In a somewhat predictable but still annoying move, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss Attorney General Ken Cucinelli's lawsuit seeking to challenge the constitutional grounds for the Affordable Care Act. The key language in the 32-page ruling (PDF) is this:

While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addresses this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce. Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this Court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action."

Or, stated more simply, the judge has decided to allow Virginia to challenge the Affordable Care Act in its entirety based on a challenge to the individual mandate. The court (and Ken Cucinelli) should be careful what they wish for. If the court's logic is deemed sound and this case were to be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, a foundation will have been laid for Congress to pass Medicare For All under precedents established when Medicare was passed and challenged 45 years ago.

Just so we're clear on agendas, know that these court challenges have nothing to do with the individual mandate and everything to do with insurers' objections to the Affordable Care Act ending insurers' right to exclude for pre-existing conditions. That has been, and will continue to be, the core of corporate objections to the Affordable Care Act.

The judge's ruling was purely procedural; that is, he did not consider the merits of Virginia's argument, only whether the case should be allowed to proceed. The White House fired back a response and a shot across the bow:

After all, over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act. In order to make health care affordable and available for all, the Act regulates how to pay for medical services – services that account for more than 17.5% of the national economy. This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay.

We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door – whether they have insurance or not. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses, in Virginia and throughout the nation. According to a recent study, this cost-shift added on average $1,100 to family premiums in 2009 and roughly $410 to an individual premium.

Bottom line: This ruling doesn't really mean much, but conservatives will use it as a crowing point during the summer recess to stoke up the teabag machine and grind out nightly Fox News blurbs.

While it may not be as sex-ay as Breitbart punking every mainstream media outlet on the planet, it's worthy of note: the landmark Wall Street Reform legislation promised in 2008 at the height of the financial meltdown has now been signed into law.

Before everyone drowns in a sea of "but-buts" over what they DIDN'T get, let's talk about what WAS delivered:

• Tighter consumer protections on credit cards and lending. Among them: Simplified contracts, requirement for more transparency in disclosures, full advance fee disclosure, free credit reports once per year
• Consumer Protection Agency - This places all responsibility for monitoring and enforcing consumer protections under one roof, so that there is recourse and resources available to consumers from the Federal Government. Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the top candidates to head the agency, viewed this piece of the law as the foundation. Republicans fought tooth and nail on this, but it survived and became part of the final bill.
• The end of "too big to fail" Yes, it really does end too big to fail. If institutions are teetering on insolvency and present a risk to the financial system, there is now a procedure in place to unwind them in an orderly fashion without infusions of government dollars to prop them up.
• Real time reporting and transparency This is one of those quietly powerful provisions. Financial and trading data will be required to be available in real time in a standardized data format that can be used for analysis and review in order to be proactive about emerging anomalies and trends before they become a problem.
• Stronger requirements for bank capitalization Without climbing deep into wonk-land here, requiring banks to actually have a better debt-to-asset ratio with some stake in the loans they originate will do much to stabilize the industry and move forward.
• Shareholders now have a say in CEO compensation. That may not seem like much, but traditionally, shareholders don't have a lot to say about any company operations, so it does offer an opportunity for people to send a message to the CEOs of these companies.
• An end to "debit card fee bloat" - The pass-through of debit card fees is now limited to actual costs, instead of the routine bloat banks have attached in the past. This one should be interesting to watch...if people pay attention.
• Limits on rate hikes for existing credit card balances
• The Volcker Rule - Banks may no longer trade securities for their own profit while also managing customer investments.

There are more, but it would require you to follow me down into the rabbit hole to WonkLand. But here's one term everyone should know, and remember: Systemic Risk.

Systemic Risk is the heart of this legislation. It controls how regulators are to approach their regulatory duties: Single-mindedly, with the goal of identifying and smoothing systemic risk. What is systemic risk? Any risk which poses, or might pose in the future, a threat to the stability of the financial system and consumers.

It's a very large, very important concept which is the heartbeat of this legislation. It's critically important, and to a large extent, smooths the sharp edges of critics who say this legislation doesn't go far enough. By setting systemic risk elimination as the primary goal, it goes farther than any Wall Street reform legislation we've seen since the days of Glass-Steagall and Depression-era reforms.

So in between floggings of the administration and Congress for their failures, let's at least take note of the fact that with today's signing, this Congress and Administration have delivered some of the farthest-reaching legislation in decades. It may not satisfy all, but it's a significant accomplishment worthy of note.

The White House is continuing to roll out different pieces of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, mostly on or ahead of schedule. Here's what has been done in the last two weeks:

• Second round of checks to seniors mailed this week: More than 300,000 seniors will receive their $250 rebate to assist with prescription drug costs in accordance with the new law.
• Patients' Bill of Rights rollout - Regulations were published on June 22, 2010 with consumer protections which take effect September 23, 2010. Among them: Children under age 19 with pre-existing conditions may not be excluded from coverage; rescissions are prohibited, lifetime coverage limits are banned, and annual limits on benefits are severely restricted. In addition, patients must be permitted to choose their own primary care doctor, no referrals are required for women to see their OB-GYN, and prior approvals are not required for emergency care at out-of network hospitals.
• Healthcare.gov launched last week - This is to be the central online site for information about insurance rates, available plans, and other information related to the Affordable Care Act. It's in its infancy right now -- there's some basic tools and information, but keep it bookmarked because they're building the site out to be the central clearinghouse for information and communication about your health plan.

One of the keys to making this work will be what I like to call 'rate hawkery'. In other words, states and the feds need to work together to really review insurers' rates and hold their feet to the fire. Healthcare.gov will be where insurers will be publishing their financial data as required under the new law. Expect to use that site as a resource if you're having any difficulty at all with your health insurance, insurer, benefits, or coverage.

The White House is hosting a live chat on the President's speech this morning on immigration reform. You can join it yourself and ask questions.

We're working on getting video of the speech to you. In the meantime, here's the transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Everyone please have a seat. Thank you very much. Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today. We are blessed to have him.
I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress -- Hilda deserves applause. (Applause.) To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today -- thank you for your presence.

I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again. Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy. (Applause.) Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

Continue reading »

Discuss Barack Obama's address to the nation here.

And please let us know if you see anything on the after-speech analysis on the news channels worth posting.

Monday, President Obama spoke at the graduation ceremonies for Kalamazoo High School. The school won the privilege of having him give a speech through the Race to the Top Commencement challenge in March.

It make the evening news because there was so much news about the oil spill, the primaries, local politics and local graduations, but it probably ranks as one of the most influential speeches I've heard him give. Not because he said anything new, or different than he did before. It wasn't what he said, it was who he was speaking to and where he was speaking.

I don't remember the last United States President to speak at a high school graduation, do you? But read what Kalamazoo student Kelsey Socha wrote about her experience:

When the big day finally came and President Obama surprised us and arrived in our holding room a few hours before schedule, it was surreal, not only for the chance to hear the President speak but to have him mere inches away from us in a private setting. It was more than anyone could have dreamed of. The initial excitement never faded. Later, seeing him on stage joking with our principal, listening to our valedictorian and salutatorian speak, and finally giving us a speech that showed that he had read our essays and paid attention to our community was incredible; an experience none of us graduates or our families will soon forget. The honor went far beyond the President simply coming to our graduation or even shaking our hands. It was the fact that he made the experience wholly about us, using no political campaigns or agendas, that made it a truly special ceremony.

When Barack Obama the candidate began to rise in the 2008 primaries, one of the very first reasons I took him seriously was because I saw a man who could stand and be a role model. Whatever your politics are, whatever your disappointments are with him, I hope you'll set them aside long enough to let the thoughts he shared with those young people sink in just a little, and consider the good they do.

They are not all, they are not community, they are not food on the table. But example is important. And what he says is what he lives, whether you agree with his approach or not.

On instant gratification

But meaningful achievement, lasting success – that doesn't happen in an instant. It's not just about the twist of fate, or the lucky break, or the sudden stroke of genius. Rather, it's about the daily efforts, the choices large and small that add up over time. It's about the skills you build, the knowledge you accumulate, the energy you invest in every task, no matter how trivial or menial it may seem at the time.

On giving back

And once you start juggling those classes and activities and that campus job; and you get caught up in your own dramas and anxieties; you may feel like you've got enough on your plate just dealing with your own life. It might just be easier to turn the channel when the news disturbs you; to avert your eyes when you pass the homeless man on the street; to tell yourself that other people's problems really aren't your responsibility.

But think for a minute about the consequences of that approach here in this community. What if those Kalamazoo Promise donors had said to themselves, “Well, I can pay for my kid to go to college, why should I pay for other people's kids too?”

Think about the consequences for our country. What if our Founding Fathers had said, “You know, colonialism is pretty oppressive, but I'm doing OK, my family's doing OK, so why should I spend my summer in Philadelphia arguing about a Constitution?”

What if those abolitionists or those civil rights workers had said, “You know, slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but I just don't have time for all those meetings and marches, so I think I'll take a pass.”

And I want you to think for a minute about the extraordinary men and women who've worn our country's uniform and given their last full measure of devotion to keep us safe and free. What if they had said, “You know, I really do love this country, but why should I sacrifice so much for people I've never even met?”

You and I are here today because these people made a different choice. They chose to step up. They chose to serve. And I hope you'll follow their example. Because there is work to be done, and your country needs you.

My hope: That all of the anger, conflict and disappointment felt right now between liberals and progressives and in-betweens and sometimes-liberal-sometimes-nots can be set aside long enough to remember to serve side-by-side, together.

President Obama put his plaid shirt and populist tone on in his weekly address this week, challenging all of us to stand with those who have lost so much to this man-made catastrophe. Speaking from Grand Isle, Louisiana:

These are hard times in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast, an area that has already seen more than its fair share of troubles. But what we have also seen these past few weeks is that – even in the face of adversity – the men and women of the Gulf have displayed incredible determination. They have met this terrible catastrophe with seemingly boundless strength and character in defense of their way of life. What we owe the people of this region is a commitment by our nation to match the resilience of all the people I’ve met along the Gulf Coast. That is our mission. And it’s one we will fulfill.

He called specifically for Americans to continue to visit the area, reminding everyone that there are still beaches untouched by the oil at this time.

He also updated the progress of the cap placement and vent closures on the well.

Now, over the last few days BP has placed a cap over the well, and it appears they’re making progress in trying to pump oil to the surface to keep it from leaking into the water. But as has been the case since the beginning of this crisis, we are prepared for the worst, even as we hope that BP’s efforts bring better news than we’ve received before. We also know that regardless of the outcome of this attempt, there will still to be some spillage until the relief wells are completed. And there will continue to be a massive cleanup ahead of us.

I doubt there are many among us who can look at the photos of oil-soaked birds and dead dolphins without shaking a fist at BP, Halliburton and their cohorts. But to me, it seems like fist-shaking doesn't really do much to improve the situation. I know everyone wants the President to get angry and show it, to have empathy for those folks in the Gulf. I believe he does. But wouldn't it be more beneficial for him to channel that anger into action?

In the time-honored American tradition of telling the President what to do, I'd like to offer the following suggestions:

• Set benchmarks with dates and percentage reductions in fossil fuel use. Just like JFK set a mark in the future for putting a man on the moon, I think a national mandate to reduce fossil fuel usage would be one way to begin to make good on the commitment for a true transition.
• Push hard for regional permits to begin the high-speed train construction included in the Stimulus bill.
• Consider a modern-day Citizens Conservation Corps as a down payment on stewardship of our national parks and natural resources nationwide.
• Call on Congress to pass legislation encouraging safe bike thruways, and not just in cities, but also in semi-rural areas. People who ride bicycles are at constant risk from the trucks and cars on the same thruways.
• Increase government investment beyond current levels in solar and wind technologies while setting benchmarks for communities to convert, with incentives for meeting them.

This strikes me as a time where we can respond in an effective, quantifiable way to move boldly toward breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. To me, that would feel better than simply shaking my fist or signing a petition.

DOWNLOADS: (686)

PLAYS: (1142)

Embed

Fox News has been running with the "Obama offered a job to Sestak not to run against Specter" scam endlessly on cable and while there was a serious press conference going on about the catastrophic BP oil spill, Major Garrett had to toe the Roger Ailes line and was the only reporter at the sixty-three-minute press conference to even mention it.

It's the last question of the presser.

Q Two issues. Some in your government have said the federal government’s boot is on the neck of BP. Are you comfortable with that imagery, sir? Is your boot on the neck of BP? And can you understand, sir, why some in the Gulf who feel besieged by this oil spill consider that a meaningless, possibly ludicrous, metaphor?

Secondarily, can you tell the American public, sir, what your White House did or did not offer Congressman Sestak to not enter the Democratic senatorial primary? And how will you meet your levels of expressed transparency and ethics to convey that answer to satisfy what appear to be bipartisan calls for greater disclosure about that matter? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: There will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue, which I hope will answer your questions.

Garrett is a good little doggie making sure Ailes gets his bone. Why Obama would engage at all is ridiculous because now more reporters will want to be in on the con. His first question was just nasty and makes no sense in the larger discussion of the pil spill, but that was just the set up for his "con."

Jonathan Chait writes:

I'll keep saying this: A job offer is not a quid pro quo to get somebody out of a race. It is getting somebody out of a race. Accepting one job means you cannot run for another. It happens all the time -- the White House appointed John McHugh Army Secretary in part to get him out of New York's 23rd Congressional District. It offered Judd Gregg a cabinet slot in order to get him out of the Senate. This is completely routine, neither illegal no immoral nor especially unusual. Can't we wait to appoint a special prosecutor until there's at least some possibility of underlying illegal behavior?

Digby and Jamison Fosier have been writing a lot about this flim flam reporting and engaging in any fashion is like playing Three Card Monte against a bunch of pros.

...is a confidence game in which the victim, or mark, is tricked into betting a sum of money, on the assumption that they can find the money card among three face-down playing cards.

In its full form, Three-card Monte is an example of a classic short con in which a shill pretends to conspire with the mark to cheat the dealer, while in fact conspiring with the dealer to cheat the mark.

FOX News or some right wing propaganda outlet is the confidence man. The media are the shills and Democrats are the marks. It's very simple. The scam can't be beat so the White House should just walk away.

Digby explains:

But here's the thing. None of that will do any good. There is no winning with these noise machine pseudo-scandals. They have an alternate media structure that is designed to stoke scandal fever and the way they keep the mainstream media on the hook is with "smell tests" and demands that the person address the claims, apologize or make amends, none of which will be deemed adequate and all of which necessitate another round of investigations, demands etc. With every impossible requirement that isn't met, the press will become more convinced that the person must be hiding something, is too hot to handle and will eventually agree that he has to step down or quit the race because "the scandal" is devouring him.

Later an article or a book will be written explaining that there was never anything to the charges, that the whole thing turned into a feeding frenzy but that the real problem is that the politician didn't get "out front" or establish a "war room" or otherwise magically change this dynamic and it will be deemed his fault for failing to be a stronger, better politician. Some pols survive this, notably Bill Clinton. But it takes a willingness to recognize that they are not going to leave you alone, give yourself up to it and greet each day with the knowledge that this is going to dominate until it either passes or kills you.

The right wing scandal machine creates political viruses that mutate and take on a life of their own. There's no antidote once you've caught it --- you either have a good immune system and a will to survive or you don't.

Update: read this piece by Foser from 2006 on the same theme.

Fosier does and outstanding job of listing all the Democratic politicians that have been smeared to the high heavens by the right wing bunko brigade which was aided by the MSM. The Villagers act like the shills and become part of the con, playing the straight man who make believe they are part of the card game to draw the sucker in to be taken for all he's got. It's a long piece, but well worth the read.

What the bunko brigade count on is that the rest of the unwitting and witting accomplices (media) that will join in the party because they feel left out of the "Three-Way" confidence game. It happens every time as history shows. President Obama should keep his money in his pocket and move along.

How can we fail them? How can a nation that relies on its miners not do everything in its power to protect them? How can we let anyone in this country put their lives at risk by simply showing up to work; by simply pursuing the American Dream?

- President Barack Obama, 4/25/2010

With those words, President Obama delivered a promise to the surviving families of the Upper Big Branch mine explosion: Your loved ones won't have died for nothing.

And with those words, the Massey Energy board of directors closed their ranks around teabagger Don Blankenship, beginning their own PR campaign to keep the government small, out of their mines, and out of their profit margins.

In a news conference in Charleston, company officials also pointed a finger back at the federal regulators who had repeatedly cited them for safety violations before an explosion killed 29 miners at Upper Big Branch on April 5.

They said that the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration had indirectly caused a reduction of fresh air getting to an area deep inside the mine by requiring the company to use a "complicated" ventilation plan that Massey engineers resisted.

Ventilation will be a critical issue in the investigation into the explosion. Experts believe that the blast may have been triggered by a buildup of gases such as methane, or flammable coal dust, inside the mine.

Mine ventilation systems are designed to take toxic or explosive materials out and bring fresh air in for miners to breathe.

The Massey officials, including chief executive Don Blankenship, said they still did not know what triggered the explosion. They released new data showing that, in the minutes before the blast, foremen deep inside the mine had reported finding very low or nonexistent levels of methane.

I'm still struggling to understand the logic they twisted to blame regulations on mine ventilation into a cause for methane buildup. More from their press conference:

On the dispute with federal regulators over regulation, the company said that MSHA inspectors had demanded changes "that made the ventilation in this area significantly more complex." As a result, "the volume of fresh air [getting to the area where coal was being mined] . . . was significantly reduced."

The company said that its engineers resisted making the changes, and even shut down production at the mine for two days, before eventually agreeing.

But when a reporter pressed Suboleski for details about the dispute, he demurred.

"I'm going to get us mired down in things," he said, adding that it would be easier to explain with a map of the mine, and more time. "It did make ventilation more complex . . . in some ways more difficult." (read more...)

And so it begins. There will be spin, counterspin, assaults on the union and assaults on our common sense. Is it any wonder that West Virginians don't place much hope in the idea that safety reforms will actually happen?

DOWNLOADS: (581)

PLAYS: (1985)

Embed

President Obama this morning took a clear stance against that crackpot immigration bill passed by Republicans in Arizona, and now awaiting the governor's signature:

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at the federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.

Indeed. It doesn't take a genius to see that the new Arizona law will essentially impose a police state in Arizona, especially for nonwhite people. And as we noted then:

Isn't it odd, really, how these right-wingers complain about government tyranny and how liberals are imposing a police state, yaddah yaddah yaddah, yet in the states where they have full control, they eagerly institute a police state themselves?

You can read the text of the bill here [PDF file].

But the president is making an important point: The Arizona craziness is a good example of why we can't let comprehensive immigration reform wait.

We know that lots of Democrats, especially the Blue Dogs, want to put immigration reform on the back burner till after the 2010 election. After all, it's the kind of issue that defines them: Blue Dogs always pander to conservatives on key issues, because they think that wins them more votes in the end than standing up for core principles.

In this case, as we saw from the 2008 election results, it's also nonsensical:

It's also apparent, from these results and from polling, that the nativists' "deport them all" immigration policy is wildly unpopular -- and that, moreover, Americans in fact take a pragmatic view of immigration: They're not interested in shipping out illegal immigrants, they're interested in seeing them become legal citizens.

The evidence is that voters get behind progressives who talk straight common sense on immigration -- as opposed to the fearmongering and scapegoating inherent in the Arizona Republican approach, which inevitably leads to the institution of a police state and the destruction of families.

It's also looking like Harry Reid will be pushing immigration reform as well. And there are many more reasons than fearful Blue Dogs why it's a politically smart move, too. Just ask those 200,000 people who gathered in D.C. last month.