A new ABC-Washington Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor. ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law's “lowest level of popularity ever.” But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper – even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-unemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.” This is the same Post that highlighted the news on Page One on October 20, 2009, when they found a “clear majority” in favor of a socialist “public option” — amid charges they oversampled Democrats.
Continue reading …The Daily Show’s tribute to Republican senators who find comfort and advantage in invoking the heroes of 9/11 but refuse to give them health care.
Continue reading …WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was given a bit of a break on Tuesday, when a British judge ordered that he be released from jail for the small bail fee of $310,000. However, this small measure of freedom comes with a few strings attached—and an electronic monitor. For his part, Assange appears to be uncowed by his incarceration and released a statement from prison urging support for his site and his cause.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Well, isn’t this cozy? Justice Scalia has ‘graciously’ agreed to set the tone for each Congressional week by coaching the Tea Party caucus on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Lou Dobbs is all tingly over it too: Dobbs: You’ve got a terrific idea that you’re going to implement with the new Congress: a course on the Constitution for incoming Congressmen and women. Tell us about that. Bachmann: We’re going to do what the NFL does and what the baseball teams do: we’re going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia has graciously agreed to kick off our class. The hour before we cast our first vote in congress, we’ll meet in the Capitol, we’ll have a seminar on some segment of the Constitution, we’ll have a speaker, we’ll have questions and answers, we’ll wrap our minds around this magnificent document [and] that’ll set the tone for the week while we’re in Washington. I think it’s great and I’m hoping all the members of Congress will partake; it’s bipartisan. I wonder which week will be the one where they discuss separation of powers and impartial justice. Just sayin’.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Surprising the media that had been persistently reporting that he had decided against running (perhaps because, as Neal Cavuto says, no one in his party likes him), Michael Steele announced on Monday that he was planning on running for a second term as RNC Chair . Michael Steele said Monday night that he would fight to remain chairman of the Republican National Committee next year, ignoring calls from some in the party for a new leader to help unseat President Barack Obama in 2012. Mr. Steele notified fellow RNC members during a conference call that he will seek a second two-year term in the Jan. 20 election, participants said. The announcement ends weeks of speculation in which the 52-year-old former lieutenant governor of Maryland kept an unusually low profile.[..] His decision could spark a contentious fight to lead the committee as the party gears up for the next presidential primary season and its effort to defeat Mr. Obama. Four candidates have already announced their intention to replace Mr. Steele, and others could enter the race.[..] The announced candidates are Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan Republican Party chairman; Maria Cino, a veteran of the Bush administration, who claims the backing of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie; Reince Priebus, chairman of the Wisconsin GOP; and Ann Wagner, a former U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. As chairman, Mr. Steele presided over the biggest Republican gains in decades. The party netted 63 House seats in last month’s midterm elections, regaining the majority, and gained seven Senate seats, including one in January. Despite those gains, critics complained that Mr. Steele spent lavishly, neglected the party’s biggest donors and failed to prove he can raise the money necessary to deny Mr. Obama a second term. The RNC raised $192 million during his tenure as chairman and spent $206 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That left the committee with more than $15 million in debt, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission. On Monday, Mr. Steele promised to “streamline the RNC” and told members that the committee had already begun implementing a new accounting system to track fundraising and spending. He trumpeted the committee’s expanded base of small-dollar donors and, in a direct nod to his critics, acknowledged that “a significant number” of major donors “have migrated to other organizations led by former RNC chairmen…that are not bound by the same laws as the RNC.” I think I can speak for comedians and liberals when I say, “Go Steele!”
Continue reading …Click here to view this media John King talked to Virginia’s wingnut birther Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli about today’s ruling by Judge Henry Hudson that the individual mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional. Cuccinelli dismissed concerns that this might create uncertainty for employers in Virginia and said he hoped that would make it harder for the Supreme Court to turn down hearing the case. Cuccinelli also defended immediately raising campaign funds from the ruling , painting himself as the victim who’s going to have powerful interests coming after him, rather than the fact that he’s been using the issue for political gain from day one. Par for the course, ignored in this conversation… Judge Hudson’s conflict of interests . Also ignored, whether or not conservatives getting their wish if the Supreme Court does take the case and rules against it, that potentially opening the door back up to a public option . CNN Transcript : KING: Dan Lothian at the White House — Dan pointing out a legal ruling that reignites the political debate. Now let’s get the perspective of the man who challenged the law and won, at least this first round. Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli of Virginia joins us from Richmond tonight. Sir, I’m holding the decision here from Judge Hudson. You win the case on this round. You just heard Dan Lothian note there are two other cases upholding the law. One of them in Virginia — CUCCINELLI: Right. KING: What do you think makes this decision better than the other two? CUCCINELLI: Well, whenever you have a state as a party with the federal government, you’re in sort of a different category. And the next one of these is coming up Thursday in Florida when they have their merits hearing down in Florida. Probably get a ruling in January or February time frame in that case. There are 25 total cases running across the country. Certainly you’re going to see a series of rulings, but even in the two we’ve seen so far that went the federal government’s way on the individual mandate; the federal government was ruled against in both cases on their tax argument. And there are two arguments in this case. The individual mandate, whether or not it’s constitutional, and whether or not the penalty, if you disobey the government instruction that you must buy their government-approved insurance is a tax. And the federal government lost again on the tax argument in addition to the individual mandate today. This is obviously a very important ruling. But as you’ve pointed out here on this show, this one is probably going to the Supreme Court. We hope it gets there soon because it certainly introduces an amazing amount of uncertainty for our whole economy. KING: Let’s get to that point because I know your position. Your position is this law is unconstitutional. The administration clearly disagrees. CUCCINELLI: Right. KING: If you’re an American citizen watching, whether you live in Virginia or elsewhere of you’re an American employer watching, you’re in a bit of a limbo. The law is still in place obviously, but you’re thinking, should I change my conduct? Should I affect my hiring? What I get a new health care policy for my employees or what should I do if I’m an individual and I don’t buy insurance? So do you believe there’s the political will to at least ask the Supreme Court for an expedited review of this case or will this goes on in the courts for another two or three years before it gets all the way to the top? CUCCINELLI: I actually think it’s harder not to make the request than to make the request because there’s so much uncertainly out there. And we all know there’s a lot of business money parked on the sidelines, waiting to see what the rules of the road are going to be, not just in health care, but you introduces the tax compromise that’s being discussed in Washington. All these things have an impact on whether or not businesses are willing to start investing that cash that they’re holding and to help start creating jobs. And I think that this administration could benefit by moving this case faster and reducing the uncertainty in the economy more quickly. And whatever the outcome, whether Virginia wins or whether the federal government wins, knowing the outcome is a benefit by itself to all Americans. Obviously I hope that we protect the Constitution and Virginia prevails, but I don’t get to decide that. The Supreme Court is ultimately going to have to do that. KING: Mr. Attorney general, I know your position, the conservative, the federal government has no right to do this. That’s your position. Answer, though, if you go on Twitter, on Facebook, e- mails to us today, answer the critic of your position who says well then what happens? If you don’t have this mandate in play, what happens if some 30, 35-year-old person decides you know what, I’m young. I’m fine. I’m safe. They don’t buy insurance. They don’t get it from their employer and then they have a horrific accident, say a car accident. And they end up in the emergency room. Who pays then? CUCCINELLI: Yes, John, that’s a great question. And of course I’m an attorney general and my obligation first is to defend the Constitution. But the reality is, as you said, there are plenty of people who see benefits in this bill and in a 2,700 page bill surely there’s something in it for everybody. I hope, “A” that we win the case and “B” that the parties can get back to the table and start to work on the things that there’s broad agreement on. There wasn’t broad agreement. There were enough votes to get this through, but I wouldn’t call it broad agreement here. We need to start getting consumers in control of health care to drive costs down. More government hasn’t worked for 45 years. So we need to go in a different direction so we can offer people other alternatives. I did that as a state senator to increase the availability of health insurance, put in bills to help myself do that before I was an attorney general. There are ways we can do this to help take care of the folks who need greater access to health insurance, but violating the Constitution and eliminating some people’s freedom is not the way to do that. KING: This is a legal fight, but as you know, it’s also a high stakes political battle. And within minutes of winning this decision, you could go on the Internet and see an ad that’s congratulating you, celebrating your victory in this case in Virginia and saying donate money. Donate (ph) — make political contributions to Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia. Is that appropriate, sir, for you to raise money off of this especially within hours of the ruling? CUCCINELLI: Yes, there’s no question that the debate and the contest over this occurs not just in the media. It occurs in the political environment, by which I mean on Capitol Hill here in Richmond, but also in the political environment like campaigns. And the fact is I need to survive politically. I’m an elected official in Virginia. The people of Virginia, 58 percent of them voted for me in the last election. And an awful lot of very upset folks, a lot of them very powerful with plenty of money here are going to be coming after me. They’ve already said as much, in the next election. And we have to prepare for that as well while we continue to defend the Constitution regardless of what the consequences are. KING: Mr. Cuccinelli, appreciate your time tonight. We’ll keep in touch as the case makes it way through the court — CUCCINELLI: Thanks for having me.
Continue reading …enlarge Happy Tuesday! There’s lots of semi-interesting economic news to get to, so let’s git! The big news from yesterday is that a conservative judge overturned a key portion of Obamacare , namely the federal mandate that everyone in the country buy health insurance. Speaking personally, this doesn’t really bother me all that much. That’s because one of three things will happen: a.) Jon Walker will be right and people with preexisting conditions will still be able to get health insurance without the whole system collapsing. b.) The whole private insurance system will collapse due to adverse selection, thus leaving us no alternative but to go to single payer. c.) The GOP will try to repeal all of Obamacare, including the parts that bar insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. This will result in countless ads full of diabetic children staring into the camera and saying something along the lines of, “Please, Senator Crapbag, don’t take my health care away!” Oh and you’d also be telling seniors that they’ll have to pay more for prescription drugs. Those two things are typically not what you want to see when you’re up for reelection. So the death of the individual mandate is no sweat off my back, especially since I think the whole provision is just a glorified version of tax farming . The Republican judicial activists kill it and thus speed the demise of the private insurance market, more power to ‘em. I’m glad the mainstream press is making a stink about the very smelly way Peter Orszag has skipped dutifully from the White House to Wall Street. Joe Klein does a good job of explaining Why This is Important to the Democratic Party and American politics in general: [T]his move only reinforces my growing sense that the Democratic party has to pry control of its economic policy away from the Wall Street caucus–the Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Rattner and now Orszag etc. gang. I am sure they have had real value as policy-makers, but they’ve had real blind spots as well. Their blind spots have to do with the workers who once constituted the Democratic party’s base, but who now, with their manufacturing jobs gone, have lost their faith in government and find it easier to vote their anger–against one party, then the next–than to vote for anything or anyone. The Wall Streeters know the bond market intimately; they don’t spend much time thinking about how to improve life for the vast swath of Americans who have suffered the mergers-and-acquisitions, the leveraged-buy-outs, the private equity hoggery, the CDO and CDS’s and all the other financial gimmicks of the last 40 years. I guess the difference I have with Klein is that I don’t think American workers’ interests are “blind spots” to the Wall Street Dems. Rather, I think those interests are a direct impediment to the Wall Street Dems’ agenda of using open trade and open borders to undermine labor and environmental laws. These guys know precisely what they’re doing and they have ever since they co-opted the Democratic Party in the 1990s and got NAFTA passed, along with odious deregulatory legislation such as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The result has been a rapidly shrinking middle class, stagnant real wages and the worst global financial crisis in decades. Everyone deserves a “heckuva job” and a pat on the back. As I’ve said before, the most depressing part about our government’s fealty to Wall Street interests is that there’s broad bipartisan consensus across the general populace that Wall Street sucks. Check out this Bloomberg poll : More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health. A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents. With U.S. unemployment at 9.8 percent, resentment of bonuses and banking profits unites Americans across political, gender, age and income groups. Among Republicans, who generally are skeptical of business regulation, 76 percent support a government ban on big bonuses to bailout recipients, that’s higher than backing among Democrats or independents. I know a few Tea Partiers who truly despise Wall Street because they see how the biggest banks have used the government to secure spots for themselves as permanent economic winners. And really, hating Wall Street shouldn’t be a Red or a Blue issue because hating Wall Street is the most obvious and commonsense feeling that a normal human being can harbor, right up there with love of puppies and children. Yet perversely, our political leadership in both parties goes out of its way to show Wall Street who can do a better job of delivering the goods. It’s pretty sad. Hey, look! Fewer mortgages were underwater last month! But, uh, that’s not a good thing : The number of U.S. homes worth less than the debt owed on them dropped in the third quarter, largely because of mounting foreclosures rather than a rise in property values, according to CoreLogic Inc. About 10.8 million homes, or 22.5 percent of those with mortgages, were “underwater” as of Sept. 30, the Santa Ana, California-based real estate information company said in a report today. That was down from 11 million, or 23 percent, at the end of June, the third straight quarterly decline. Falling property values and unemployment near 10 percent have spurred a surge in foreclosures. The number of homes offered in foreclosure auctions averaged 110,000 a month in the third quarter compared with about 98,000 in the same period a year earlier, said Mark Fleming, CoreLogic’s chief economist. At least Paris Hilton gets to keep her tax cut. And sorry to end on a downer, but sometimes there’s just nothing happy to report. It looks like the big banks are headed toward another quarter of through-the-roof profits : The five largest U.S. firms by investment-banking and trading revenue — Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley — will likely have a better fourth quarter than the previous two periods, driven by equity underwriting and higher volume in stock and bond trading, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Even if this quarter only matches the third, the banks’ revenue will top that of any year except 2009. The surge has come after the five banks took a combined $135 billion from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program and borrowed billions more from the Federal Reserve’s emergency-lending facilities in late 2008 and early 2009 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Since then, the firms have benefited from low interest rates and the Fed’s purchases of fixed-income securities. “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for most of these banks, and I think they’ve recognized it as that,” said Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, who has written about Wall Street’s history. “The profits they’re making now will allow them to replenish their capital and take care of the other things they need to do.” “Other things they need to do” is industry jargon for “having lots of coke-and-hooker parties this Christmas.” OK, try to have a happy day! Here’s some cheery footage of a young Itzhak Perlman playing the third movement of Mendelssohn’s violin concerto! It’s one of the happiest things you’ll ever hear, like leprechauns dancing a jig on your crotch (if you’re into that sort of thing!):
Continue reading …The Ukrainian government is planning to invite tourists inside the 30-mile exclusion zone to get up close and personal with nuclear disaster. The ministry of emergency situations says visitors should be safe—provided they don’t wander. You can already go on an unofficial tour of the area, but really, how crazy do you have to be to go on an unofficial tour of Chernobyl?
Continue reading …By Eugene Robinson Do we want the people who run Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Twitter or perhaps even—shudder—Microsoft, Apple or Google making political decisions on our behalf? Related Entries December 13, 2010 Indian Diplomat’s Turban + Airport Security = International Incident December 12, 2010 Afghan Police Force on Shaky Ground
Continue reading …