Darrell Issa recently decided to outsource his oversight duties to think tanks, industry organizations and lobbyists. He has requested their input into what they hate about government oversight and promises to have a report soon. In the meantime, CREW has done a great job of rounding up responses sent to him. Really, he should have just written to the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, because they cover all the bases.

To be concise, they want all EPA regulatory responsibility ended, a complete rollback of patient rights under the PPACA (including a reinstatement of the right to exclude for pre-existing conditions), a complete rollback of Wall Street regulation, an end to credit card regulatory reforms, and more. Really, I could have written their letter in one page, instead of ten. It would go like this:

Dear Rep. Issa,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit ideas on what government policies hinder job creation. No doubt there are specific policies we could look at more carefully, but suffice it to say that all legislation passed in the last two years should be repealed. Then maybe our largest donors would consider hiring employees again, for substandard wages and without any health coverage or other benefits. We could do this and pay them just enough to stimulate the economy so that our Wall Street friends can recapture what we spend in the form of another market crash.

Sincerely,

Heritage Foundation

I've embedded their actual 10-page response below.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (353)

PLAYS: (2232)

Embed

Why is it that whenever a conservative is asked for specific ways to cut the federal budget, they always spout the same nonsense? In this snippet from the Conway-Paul debate, Rand Paul gives the usual non-answer, which as far as I can tell, boils down to "rules". We've got to have more "rules", because that's what smaller government is about -- rules, right? He also mumbles some things about unspent TARP funds (they've already been rolled back into the budget, Rand), a federal balanced budget amendment, and "putting everything on the table -- entitlements, defense spending, all of it." I could be wrong, but I thought the catfood commission was doing that very same thing right now.

Jack Conway steps up to the plate and knocks back the balanced budget amendment idea by pointing out that getting 2/3rds of states to ratify it won't take care of any budgets anytime soon. He then goes on to say that he's balanced his own budget, and gives several other specific ideas for how to get the budget in line.

One of the moments I most wanted to shout at the screen came in the rebuttals, when Rand Paul said that 33 states have balanced budget amendments. While that's true, it's also true that those states rely on Federal dollars to balance their budgets. Were it not for the stimulus bill, they would have had to make dramatic and awful cuts to programs like Medicaid.

I know it's death to say in an election year, but why is it that no one wants to even think about raising taxes? Perish that thought, but honestly, that's what needs to happen.

Steny Hoyer's passion is moving in this speech. The compromise is imperfect in some ways, but it IS action, and it DOES repeal a policy that should have never been put into effect at all, and moves our country toward being more human, more compassionate, and more equal.

Update 6:54pm PDT: They're voting now. Also, one Republican, Susan Collins joined the Democrats to support the repeal in the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

Update 6:58pm PDT: They just crossed the 219 vote threshold. Two Republicans have voted yes; 23 Democrats have voted no. 17 votes haven't been cast yet.

Update 7:10pm PDT: Final count: 234-194. Thank you, House.

Krugman:

There are now three big questions about economic policy. First, does the administration realize that it isn’t doing enough? Second, is it prepared to do more? Third, will Congress go along with stronger policies?

On the first two questions, I found Mr. Obama’s latest interview with The Times anything but reassuring.

“Our belief and expectation is that we will get all the pillars in place for recovery this year,” the president declared — a belief and expectation that isn’t backed by any data or model I’m aware of. To be sure, leaders are supposed to sound calm and in control. But in the face of the dismal data, this remark sounded out of touch.

And there was no hint in the interview of readiness to do more.

A real fix for the troubles of the banking system might help make up for the inadequate size of the stimulus plan, so it was good to hear that Mr. Obama spends at least an hour each day with his economic advisors, “talking through how we are approaching the financial markets.” But he went on to dismiss calls for decisive action as coming from “blogs” (actually, they’re coming from many other places, including at least one president of a Federal Reserve bank), and suggested that critics want to “nationalize all the banks” (something nobody is proposing).

As I read it, this dismissal — together with the continuing failure to announce any broad plans for bank restructuring — means that the White House has decided to muddle through on the financial front, relying on economic recovery to rescue the banks rather than the other way around. And with the stimulus plan too small to deliver an economic recovery ... well, you get the picture.

Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?

My guess? No.

Republicans are now firmly committed to the view that we should do nothing to respond to the economic crisis, except cut taxes — which they always want to do regardless of circumstances. If Mr. Obama comes back for a second round of stimulus, they’ll respond not by being helpful, but by claiming that his policies have failed.

The broader public, by contrast, favors strong action. According to a recent Newsweek poll, a majority of voters supports the stimulus, and, more surprisingly, a plurality believes that additional spending will be necessary. But will that support still be there, say, six months from now?

Also, an overwhelming majority believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital.

Yeah, politicians don't seem to recognize that most people have grasped the difference between economic stimulus (Good!) and the never-ending banking bailout. (Bad!)

So here’s the picture that scares me: It’s September 2009, the unemployment rate has passed 9 percent, and despite the early round of stimulus spending it’s still headed up. Mr. Obama finally concedes that a bigger stimulus is needed.

But he can’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies has plummeted, partly because his policies are seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies are conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts. And as a result, the recession rages on, unchecked.

O.K., that’s a warning, not a prediction. But economic policy is falling behind the curve, and there’s a real, growing danger that it will never catch up.

Obama is apparently preparing to carry through on his campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and Bob Gates has instructed the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for doing so (h/t Kat). Steve Benen and Kevin Drum are both happy that Obama isn't backing away from his promise, and so am I. But the plan seems to involve closing Gitmo within two years, and that's too long.

It means that for two years detainees, many of them innocent of all charges as even the Bush administration nowadays has been forced to admit, will either continue to be subjected to kangaroo courts rebranded as "tribunals" or held in illegal imprisonment if tribunals are suspended. It means that those who ordered illegal rendition, torture, years of imprisonment without trial, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions and the trashing of America's legal system so as to allow evidence obtained by torture to be admissable while habeas corpus pleas were not will have an extra two years to argue by proxy that criminal charges would be politically inadvisable. It will mean two years in which Obama's administration and its foreign policy goals will be tarred abroad with the brush that Bush fashioned, because the rest of the world looks at America and doesn't distinguish as carefully between administrations as do partisan Americans.

And most importantly, it means two more years of the greatest gift to terrorist recruitment, which means more people will die. "Matthew Alexander", the Air Force Major who was an interrogator in Iraq and has been highly critical of "enhanced interrogation" told Scott Horton in an interview published Friday:

The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. The majority of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters who volunteered and came to Iraq with this motivation. Consequently it is clear that at least hundreds but more likely thousands of American lives (not to count Iraqi civilian deaths) are linked directly to the policy decision to introduce the torture and abuse of prisoners as accepted tactics. Americans have died from terrorist attacks since 9/11; those Americans just happen to be American soldiers. This is not simply my view–it is widely held among senior officers in the U.S. military today. Alberto Mora, who served as General Counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “U.S. flag-rank officers maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq–as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat–are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”

Continue reading »

And now for some good news.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

... But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Given how often the Bush administration have sidelined Congress to push their own policies, the notion that a majority of Congress can so easily sideline Bush's last six months in office has a delicious sense of karma about it.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Democratic lawmakers are planning a massive infrastructure package as an economic stimulus after the November elections.

"Not only is Wall Street frozen, but Main Street is in real trouble. A stimulus aimed at Main Street makes sense," New York Sen. Charles Schumer told CNN.

He said the plan should "get into the guts of the economy" by boosting spending on infrastructure such as roads, sewer and water projects.

Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who served under President Bill Clinton, told CNN that an infrastructure plan that could quickly pump money into the economy was the most important action that U.S. authorities could take to help deal with the current economic crisis.

"I would put in place an infrastructure piece... bridges, water systems roads, highways, but not new projects that are going to take a long time to set up," Rubin said. "There are a lot of existing projects where states and cities are having a hard time finding a lot of financing where you could funnel that money right into existing activities where you would be able to act very very quickly."

Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told ABC he'll be spearheading the House version of the package.

Meanwhile, Republicans are apparently set on "staying the course" on tax cuts, which have failed to prevent the economy getting into such dire straits in the first place.

Continue reading »

The Big Picture: Many experts point to the Financial Modernization Act as one of the causes of our current financial crisis. Byron Dorgan was one of the few senators to speak out strongly against the legislation then. Looking back, his predictions in 1999 seem prophetic and, looking forward, his views raise more questions about the $700 billion bailout plan.

The Brad Blog: New study details massive voter roll purge underway in at least 19 states.

Media Nation: Gwen Ifill? What about NBC's "McCain liason," Tom Brokaw?

TheZoo: Psychogeezer says he gets foreign policy advice from Palin -OMG

Rolling Stone: Make Believe Maverick: A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty.

Spiegel Online: The end of arrogance

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

On Real Time with Bill Maher's New Rules segment, host Bill Maher exhorts viewers not to assume the worst about John McCain just because of the color of his skin.

Now, take a look at these pictures. Here are the CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the Lehman Brothers. I know the first thing that jumps out about these faces is that they all happen to be white, and they all happen to be responsible for stealing. But what you have to understand is that these whites are a product of a society that made them that way. It was the neighborhoods and the schools they went to: Harvard, Yale, the Wharton School of Business. They never learned the value of doing real, actual work and the first step to fixing that is better role models, so kids growing up white today don't think the only way out of Westchester is corporate crime. Or a government handout or sailing. So I get it, the temptation is to look at McCain and vote against him because you don't see an individual, you just see another typical welfare whitey.

And it's true, he's spent his entire life shuffling from one low-paying government job to another. Well, except those years he spent in prison. Typical! And between you and me, he's not very articulate. Oh, he may have some street smarts, but he's not what you call an educated man. He freely admits he's ignorant about the economy. And apparently the only thing his white running mate knows how to do is crank out one baby after another. And now of course, her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. Because she learns it at home! But that doesn't mean we should assume all white people are like that, just because so many of them are.

Full transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Probably because she doesn't have any. At all. Well, not unless you count the proximity of Alaska to Russia. Sarah Palin made her first unscripted appearance Wednesday at a town hall meeting with John McCain and proved exactly why the McCain campaign has tried their damnedest to keep her as far away from those things as possible. In this clip, a questioner throws up a softball about national security cred and Palin can't remember her talking points about being able to see Russia from some remote island or that she's the "Commander-in-Chief" of the Alaska National Guard.

Download | play Download | play

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Palin, there has been quite a bit of discussion about your perceived lack of foreign policy experience. And I want to give you your chance. If you could please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have to bring to the White House to rebut that or mitigate that concern.

PALIN: Well, I think because I'm a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we'll be ready. I'll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.

And if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead and you can ask me. You can even play stump the candidate if you want to. But we are ready to serve.

Turns out the town hall was pre-ticketed and she still couldn't answer the question coherently. Sheesh.

McCain town hall style meetings are generally open to the public where anyone may wait in line on the day of the event and come in without an advanced invitation.

However, at tonight’s 3,500 person townhall in Grand Rapids, Michigan–the first time Palin is taking questions from the public– only ticketholders are allowed in.