Thursday Stuff

I wish I had a nickel for every post I've written (along with a lot of other people, I know) pointing out that Social Security doesn't have a damn thing to do with the deficit, and I also recall that part of the point of health care reform was to make Medicare and Medicaid more cost efficient...soo then, just why the hell is "President Hopey Changey" trying to give away the proverbial store once again?

Fortunately, Sen. Bernie Sanders contains the spine that is lacking from the current occupant of An Oval Office (and I'm sure we can get ready for a fresh round of "Depends" jokes from Fix Noise about Sanders, who is smarter than that entire gaggle of idiots put together).

And can somebody explain to me why I should give the White House incumbent so much as a dime for his re-election because of this? And to do more, click here...



Update 7/8/11: No duuuh (here - the attack ads next year will write themselves, people).

..."read between the lines, and you'll find the truth" indeed - and I'd love to think that this latest scandal will be the downfall of Rupert The Pirate, but I'm sure he's on his way to figuring out how to get out of the mess, unfortunately (Update 7/13/11 - but then again, maybe not).

Thursday Mashup (7/7/11)

Glenn Kessler of the WaPo tells us here that, after six months of supposed “fact checking” between the Dems and the Repugs, the total of who told more lies is as follows: it’s a tie.

To say I’m skeptical of such a finding is putting it mildly, so I took a look at one of Kessler’s supposed critiques of a Democratic politician here (namely, Sen. Barbara Boxer’s claim that the Repugs didn’t do anything to help grow the economy in the ‘90s)…

In Boxer’s telling, the budget surplus that emerged in 1998 and continued for four years sprang forth from a critical moment — the passage of Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction bill. For those who don’t remember, it was a cliffhanger vote in both houses of Congress, with not a single Republican lawmaker supporting it.

“Lucky for us, a lot of us are still here who made that fateful vote. We didn't have one Republican voting for that budget, and when they came to the floor — I have all the quotes, chapter and verse--they said: This is horrible. It will never balance the budget. This is going to lead to a depression. This is the worst thing,” Boxer recounted.

Boxer added: “But we know what happened. We not only balanced the budget, but we had a surplus. We not only had a surplus, but the debt was going down so fast we thought we would never have to have Treasury bonds again. On top of that, we created 23 million jobs.”

But is that really what happened? Were Republicans — who controlled the House and essentially the Senate when the budget was in surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 — irrelevant to the process?

Umm, yeah, they were – as noted here…

So why, then, does he give Boxer three pinnocchios (note: a “pinnocchio” is Kessler’s unit of measurement of sorts for a lie)? What is his evidence that the GOP had anything to do with the surpluses? Well, he says, they caused a “substantial shift in the policy debate” when they got to Washington.

Even if that claim is true — and Kessler offers no evidence that it is — did that “shift in the debate” lead to any actual legislation that had any impact on the bottom line? No, it did not. I’m at a loss to explain how a perceived “shift in the debate” that led to no real change in budgeting policy can be credited with improving the budget situation.

Kessler is also upset that Boxer doesn’t give enough credit to the booming economy for its role in helping to balance the budget. And it is true that the enormous economic growth in the early 1990s was crucial to achieving a balanced budget.

But that doesn’t invalidate the point that GOP-led legislation played no role. Quite the opposite. Even with the benefit of the boom, the budget would still have been in deficit had it not been for the Democratic-passed legislation. Republican-passed legislation still played no role at all.

And as noted here (in a Media Matters post correcting another erroneous WaPo Op-Ed on the economy), Boxer is correct in saying that the Clinton 1993 budget passed with no Repug votes (just like the Affordable Care Act passed with no Republican votes, just like the “stim” passed with no U.S. House Repug votes…).

It just goes to show that, when it comes to fact checking, leave it to the lefty blogs to get it right (and let Kessler propagandize as he wishes…caveat emptor, as they say).

Update 7/12/11: Sounds like Kessler is up to his old tricks (here).

Continuing, it looks like Gramps McCain is crankier than usual these days (here)…

In a colloquy with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) on the Senate floor (McCain) asked if it was her view that the Senate had been "terribly overworked" this week.

"I understand we cancelled our Fourth of July recess to get back here and get back to work and do the people's business," said McCain. "Is it correct that this is the second vote we have taken, the first one being an instruction the sergeant-at-arms and this one another highly controversial issue that was taken up?"

McCain added that he would have a hard time explaining to his constituents back in Arizona what the Senate had been up to. His remarks reflected those of President Obama, who at a press conference last week chided Congress about its work schedule.

In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cancelled the fourth of July recess for the first time in decades and directed the Senate to hold two votes, neither of which involved creating actual legislation.

And Reid added the following (here)…

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday defended the Senate's light work schedule and his decision to keep the upper chamber in session during a week usually reserved for the Independence Day recess.

"There was a lot of work this week that took place as a result of us being here that would not have taken place but for the fact that we were in session," said Reid. "There has been a lot of working going on behind the scenes."

Reid was defending the schedule against a speech delivered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in which he asked if the week, which included just two minor votes, had been a "worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollar."

Reid also blamed Republicans for clogging up the Senate's legislative process and making it difficult for him to schedule votes.

"One reason we aren't having a lot of votes in recent months is because we cannot get things to the floor," said Reid. "We are stopped by my Republican friends."

Well, I suppose that’s just a good “return on investment” when you consider that the Heritage Foundation hosted a little party here of corporate lobbyists who shared tips on how to obstruct the Senate, with nary a peep of condemnation from “Senator Honor and Virtue” and his pals in the Senate (the Think Progress post tells us that Steven Duffield, one of the Heritage-sponsored “experts” at the event, is responsible for the following)…

While he helps corporations place secret holds for his corporate clients, Duffield has elected a new crew of Republican senators to boost his business. In addition to his lobbying gig, Duffield serves as “Policy Director” of Crossroads GPS, the undisclosed corporate front group that helped elect Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and other freshmen Republican senators. By granting Duffield and Wichterman a platform to promote Senate obstruction, Heritage is doing a service for corporate lobbyists.

And as noted here, there actually was a window to cleaning up these antics last January, which Dems Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley tried to pry open, to no avail (and with no help from “Country First” McCain, either).

Also, this tells us that Number 44 dodged the question of invoking the 14th amendment to ensure that the debt ceiling is raised at his recent “Twitter Town Hall” (this provides more background). In response, Repug U.S. House Rep Tim Scott invoked impeachment here.

Actually, Scott did us a bit of a favor here by confirming what we always suspected, which is the fact that Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the “brain trust” at Fix Noise tells the Repugs where to go, what to do, what to say, and how high to jump when they’re told to do so.

And I wonder if all of those numbskulls applauding Scott when he actually mentioned impeaching Obama over a perfectly legitimate exercise of presidential prerogative know that their U.S. House rep sponsored a bill to deny food stamps to families who have a member on strike (here)?

Finally, I detected more than a little bit of corporate media tut-tutting over the following (here)…

Speaking before a group of liberal youth activists Wednesday, (former President Bill) Clinton said laws in states like Florida and New Hampshire are aimed at limiting voter turnout and keeping young people from the ballot box.

"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today," Clinton said at Campus Progress's annual conference in Washington.

…

"Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" Clinton said. "Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats, that's why."

He also referred to a proposal in New Hampshire that would prevent college students from registering to vote where they attend school, instead of where they are from originally.

(Oh, and speaking of attempting to disenfranchise younger voters, particularly college students, I’m sure the results of that supposed investigation by Repug Bucks County CA David Heckler into last year’s Ciervo/Fitzpatrick letter – from here – will be forthcoming any day now…any day now…).

Actually, in addition to Florida and New Hampshire, this Think Progress post tells us that conservatives are moving to disenfranchise younger voters in 20 other statehouses across the country.

So, if anything, I don’t have an issue with President Clinton for going too far in invoking Jim Crow, poll taxes, and other ways to suppress core Democratic constituencies.

I have a problem because he didn’t go far enough.

Update 7/10/11: OK, this is progress.

Wednesday Stuff

Yeah, what a "teabagger hero" this cretin is (here)...



...and gosh, could Rupert The Pirate have gone too far at long last (here, and ssshhh, don't wake our corporate media in this country)...



...and once more, I give you this in response to the typical Repug idiocy on display here from Orange Man and his pals (and spare me concerning Mikey The Beloved, running away from a town hall for real again tomorrow with the help of his PR service, and his "thousand dollar tax credit per new hire" sham)...



...and I really did the best I could to avoid the trial that seemed to preoccupy all of our news organizations with initials for names and a great many others, particularly Nancy Grace, who was just chomping at the bit to see the mother found guilty in the death of that poor little girl, but after I heard the news of the verdict, I couldn't help but think of this song (I can't wait to see Christine Flowers in the Daily News find a way to try and blame we lefties for this - I finally got sick of her putrid garbage and we're thus going to cancel our subscription at long last...saying last Friday that liberals sympathize with muggers was truly the last straw).

Wednesday Mashup (7/6/11)

I thought this column from David Bossie at The Daily Tucker was unintentionally amusing, in which he extols the virtues of American women, most of whom just happen to be Republicans.

That’s funny stuff coming from a guy in charge of an organization that was once named after a highly derogatory reference to female genitalia (here).

Next, I give you the following editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News…

THIS JUST IN: Rivers often cross state boundaries. In fact, some rivers actually are state boundaries.

So if hazardous waste were dumped into the Delaware River in, say, Trenton, some of it would almost certainly find its way to Philadelphia.

And we likely would have a problem with that.

When it comes to water quality, we're all in this together. That's why the Clean Water Act - which sets and mandates the enforcement of national standards for water quality - has been essential to protecting the environment for nearly four decades.

…

Apparently, one congressman from West Virginia is angry because the Environmental Protection Agency has blocked mountaintop coal-removal methods that jeopardize watersheds. Another from Florida doesn't like government-mandated safeguards against chemical pollutants. So they cooked up legislation that not only will make it easier on the polluters in their states, but render the Clean Water Act useless for the 48 others.

Here and here are links to information telling us what we have to do to oppose this horrific piece of legislation, sponsored by U.S. House Repug John Mica of Florida (and this provides more information on the bill, telling us, among other things, that it is co-sponsored by “Democrats” Jason Altmire, Mark Critz and Tim Holden…why again do I actually support these people?).

Continuing, I know it’s hard to believe, but Repug U.S. House Rep Thad McCotter of Michigan is running for president (here).

Well, with that in mind, I suppose it’s appropriate to revisit this post, reminding us that “Mad Thad”…

…spent at least $30,000 in taxpayer-provided Republican Policy Committee funds to hire a consulting firm run by his chief of staff’s brother, Saul Anuzis, even as McCotter planned to kill the policy committee because it’s a “superfluous” waste of federal money.

And as I noted at the time, about a year ago…

I wonder if now, as a result, we will be treated in another lesson in how to speak “Democrat”...something else to consider along with McCotter’s opposition to the “stim,” of course, besides his vote against expanding the (Michigan) State Children's Health Insurance Program, which rightly earned him criticism from Catholics United for it (that, allegedly, is McCotter’s faith); McCotter called the group "the devil" over it.

Oh, but McCotter supposedly supported unions, who will be watching his candidacy closely, as noted here.

On its face, it appears beyond absurd that McCotter would attempt to win his party’s nomination to run for president. However, given the antics of the GOP field to date, it looks like “Mad Thad” will fit right in.

Further, this tells us that the Obama Administration plans to try Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame in civilian court on terrorism charges, after holding him on a U.S. Navy vessel for two months.

Of course, this has prompted a fresh round of umbrage from Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao (here)…

Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is a foreign enemy combatant. He should be treated as one; he should be sitting in a cell Guantanamo Bay, and eventually be tried before a military commission. Warsame is an admitted terrorist.

As always, here is the question: do you want to actually convict these characters, or don’t you? Because if you do, you’re a lot more likely to do so in a civilian court as opposed to our putting-lipstick-on-the-proverbial-pig military commissions. And as Emptywheel tells us here, we’ve already convicted 390 of these individuals (and an interesting question about Warsame is posed at the end here, I believe).

Of course, demonizing Obama on this issue is nothing new for McConnell, as noted here, claiming Number 44 would let loose those dern terrists in the old U S of A, which has been denied repeatedly by the White House (but why let the facts get in the way of the Senate Minority Leader and his quest to bludgeon us with another right-wing talking point?).

Also, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online…

The AFL-CIO, of all bodies, tweeted a simple question to President Obama in today’s #AskObama snarkfest: Where are the jobs?

My colleague Ivan Osorio answered for the president, “In right-to-work states.” Zing!

Yes, it’s true that Politifact has classified talking points about so-called “right to work” states generating more employment than non-“right to work” states as “mostly true,” including this one from Bill Orally, though the supposed employment increase in the right-to-work states is statistically insignificant (the rate in the non-RTW states versus the RTW ones and the national rate are all around 9 percent). Also, I haven't found a comparison yet of job wages between "right to work" and non-RTW states.

However, as Think Progress tells us here…

…steep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states, while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing declining unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth.

As you look at the chart from the Think Progress post, you can see the red line dividing the states that have cut spending (leading to fewer jobs) versus the ones that haven’t (leading to more jobs). And call me crazy, but I see a lot of “right to work” states under the line, including Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and Nevada (a complete list of so-called right-to-work states is here).

Sooo…how can unemployment be supposedly lower if they’ve lost jobs?

Zing!

Finally, today is the 65th birthday of Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History.

May I recommend the following reading for the occasion?

Tuesday Stuff

Once again, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains it all (here)...



...and last July 3rd marked the 40th anniversary of the death of Jim Morrison.

Monday Stuff

It took awhile for Dem NJ State Senate President Stephen Sweeney to wake up and see what Governor Bully is truly all about, but at least he finally did at long last (here)...

...and once more, happy fourth, for what's left of it.

Sunday Stuff

Hey, Mikey The Beloved, see all the fun you're running away from (more here - you can sense at about 5:00 that Dent is losing the crowd when he starts blaming Obama for supposedly "not showing up" for the negotiation on raising the debt ceiling...and by the way, there was no "negotiation" under Dubya; the Repugs just did it 14 times; also, would somebody explain to me what Dent finds so damn funny at about 5:20? And he starts talking about the alternative minimum tax?).

One more Dent lie has to do with supposedly taking $500 billion from Medicare from health care reform...as noted here by the Kaiser Family Foundation, health care reform "actually increased Medicare spending to provide more benefits and coverage."

Also, I think this is timely given the whole "Obama wants to tax corporate jets" thing (Dent and his pals really should abandon that talking point), and here is some important information from former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Medicare and Social Security (in response to Dent).

God, is Dent a typical lying Repug shill...



...and here's another timely tune (sorry, no video).

Friday Stuff

Good grief (and by the way, in an unrelated story, this tells us that the National Association of Free Clinics will sponsor an event in New Orleans on August 29th)...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

...and best wishes for an enjoyable holiday weekend.

Friday Mashup (7/1/11)

This story from The Hill tells us that, in light of President Obama’s thoroughly justified criticism of “Orange Man” and his pals in charge of the U.S. House for taking a vacation while they continue to dawdle over raising the debt limit, the “loyal opposition” is now making fun of Number 44 for his own time off.

This tells us that our current chief executive took less time off during his first year as president than all of his Republican predecessors (I have no information on time off during his second year).

Every time I think the ruinous 112th Congress can’t possibly sink any lower, they manage to do so.

Next, wingnut Larry Elder tells us that The Sainted Ronnie R supposedly gets no credit for the economy, while Obama gets no blame here (the premise itself is almost too hilarious for words)…

"The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment," said left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2004. Oh.

An economy that is "deeply depressed," Krugman insists, or at least he did seven years ago, naturally comes back strong. To what principal factor did Krugman point to in calling the 1982 economy "deeply depressed"? Unemployment. It peaked in the early '80s at 10.8 percent, even higher than during "The Great Recession" (aka the economy "inherited" by President Barack Obama). In 2010, the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent, which means the early '80s still holds the record for the "worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression."

It would have been nice if Elder had bothered to include the paragraph from Krugman’s column that preceded his excerpt above, which is as follows…

…according to a recent article in The Washington Times, Ronald Reagan ''crushed inflation along with left-wing Keynesian economics and launched the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.'' Actually, the 1982-90 economic expansion ranks third, after 1991-2001 and 1961-69 -- but even that comparison overstates the degree of real economic success.

And Krugman also tells us the following from 2004…

Inflation did come down sharply on Mr. Reagan's watch: it was running at 12 percent when he took office, but was only 4.5 percent when he left. But this victory came at a heavy price. For much of the Reagan era, the economy suffered from very high unemployment. Despite the rapid growth of 1983 and 1984, over the whole of the Reagan administration the unemployment rate averaged a very uncomfortable 7.5 percent.

In other words, it all played out just as ''left-wing Keynesian economics'' predicted.

Elder also says, when Obama was elected, “Out went policies like reductions in income taxes,” ignoring once more that the “stim” contained the largest middle class tax cut in history (here).

And as noted from here…

…Investors made out during the 1980s, while workers lost out. After seeing their investments lose value during the 1970s, shareholders enjoyed real returns (i.e., adjusted for inflation) in the 1980s that rivaled those of the next decade's stock market bubble and far outdistanced the returns of the 1960s. Real weekly wages for nonsupervisory workers, on the other hand, took a beating, declining even more quickly than they had during the 1970s. Today, the average real earnings of nonsupervisory workers remain far below those of 30 years ago, despite healthy wage gains in the second half of the 1990s expansion, when unemployment rates dropped toward 4%.

Nor did Reagan era growth do much to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate in 1989 at the end of Reagan's two terms was still 12.8%. That was just one percentage point lower than at beginning of his administration. In contrast, the 1990s boom knocked three percentage points off the nation's poverty rate, while the 1960s boom nearly cut it in half.

Reagan administration economic policies did not result in a 1960s-style prosperity, when workers' real wages went up in tandem with the value of stock holdings-just the opposite. Since 1980, the gains from U.S. economic growth have gone overwhelmingly to the well-to-do, and economic inequality has steadily worsened. By 2000, the ratio of the family income of the top 5% to that of the bottom 20% stood at 19.1, a dramatic rise over the 1979 ratio of 11.4. Reagan's economic policies ushered in the return of levels of inequality unseen since the eve of the Great Depression.

Also, Elder’s line about Obama being responsible for “billions of dollars” in regulation is pretty funny when you consider this.

Further, I give you last week’s Area Votes in Congress (here)…

House

Libya funds cutoff. Voting 180-238, the House Friday defeated a bill (H.R. 2278) to cut off funding for the direct military aspects of U.S. involvement in the NATO-led air war over Libya. The resolution sought to permit continued U.S. participation in the international coalition providing support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi's regime, but would limit the involvement to search-and-rescue operations, aerial refueling, operational planning and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities.

A yes vote was to cut off military funding.

Voting yes: John Carney (D., Del.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), and Jon Runyan (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Libya war authorization. Voting 123-295, the House Friday defeated a resolution (H.J. Res 68) under which Congress would formally authorize for one year U.S. participation in the NATO-led coalition providing support to rebel forces in Libya's civil war. The measure barred deployment of U.S. ground forces except if necessary to rescue U.S. diplomatic personnel or troops from other countries in the NATO coalition.

A yes vote was to authorize the Libyan action for one year.

Voting yes: Brady, Dent, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

Voting no: Andrews, Carney, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

On the one hand, common sense congressional oversight of whatever it is exactly that we’re doing in Libya is a good thing. However, the phrase “common sense” really doesn’t apply to much of anything that goes on in the U.S. House these days with the Repugs in charge, does it (more like, “let’s find new ways to tie the hands of that Kenyan Marxist socialist in charge”).

Patent-law overhaul. Voting 304-117, the House Thursday approved the first overhaul of U.S. patent law since 1952, a bill (H.R. 1249) that would help the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reduce its backlog of 700,000 applications. The bill switches from a "first to invent" to a "first to file" rule for giving priority to competing patent applications. The bill must now be reconciled with a similar measure passed by the Senate.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Runyan, Schwartz, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews and Brady.

Not voting: Holden and Pitts.

This article from 2004 tells us of the issues faced by the U.S. Patent Office, including outdated (or lack of) technology, lack of examiners, and the following…

In 1991, the financial burden of granting patents was shifted from taxpayers to patent applicants through the establishment of so-called user fees. But over time, those fees became a politically attractive source of funds to help balance the federal budget without raising taxes. So Congress began raiding the patent office piggy bank; as of last year, more than $650 million had been siphoned off to pay bills for other government functions.

Meanwhile, the volume of patent applications mushroomed. At the patent office, they call it “technology creep” — the explosion of new technologies, many of which didn’t exist 20 years ago, when most patent applications were evenly divided among electrical, chemical and mechanical inventions. Today, far more complex fields like semiconductors, biotechnology and, increasingly, entirely new areas like nanotechnology make up a much a bigger share of the agency’s workload. And the number of new applications continues to set records every year.

“The fact of the matter is that innovation is increasing,” said Harry Roman, an inventor who for many years ran the New Jersey Inventors Hall of Fame.

And that story is seven years old. Imagine the problems that have gone unaddressed since then, including the following (some of which predate the prior story)…

In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed James Rogan, who had no experience in patents, trademarks or intellectual property in general. As a congressman, he had been one of 13 U.S. House managers in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, and in the 2000 elections, his Los Angeles County constituency showed their disapproval at the polls. Bush picked him up.

After a little more than two years, Rogan resigned and went into private practice. He now is a California state court judge. He was succeeded by Dudas, who also came from Capitol Hill in 2002 to be the agency’s No. 2 appointee. Dudas had worked on intellectual property matters as a congressional staffer, but otherwise had no background in patent or trademark law.

In 2007, a San Francisco lawyer and patent activist, Gregory Aharonian, along with several others, sued for the removal of a political appointee in a high-level position at the PTO, saying she was not qualified under the provisions of the 1999 statute. The suit claimed Margaret Peterlin’s only qualification was that she’d served as a senior aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who resigned in late 2007 not long after her appointment.

Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case in December 2007, finding no congressional intent for a private cause of action. But in his opinion, Robertson wrote that even if he couldn’t order it, it would be good if Peterlin acknowledged her deficiencies and asked various PTO constituencies for help.

“Besides holding out the prospect of actually addressing the real problems besetting the office,” he wrote, “any such behavior from Ms. Peterlin would be a refreshing change from the hostility and adversarial stance taken in recent times by patent office management.”

The point was made. Peterlin resigned eight months later, in August 2008.

Once more, thank you, Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History.

Election Assistance Commission. Voting 235-187, the House Wednesday failed to garner a two-thirds majority needed to pass a bill (H.R. 672) abolishing the Election Assistance Commission. Congress established the commission in 2002 in response to vote-counting debacles in the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election. It is charged with helping states and localities adopt modern technology and other "best practices" for running elections.

A yes vote was to abolish the commission.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

I responded earlier to the stupidity of this vote here (second bullet).

Arctic-drilling environmental rules. Voting 253-166, the House Wednesday passed a bill (H.R. 2021) making it easier for energy companies to obtain permits for exploratory drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency to act within six months on applications for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. It removes the Environmental Appeals Board from the permitting process. The bill is aimed primarily at advancing a long-stalled Shell Oil Co. project in the Arctic.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, and Schwartz.

As noted here, “current response capabilities aren’t adequate to contain and clean up a major spill in the area,” aside from the fact that it would probably take 10 years to set up the wells and 20 years before they reached capacity, and all the while making pretty much no difference concerning the pump price (here).

Oil-industry subsidies. Voting 183-238, the House Wednesday defeated an amendment to H.R. 2021 (above) requiring that oil and gas companies seeking federal offshore-drilling permits publicly disclose in their applications detailed information on the taxpayer subsidies they receive.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, LoBiondo, Schwartz, and Smith.

Voting no: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Meehan, Pitts, and Runyan.

Just remember this vote the next time you hear a Repug complaining about how the Dems are the only ones who do sleazy backroom deals out of view of taxpayers (and kudos to LoBiondo and Smith for doing the right thing).

Senate

Executive branch czars. Voting 47-51, the Senate Thursday defeated an amendment to block funding of any "czar" positions that presidents establish to circumvent the advice and consent of the Senate. The amendment was proposed to a bill (S 679), still in debate, that would reduce by nearly 20 percent the number of presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).

Voting no: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Oh, and on the subject of Obama and “czars,” I give you this.

Economic-development dispute. Voting 49-51, the Senate Tuesday refused to take up a bill (S 782) to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration through 2015 at funding levels of up to $500 million a year. Established in 1965, the EDA provides grants and loans to boost economic development in distressed urban and rural areas.
A yes vote was to advance the bill.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

Voting no: Toomey.

I thought Chris Coons had some good stuff to say about this ridiculous development here (and Pat Toomey remains an utter joke with both of these awful votes to add to his notorious collection – I keep recalling how the Bucks County Courier Times supported him over Admiral Joe because the latter was supposedly long-winded, or something).

Panetta confirmation. Voting 100-0, the Senate Tuesday confirmed CIA Director Leon E. Panetta as the nation's 23d secretary of defense. Panetta served from California in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1993, was federal budget director from 1993 to 1995, and was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton from 1995 to 1997.

A yes vote was to confirm Panetta.

All Philadelphia-area senators voted yes.

And with that, the House decided to call it a day, while the Senate stayed in session.

Finally, some numbskull from The Hoover Institute is worried that this country is failing civics (here)…

The New York Times headline from May could not have been more compelling: "Failing grades on civics exam called a 'crisis.'" The accompanying story reported bleak news from the latest National Assessment of Student Progress (widely known as the "nation's report card"). Among our present crop of high school seniors, only one in four scored at least "proficient" in knowledge of U. S. citizenship. Of all the academic subjects tested, civics and the closely linked subject of history came in last: "a smaller proportion of fourth and eighth graders demonstrated proficiency in civics than in any other subject the federal government has tested since 2005, except history, American students' worst subject."

Duuuh!

What else do you expect when conservatives spend decades waging an ideological war against “liberal academia” and calling for budget cuts in favor of math and science (yes, the latter two fields are crucial, but a well-rounded background in the arts is important also).

This tells us about the budget trouble the “We The People” program in Bakersfield, CA faced (and if you’ll note, the program was supported by Dem U.S. House Rep Jim Costa, while Repug Rep Kevin McCarthy remained on the proverbial fence…no word if he eventually supported program funding or not). Also, this tells us how the Rhode Island legislature decided to terminate the only civics education specialist in the entire state.

Also, what else do you expect when our 40th president manufactures an entire career out of claiming that government is supposedly the problem instead of the solution (and I think this post goes a long way towards explaining this country’s natural antipathy to studying government also, an abominable ignorance that we cultivate at our peril).

And by the way, speaking of civics, government and history, I thought I’d offer the following excerpt from here as a timely reminder for the upcoming holiday…

John Adams, founding father and second president of the U.S., wrote many letters to his wife. He wrote about his work, politics, gossip, their farm, and much more. Adams even wrote directions for celebrating Independence Day. If you're looking for the best way to celebrate the Fourth this summer, follow John Adams' direction for an authentic Fourth of July.

Adams had strong feelings about Independence Day, as well he might. He and the others who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776 risked everything to do it; in the words of the Declaration, they pledged to each other "... our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." They became traitors, risking death itself, to create a new nation, governed by laws, not kings. And we all enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice today. Why not honor them by celebrating their way?

Here's what John Adams thought we ought to do on Independence Day: "...It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other..."

So line up the kids and get ready to party like a founding father. First, teach them that the 4th of July is Independence Day. Sometimes that fact gets lost in the shuffle. Tell them the story about the colonists, about their desire to be free of the king and their wild notion that everyone, not just one guy, had rights. Then follow John Adams' directions…

Sounds like we have our marching orders, people :-).