I agree with Kucinich : I think a primary opponent would have the effect of making Obama a stronger progressive candidate. But I’d be very, very surprised if a Democrat decides to run against him: Congressman Dennis Kucinich will not challenge President Obama for in the 2012 Democratic primaries—“I’m focusing on being re-elected to the House of Representatives ”—but he thinks Obama should face a foe for the presidential nomination. “I think primaries can have the opportunity of raising the issues and make the Democratic candidate a stronger candidate,” Kucinich, who sought the party nod in 2004 and 2008, said Thursday . “I think it’s safe to predict that President Obama will continue to be the nominee of the Democratic primary, but he can be a stronger nominee if he receives a strong challenge in a primary. ”Kucinich won’t speculate on who could, or should, run against Obama, who has disappointed much of the Democratic base with moves to the right on issues ranging from last year’s healthcare debate—in which he abandoned first the single-payer reform he had once backed and then the public option—to tax policy and entitlement reform. But the Ohio congressman did suggest the issues that he’s like to see raised by another Democrat in the primary states where Obama will begin his re-election campaign.“I’m very interested in making sure that creation of jobs, healthcare for all, protection of Social Security and Medicare, those things are fundamental—and education,” Kucinich explained in a C-SPAN interview . “Those are issues that certainly should be brought up in primaries. And, finally, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to stop roaming the world looking for dragons to slay—we’ve things to take care of right here at home.” Kucinich’s comments echo those of Rabbi Michael Lerner , who wrote last fall, in the aftermath of the midterm election setbacks for Democrats: “There is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration’s policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support—as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama’s 2008 success— this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate . Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he’s a goner anyway.”
Continue reading …Oops! House Abortion Bill Proponents Forget to Cite Constitutional Authority
February 12, 2011 No CommentOh, this is awesome. Anthony Weiner challenged HR 358 (The Protect Life Act) on a point of order because the authors failed to cite the appropriate constitutional authority to permit its introduction. Then Frank Pallone chimes in with the answer: Republicans can’t cite Constitutional reason for the bill because there IS no constitutional authority. The statement produced which Republicans claim is in compliance with the rule reads this way: Mr. Weiner then read from the statement submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts, the sponsor of the legislation, which stated in full: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The Protect Life Act would overturn an unconstitutional mandate regarding abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” As Weiner points out, the challenge isn’t whether it’s constitutional or not, but that the rules require that all bills introduced must cite Constitutional authority for its introduction. Democrats have sent a formal request (PDF) for the bill to be withdrawn until such authority is added: Chairman Pitts’ bill is an assault on a woman’s access to abortion services. Its apparent objective is to make it impossible for women to choose an abortion by effectively eliminating coverage for the necessary medical services. It also calls into question the obligation of health care providers to provide the emergency services needed to save the l i fe of a pregnant woman. Because the bill represents a federal intrusion into the most intimate personal decisions of women and fanlilies, it is exactly the type of legislation that most needs a clear statement of Congress’s constitutional authority. While we do not dispute that you have the right to bring H.R. 358 before the full Committee, we respectfully suggest that you use your discretion not to do so. You should ask Mr. Pitts to introduce a new bill with a valid statement of constitutional authority and use the new bill, not H.R. 358, as the vehicle for any further consideration of this matter in the Committee. That would send a strong signal that the Committee is serious about the requirement that the constitutional basis of legislation be clearly stated before legislation can be considered in Committee. The end is particularly delicious, where Joe Barton cites the section of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass legislation. I’m certain that’s what the Tea Party had in mind when they pushed for that constitutional authority rule, aren’t you? Of course, they’ll find an excuse to introduce the bill without the required constitutional authority, but this whole argument just highlights how ridiculous the entire notion of limiting legislation to that which has cited constitutional authority. I’m glad Anthony Weiner is on our side of the House. He is a formidable opponent.
Continue reading …And another one bites the dust : Sen. Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, announced Thursday that he will not run for reelection next year. That set off a race within the GOP caucus for his position as minority whip. Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) will run for the spot, an aide said, and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is expected to vie for it as well. If Sen. John Thune (S.D.) decides against running for president, he is likely to enter the contest as well. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Kyl’s retirement will be a “big loss” for the country. Kyl, 68, told reporters in Phoenix that he is confident that he would win if he ran again, adding: “There is no reason other than the fact that I think it’s time.” He revealed that he had all but decided that he would not run again when he won six years ago. As for the future, “I wouldn’t close my mind to being a vice presidential candidate,” he told reporters. Kyl has said that he intends to stay in public policy, just not in public office, which translates to…you guessed it…lobbyist time. Gotta go where the money is. Speaking of money, having been in Congress (both the House and the Senate) for more than 25 years and at the ripe age of 68, Kyl qualifies for the very generous Congressional full pension and benefits for the balance of his life. Not including bonuses for his leadership position, Kyl’s annual salary for being a Senator is $174,000 , and his full pension is 80% of that or $139,200 annually. That means that the same man who refused to extend unemployment benefits to the 99ers , who wants to repeal health care reform in favor of “market solutions” and drastically cut services to those who can least afford it will be getting a nice little check of almost $12,000 every month from us taxpayers, thankyouverymuch . And that doesn’t include whatever cushy job he gets at some K Street office . Nice work if you can get it, huh?
Continue reading …If you feel like your house is only getting dustier, you may be right: There’s more dust in the world now than there once was, a study finds. In fact, the amount of airborne dust doubled in the 20th century. Where’s it all coming from? There are a few possible…
Continue reading …
White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes told The Associated Press that President Obama wants more spending on Internet broadband because business leaders and emergency responders have told him more funds are needed. (Feb. 10)
Continue reading …
New York University arts professor Wafaa Bilal, who recently implanted a camera in the back of his head, underwent surgery on Friday after his body rejected one of the titanium posts anchoring the device to his skull. (Feb. 10)
Continue reading …
Image: USDA Forest Service – Region 8 – Southern Archive , CC Okay, okay, we get it. House Republicans don’t like the idea of trying to reign in pollution. I mean really don’t like it. Many of them already claimed that climate change wasn’t real on the campaign trail, and said they’d fight climate legislation. Then, the powerful chairman of the House Energy Committee, Fred Upton (R-MI), has already sponsored a bill designed to prevent the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act, claiming it would kill jobs and whatnot. Now, House Republicans have release… Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …
Photo: National Parks Conservation Association There’s something romantic about the image of two young valentines, in an idyllic pastoral scene, etching their initials in the side of a tree to commemorate their affection, but tree carving isn’t just for lovers. In a burgeoning field of archeological study, researchers are looking to some of the world’s oldest tree carvings, known as arborglyphs, to better understand the peoples and traditions of cultures past — and most are a lot more interesting than just a heart with an arrow through it…. Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …Dept. of Better Late Than Never? New York Fed Realizes Crappy Bankruptcy Bill Made Mortgage Crisis Worse
February 10, 2011 No CommentIn 2005, the Billionaires for Bush stumped for the new bankruptcy bill. See how well that worked? And isn’t funny that the NY Fed had to take all this time to figure out what so many of us already knew? WASHINGTON — Economists at the New York Federal Reserve have concluded that a controversial 2005 law backed by banks and credit card companies pushed more than 200,000 people into foreclosure and exacerbated the subprime mortgage crisis. Consumer advocates fought hard against the law, which made it much more difficult for individuals to alleviate credit card debt in bankruptcy. This inability of homeowners to eliminate other debts, the New York Fed economists conclude, in turn made borrowers unable to pay off their mortgages, spurring foreclosures . Despite opposition from public interest groups, the 2005 law easily cleared both chambers of Congress and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. In a paper released Tuesday, New York Fed researchers Donald P. Morgan, Benjamin Iverson and Matthew Botsch determined that the law sparked about 116,000 additional subprime mortgage foreclosures a year after going into effect. What’s more, they note, these foreclosures pushed home prices down, which may have lead to additional foreclosures. When the value of a home drops below what a borrower owes on the mortgage, it becomes nearly impossible to get out of the loan by selling the house or refinancing, making foreclosure more likely if they become unable to afford the monthly payment. “By making it harder for borrowers to avoid paying credit card debt, [the 2005 bankruptcy law] made it more difficult for them to pay their mortgages, so foreclosure rates rose,” the economists wrote. Although borrowers have been unable to alleviate mortgage debt in bankruptcy since 1993, they remain able to discharge credit card debts by filing for bankruptcy. But the 2005 law made it much more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy at all — and then limited their ability to reduce credit card debt burdens once they did.
Continue reading …JP Morgan Chase says ‘Oops, we’re sorry’ for kicking military families out of their homes
February 10, 2011 No CommentI was watching the TODAY Show Wednesday and they had another segment on their breaking news on JP Morgan Chase fleecing homes from active members of the Armed Forces. The segment featured a soldier who is fighting in Iraq and at the same time was arguing with JPMC and getting the runaround. And still she lost her house. Now they say they’ll take care of it. It’s sickening and against the law. This above video was the initial report that got the ball rolling and exposed these cowards. NBC News: JP Morgan & Chase Co.’s admission that it overcharged thousands of American servicemen has triggered investigations by a congressional committee and a federal prosecutor. As first reported last week by NBC News, the bank admits mistakenly overcharging 4,000 military families for their mortgages, and improperly foreclosing on 14 of them. The actions — which the bank says it deeply regrets — appear to violate the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law designed to protect military families from added financial stress while troops are in harm’s way. Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, says his committee has begun an investigation. “ The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act has been in place for decades and I cannot believe that one of the nation’s largest financial institutions appears to be disregarding the protections offered by that law,” he said. “If the allegations are true, this amounts to widespread abuse of our nation’s heroes and their families.” A hearing is planned in early February. Legal sources tell NBC News that the U.S. attorney for South Carolina, William N. Nettles, also has begun looking into the matter.,, read on Here’s a little more from KPBS: The Stars and Stripes reports that Chase flouted the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law that prohibits banks from charging more than 6% mortgage interest when troops are on active duty. The SCRA also makes it a no-no to foreclose on service members while they’re on active duty. Only, Chase ignored this pesky fact, and ended up foreclosing on 14 families. To make it up to everybody: JPMorgan Chase & Co. is repaying more than $2 million to about 4,000 military families who were overcharged for their mortgages. JPMorgan Chase said those 14 properties have been or will be returned to the owners.
Continue reading …