another closed-door session on Afghanistan tonight.

[UPDATE]: Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect spoke with Ellis Brachman, Obey's spokesperson, to get more details on the plan:

Essentially, below the $150,000 level, the 15 percent bracket for a family, there would be an increase of 1 percent of your current level, so for most people that would be 15.15 percent. Separate changes would happen between the $150,000 to $250,000 income level and above $250,000, which would be set by the president depending on his eventual decision on what to do in Afghanistan; currently, the war costs about $68 billion a year, but that could increase if the White House decides to send more troops or spend more money on development projects.

= = =

^{brooklynbadboy had a diary on the Obey tax here.}

Now this is more like it

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:26:04 GMT

Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer, and Michael Bennet all took a strong stand for the public option and health care reform yesterday, expressing confidence that health care reform -- with the opt-out public option intact -- will pass the Senate:

Transcript:

SHERROD BROWN: There are two weeks, three weeks, whatever, of debate. Senator Lieberman, everybody has a chance to offer amendments. I'm going to offer amendments on some pharmaceutical issues, because I think the bill could be strengthened there. I know that my colleagues are going to do the same on some other -- that and some other issues. So they will have their chance to do this. And I think, in the end, I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it's not going to be in it.

And I echo what Michael said, is that people want every option. If we're going to -- if we're telling people you have to buy insurance, we shouldn't tell them they've got to buy insurance from a private insurance company.

But in the end, I think that all four of our colleagues surveyed this -- look at this bill in the end and say, I don't think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don't think they want to go back and say, you know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill in my political career. I don't think they want to be there on that. So I think in the end, we get them.

CHUCK SCHUMER: And I think the proposal that Leader Reed wisely put into his bill, which is a moderate, modest proposal, sort of in the middle of public option land--there are some on the left who don’t like it, they want it to be liberal, some on the right-- will at the end of the day be where we end up.

JOHN KING: If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform, and every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?

MICHAEL BENNET: Yes.

The basic premise of Brown's comments (and to a lesser extent, Schumer's) is that the four members of the Democratic caucus who are still holding out on the public option are just posturing and ultimately wouldn't vote to kill health care reform on a procedural vote merely because they disagree about the public option.

No matter what those four may say now, they know as well as Brown that if they nuke health care reform over the public option, they are nuking themselves in the Democratic Party. With the possible exception of Nelson, they wouldn't stand a chance in a Democratic primary (Lieberman is already toast) if they did that.

The big question is whether Senate Democrats will force them to make that choice or whether they will -- as Dick Durbin suggested is likely -- negotiate the public option down even further, or perhaps away altogether.

Schumer and Brown are adopting exactly the right posture by sticking to the opt-out public option. The top leadership on this bill -- Reid, Durbin, Dodd, Harkin, and Baucus -- should stand right at their side.

Remarks by the President on STEM

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:35:09 GMT

Making good on remarks made last April before the National Academy of Sciences, President Obama officially launched an "Educate to Innovate" campaign to engage and improve the performance of America’s students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Flanked by science and policy officials including astronaut Sally Ride, the President noted that many of our problems are at root scientific, and spoke of a new, comprehensive series of STEM programs to address them:

The key to meeting these challenges – improving our health and well being, harnessing clean energy, protecting our security, and succeeding in the global economy – will be reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators ... [Full text below]

The President concluded with:

Melody Barnes, Director of the Domestic Policy Council for the President, was kind enough to spend a few minutes with me and added several comments which I thought were particularly insightful. Note that this is a personal transcript representing my notes and best recollection. Any errors are solely my responsibility:

Math and science teachers tell me that kids start out as natural scientists in primary/elementary school, but that we seem to lose a lot of them starting in middle school, does the STEM do anything about that?

Director Melody Barnes: You're right. My colleagues in education have talked about that as well. Some of the programs with partnerships announced today involve meeting students where they live and finding out first hand from students and teachers what excites them now and capitalize on that. If a student is interested in music for example, we'll introduce the science involved. Likewise, children love cell phones, lots of science there! We can capitalize on it as well. We're going to hold science fairs at the White House for students of many ages; teachers and students will be able to demonstrate their ingenuity. By making science more fun, rewarding, and cool, together with meeting our other benchmarks, the President's initiative will not only retain that early interest, we will build on it. [Full Q & A here or below]

Midday Open Thread

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:48:04 GMT

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) gives Kirsten Gillibrand a ringing endorsement:

From protecting a woman's right to choose and standing up for issues of pressing concern to the LGBT community, to fighting for a robust public health insurance option and protecting our environment by working to reduce harmful emissions, Kirsten Gillibrand has been a great partner on many progressive causes. We have worked closely together to provide our 9/11 heroes and affected community members with the health care and compensation they deserve, and on a variety of other issues facing our State and the Nation. New Yorkers want and need Kirsten on their side and I'm proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.

Glenn Beck is already planning to co-opt MLK, Jr., so why not September 11th?

Anti-gay hate crimes are on the rise:

Today, the FBI released its latest annual statistics on U.S. hate crimes in 2008. Overall, "the 2008 numbers are up slightly — 7,783 incidents and 9,691 victims" were reported last year. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation had the largest increase — nearly 11 percent.

California senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina, hoping that she doesn't get scozzafavaed, is trying to channel her inner-teabagger.

Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) will not seek reelection next year, which will:

... pave the way for a tough open-seat defense for Democrats, as the six-term incumbent has resolutely held on to a conservative-leaning district that has often frustrated Republicans.

Leave it to Sarah Palin to find the looniest of the tunes.

And in other Palin news, apparently she is still really mad at Katie Couric for asking her that trick question about what newspapers she reads.

Home sales are up:

Sales of existing U.S. homes jumped 10 percent in October to the highest level since February 2007 as Americans rushed to take advantage of a tax credit, cheaper properties and lower mortgage rates.

Purchases rose more than forecast to a 6.1 million annual rate from a 5.54 million pace in September, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median sales price decreased 7.1 percent from October 2008.

This will probably be worse in 2009:

Available data, still incomplete, suggest that this recession, like past ones, coincided with an uptick in suicides. The data from 19 states find an increase in suicides in the recessionary year of 2008 from 2007. Those states historically account for about half of annual suicides in the U.S. Calls to suicide hotlines are rising. And suicides in the workplace and the military -- a small sliver all of self-inflicted deaths -- were up in 2008. Official data on suicides in the U.S. lag, and a 2008 national tally isn't yet available.

-- Meteor Blades

Militias are on the rise in a number of places in the country, not the least of which is Alaska:

Norm Olson's genial tone belies his reputation as a radical militiaman, yet here he is, at 63, an affable grandfather explaining why Americans should arm themselves against their government.

-- Plutonium Page

HHS Hosts Online Conference For Bloggers Today 3:30 ET

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:26:03 GMT

Got questions about H1N1? Vaccine? New mutations?

Go here and get some answers.

November 23rd 3:30 PM EST
H1N1 Briefing for Bloggers and Their Readers
Join the live Webcast to learn detailed information about influenza prevention and treatment, warning signs for parents, anti-viral medications, and vaccinations. A question and answer session will provide the opportunity to engage directly with leading communication and public health experts, including:

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, HHS
Anne Schuchat, Director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC
Viewers can participate in the Webcast by sending questions via email to hhsstudio@hhs.gov or via Twitter by including the hashtag #FluCast in their tweets.

Note: An on-demand, embeddable version of the broadcast will be available shortly after the Webcast on the HHS YouTube channel and on the Know What to Do About the Flu archive page.

HHs has had various outreach programs to bloggers over the years... see this 2008 CIDRAP story about a science advisor interview with William Raub at Flu Wiki we hosted. Daily Kos also hosted a recent interview with Bruce Gellin, Director, National Vaccine Program Office (HHS).

This is an opportunity for the readers to ask a few questions in addition to the bloggers.

Durbin: Public option could change to satisfy Lieberman

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:36:08 GMT

Dick Durbin on Joe Lieberman's "concerns":

Transcript:

DURBIN: I hope we can move to a point where we satisfy Joe Lieberman’s concerns that this does not end up being a government debt, but creates a public option.

MR. GREGORY: But let’s get to a bottom line, which is, is it negotiable? I’ve talked to Senate sources who say there is a backup plan, which is that you ultimately scrap the opt-out option, you put in a trigger, which means that somewhere—there’s no public option; down the road, if there’s not adequate competition, a public plan gets triggered. That’s how you might get centrist Democrats and mi... it’s how you get Senator Snowe as well, potentially. Is that negotiable?

SEN. DURBIN: There are many variations on the theme. I am committed to public option. I think we’ve put together a good bill. We are open because we want to pass this bill. At the end of the day we want insurance to be more affordable, we want to stop the insurance industry abuses, we want to give American people a choice in this decision.

MR. GREGORY: So the public option is negotiable.

SEN. DURBIN: They don’t have to...

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Yeah.

SEN. DURBIN: It has been. Putting in the opt-out was clearly a variation on the theme from the beginning.

Translation: Even though 56 Democratic Senators -- and a solid majority of the nation -- support a public option, and even though the public option in the Senate bill has already been watered down, some Democrats are willing water it down even further (or perhaps kill it altogether) to win Joe Lieberman's and Blanche Lincoln's votes.

There's a certain logic to that line of thinking, if you accept the proposition that this is a "must-pass" piece of legislation.

But if you do accept that proposition, then wouldn't you also be compelled to put reconciliation on the table, so the bill could pass with 50 votes? Wouldn't you be compelled to put the committee chairmanships of Lieberman and Lincoln on the line to give you greater leverage to sway their votes?

The fact that the Senate leadership isn't doing either of those things sends a pretty clear signal: they may want a public option, but they aren't willing to really fight for one, at least not one that does anybody any good.

Disaster Unfolding at State Level

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:46:03 GMT

As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, 29 states saw higher unemployment rates in October, with eight others registering no change. You can see an interactive map on the subject here. There is good reason to believe that November's figures will be similar. That situation, and the economic situation in general, has led to what is likely to be a vicious circle in the coming year or more.

As the percentage of employed people drops, their spending dwindles, and this, combined with lower housing values and other economic dislocations, has generated steep tax revenue drops for many states and municipalities.

What that means - because states must balance their budgets - is a coming tsunami of lay-offs, reductions in services and increased fees for institutions like universities. Tuition and fees at the University of California, for instance, will be rising 32% next term.

While dysfunctional California may be the worst off, it's not alone in its predicament. Ten states are worse off than the rest, but the pinch is being felt in many other places. As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out:

• State and local governments have already begun adopting contractionary fiscal policies in response to budget gaps, but future shortfalls will be much larger — indeed, they will be enormous. Because these shortfalls tend to grow for two years after the end of a recession, they will continue to drag on the economy at least through 2012.

• Even after accounting for the budget relief provided in the recovery act, state governments are still projected to face $369 billion in shortfalls in the current fiscal year and the next two years. Local governments are projected to face an additional $100 billion in shortfalls over that same period.

• These shortfalls will result in hundreds of billions of spending cuts and tax hikes, which will likely result in millions of fewer jobs over the next two and a half years.

• State and local budget cuts not only diminish public services; they also hurt the private sector. For each dollar of budget cuts, over half of the jobs and economic activity lost are likely to be in the private sector.

• To avoid higher unemployment and a heavy economic drag, the federal government should extend the state and local budget relief provided in the recovery act by $150 billion over the next one-and-a-half years, through state fiscal year 2011.

Conservatives, as well deficit hawks among the Democrats, are loath to pass any more stimulus or relief for the states. Besides those who object to any government social spending, some claim to see inflation as a threat despite all indications to the contrary. There are, as well, those calculating rightwing cynics who see any worsening of the economic situation as a big benefit to their objectives in the 2010 elections.

As EPI's briefing paper notes, Congress has a choice. If it decides not to intervene, many states and hundreds of local governments will have to cut services, lay off tens of thousands of employees and raise taxes.

Budget and service cuts, along with lay-offs will, obviously, worsen the economy, increase the possibility that the improvement indicated by a positive gross domestic product in the third quarter will be slowed down, thereby increasing the chances of a "jobless recovery" and a possible return to economic contraction. That's an outcome some experts call a double-dip recession. And it's not just a few outliers pointing to such possibilities. On Thursday, the CEO of 3M added his voice to those suggesting this could happen.

We need to find ways to get the nation's workforce drawing a paycheck again in the short run and then deal with the much-ignored structural economic problems that have grown worse over the past four decades.

If states weren't so dependent on regressive tax systems that depend on levies that punish the poor and let the wealthy skate, the crunch would not be so bad. Making such changes, however, assuming the political will could be ginned up for the purpose, is a long-term effort. Telling a drowning person she should grow some gills may be good advice for next time the house goes under water, but right now she needs to be thrown a life preserver.

Something must be done - and soon - to keep states from being forced to make deeply damaging choices whose impact may well be felt for decades. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has some ideas on what might be most effective. Does the Democratic leadership have the gumption to knuckle down the foes of such relief, or will it knuckle under instead?

= = =

^{ManfromMiddletown had a excellent diary on this subject here.}

Sunday Loon Watch

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:56:03 GMT

Joe Lieberman -- for what seems like the umpteenth time -- says he'll join Blanche Lincoln and filibuster health care reform if it includes a public option:

Transcript:

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I voted last night, as 59 others did, to go ahead with the debate because I, I want us to begin not only debating healthcare reform, but doing something about healthcare reform. But I don't think anybody feels this bill, as Senator Reid put it down, though he made a lot of progress in blending bills together, I don't think anybody thinks that this bill will pass as it is.

MR. GREGORY: As written. It's got a public option; you said you would not vote for it as a matter of conscience, that you would even filibuster it if that stays in there. Still the case?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: That's right. Just to explain, once the bill is on the floor the, the only alternative--amendments will be offered, but essentially every amendment is subject to a filibuster and will take 60 votes to pass. My only resort, and, and every other senator--and there'll be others who feel exactly the way I do about the public option. If the public option is still in there, the only resort we have is to say no at the end to reporting the bill off the floor.

He's with us on everything except everything else, which explains why Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are back on the radar screen. Those who are working the Snowe/Collins angle should keep in mind the results of NY23 and the poll showing Snowe would be trounced in a GOP primary. Snowe would be crazy if she weren't considering pulling a Specter and coming over to the Democratic Party, but she'd be even crazier if she thinks she could do that after filibustering health care reform.

Economic Outrage du Jour

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:06:03 GMT

Anne Tergesen at The Wall Street Journal reports:

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, age-discrimination allegations against current, former and prospective employers have hit a high -- up 29% to 24,582 in fiscal year 2008, from 19,103 in 2007.

Behind the trend are the recession and the graying of the American work force. As of June, almost 20% of the labor force was 55 or older, up from 13% in 1999. When combined with widespread layoffs, "it's not surprising that a greater number of older people are alleging discrimination," says David Grinberg, a spokesman for the EEOC.

But there's a hang-up. It's last June's dreadful 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. In short, by requiring those who allege age discrimination to prove that this was essentially the only cause for their being fired, or demoted or not promoted, getting a favorable ruling has become immensely more difficult.

Previously, workers could win a claim of age bias if they could prove it was a simply a part of the reason for the decision to fire, demote or not promote them. In the past in these "mixed motives" cases, it was up to employers to show they had a legitimate reason for their action. Given that layoffs tend to fall disproportionately on older workers who usually make more money than younger ones, the employer was required to show that that they would have dealt with the situation the same way no matter how old the worker was.

No more thanks to the court. The damage is likely to be widespread. Especially during a long recession like the current one, with industries doing major restructuring of their workforces, employees not expecting to retire for a decade or so can find themselves literally on the street with little recourse.

Over the past decade, anyone with their eyes open has seen many hard-working fiftysomethings ushered out the door. While buy-outs, both generous and stingy, have prompted some to take early retirement, others who had no thought of leaving because it would put them in an economic bind have wound up out of work anyway. Even in a fairly robust economy, finding a new job at comparable pay when you're 56 or so is tough. Experience counts, but employers don't like the salary needs of someone who has been on the job for 30+ years. Thus do many in that age bracket end up working for two-thirds or half or even less what they made previously. And frequently in jobs for which they are vastly over-qualified.

Morever, since it's the rare person over 50 who doesn't have a pre-existing medical condition, employers who might otherwise be willing to pay the higher salary such experienced people deserve, they are loath to hire in that age bracket because it's likely to increase their group medical rates. Somebody 20 years younger and cheaper with a clean medical record is likely to get the job.

So, the best thing to do if you're 50 or so is hang onto that job with all your might. Age discrimination legislation was meant to make that task a little easier. Five members of the Supreme Court have succeeded in making far more difficult.

Lieberman founds the "Excuse a Month" Club

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:16:03 GMT

Steve Benen does some cataloguing:

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.

In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program." Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever."

Well, it's November. And guess what? We're onto the sixth rationale in six months. I actually like the new one.

"This is a radical departure from the way we've responded to the market in America in the past," Lieberman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press." "We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.... We have never before said, in a given business, we don't trust the companies in it, so we're going to have the government go into that business.."

The "we've never done it before" approach doesn't quite square with America's view of itself as innovative, creative and dynamic, but what the heck. Lieberman's clearly rifling through a lending library of excuses anyway, and as Benen notes with an eye on the calendar, December's approaching quickly and surely a new excuse to obstruct health care reform will be broadcast shortly.

Cheers and Jeers: Monday

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:02:38 GMT

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Slugger Swings for the Senate

When the Pittsburgh Pirates are on the road, the club will open PNC Park to various groups, and last summer the Netroots Nation attendees got a chance to walk onto the field (it's the first time I've been in actual awe of grass), toss the ball around, and try their hand at bat. As my partner Michael and I were hiking to it, we were joined by Jonathan Tasini, who is running against Kirsten Gillibrand in next year's U.S. Senate primary in New York. The moment we walked through the service entrance and into the ballpark, Jonathan made a beeline for the field, hoisted a bat on his shoulder, tossed a ball up and---Whack!!!---knocked that sucker into the outfield. And then he did it again. And again. And again. The politician, author (his latest is The Audacity of Greed), activist, labor organizer and long-time Kossack was something else that night: a kid.

This morning Jonathan risks his reputation---and by that I, of course, mean risks elevating it beyond his wildest dreams---by agreeing to sit in the beanbag chair for the latest installment of our C&J interview series, Yes, We're All Staring At YOU!

Cheers and Jeers: How long have you been blogging and what originally brought you to Daily Kos?
Jonathan Tasini: I started a blog called Working Life in 2004, which gave me a daily outlet to write about labor and unions, which the traditional media did not, and does not, write about on any regular, knowledgeable basis. But, my initial audience was primarily drawn from labor and I have always been interested in creating movements built on broad audiences. That was the reason I came to Daily Kos (User ID 39124).

You're taking on Kirsten Gillibrand in next year's special election in New York. What are the biggest differences between where she stands on the issues and where you stand?
This election will be about one issue: change can’t wait. There is a deep well of desire to change our country---which led to the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, change can be unsettling and scary to people. To embrace change, I believe the voters across the political spectrum want someone whose principles and values they can trust to bring about real changes in the rules of the economy and the direction of our global policies. I believe my opponent will be the weakest candidate for our party in the general election because the voters will simply not trust the appointed Senator, who has been an avowed advocate of the National Rifle Association, someone who has been anti-immigrant, an aggressive defender of Big Tobacco and, now, wants voters to believe she holds a whole set of new principles and values.

But, I believe the appointed Senator is not the issue. In these troubled times, I still believe that the values of our country embodied in our Constitution---equal justice under the law, promoting the general welfare, securing liberty, and providing for the common defense---are the right ideals upon which we build a decent society. But, to fulfill those ideals, we---people of all political backgrounds---need individuals who speak for the people, not insiders who come from a dysfunctional political system and speak for the Wall Street financiers, banks, and pharmaceutical companies. If voters are able to hear the voice of our campaign (very subtle hint for people to invest in our campaign in whatever way they can afford), I think we will win the race. If voters believe that change can’t wait, the choice will be clear.

On the issue page where you address the economy, you write: "What happened to the idea that some day every one of us could reach an age when we could sit back, fish, play a little golf, take up a new hobby, maybe watch our children and grandchildren play or just simply relax and watch the grass grow---without worrying about whether we had money for food and rent?" My answer is that it's completely possible...assuming Americans start living to 250. What's your answer?
It’s a question of choices. Our society can only work well when we treat people fairly, particularly in their retirement years. We got away from that. We’ve been told that the "new economy" means people change jobs a lot more which means business doesn’t have any responsibility to its workers. But that new mobility is not out of choice---the "new economy" has meant "let’s save money by showing less loyalty to workers." I favor a national pension system, funded largely by the businesses that choose not to offer their own pensions.

What kind of music makes you feel invincible to the GOP horde?
Rock and Roll, Neil Young, Bob Marley. I challenge your readers to name a better list of four consecutive songs on one album than Live Rust’s Powderfinger, Cortez The Killer, Cinnamon Girl and Like A Hurricane. I could put those on one loop and be happy.

You're a huge supporter of organized labor. What are the Top 3 priorities we need to achieve to swing the pendulum back so that workers can reassert their collective power?
Fairness: anyone who puts in a fair day at work should get a fair day’s pay and be treated with dignity and respect. It does not mean the rich get richer, a few Wall Street insiders and bankers cash huge paychecks after wrecking the economy for the rest of us while the rest of us get poorer, get foreclosed upon, have our 401ks made worthless, and where a hard-working American can’t earn a fair wage and share in the wealth of the country, and, instead, has to live on credit cards and home equity loans. That may seem obvious---and it was a basic idea in America for a very long time---but we got away from that.

Justice: if you want a union, you should be allowed to choose one without fear of being fired. Rather than focusing on foolish drug laws, let’s impose harsh penalties where they matter to more people. I am for mandatory jail time for the top executive whose company breaks a labor law or safety and health rule---you know how quick union-busting would stop and how rapidly workplaces would be safer if executives lost their personal freedom?

Common sense: to be strongly pro-labor means to be strongly pro-business. We should want businesses to grow because they provide jobs. My standard is simple: I want rules in the economy that start from the first question: "How do we build a sustainable society that benefits the people, and how do businesses, then, fill that role?"

You're in favor of full marriage rights for same-sex couples. (Thank you.) What do you see as the future of marriage equality in New York?
I have been for full marriage rights for a very long time (and, unlike my opponent, I have been quite clear and vocal on the topic) and have been an advocate for LGBT rights for two decades, going back to 1992 when I played a leading role in a winning campaign within the United Auto Workers---of which I am a proud member---to add "sexual orientation" in the UAW Constitution’s non-discrimination clause.

To your specific question about New York: short-term---I worry because of the particular dysfunction of our state legislature. Long-term (I don’t know what that time frame is)---I think we will win but it will require large-scale mobilization.

What's the one book every Kossack must read?
The Grapes of Wrath. It’s always been one of my top five books of all time. Pick it up now and read it in the context of the current financial crisis---we have modern-day Joads who are struggling to make ends meet in a world shaped by reckless modern-day bankers.

You support decriminalization of marijuana. Isn’t that just you bowing to the powerful ice cream, pastry and snack-chip lobby?
Got the munchies just thinking about it, huh? Actually, I think I am bowing down to logic and sanity---the drug wars and drug laws have been a disaster for the country, a colossal waste of money that only benefits the burgeoning for-profit prison industry. But, be forewarned---I believe that the same laws that apply to drunk driving should apply to pot: you want to smoke? Fine. But, don’t get behind the wheel.

No waffling here: dogs or cats?
Sorry---both. And it’s not a waffle, rather a choice because I am not a believer in cooping up dogs in NY apartments hence my personal pet choice since moving to Manhattan has been on the feline side.

What are the best and worst things you see in the healthcare reform bills now being debated on capitol Hill?
Worst: That my party has now decided to throw women’s rights overboard with an astonishingly atrocious rollback thanks to the Stupak amendment. That the bill allows the insurance industry to exist, guaranteeing the inefficiencies imposed on every American by the insurance industry, all of which is a colossal waste of both money and doctors’ time---all to the detriment of the people. Best: That my future colleague Joe Lieberman is unhappy with the current legislation.

Finish this sentence: In the kitchen I make a mean...
Braised Tofu with Eggplant with Shiitake Mushrooms---the thing that makes this even better is the Chili Sauce. I think eggplant is one of the great foods on the planet and I will cook and eat it in any form. Truth in advertising: I’m not a vegetarian and I like cooking everything from chicken, fish and a steak but I love this dish from Mark Bittman’s How To Cook Everything Vegetarian.

I have one question left, but the kitty appears to be playing in my box of dynamite again. Please ask and answer the final question yourself...

How can a nice guy like you be a Yankees season-ticket holder?
This may lose me more votes than any other issue but blame it on my pre-Steinbrenner childhood neighbor who taught me baseball---he was a fanatic and it stuck so hard that I now go to spring training in Tampa. But, since one of my life goals is to go to a game in every stadium in the country---I’m more than half way there---I can feel good about cheering on spectacular play for others.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:01:09 GMT

Monday punditry, so let's dive in on conservatism, health care and the economy.

Ross Douthat:

For now, no Republican leader projects a similar level of seriousness. Late in the Bush years, it was easy to dismiss conservatism as brain-dead. Among policy thinkers, that isn’t true anymore: the advent of Obama seems to have provided just the jolt that right-of-center wonks needed. But innovative proposals are useless without politicians willing to champion them.

Really? Cut taxes and reduce spending are now considered innovative? I love the New York Times, but c'mon...

Rich Lowry: I have nothing intelligent to say about health care, so here's another column to fill the void. Consider this "conservatism as brain-dead".

EJ Dionne:

Something truly momentous happened in the United States Senate last night, and almost all of the accounts today involve carping. Typical is the Politico headline: "How health care reform could fall apart."

Indeed.

David Orentlicher, Professor, co-dir., Center for Law and Health, Ind. University Schools of Law and Medicine ::

Last night's vote gives health care legislation another first down across midfield, but we can expect the opposition to stiffen as the bill moves closer to the goal line. There will be many concessions before final passage--the big question is, how many? It's difficult to see any version of the public option surviving; it's also difficult to see how Congress avoids the tough abortion provision in the House bill. Will the cancer screening controversy doom a meaningful Medicare commission to encourage cost containment? How generous will be the subsidies to help offset the costs of insurance for moderate-income families? What percentage of the uninsured will be covered eventually?

Dean Baker:

Harry Reid, President Obama and the Democrats deserve a lot of credit on this one. They had a lot of obstacles to overcome, but they managed to get there. There are still more hurdles to get through before President Obama has a bill on his desk to sign, but getting a bill to the floor of the Senate was an impressive feat and an essential step on this path.

Paul Krugman:

What happened? To be sure, "centrists" in the Senate have hobbled efforts to rescue the economy. But the evidence suggests that in addition to facing political opposition, President Obama and his inner circle have been intimidated by scare stories from Wall Street.

NY Times Room for Debate:

As they deal with tighter budgets, what should public universities do to balance fiscal responsibility and equal opportunity?

Green Diary Rescue & Open Thread

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:16:57 GMT

Philip Brasher at the Des Moines Register reports:

Students fill classrooms to land new energy jobs:

Ryan Light expected to get just 15 students this semester for his community college classes in Bettendorf on installing wind and solar power equipment. Instead, 40 signed up, and enrollment since has grown to 45.

It's not just because he has the perfect name for an instructor on power generation. It's the prospect of good-paying jobs - starting salary about $40,000 - in a down economy.

Community colleges across Iowa are trying to fill the demand for green jobs by starting training programs in wind energy and biofuels and revising their curricula in automotive repair and building. Twenty of Light's students at Scott Community College have jobs lined up, and an Illinois company is interested in 25 more.

"Our industry needs trained people," said Light, who set aside his own business installing small-scale wind generators to start the program at Scott.

Iowa Lakes Community College has 165 students enrolled in a program preparing workers for large-scale wind generation. Des Moines Area Community College has 60 students in a similar program in Ankeny.
The wind industry "is a big growth area, they pay well, and there are not a lot of programs out there," said Scott Ocken, DMACC's dean of industry and technology.

[...]

The uncertainty about where the energy field is headed isn't missed by some of the students. Light knows of two in his classes, both laid off from the local Alcoa plant, who are on the fence about getting into the renewable energy field.

"If Alcoa rehires again I think they'll be out of the program and back in the factory. It's safe."

• • • • • • •

Green Diary Rescues appear on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The diary rescue begins below and continues in the jump. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it.

• • • • • • •

In her Dawn Chorus Birdblog, lineatus took us to meet some hawks. If I can just make an editorial comment here and say that this is one of the most spectacular bird photos ever.

meepdog had a problem with the Interior Secretary in Salazar the Slaughter Czar: Sky Protest Over Denver: "Secretary Salazar to Relocate Broncos?
While the Denver Broncos continue their fight for a division title against the San Diego Chargers, Secretary Salazar continues his quest to cleanse the West of their namesakes, as well as many other wild animals including Wolves, and Bison. Secretary Salazar has proposed a plan to remove most of the Wild Horses from the West, despite the House having recently passed the ‘Restore Our American Mustangs Act’ (ROAM Act), which would direct the BLM to restore the wild horses to the wild and onto 20 million acres of rangeland. The same amount of BLM lands that a GAO Report admits has been taken from them. As Congressman Raul Grijalva stated regarding the ROAM Act, ’We must not lose these majestic icons of the West.’"

• • • • • • •

Interceptor7 has posted the Overnight News Digest.