It's astounding to me, that California voters still remain so largely uninformed (or indifferent) about the root causes of the state's yearly fiscal crisis. Those who want to change things have an uphill battle:

Reporting from Sacramento - Backers of an overhaul of California's government, who hope to leverage disgust with Sacramento into support for changing how the state raises taxes and spends money, have a difficult path ahead, according to a new poll of California voters.

Major segments of the electorate see the state's problems as the product of unrestrained lawmakers driven by special interests to waste taxpayer money, and reject arguments that structural issues with the state's Constitution and government institutions are to blame.

Voters don't want the tax code overhauled in the ways that many fiscal experts promise would tamp down the wild revenue swings that have led to a constant state of budget crisis in California. They don't want the Constitution changed to allow a simple majority of lawmakers to push a budget onto the governor's desk, as most other large states allow. And they don't want the state to touch Proposition 13 property tax restrictions, even if residential property taxes would remain strictly limited.

Continue reading »

What is it about Democratic hawks that makes them so indistinguishable from Republican hawks? From the AP:

Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy said a strategy decision on new deployments involving the U.S. and other troop-contributing nations would be made within the next few weeks, according to an official transcript released Saturday.

Flournoy, the Pentagon's policy chief, led a U.S. delegation that briefed NATO ambassadors Thursday on the Obama administration's review of the Afghan war. Officials released a transcript of her remarks from that meeting.

"No one is talking about leaving Afghanistan, or even standing pat. We are increasing our commitment and we're talking about how best to do that with both civilian and military resources," Flournoy was quoted as telling NATO ambassadors.

Tell me, Ms. Flournoy, how many thousands of troops NATO is going to be providing, given their limited participation to date and their nations' people also coming out more and more against further involvement in Afghanistan? How many more years, how many more deaths, how many more billions will it take before Afghanistan is "secure"? Honestly, someone needs to clue in Ms. Flournoy about the failed wisdom of following in the footsteps of the "stupidest guy on the face of the planet."

I have never understood the grasping need of Dem politicians to be viewed as being as tough as - and often, as foolish - Repub politicians when it comes to issues of national security. Afghanistan is not vital to American security interests - going after al Qaeda is, and they're in Pakistan. We need a strategy of containment rather than one of nation-building - we can't afford the current strategy, and it's overdue for a change.

Ben Stein was axed by the New York Times last year for ethics violations when he appeared in a commercial for a bait and switch credit report scam. The ad claimed that consumers could get a free credit report, but in reality, they had to pay to see the real numbers.

Well, the FTC is now getting into the act and going after similar companies with some catchy commercials intended to emulate those of a popular advertising campaign by a similar bait and switch scam:

AnnualCreditReport.com is the ONLY authorized source to get your free annual credit report under federal law. The Fair Credit Reporting Act guarantees you access to a free credit report from each of the three nationwide reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion — every twelve months. The Federal Trade Commission has received complaints from consumers who thought they were ordering their free annual credit report, but instead paid hidden fees or agreed to unwanted services. Don’t be fooled by TV ads, email offers, or online search results. Go to the authorized source when you request your free report. Read on...

Ok, so the ad is a little hokey, but the message is clear. I'm all for steering people to better alternatives and pointing out hackery when I can.

I don't usually comment on a blog post that comments on another blog post, but I believe Matt Yglesias hits on an important issue in his observations on Andrew Exum's interview with Washington Post reporter and author Greg Jaffe.

Greg Jaffe, speaking to Andrew Exum, says “This whole conventional vs. irregular debate is stupid.”

War is war. And we waste far too much energy trying to categorize it. I think most lieutenants, captains and majors are beyond this false conventional vs. irregular frame that we try to impose on war. I wish I could say the same for the more senior people in the Pentagon.

I think there’s a lot of truth to that. At the same time, just because things look one way to “lieutenants, captains and majors” and another way to “senior people in the Pentagon” doesn’t mean we should take a dismissive view of the senior people’s outlook in a rush to celebrate the insights of the practical warfighter.
----------
And when you get down to the guts of defense budget politics, these high-level strategic concepts matter a great deal. Nobody, of course, is going to say that the U.S. should somehow completely abandon its ability to fight conventional wars. But the choice between a mindset that says “the main purpose of the military is to scare China & Russia” or a mindset that says “the main purpose of the military is to intervene effectively in third world backwaters” has very real implications for what kind of hardware purchases look cost effective.

There is no doubt in my mind that the issue of "hardware purchases" looms very large in the minds of senior military and civilian decision makers. Conventional warfare means lots of tanks, armored vehicles, stealthy jets, next generation bombers, submarines, destroyers, and aircraft carriers. And let's not even get into the care and feeding of that massive military machine. Counterinsurgency operations, or COIN, is completely the opposite, with a focus on maintaining security and diminishing the insurgent grasp on the population without destroying real estate. Also a no-brainer that the DOD budget is already too bloated, and that in managing two wars, protecting the homeland, and trying to modernize its equipment, there's going to be some in-fighting.

But more importantly, the issue is also in the theory and execution of national strategy. The basic idea of military doctrine is that small military units execute tactics on the ground that must support the overall plan of operations within a theater. The theater commander needs to ensure that he has adequate numbers of personnel, that operations continue toward a particular set of goals, and that the logistics support those operations - and his operations must support the overall national strategy for that region. If your tactics and operations don't align against the strategic goals and expected outcome, then you're doing something wrong - even if you're General McChrystal.

Now under the Bush administration, strategic goals and outcomes changed every Friedman unit (six months), which made it difficult to effectively plan operations or execute tactics. But one thing that was certainly clear was that conventional tactics that destroyed the Taliban in 2002 and that took the Iraqi army out in 2003 didn't support the post-conflict goals. You can't prosecute military operations with a conventional frame of mind when what one really needs is an approach to irregular warfare. That's why we failed in Lebanon in 1983.

Greg Jaffe is a good journalist, and I look forward to reading his book. On the other hand, making a statement like "War is war. And we waste far too much energy trying to categorize it" is a remarkably stupid statement. Nuclear war is not the same as conventional war. Conventional war is not the same as irregular war. Our military needs to be able to operate across a range of different operations, and needs to be equipped properly to execute its operations quickly and efficiently. But what we really need is national leadership that understands the nature of war, that knows how to develop a strategy that is executable, and that knows when it's time to go. From Sun Tzu:

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Thus ends the lesson.

All wars depress me, but this Afghanistan one in particular makes me want to scream. Why are we there? Theoretically, to hunt down Osama bin Laden and stop al Qaeda from using it as a base. But is al Qaeda still there? Is that likely to work? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, is it worth the cost?

Nice to see a high-ranking Democrat asking these questions, too:

The veteran chairman of the House Appropriations Committee posed a series of tough questions Thursday to his colleagues and the Obama administration about the wisdom of further U.S. engagement in that war-torn country.

Rep. David R. Obey , D-Wis., in a statement expressed significant skepticism about the prospects for success of any major effort to stabilize the country, either through additional U.S. troops or by a concerted effort to train more Afghan troops and improve the country’s governance and economy.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail,” Obey said of one option President Obama is weighing.

“If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order,” he said. “But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the goal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal.”

As for a policy bent on counter-insurgency and nation-building, Obey said, “We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold? “

Equally important, he said, “Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (858)

PLAYS: (1369)

Via Buzzflash. Yes, even the former Texas congressman who was single-handedly dragged us into our initial entanglement in Afghanistan thinks we should get out:

The U.S. military's ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a movie Charlie Wilson has seen before, and he isn't thrilled with where the plot of this one is going.

"I think they're looking at us more and more like occupiers," he said.

[...] Out of Congress since 1997, Mr. Wilson is now 76 and two years removed from a heart transplant. Because of that, he has significantly reduced his public speaking schedule.

"I actually committed to this one a long time ago. I don't make so many anymore," he said during a recent phone interview from his home in Texas.

Most of his talk will center on Afghanistan, from his covert dealings there in the '80s to its present situation. No doubt he'll be comparing and contrasting the Soviets' experience to what the American military is going through now in its fight against the Taliban.

"I want to make them understand the dilemmas the (Obama) administration is under," Mr. Wilson said. "It's a very tough situation."

Mr. Wilson was better known for his hard partying ways - his nickname was Good Time Charlie - than for his policy credentials when he became deeply interested in Afghanistan a couple of years after the Soviets' 1979 invasion.

"I decided the Afghans were really going to put up a fight," he said. "Basically, I just wanted to embarrass the Soviets as much as possible. Then I got into it big time."

Using his seat on the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, he was able secure enough funds for the CIA to arm the mujahideen freedom fighters with automatic weapons and Stinger missiles.

"It was harder than it sounds," Mr. Wilson said. "We had to buy Russian-made weapons. We had to deal with Poland and Romania. That was all pretty intricate."

The weapons paid off for the Islamic fighters, and the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Mr. Wilson's efforts were documented by author George Crile in the book "Charlie Wilson's War," which was adapted into the 2007 movie starring Tom Hanks as Mr. Wilson.

Of course, the story didn't end with the withdrawal. Mr. Wilson believes that the United States' failure to invest in Afghanistan's recovery following the war led in large part to the ascension of the Taliban, who provided a refuge for Osama bin Ladin, who had fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets, and Al Qaeda in the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"We (screwed) up the end game," Mr. Wilson said. "It would have been very easy and done for a minuscule amount of money. We should have done the basic things for a backward country that's trying to come out of (a war) and have a reasonable hope of economic success."

As President Obama considers whether to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, Mr. Wilson worries that the war could become "another Vietnam."

"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawal," he said. "If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."

He says this as someone who knows as well as anyone just how fierce and tenacious the Afghan fighters are.

"I'd rather take on a chainsaw," Mr. Wilson said. "They're the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors. And they're fearless.

"They're fearless, and they've got nothing to lose. And they have a pretty serious hatred for those who try to occupy their country."

Perfect timing for CNN. Hugo Chavez gets cut off as he berates the U.S. for the genocide of our indigenous Americans, and CNN switches to live coverage of the G20 protests. The anchors are too dumb to realize the police are using sonic cannons, instead referring to it as "an annoying siren."

Our America grows more authoritarian by the day, and the election hasn't changed that. Citizens are seen as the enemy, corporate interests are sacred and the police are the ultimate authority, answering to no one. They deploy weapons developed for war zones against civilian populations - and nothing happens. The media? Don't make me laugh.

PITTSBURGH — Hours after the Group of 20 meeting ended, the protests did not.

The police here arrested 110 people on Friday night, according to the mayor’s office. They dispersed hundreds of students milling near the University of Pittsburgh with pepper spray and smoke canisters in a scene reminiscent of the previous night’s disturbances on the first day of the economic summit.

The group, estimated at close to 500 people, gathered near Schenley Plaza around 10 p.m., with students saying they were drawn because they were angry over how the riot police treated students at Thursday’s gathering. Some students said their curiosity was piqued by a university message warning them to stay off the streets.

The police used a loudspeaker to announce that the plaza assembly was unlawful and ordered the crowd to disperse about 11 p.m. Soon afterward, plumes of white smoke could be seen rising near Bigelow Boulevard and officers beating cadence on plastic shields with long batons marched down Forbes Avenue, driving back students, onlookers and journalists. A block north, as people scattered, officers fired projectiles at a young man riding a scooter down Fifth Avenue, knocking him to the ground and arresting him.

It was the second consecutive night of turbulence in the bustling streets surrounding the university, where crowds of bar-hoppers were largely displaced by fleets of police vans, armored vehicles and phalanxes of officers wearing helmets, padded vests and shiny plastic shin guards.

On Friday morning a flier had circulated instructing people to gather again at the university to protest Thursday night’s events. The police then had rushed towards students in a dormitory courtyard and squirted pepper spray after black clad protesters dashed though nearby streets, smashing the windows of a University of Pittsburgh police sub station and several restaurants. Those protesters had also ignited a dumpster, which they rolled into the intersection of Forbes Avenue and Oakland Avenue before fleeing into the university campus.

Dillon Snyder, 18, a freshman at the university, said he was retreating from clouds of white smoke on Thursday, when he was struck above his right elbow with a kind of projectile fired by police.

On Saturday, he said his elbow was still sore, as he reflected on the events on his campus over the past two nights.

“There was really no reason for such extreme action,” he said. “The guns, the rubber bullets and the dogs probably did more to incite people.”

Oh, and watch Sean Hannity berate these protesters, who turn the table on him:

The White House has dumped Bush's Incredible Missile program to save the world.

President Obama announced on Thursday that he would scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting short- and medium-range Iranian missiles.

Mr. Obama decided not to deploy a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic or 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, as Mr. Bush had planned. Instead, the new system his administration is developing would deploy smaller SM-3 missiles, at first aboard ships and later on land somewhere in Europe, possibly even in Poland or the Czech Republic.

“President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. But he said new assessments of the nature of the Iranian threat required a different system that would use existing technology and different locations. “This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.”The decision amounts to one of the biggest national security reversals by the new administration, one that has caused consternation in Poland and the Czech Republic and pleased at least some officials in Russia, which had adamantly objected to the Bush plan. But Obama administration officials stressed that they are not abandoning missile defense, only redesigning it to meet the more immediate Iranian threat.

I would imagine the White House has negotiated with the Russians for something in return, but the Neocons will scream bloody murder. And as you would expect, the right-wingers are in freakout mode. As far as they're concerned, it's still toe-to-toe nookyular combat with the Rooskies.

Funny thing: When it comes to things like saving the ecnoomy and creating decent health care, we hear about the cost of this and the cost of that, ad nauseam. So why aren't the teabaggers and Republicans up in arms over all this government spending on missiles and whatnot?

Obama seems to be doing it smarter and cheaper. Maybe we should have a pay-go approach to bombs and guns. Maybe the CBO should be seen in prime time giving America estimates on how much we're spending on missile defense, don't you think?

NY Times:

Precisely one year ago, we lucky taxpayers took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that contributed mightily to the wild and crazy home-loan-boom-turned-bust. In that rescue operation, the Treasury agreed to pony up as much as $200 billion to keep Fannie in the black, coughing up cash whenever its liabilities exceed its assets. According to the company’s most recent quarterly financial statement, the Treasury will, by Sept. 30, have handed over $45 billion to shore up the company’s net worth.

It is still unclear what the ultimate cost of this bailout will be. But thanks to inquiries by Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, we do know of another, simply outrageous cost. As a result of the Fannie takeover, taxpayers are paying millions of dollars in legal defense bills for three top former executives, including Franklin D. Raines, who left the company in late 2004 under accusations of accounting improprieties. From Sept. 6, 2008, to July 21, these legal payments totaled $6.3 million.

With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.

Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said.

That year, the government sued Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and Leanne Spencer, Fannie’s former controller, seeking $100 million in fines and $115 million in restitution from bonuses the government contended were not earned. Without admitting wrongdoing, Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and Ms. Spencer paid $31.4 million in 2008 to settle the litigation.

When these top executives left Fannie, the company was obligated to cover the legal costs associated with shareholder suits brought against them in the wake of the accounting scandal.

Now those costs are ours. Between Sept. 6, 2008, and July 21, we taxpayers spent $2.43 million to defend Mr. Raines, $1.35 million for Mr. Howard, and $2.52 million to defend Ms. Spencer.“I cannot see the justification of people who led these organizations into insolvency getting a free ride,” Mr. Grayson said. “It goes right to the heart of what people find most disturbing in this situation — the absolute lack of justice.”

If you haven't been following Alan Grayson, he has been an absolutely stalwart progressive in the House and really pushing for sensible reform to prevent another economic meltdown.

And for the 8-hour workday, thank the labor movement:

In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized a general strike, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals. Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.

In 1864, the eight-hour day quickly became a central demand of the Chicago labor movement. The Illinois legislature passed a law in early 1867 granting an eight-hour day but had so many loopholes that it was largely ineffective. A city-wide strike that began on May 1, 1867 shut down the city's economy for a week before collapsing. In 1868, Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees, which was also of limited effectiveness.

In August 1866 the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."

Gee. No wonder the Republicans hate labor!

But we still have a way to go:

The United States is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers any paid vacation time, according to a report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. As a result, 1 in 4 private-sector workers in the U.S. do not receive any paid vacation or paid holidays.

The report, No-Vacation Nation, by Rebecca Ray and John Schmitt, finds that European workers are legally guaranteed at least 20 paid vacation days per year, with 25 and even 30 or more days common in some countries.

The gap between paid time off in the United States and the rest of the world is even larger when legal holidays are included. The United States does not guarantee any paid holidays, but most rich countries provide between 5 and 13 per year, in addition to paid vacation days.

“Relying on businesses to voluntarily provide paid leave just hasn't worked,” said John Schmitt, senior economist and co-author of the report. “It's a national embarrassment that 28 million Americans don't get any paid vacation or paid holidays.”

Remember, this is not the time to be grateful for what little you have. This is the time to fight.

I've been reading the coverage about the public option remarks yesterday, and I think I understand the likely scenario now.

First of all, don't panic. Believe it or not, Sebelius is right: The public option is not the only way to get accountability into the health care system. And a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

That said, President Obama is still claiming to back the public option.

Linda Douglass (comm director for White House Office of Health Reform): "Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

More:

Jim Messina (White House deputy chief of staff): "Nothing has changed. POTUS [President of the United States] has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

But those quotes yesterday weren't accidental; that isn't how this game is played. So this quote from Chuck Todd seems right:

The White House has been hinting at this for weeks if not months. When Kent Conrad … came out with that co-op idea, I can tell you, insiders at the White House said: ‘Boy, this is going to gain a lot of traction.’ And those conservative Democrats -- this is not about getting a bipartisan bill out of the Senate, Lester. This is about getting folks like Ben Nelson in Nebraska; Joe Lieberman in Connecticut; Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- getting them on board. And a full-fledged public option was making them hesitant. Co-op will be the option that probably gets ‘em done. And that’s why the White House is allowing themselves wiggle room.

Seems to me this is more of a re-branding than an actual surrender. These senators are hesitant about the public option but will almost certainly embrace something that sounds more voter friendly.

Remember, the person to watch is Howard Dean. I know he's explained why co-ops don't work, and I think the newest version will be called a "co-op" - but that doesn't mean it works the same way.

So I'm waiting to see what Dr. Dean thinks of the finished product.

Ah yes, the Glenn Beck citizen patriots! They turned out in force last night to disrupt yet another town hall meeting on health care reform. I wonder when the union members start showing up? (Read Bill Mann's Four Creative Ways to Deal with Right-Wing Rent-a-Mobs. Great ideas!)

From the St. Pete Times, one account:

TAMPA – Bitter divisions over reforming America's health care system exploded Thursday night in Tampa amid cat calls, jeering and shoving at a town hall meeting.

"Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!" dozens of people shouted as U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor struggled to talk about health insurance reforms under consideration in Washington, D.C.

"There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it," Castor offered, immediately drowned out by groans and boos.

She pressed on, mostly unheard among the screams from the audience of more than 200.

"Tell the truth! Tell the truth!"

"Read the bill!"

"Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!"

The spectacle at the Children's Board in Ybor City sounded more like a wrestling cage match than a panel discussion on national policy, and it was just the latest example of a health care meeting disrupted by livid protesters. Similar scenes are likely to be repeated across the country as lawmakers head back to their home districts for the summer recess.

Thursday's forum/near riot was sponsored by state Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa, and the Service Employees International Union, who apparently had hoped to hold something of a pep rally for President Obama's health care reform proposal.

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points to challenge supporters.

An overflow crowd of critics was left waiting outside the building – and in some cases pounding on the meeting room doors – while health care reform activists complained that Democrats and union members were guided into the room for prime seats.

"They can't even run a meeting, and they want to run health care?," scoffed Kevin Grant, a Tampa printing business owner, standing near someone wielding a "Shame on you America. You sold your soul to the Devil" sign.

From the Tampa Tribune:

The problems began when a crowd of around 500, many of them recruited to attend by interest groups both for and against the proposal, sought to enter the meeting room. The room, in the offices of the Hillsborough County Children's Board on East Palm Avenue, has a capacity of only about 250.

Several hundred people, mostly opponents, wound up outside or packing a hallway leading into the meeting room. Some scuffled with members of the sponsoring groups who manned the doorway.

Via The Big Picture:

This an interview of former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts. At 2:40 (of the 3:08 interview) was this exchange:

Max Keiser: “Does the US Secretary of the Treasury work for the people or does he work for the banking system on Wall Street?”

Dr. Paul Craig Reports: “He works for Goldman Sachs.”

He also called the attempts to bail out the banking system to-date “a fraud.”

Oh, and in other cheery economic news, here's Nouriel Roubini:

The June employment report suggests that the alleged green shoots are mostly yellow weeds that may eventually turn into brown manure. The employment report shows that conditions in the labor market continue to be extremely weak, with job losses in June of over 460,000. With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions.

It's clear that even if the recession were to be over anytime soon--and it's not going to be over before the end of the year--job losses are going to continue for at least another year and a half. Historically, during the last two recessions, job losses continued for at least a year and a half after the recession was over. During the 2001 recession, the recession was over in November 2001, and job losses continued through August 2003 for a cumulative loss of jobs of over 5 million; this time we are already seeing more than 6 million job losses and the recession is not over.

The details of the unemployment report are even worse than the headline. Not only are there large job losses right now, but as a way of sharing the pain, firms are inducing workers to reduce hours and hourly wages. Therefore, when we're looking at the effect of the labor market on labor income, we should consider that the total value of labor income is the product of jobs, hours and average hourly wages--and that all three elements are falling right now. So the effect on labor income is much more significant than job losses alone.

The details also suggest that other aspects of the labor markets are worsening. If you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers, the unemployment rate is already above 16%. If you consider also that temporary jobs are falling now quite sharply, labor market conditions are becoming worse and the average duration of unemployment now is at an all-time high. So people not only are losing jobs, but they're finding it harder to find new jobs. So every element of the labor market is worsening.

The unemployment rate rose only marginally from 9.4% to 9.5%, but that's because so many people are discouraged that they exited the labor force voluntarily and therefore are not counted in the official unemployment rate.

All these gyrations and negotiations to avoid even the possibility of a truly robust public plan! Ah well, there's probably some 11-dimensional chess going on here that I can't see. But I'll tell you what I can see: That everybody's represented at this particular table except us:

WASHINGTON -- It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "stiff." Somehow, this statement has a whiff of Viagra spam about it: "Your instrument will be like a mighty oak." Uh huh.

"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," he said in an interview. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.

His comments came as the Senate Finance Committee pushed for a bipartisan deal. To help pay for the package, the committee planned to announce an agreement Wednesday with hospitals and the White House for $155 billion over a decade in reductions to Medicare and charity-care payments for hospitals, according to a person familiar with the agreement. That will help pay for the legislation, expected to cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years.

One of the most contentious issues is whether to create a public health-insurance plan to compete with private companies.

Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.

Are you kidding me, Rahm? Plan D is a piece of crap, a fact that is well-known to the people who actually rely on it. Oh, I forgot - to you, a success has more to do with "getting the job done" in Congress than in actually fixing the problem. Solution-esque, as it were. This is your template? Dear God, we're screwed. Because that trigger mechanism was designed to never be triggered.

Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a vigorous public option. But he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point.

Will this man draw a line in the sand over anything? Is nothing non-negotiable with President Obama? Oh, right: Banking bailouts.

The deal with the hospitals follows a similar agreement with brand-name drug companies. And insurance companies were talking to Senate negotiators about cuts worth at least $100 billion over 10 years, according to two officials with knowledge of the negotiations.

Congressional negotiators and the White House hope to lock in support from the industry groups, which are backing a health bill in general terms but have opposed past efforts.

But this time, they're really, really, really operating in good faith. Honest! (Charlie Brown, meet football.)

Hospitals and insurers hope to gain some degree of control over cuts to their federal payments. In principle, a health-care overhaul could benefit both groups by raising the number of Americans who buy and have health insurance.

"They've made an assessment reform is going to happen, so it's better to be part of that than not," Mr. Emanuel said.

However, insurers, and most Republicans, strongly oppose creation of a government-run insurance option, saying it would ultimately drive them out of business. Most Democrats support a public option.

The president and his aides already have signaled a willingness to consider an alternative to a public plan under which a network of nonprofit cooperatives would compete with for-profit insurance companies. That is the leading idea in the Senate Finance Committee.

Continue reading »

I'd love to tell you that I'm so erudite and cosmopolitan that I eagerly gobble up The New Yorker cover to cover every month. But it would be a lie. The honest truth is that I read The New Yorker occasionally when articles come up through keyword searches for research for the site and when other bloggers I respect recommend an article.

But this article on Leon Panetta at the CIA was sent to me by one of my Iranian friends (living abroad) who has been filling my inbox with reports of protests and the rumors flying around Tehran. This article has filled her with dread of American interference in Iran.

In fairness, it's a reasonably balanced article; it fairly states the delicate balance that Panetta must tread between the all-too-often opposing forces in the Agency and the Executive Branch. But this section, buried deep on page 6 of the 8 page article, hit me (like my friend) right in the gut:

No criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as the result of mistreatment. In the first case, an unnamed detainee under C.I.A. supervision in Afghanistan froze to death after having been chained, naked, to a concrete floor overnight. The body was buried in an unmarked grave. In the second case, an Iraqi prisoner named Manadel al-Jamadi died on November 4, 2003, while being interrogated by the C.I.A. at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad. A forensic examiner found that he had essentially been crucified; he died from asphyxiation after having been hung by his arms, in a hood, and suffering broken ribs. Military pathologists classified the case a homicide. A third prisoner died after an interrogation in which a C.I.A. officer participated, though the officer evidently did not cause the death. (Several other detainees have disappeared and remain unaccounted for, according to Human Rights Watch.)

During his tenure at the C.I.A., John Helgerson, the former inspector general, forwarded the crucifixion case, along with an estimated half-dozen other incidents, to the Justice Department, for possible prosecution. But the case files have languished. An official familiar with the cases told me that the agency has deflected inquiries by the Senate Intelligence Committee seeking information about any internal disciplinary action. (Helgerson told me, “Some individuals have been disciplined. And others no longer work at the agency.”)

Panetta acknowledges that there are some people still at the C.I.A. who may be tainted by the torture program. Nevertheless, he says, “I really respect the people who say we shouldn’t have gotten involved in the interrogation business but we had to do our jobs. I don’t think I should penalize people who were doing their duty. If you have a President who exercises bad judgment, the C.I.A. pays the price.”

Excuse me? We're literally crucifying detainees (who have not had the right to even know what they're charged with, much less any other legal right) and there's been NO accountability, NO investigation and Panetta's worried about the CIA paying the price?

Methinks they have the wrong priorities.