Skip to content

Connecticut going soft on Joe?

Monday, December 15, 2008

According to the Courant, Connecticut Democrats are about to go squishy on Joe Lieberman.

[A]censure resolution drafted in September, when Lieberman still was jetting about with John McCain and Sarah Palin, is getting a rewrite before this week’s Democratic State Central Committee meeting.

“We’re in the process of updating the resolution to be more reflective of the current time and situation,” said Audrey Blondin of Litchfield, one of two committee members who proposed the censure.

Words like “censure” are certain to disappear. So is any suggestion that Lieberman end his affiliation as a registered Democratic voter in Connecticut.

Instead?

“An expression of disappointment, an expression of disapproval,” Blondin said. “And let it go at that.”

Before I go further, I want to point out that the list in this article of towns that have passed anti-Lieberman resolutions is short by at least one. We here in Groton passed a resolution months ago, but then we here in Eastern Connecticut are always ignored. Not a single town east of the river is listed, save Glastonbury, which is an honorary part of Hartford.

Getting back to my main point, assuming I have one, I am thinking of offering my betting companion a double or nothing wager. I am willing to bet, provided the stakes are low enough, that Joe will be welcomed back, albeit grudgingly, to the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner next year. Will it be like old times? No. But will the usual suspects gather around him, and glad hand him as if nothing has happened? To that I venture a qualified yes. Nobody suffers from battered wife syndrome as much as Democrats, and the higher placed they are, the more susceptible to the disease.

The larger question is whether Joe can worm his way back into the good graces of enough Democrats to try to get the party’s nomination in 2012. Even Zell Miller had the good grace to retire after his bit of treachery.


Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Chickens come home to roost

Saturday, December 13, 2008

When the Supreme Court allowed nativity scenes on public property several years ago, it did so by adopting the most specious of arguments:that such a scene was permissible if it was surrounded by otherwise secular symbols, since it simply represented “‘the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday,’ and that its primary effect was not to advance religion”. The decision was viewed as an insult to both believers and non-believers. That decision, and the steady erosion of the wall between church and state, has led to an increasing number of religious displays throughout the country.

These court decisions have always carried the seeds of their own destruction. All that was necessary was for non-mainstream religions to demand equal time, something that the Constitution seemingly requires. Local governments are then faced with a choice. Give equal time to everyone, or stop allowing religious displays.

We got a foreshadowing of this in Utah a few years ago, in a somewhat different context. A federal law demanded by religious groups requires public schools to allow student groups of all descriptions to meet after school. The law was intended to aid religious groups, but it couldn’t be written that way, for obvious reasons. Result: Utah was told it had to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance group to meet in its public schools. Utah, in order to preserve its traditions of intolerance (exception: polygamy) passed a law virtually eliminating after school activities.

In the religious display context localities have been set up by a sort of incremental invasion of the “other”. First the Jews came, and no one but a few bigots objected to letting them display their Menorahs. But that set a precedent. Then other fairly non-objectionable groups came. But sooner or later it was inevitable that the true “other” would arrive, and by that time any legal basis for excluding such groups had been destroyed by precedent.

So something like this was inevitable: In Washington State the state government allowed a group of atheists to put up a display.

The display talks about the natural world, says there are no gods or devils and calls religion a “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Well, of course Bill O’Reilly heard about this attack on Christmas, and he unleashed his hordes on the governor, who, much to his credit, stood firm and refused to order the display taken down. Now the state has called a halt to requests for other displays. Among other things, a hate based religion wants to join the fun, so it can tell everyone that “Santa Claus will take you to Hell”.

The obvious thing for Washington to do is ban all private displays. That’s normally all that the non-religious are really looking for-real and not sham religious neutrality. Governments are supposed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Religion is another business altogether.


Filed in Lawyer stuff, Religion | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Velvet Underground

Friday, December 12, 2008

I’m sort of coming to the end of my rope here. The unofficial rule is that I can’t repeat any particular band. I don’t think I’ve done the Velvet Underground, which, if so, is an unforgivable omission, since they were one of the seminal rock and roll bands. Oddly enough, I thought of them at our office Christmas party, to which someone had brought fudge. That made me think of the non-seminal band, Vanilla Fudge, which in turn, and inexplicably made me think of the Velvet Underground. I’m sure somewhere deep in my brain some synapses have been mis-wired, leading to this odd pairing. Anyway, I decided to go with the superior band, here singing Sweet Jane.


Filed in Music | | Comments (4)

The Daily Show says good-bye to Alan Colmes

Friday, December 12, 2008


Filed in Humour, Video | | Comments (0)

Guest post: A proposal for dealing with the credit crisis

Friday, December 12, 2008

Yesterday I was talking to Frank Liberty, an attorney from New London. He told me about his own ideas for dealing with the credit crisis. I started a post yesterday, to incorporate them, but after doing some math, decided that his idea would be prohibitively expensive. Frank wrote me this morning, with a suggested post, which I’ve inserted below. After some back and forth, I concluded that my off the cuff figures were wrong. There are about 100,000,000 taxpayers in this country. The total bailout cost so far, including the secret guarantees from the Treasury, etc, exceed trillions of dollars, the $700 billion figure being only the tip of the iceberg as far as taxpayer cost and exposure is concerned. The per person cost for Frank’s idea is well within the range of respectability, given those enormous costs.

So far, there hasn’t been much talk about a bottom up approach to dealing with the current situation. Nor have any of the suggestions I’ve heard directly benefit many ordinary people. We really need to start thinking outside of the box, and I think Frank’s idea deserves some consideration as a starting point for dealing with this. At least it guarantees that a whole lot of ordinary people will get some tangible benefits from the vast amount of debt the government will be running up in their names.

Frank describes himself as a fiscally conservative Democrat, but I don’t think there’s anything traditionally conservative about this proposal. So without further adieu, Frank’s proposal for dealing with the mess the banks have bequeathed us.

Prior to the initial bailout by Treasury, I saw a number of emails suggesting that cash be given to the public. I did not take it very seriously.

When the automakers sought a bailout, and after I saw the across the board decline in auto sales as to ALL manufacturers, it occurred to me that the slowing demand, increasing layoffs, further slowing demand cycle had no end point in sight. The auto bailout is throwing good money after bad unless there is an increase in demand. We will have to throw that money at them anyway and should to save that industry.

Both stimulus checks and bailout have failed to accomplish their purpose. The stimulus checks because it is a one time event for which consumers expect no repeat. The bailout because of hoarding. The bailout is also repugnant in that the financial companies can still enforce debt obligations despite receiving dollars from the very consumers they seek to foreclose/sue. Creating public works projects in the Great Depression also failed in their goal.
That brought me back to the cash gift idea. First, it had to be renamed to appeal to those who view it as socialism. I will call it a Voucher.

Each individual over 25 would receive a cash voucher for $25,000.00. If the consumer directs payment towards an existing debt as of 12/1/08, that money is not taxable.

This would reduce credit card debt and mortgages; it would take the pressure off the financial institutions as to toxic debt. The effect on the consumer is not a one time stimulus but a reduction in expenses freeing up disposable income in the future. Then the consumer is placed in a potential buying position to increase demand.

As to the housing crisis, purchasers of existing housing stock after 12/1/08 would still be able to use the voucher solely for that purchase. This should begin to lower inventory, reduce mortgage amounts to help purchasers secure mortgages as to their debt to income ratio.
For individuals on State assistance, the Voucher would be required to re pay the States, thus easing their revenue collection problems. This also eliminates the gift or non deserving recipient argument that would arise.

Cash would be available from the Voucher at a 50% federal tax rate at a determined sum.
This would have to be accompanied by serious financial reforms. In addition, Congress would have to eliminate default penalties and default interest rates from credit card judgements or debts to make this fair. They do not deserve anything beyond the standard interest rate.

I do not have all the details worked out. And leave it for people to use this a spring board for future discussions/ better ideas. But clearly, something different is needed.

I’d take issue with one thing. I think public works projects did achieve, or could have achieved, their goal during the Depression. As Krugman has said repeatedly lately, the programs were working until Roosevelt cut them in an effort to balance the budget, sending the economy back into the crapper. WW II, which was, in effect, a massive public works program, turned the economy around. In any event, such projects are a longer term solution. Frank’s idea is more of a kick start, but given the enormity of this crisis, I think both short and long term solutions are necessary


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Spreading the guilt in Illinois

Thursday, December 11, 2008

First, let me register a protest against the Governor of Illinois. He could have made life a lot easier had he been named Smith. I fear I shall never get the spelling right. I realize I lack standing to make such a complaint, but there it is.

But spelling’s not my subject; only my intro.

As others have observed, there are a lot of people who are in a hurry to make us all forget about the past eight years. One tactic is to pick up where they left off: manufacturing scandals. This is not to say that Blagojevich is not a scandal, but the press, with Republicans cheering them on, is not content to go after such an easy target. No, they will pick their other targets, evidence be damned. In this particular scandal it may very well be that the biggest loser will be Jesse Jackson, Jr.,who may very well be guilty of nothing more than being a politician:

It’s looking increasingly like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., was truly uninvolved in Rod Blagojevich’s alleged Senate-seat-for-sale scheme, other than expressing the usual interest in getting the appointment. Most telling was the report from Jackson’s lawyer today that the feds called Jackson as Blagojevich was being arrested to give him a heads up that the arrest was happening and that Jackson might see his name in the news.

I don’t do criminal law, but it seems highly unlikely that Jackson’s lawyer is lying. The Feds would slap him down too quickly. It also seems highly unlikely that Jackson would have gotten a heads up like that if he were a suspect. I assume they’d rather let him dangle.

But it gets worse. At least there is some reason, from perusing the indictment, to suspect that Jackson may have been involved, and it’s still possible that he was. Our newly vigilant press corps, so somnolent over the past eight years, now sees evidence of Obama’s guilt (or “taint”) where no reasonable person could discern it. At the Washington Monthly, Steven Benen notes that Time Magazine finds bad news for Obama stemming from the fact that Fitzgerald said Obama was not involved.

…Fitzgerald held a press conference on Monday, and presented the case against the governor. Reporters asked about Obama, and he said this doesn’t involve the president-elect. According to Time’s report, this is bad news for Obama. Why? Because Fitzgerald answered reporters’ questions and said Obama isn’t connected to the case.

In what universe does this make sense?

First, Fitzgerald didn’t “go out of his way” to talk about Obama. Reporters asked, Fitzgerald responded. …

The last quoted sentence responds to Time’s claim that Fitzgerald had to “go out of his way” to “distance” Obama from the case.

As I understand it, prosecutors are not in business to clear anyone. They bring charges against people they believe to be guilty. They are not empowered, nor are they in the habit of, pronouncing that any particular person is guilt free. The most they can say, as Fitzgerald said, is that a particular person is not named in an indictment, or that there is no evidence tying him or her to wrongdoing. Had the reporters asked Fitzgerald the same question about George Bush they would have gotten the same answer.

We expect the folks at Fox, and on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, to leap large logical impediments at a single bound. But it is disheartening when the press as a whole follows their lead. This is the press corps that resisted even recognizing the criminality of Libby, Cheney, et. al. with regard to the Valerie Plame incident (even after the guilty verdict), yet they seemingly have no trouble coupling Obama to a crook he has been consciously avoiding for at least a year. He was, for example, conspicuously absent from the list of governors who spoke at the convention.

Guilt by association has survived the campaign. Back then, Obama was guilty because he had been in the same room with Bill Ayers. Now he is guilty because he is from the same state as Rod Blagojevich. We are on the brink of a Depression. Global warming may be reaching a tipping point. We are involved in two military conflicts. We can’t afford to have eight years of the kind of fake scandals that plagued Bill Clinton, but that seems to be exactly what we’re likely to get.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Joe Courtney votes for Auto Bailout

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

This from an email from the prolific Brian Farber:

Congressman Joe Courtney released the following statement this evening after voting in favor of H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, which passed by a vote of 237-170:

“‘Main Street’ is hurting and Connecticut’s hard working individuals are feeling the brunt of the economic recession. There are approximately three hundred auto dealerships, mostly family-owned small businesses, throughout the state employing nearly 14,000 people, many of them in my own district. I cannot in good conscience allow those dealerships to close without a fight, forcing more of our neighbors and friends to the unemployment lines. Last week, we lost four auto dealerships to this credit crunch.”

“Allowing these American industries to slip into bankruptcy and collapse would put the jobs of three million Americans at risk. The repercussions of massive job losses would be felt across this nation and Connecticut and would be unacceptable at this time of peril for our economy. Jeopardizing our industrial base also has implications for our national security production, a threat I take seriously as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.”
“While the Big Three automakers have made progress in innovation in some areas, they have also botched numerous opportunities to advance hybrid technologies and more fuel efficient vehicles. However, the blame also rests in Washington, where it took thirty years to find a willing Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards. I was proud to vote to raise auto fuel standards to 35 miles per gallon – long overdue, and a feat considering the White House and the auto manufacturers opposed the measure.”

“The loan from already approved funding serves as a bridge for the American automakers to survive while requiring companies to restructure their businesses in order to regain their competitive advantage. Detroit executives will not be able to profit with a golden parachute, unlike the Wall Street bailout that carried no penalty for the financial industry’s failings and irresponsible behavior.”

“Taxpayers are protected. Oversight and transparency are at the core of this loan to the auto industry and is clearly laid out, unlike the Wall Street bailout that I voted against twice that has zero accountability and very little oversight.”

“I carefully studied other options, including bankruptcy for the industry, but in the end, bankruptcy would be more costly and not viable because of the larger expense, the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and will create a generation of Americans who refuse to purchase American made cars and trucks. The lost confidence may never be regained.”

No one is particularly happy about these bailouts, and I’m not quarreling with Joe’s decision. He’s a freshman and had no ability to influence the contents of the bill on which he voted. But it’s worth noting that the lamest of lame ducks rolled the Democratic Congress once again. The money is coming from the funds allocated from the Energy Independence and Security Act, funds that were supposed to be used to develop fuel efficient cars. Pelosi said she wouldn’t go along with that. She caved. The Democrats wanted a provision requiring the auto makers to withdraw lawsuits against states that imposed stringent air quality standards. Bush wanted to let the suits go on and threatened a veto. The Democrats caved.

As to the latter, did it occur to the Democrats to contact the auto makers and say: Yes, Bush will veto any bill with such a provision. But we won’t pass any bill until you voluntarily withdraw the suits with prejudice, thus mooting the issue.

No, I’m sure this never occurred to them. They were set to cave from the start.


Filed in Democrats, Economics | | Comments (0)

Obama is serious about dealing with global warming

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

There’s been a lot of talk throughout the blogosphere that Obama’s appointments have been too centrist. So far nothing he’s done has made me overly concerned. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The one thing I’ve always worried about was his commitment to combatting the climate crisis. This is the overriding issue of our times, so naturally it is the kind of issue from which all politicians run.

Today we hear that he is likely to appoint Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, and Carol Browner, a global warming wonk, as his energy coordinator. These are serious people who actually accept the facts about global warming and want to do something about it.

How refreshing.


Filed in Environment | | Comments (0)

Mercenaries Ahoy

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Blackwater, the mercenary army made rich by George Bush, is now planning to go into the pirate fighting business. Via Thinkprogress:

Private security firm Blackwater Worldwide began holding meetings in London on Tuesday with potential clients for a new business venture — protection from pirates.

The Moyock, N.C., firm, which has grown rapidly through State Department security work in Iraq, has been courting shippers and insurance firms about protecting ships in pirate-infested waters. It’s meeting with more than a dozen firms this week and hopes to drum up its first contract.

It is remarkable that the rise of private armies has raised so few hackles around the world. I remember, in those naive days of my youth, being taught that governments had a monopoly on the use of force. That’s the civilized way, or as civilized as it gets. We now treat private armies as just another business.

This will come to no good. That’s obvious. I suppose when we reap the whirlwind on this one we’ll hear a chorus telling us that no one could have seen it coming.


Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Specter wants to delay Holder vote

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Arlen Specter is trying to put the brakes on Eric Holder’s nomination to be Attorney General. According to Specter, Holder’s involvement in the Marc Rich pardon warrants close scrutiny:

But Specter is already applying the brakes, indicating that Republicans are going to make a big deal out of Holder at the hearing. Specter said he sees no way in which the Holder hearings could happen before Jan. 26. Specter said he still needs to see thousands of pages of background documents and Holder’s FBI background check.

“There are questions that need to be addressed,” Specter said in a Senate floor speech.

Specter, a former prosecutor himself, said he was troubled that Holder did not stand up to President Clinton on the pardon of Rich, who was a fugitive living abroad at the time of the pardon.

“To run counter to the views of the [law enforcement] professionals is a red flag,” Specter said. “We’re looking at a very, very serious matter.”

That pardon was not Clinton’s finest hour, or Holder’s either, I’m sure. It will be interesting to see if Specter carries through with his threat. This is they guy who made a habit of making noises about standing up against Bush’s destruction of the Constitution, only to back down or worse every time. Take the FISA situation, for instance. He started out by calling Bush’s actions illegal; he ended up legalizing them.

When Alberto Gonzales was nominated for Attorney General, Specter bought in to his transparent lies about his involvement in the Bush legal department’s torture legalization strategy. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that he claimed to buy into those transparent lies.

It was Specter who was responsible for slipping the language into the revised “Patriot” Act that allowed Bush to try to name interim U.S. Attorneys without confirmation hearings, despite his denials. That act led directly to the U.S. Attorney scandal of a few year back.

The Marc Rich pardon was small beer compared to all of this. So one must wonder, after eight years of spineless subservience to a lawless Administration, has Specter suddenly grown a backbone? Does he really believe an ill considered pardon is worse than torture? More to the point, will the Democrats let him get away with it? They couldn’t stop a torturer from becoming Attorney General. Are they going to let a torture enabler stop, or even appreciably delay Holder’s confirmation?

That, of course, is the more fundamental question here. The Democrats are not going to have 60 seats. In any event, make no mistake, they cannot count on Joe Lieberman. The Republicans had a slender majority the last time they controlled the Senate. Can you think of a single instance where the threat of a filibuster prevented them from wreaking their havoc on the nation? Maybe there was something, but it had to have been incredibly minor. This idea that you need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate is only operative when Democrats are in control, and only because they won’t play hard ball with the Republicans. Maybe that will change now, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)