NPR : On the same day that President Obama and his advisors declared that the United States is “on track” in Afghanistan , hundreds of anti-war protesters gathered outside the White House to voice their dissent. Among the protesters was Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon’s secret history of the Vietnam War to the press. At the rally today he spoke in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning , the Army private suspected of leaking U.S. documents , for shining a light on U.S. policy and actions in Afghanistan. “I think they provided a very valuable service. To call them terrorists is not only mistaken, it’s absurd.” I talked to Daniel Ellsberg on the phone the day before he got arrested at the White House for protesting against the wars and he’s very interested in coming on C&L to do a Live Chat. I have to contact him soon and we’ll see. He’s a real American hero for not only helping end the Vietnam War, but also brought down Richard Nixon. That was an added bonus. Anyway, I’ll let you know…
Continue reading …Click here to view this media From Democracy Now, it looks like sadly we’ve got a real life scenario with the plot of the movie The Constant Gardener in Nigeria, made known due to a recent WikiLeaks cable. WikiLeaks Cables: Pfizer Targeted Nigerian Attorney General to Undermine Suit over Fatal Drug Tests : Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general to pressure him to drop a $6 billion lawsuit over fraudulent drug tests on Nigerian children. Researchers did not obtain signed consent forms, and medical personnel said Pfizer did not tell parents their children were getting the experimental drug. Eleven children died, and others suffered disabling injuries including deafness, muteness, paralysis, brain damage, loss of sight, slurred speech. We speak to Washington Post reporter Joe Stephens, who helped break the story in 2000, and Musikilu Mojeed, a Nigerian journalist who has worked on this story for the NEXT newspaper in Lagos. Transcript and the rest of the interview can be found at Democracy Now’s site . The Guardian UK has more on the WikiLeaks cables — US embassy cables: Pfizer nears $75m Nigeria settlement . And here’s more from The Washington Post and their coverage of this issue . h/t Kathy
Continue reading …enlarge On Friday, the House approved the $801 billion “compromise” tax bill, sending it on to the White House for President Obama’s signature . Over the next two years, that budget-busting, gilded class giveaway will cost the Treasury $70 billion in revenue lost from the top 2% of taxpayers and another $25 billion uncollected from the richest estates in America . But sooner or later (sooner, if born-again deficit hawks get their way), that bill will come due and it will be paid by everyone else . In the meantime, here’s a picture of your tax dollars at work – for the rich and famous. For openers, it’s worth noting who will not benefit from the extension of the top Bush income tax rate and the gutting of the estate tax. Certainly not small business owners . Now-abandoned Democratic proposals to end the Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year affected only 2% of all households, and an even smaller fraction of small businesses. (The Republican claim that Democrats want to “raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America” is contingent on Bechtel, Coors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and other multinational “S corporation” being categorized as small businesses.) And from the beginning, the winners of the successful Republican crusade against the estate would never included family farmers . As incoming Speaker John Boehner put it in 2009: “People who aren’t wealthy, who may have built up value in land over generations and many family farms find themselves in situations where they’ve got to sell the farm in order the pay the taxes.” Unfortunately, that claim is just as false today as when George W. Bush uttered it during and after the 2000 presidential campaign. Now as in 2001 , Republicans wrongly claimed that the estate tax led to the loss of family farms. When President Bush blasted opponents who say “the death tax doesn’t cause people to sell their farms” with a mocking “don’t know who they’re talking to in Iowa,” neither Hawkeye State farmers nor researchers could name one. As David Cay Johnston, among the nation’s leading journalists when it comes to tax issues, conclude in the New York Times nine years ago: Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. “It’s a myth,” he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The future looks no different. In 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated that only 1 in 500 estates (0.24%) was impacted by the $3.5 million per person threshold and 45% tax rate House Democrats sought to continue. And last year, the Tax Policy Center quantified just how few family farms or small businesses are actually impacted by the estate tax proposals under consideration, including the $5 million exemption and 35% rate advocated by Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and now to be signed into law by President Obama: We estimate that under the Obama proposal, 100 family farms and businesses would owe tax. (We define such estates as those where farm or business assets are valued at under $5 million and comprise the majority of estate assets.) The Lincoln-Kyl proposal would cut the number to 40. Even under current law, fewer than 2,700 family farms and businesses would owe tax. But thanks to the new tax bill, one family-owned business – Walmart – could reap a multi-billion dollar bonanza. As Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders explained in his filibuster last week, the elimination of the estate tax could save the Walton family alone $32.7 billion. (Already, the one-year lapse of the levy allowed the estates of George Steinbrenner and Texas billionaire Dan Duncan to escape taxes altogether in 2010 .) But as the Arkansas Times pointed out, today’s vote ensures Sam Walton’s clan will keep billions out of the hands of Uncle Sam: Please note that the cut in the top estate tax, from 45 to 35 percent, will be worth a cool $9 billion at current values to just the top five Walton estates. 9 BILLION. Who’ll pay for that lost revenue (not just from Waltons but Kochs, etc.) over the years? The working schlubs, that’s who. That victory isn’t the first – and won’t be the last – for the Walton family and its campaign to shield its roughly $90 billion fortune. As USA Today reported back in 2005 : Led by Sam Walton’s only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year’s federal elections. That’s more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show. The Waltons have joined a coterie of wealthy families trying to save fortunes through permanent repeal of the estate tax, government watchdogs say. The election of President Bush and more conservatives to Congress gave momentum to the long-fought effort. The Waltons add more. And speaking of more, the big winners in today’s tax cut windfall for the wealthy also reside exactly where you’d expect: on Wall Street and in the gatherings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . As the New York Times reported three weeks ago: Two years after the onset of the financial crisis, the stock market is recovering and Wall Street’s moneyed elite are breathing easier again. And this means in some cases they are spending again — at times cautiously, but sometimes with a familiar swagger. As it turns out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn’t merely coordinate with Wall Street to battle President Obama on health care reform, regulation of the financial industry and so much else. It fought to ensure another Treasury draining payday for its members. In November, a study by Citizens for Tax Justice and Chamber Watch revealed just some of the beneficiaries of the GOP’s $700 billion, ten-year haul for the upper class. Its report followed the money : Rupert Murdoch , the CEO of News Corporation, whose donation of $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce led to well-publicized shareholder outrage, would pocket more than $1.3 million. Don Blankenship , a former U.S. Chamber Board member and the CEO of Massey Energy, whose company owned the mine in which twenty-nine miners died in April 2010′s mining disaster, the worst in forty years, would take home more than $700,000. David Cote , the CEO of Honeywell and a member of the National Fiscal Commission, who keynoted an address to the National Chamber Foundation expressing concern about the national debt over the next ten years, would get a tax cut of over $1.2 million. CEOs of big banks on Wall Street , who helped collapse the economy and then used the U.S. Chamber to fight stronger financial regulations, stand to reap between $700,000 and $1.6 million each. The CEOs of the health insurance industry , whose industry saw an overall increase in profits this year even while they slashed benefits and instituted breathtaking premium increases, are looking to personally benefit from another hit on the middle class by taking in between $335,000 and $875,000. U.S. Chamber President and CEO, Thomas Donohue , who has shifted the Chamber’s mission from serving mainstream business to serving the interests of the CEOs whose corporations write the biggest checks, will personally gain over $200,000. Now, President Obama is on the verge of kowtowing to GOP leaders who would, as Paul Krugman explained, ” cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.” At a time of two wars, massive budget deficits and record income inequality, that is your tax dollars at work. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …Sen. Jon Tester, the Democratic senator from Montana who was elected in 2006 with significant help from progressives, was one of the Democrats who voted against the DREAM Act today, and it’s very disappointing to see the lame rationale he provided yesterday via email. Senator Jon Tester today released the following statement in advance of his vote against the DREAM Act: “Illegal immigration is a critical problem facing our country, but amnesty is not the solution. I do not support legislation that provides a path to citizenship for anyone in this country illegally.” The Senate is expected to vote on the DREAM Act Saturday. Tester voted against the measure in 2007. C&L’s managing editor, David Neiwert called Tester’s office (Yes, we make the calls too) and confronted them over his idiocy and that is indeed his position. Andrew Simpson wrote a piece called: The DREAM Act is Not Amnesty. As members of Congress debate the DREAM Act once again, opponents of the act are again attacking the legislation as “ backdoor amnesty .” Instead of allowing ourselves to be caught up in such broad rhetoric, we must understand that the DREAM Act is neither backdoor, nor is it amnesty. Amnesty is defined as “a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government.” The Greek root of the word, amnestia , refers to the process of forgetting. An alternative definition of amnesty may, therefore, be “a forgetting and forgiveness of sins.” By such a definition, we can see the message of the gospel as one that grants us amnesty by Christ. Regardless of where we differ on the benefits or demerits of amnesty, let us be thoughtful and discern enough to realize that the DREAM Act is not amnesty. Rather, it is an extension of grace to a very specific group of people who did not knowingly commit a crime against the United States. If the DREAM Act passes this year, it would only provide a path to citizenship for those immigrants who meet a very strict set of requirements . The only immigrants who would be eligible would be those who came to the United States at the age of 15 or younger; have lived continuously in the United States since before 2005; were under the age of 30 on the date of enactment; demonstrate good moral character (i.e. prove they have not committed any crimes that would make them inadmissible to the country as determined by existing immigration law); and have graduated from high school, obtained a GED certificate, served in the military, or have been admitted to an institution of higher education in the United States.. .read on Tester should actually read the bill instead of reciting Pat Buchanan talking points our way. And he could check out his own constituents and see what they can accomplish, like Carlos. If a state like Texas can pass a DREAM Act then what’s Tester’s problem? The quality of Texas’ future will be determined by our state’s ability to educate the next generation of students. Fortunately, Texas has enacted important legislation that recognizes the contributions of all students. It’s now time for Congress to follow suit. In 2001, Gov. Rick Perry signed House Bill 1403 into law after the bill passed the Senate with zero no votes. House Bill 1403 by former Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, now called the Texas Dream Act , has proven to be an incredibly successful law providing access to higher education for students who may otherwise be unable to afford the increasing cost of attending college. Texas law currently provides that all students, regardless of immigration status, may qualify for in-state tuition at Texas colleges or universities provided they have lived in Texas the three years leading up to high school graduation and resided in Texas the year prior to their enrollment in higher education. The Texas Dream Act thus recognizes that immigrant students who have been educated in our Texas public schools have strong family, community and economic ties to the U.S. The state then follows through on the investment taxpayers have made in their education by allowing them to pay the same tuition rate as other Texans who meet the residency timeline requirements. These students have been admitted to colleges and universities based on their merit and despite the many obstacles with which they are confronted — a principle every Texan can appreciate. The law is both successful and popular because it reduces dropouts, encourages access to college and comes at little expense to the state. Dave N.: Even more troubling to me is Tester’s rationale, particularly the second sentence in his statement: I do not support legislation that provides a path to citizenship for anyone in this country illegally. Really? Then, by definition, Senator, you support the deportation of 12 million people from our shores. Because realistically speaking, that’s the only choice available. And we hope you’ve thought about what doing that would make this country look like — not to mention the economic wreckage that would ensue. Maybe, Senator, the problem is that this country has an economy that generates hundreds of thousands of unskilled-labor jobs every year (up until Republicans wrecked the economy, it was well north of 500,000) and yet issues only 5,000 green cards to cover them . Being a farmer and all, that’s something you ought to know a little about. You should also know that a lot of your fellow farmers would prefer to be straight with the law — but don’t have a lot of choice, since farm labor is just about impossible to find outside the non-immigrant population, irrespective of wages. It’s a broken system, and you know it, Senator. But deporting 12 million people won’t solve it. Indeed, the DREAM Act wouldn’t solve it — it would have at best simply ameliorated some of the more noxious aspects of the system’s dysfunction. But at least it would have done that — and given us some hope that the next Senate could begin the long hard work of fixing it. Now? Fuggedaboutit. Badly played, Senator. And deeply disappointing.
Continue reading …Today liberal Senate Democrats failed to garner the 60-vote threshold to end debate on and move to a final passage vote for the DREAM Act. In covering the story, the news wire credited Republican opposition for “doom[ing]” the legislation, but the math doesn't work out when you look at the breakdown of the votes on the motion to end debate — also known as invoking cloture. [h/t reader Kevin Davis] read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fox News is reporting that the Senate has voted to approve the House bill repealing the military’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy banning gay servicemembers. From MSNBC : WASHINGTON — In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn’t take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ fighting ability. After that, there’s a 60-day waiting period for the military. “It is time to close this chapter in our history,” Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. “It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.” The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday. Here’s Politico on the six Republican senators who voted to end this misbegotten policy: Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, Mark Kirk of Illinois, plus Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted to end debate on the bill that would repeal the policy that bans openly gays service members.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Rachel Maddow talked to Rep. Anthony Weiner about his outburst on the floor of the House back in July when Republicans were doing their best to use procedural moves to prevent the 9-11 first responder’s bill from making it through the House. Congressman Weiner expressed his concerns that this might be the last chance to get the bill passed because he doesn’t have much hope of the House bringing this back up for a vote once the Republicans take control in January. I hope Harry Reid makes the Senate stay there through Christmas if they decide to keep blocking this bill. Rachel asked Anthony Weiner about his response to John McCain, who “described work on this bill as fooling around” and whether or not procedure matters. WEINER: Well look, I think of all of the people who understand the sincerity of this, John McCain at least in theory should. Look, I think what sometimes my friends in the Senate don’t realize is that what they think is regular day to day procedural maneuvering looks to the rest of the country as standing in the way of really letting democracy work. But in this case, literally we have this universe of people and we think it’s about 10,000 people; no one is dying to get… no, that’s a wrong use of words. No one wants to get this benefit. It’s not like an entitlement. No one’s trying to get toxic stew in their lungs to go then be able to sign up for the 9-11 first responders program. We figured out a way to pay for it. It’s completely paid for now. And we have the votes and so for John McCain to say this is some kind of a game or a stunt… no. This is us trying to do frankly what I think we should have done on September 11th and we’re trying to finally do now. And I would just say to my Senate colleagues if there is one issue all year that should transcend politics, it really should be this one. It should be, but nothing transcends politics when it comes to the Republicans and who they’re willing to sacrifice to score political points. Weiner went on to explain why he voted against the agreement on extending the Bush (or now Obama) tax cuts and why it was such a bad idea.
Continue reading …The Nigerian government has officially have dropped charges against former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney over his alleged involvement in a 1990s bribery scandal while he was the executive at Halliburton. —JCL The BBC: Nigeria has dropped charges against former US Vice-President Dick Cheney over a 1990s bribery scandal, anti-corruption officials say. The case focused on bribes paid by engineering firm KBR while it was a subsidiary of Halliburton, a firm headed by Mr Cheney at the time. Nigerian officials said Halliburton agreed an out-of-court deal worth $250m (£160m). The firm has not commented. Read more Related Entries December 18, 2010 Christmas at the Forgotten Front December 14, 2010 Colonialism Still at Heart of Africa’s Problems
Continue reading …By Barry Lando Almost ten years ago President Bush announced a global War on Terror. But since then it has only gotten worse for millions of Central Africans who live in constant fear of the Lords Resistance Army. Related Entries December 18, 2010 Christmas at the Forgotten Front December 14, 2010 Colonialism Still at Heart of Africa’s Problems
Continue reading …In a signal of sufficient support for final passage, the Senate voted 63-33 to cut off debate (shut down a filibuster) and head to a final vote on the military’s Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” anti-gay policy. The bill now faces a second Senate vote for approval before it heads to President Obama for his signature. —JCL The New York Times: Capping a 17-year political struggle, the Senate on Saturday cleared the way for repealing the Pentagon’s ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. By a vote of 63 to 33, with six Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate acted to cut off debate on a measure that would let President Obama declare an end to the Clinton-era policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which allows gay members of the armed forces to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. The vote indicated that there was easily enough support to push the measure to final passage. “By ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the cloture vote. “And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.” Read more Related Entries December 18, 2010 Christmas at the Forgotten Front December 14, 2010 Colonialism Still at Heart of Africa’s Problems
Continue reading …