Friday Stuff

Concerning the recall effort in Wisconsin, click here to support the latest ad (and let's not forget about this either, by the way)...



...and tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Harry Chapin; there are a lot of people I miss from the past, including Jim Croce, Stevie Ray Vaughan and, of course, Dr. Winston O. Boogie, but Harry is definitely on that list too.

Friday Mashup (7/15/11)

Gee, David Brooks is a barrel of laughs today in the New York Times (here)…

Years ago, people hoped that science could delay the onset of morbidity. We would live longer, healthier lives and then die quickly. This is not happening. Most of us will still suffer from chronic diseases for years near the end of life, and then die slowly.

S. Jay Olshansky, one of the leading experts on aging, argues that life expectancy is now leveling off. “We have arrived at a moment,” Callahan and Nuland conclude, “where we are making little headway in defeating various kinds of diseases. Instead, our main achievements today consist of devising ways to marginally extend the lives of the very sick.”

Others disagree with this pessimistic view of medical progress. But that phrase, “marginally extend the lives of the very sick,” should ring in the ears. Many of our budget problems spring from our quest to do that.

But not to worry – BoBo is not about to call for anyone stuffing Granny in a meat locker when she expires or taking dear old Dad out with the trash at the onset of rigor mortis.

However, I think our intrepid Times columnist also needs to point out the following (here, concerning the recent discussion of raising the mandatory retirement age for Social Security)…

While it might be achievable for someone who works in an office to work all through their 60’s not every job or even trade is sitting at a computer. Many of the jobs that allow non-college graduates to earn a good living and raise a family are physically demanding. Working in a hot factory, climbing electrical poles, driving buses, cleaning hotel rooms are all jobs that someone in their 60’s are not going to be as able to do. Take a look around at the people you know in their mid or late 60’s. They may be in great health but that does not mean most of them can spend the day in physically demanding labor, day after day after day.

It’s hard for me to “get my head around” the inherent cynicism of a mentality that actually discourages advancement in medical science to improve one’s quality of life while saying nothing (at least, nothing I’ve found from Brooks) decrying other economic “drags” on our economy that are at least comparable, including at least two wars and Bushco’s stinking, forever ruinous tax cuts.

After doing a little bit of digging, though, I found that this is a familiar theme for BoBo, as noted here…

In a recent column in the New York Times, Brooks talks about “geezers.” Wow. Isn’t that pretty “anti-pc?” Brooks quotes Freud and Shakespeare to somehow indicate that the elderly gradually withdraw from active life. While this is true in many cases, it is less and less true, and there are many contrary examples, like George Bernard Shaw, who could keep up with Brooks at way-plus-80, or Isaac Bashevis Singer who wrote for the New Yorker or Konrad Adenauer who ran Germany when both were well into their 80s.

Mark Twain, Robert Frost and Pablo Picasso all did some of their best work in their later years. Cezanne worked his whole life only to find success in the paintings he did after sixty. So what’s the point, David?

Brooks likes to take studies, especially those done by scholars at respected universities and explain and interpret them. But somehow the topic inevitably comes around to politics with a conservative bent. He says for example, after discussing how aging works and how the brain continues to be capable of all kinds of things in later years, that: “…the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.”

Hmmm…Well, OK. But of course it would be less than that if the Republicans had their way. The SCHIPS program of health care subsidies for the children of poor working families and its renewal were voted down by almost every single Republican when they came to the House of Representatives. So, if the idea is to pit elderly against children, which side are the Neoconservative Republicans on?

I suppose that’s an eternal question that the Neocons, who are forever in pursuit of a “wedge issue” anywhere they can find one, will never answer.

Next, I give you the latest from Fix Noise (here)…

Congressional Republicans are rallying behind a long-shot bid for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. But they're divided over conservatives' efforts to demand its passage as their price for backing any increase in the government's borrowing limit.

In response, I give you the following (here)…

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) took a look at the ramifications of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment like the one Republicans propose. Here are some of the CBPP’s key findings:

- Veterans’ medical care, homeland security activities, border protection, the FBI, services for disadvantaged or abused children, services for frail elderly people, services for people with severe disabilities, would have to be cut by as much as 70% by 2021 relative to the already-reduced budget for 2011.

- Medicare cuts would have to be significantly deeper than under the Paul Ryan plan.

- Medicaid would have to be cut in half.

- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) would have to be cut in half.

- Supplemental Security Income would have to be cut in half.

- Pell Grants to help low-income students to afford college would have to be cut by as much as $86 billion over ten years.

- Farm programs would have to be cut by as much as $84 billion over 10 years.

And for proof of just how “out to lunch” today’s zany teabagger-run Repug party is on this issue, I give you this (as opposed to an actual issue like this – people keep electing clowns like DeMint, I tell myself).

And I suppose that’s an appropriate transition to last week’s Area Votes in Congress (here)…

House

2012 military budget. Voting 336-87, the House passed a $649 billion military appropriations bill for fiscal 2012, up $17 billion or 2.7 percent from 2011. The bill (HR 2219) sets a 1.6 percent military pay raise, provides $119 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, keeps the active-duty force around 1.4 million troops, and provides $32.3 billion for the military's TRICARE health program, up nearly 3 percent from 2011.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), John Carney (D., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Libya-mission funds cutoff. Voting 199-229, the House defeated an amendment to prohibit funding in HR 2219 (above) for U.S. participation in the NATO-led military action aimed at defeating the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and protecting Libyan rebels against his government.

A yes vote was to bar U.S. military spending in the Libyan theater.

Voting yes: Fitzpatrick, LoBiondo, Pitts, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, Meehan, Runyan, and Schwartz.

Gee, another vote where Mikey the Beloved can actually pretend to have a spine, knowing it would fail anyhow.

Contractors' political donations. Voting 256-170, the House prohibited spending in HR 2219 (above) for any requirement that corporations seeking federal contracts disclose their contributions to political candidates. President Obama has drafted, but not yet issued, an executive order requiring such disclosures in bids for federal work.

A yes vote was to block the planned executive order.

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

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

In response to this vote from our PA-08 rep (and by extension, everyone in his party as well as “Democrat” Tim Holden), I thought this was a good letter that appeared in the Doylestown Intelligencer.

Senate

Taxes on millionaires. The Senate voted, 74-22, to begin debate on a nonbinding measure (S 1323) stating the sense of the Senate that any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling and curb deficit spending includes "a meaningful contribution" in revenue from those earning at least $1 million annually.

A yes vote was to advance the advisory bill.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).

Leave it to “No Corporate Tax” Pat Toomey to never forget who his true constituents really are.

This week, the House debated energy and water appropriations and an extension of National Flood Insurance, while the Senate resumed work on a nonbinding measure calling for higher taxes on millionaires as part of any deficit-reduction agreement reached this summer.

Finally, it looks like The Bucks County Courier Times, for some inexplicable reason, is in search of another conservative columnist, apparently thinking they don’t have enough as it is (this appeared in the paper this morning)…

In what amounted to a complete non-surprise, Pennsylvania was just ranked near the economic bottom of the nation. Forty-third, to be exact.

Why the dismal showing for what was once the major industrial powerhouse, not just of the country, but the world?

More than anything else, crushing taxes and a hostile business climate.

I wonder if the author is aware that, among other things, of all of the states and commonwealths residing atop the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania is the only one that doesn’t charge a drillers’ tax? And that is in spite of the $1 billion in education funding cut from our budget by Gov. Tom “Space Cadet” Corbett. If that isn’t “business friendly,” I don’t know what is.

Besides, as noted here, PA ranked number 25 in a 2011 survey from The Tax Foundation, which measures the “business tax climates” of all 50 states. Not too bad, I would say.

And as noted here…

The state Department of Labor and Industry reports that manufacturing added 4,200 jobs in 2011 alone. The innovative products being developed in Pennsylvania today will someday be manufactured for mass use and consumption in the future. This means continued economic growth and new jobs for Pennsylvanians.

We are already seeing tremendous job growth from Marcellus Shale development. The state Department of Labor and Industry reports that approximately 72,000 jobs have been created due to the growth of the natural gas industry in the state.

Pennsylvania is poised to be a national economic leader. But to be truly successful, we need to improve our tax climate. The Corbett administration is committed to improving Pennsylvania's business climate and has included a number of tax reductions and tax credits in the proposed state budget to reduce the tax burden on job creators.

The phaseout of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax, which stalled the past few years, will finally resume and be completely eliminated by 2014. The administration's business-friendly interpretation of tax law regarding 100 percent bonus depreciation benefits and goal to reduce the corporate net income tax from 9.99 to 6.99 percent will send a strong message to the business community that Pennsylvania is serious about supporting job growth.

Please understand that I’m not necessarily saying I support these initiatives. I am merely pointing them out to refute the argument of Chris Friend, who, the Courier Times tells us, is an “independent” columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter (I’ll let you, dear reader, search out his site and read some of his content to find out how “independent” he is…in the way that Fix Noise is “fair and balanced,” as they say).

The theme of Friend’s piece is how bad PA is supposed to be as opposed to how great Texas is supposed to be, including the following…

When in Texas, there is an unbridled sense of pride, a feeling that the American pioneering spirit is thriving, and that nothing is unattainable.

Well then, if Friend thinks the land of the “yellow rose” is supposedly so wonderful and PA is so awful, then I have this bit of advice.

Move there, and stay there (and don’t file a medical disability claim or expect your premiums to decrease - here).

Thursday Stuff

No, Dana, the Iraq "WMD" was never found. No, Dana, the "smoking gun" didn't turn into a mushroom cloud. No, Dana, what Colin Powell held up at the U.N. that day in his very best "Ooga Booga Invade Iraq Cuz Saddam Is A Mean, Rotten Guy" impersonation was a vial of baking soda, not actual anthrax.

Yes, Dana, you are a goddamn bubblehead (here)...



...and just in case you thought I would let Eric Bolling off the hook...



...and Rachel Maddow quite properly skewers those teabaggers one more time, to say nothing of the "usual suspect" pundit class (here)...



...and "I remember when it used to be easy, I remember when it wasn't so hard" too.

Wednesday Stuff

Keith Olbermann has his own special remembrances of Rupert The Pirate in the wake of the phone hacking scandal - here is the first...



...and here is the second (Current has done a good job, but as you can see from the "face freeze," they still have a bug or two to work on)...



...and here's more on what initiated Arizona's "illegal to be brown" law, as well as copycat laws around the country (here and here also...and you just knew that the Koch Brothers were involved, didn't you?)...



...and this is a bit of a dark, psychological folky tune I guess.

Wednesday Mashup (7/13/11)

(Not sure about posting tomorrow, by the way…)

To this I have only to say – uh, yep…

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to keep energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, which passed in 2007 and are set to phase in beginning next year.

So, do you have to stockpile those old-school, soft white incandescent bulbs now?

No. Congress hasn't banned them. All it has said is that, starting in 2012, light bulbs must use less power to create the same amount of light, saving the country electricity and Americans cash. Light bulb makers already have familiar-looking soft white incandescent bulbs for sale that meet the federal regulations, so you don't have to use extremely efficient compact fluorescent or LED bulbs if you don't want to. Continuing innovation, meanwhile, promises to make tougher rules easier to meet in later years.

The Natural Resources Defense Council calculates that these light bulb efficiency standards will eventually save Americans $12.5 billion a year in lower energy bills, reducing consumption by the equivalent of the output of 33 large power plants and slashing greenhouse and other pollution along the way. Newer bulbs are more expensive than the old clunkers, but often not by much, and they more than pay for themselves in decreased energy use.

And who exactly was trying to defeat the new light bulb energy standard, you may ask? None other than Repug U.S. House Rep “Smoky Joe” Barton of Texas, and (as noted here)…

…the proposal…reflects the catcalls of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann (that) is likely to land in the same dustbin now home to many other GOP energy proposals.

Also, when it comes to light bulbs, here is a quote from David Edison Sloane, grandson of you-know-who…

My great-grandfather would be calling us to put politics aside and get back to doing what Americans do best — create better mousetraps… and better light-bulbs.

To say nothing of job creation also (remember jobs, House Repugs?).

Update 7/15/11: Typically cowardly and stoo-pid (here)...

And I suppose it’s a logical progression to move from “dim bulbs” to Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Daily News; he concocted the following today in a profile of actor Richard Dreyfuss, who apparently is now a conservative or something (though Dreyfuss is trying to promote civics education, which is commendable)…

There's no denying Dreyfuss' devotion to civics, a small word with a big meaning that he defined as understanding "how to run the country." He passionately proclaims his unabashed love of country - this country. The Far Left usually brays that even wearing a flag lapel pin is goose-stepping jingoism.

Really?

And when it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans in the matter of civics, I recently posted about this topic here (last bullet), but in addition, here is a story of federal funding cuts endangering civics instruction in Indiana, here is a similar story about Wyoming, and here is a similar story about cuts to AmeriCorps funding in California (and gee, last I checked, Orange Man and his pals were in charge of the House, not the Dems).

Oh, and for laughs, here once more is “Byko” and his comparison to a certain falafel-abusing Fix Noise pundit and K.O. (and by the way, “Byko,” I’m still waiting for an apology for this).

Continuing, James Taranto of the Murdoch Street Journal waxes indignant as follows (here)…

President Obama is pulling out the big guns and pointing them straight at your grandmother. "Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3" absent an agreement with Congress to raise the debt ceiling, CBS News reports:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

At a press conference yesterday, Obama demanded that Republicans not only authorize trillions of dollars in new borrowing, which at this point seems unavoidable, but agree to what he called "massive, job-killing tax increases" effective in 2013--i.e., after what he expects will be his re-election.

For this he drew plaudits from what used to be called the mainstream media. "Obama Grasping Centrist Banner in Debt Impasse" read the New York Times headline. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza dubbed him "Dad-in-Chief," explaining: "Boil Obama's message down and you get this: Adults sometimes have to do things that they don't want to do. This is one of those times. So, let's get it done."

The kids are acting up, so he threatens to starve Granny to death. That's just how a strong father behaves.

Taranto imagines an Obama threat against an elderly family member – here is an actual one from “the loyal opposition”…

Finally, someone named Michael Goodwin kept up the Obama bashing here…

…Obama's default statist position remains unmolested by facts or last year's landslide that was a rebuke to his first two years. He continues to push bigger and bigger government, higher and higher taxes and more and more welfare programs.

I’ve already mentioned many, many times that, with the “stim,” Obama gave us the biggest middle class tax cut in history, but as for the “welfare” part, this tells us that welfare costs (as part of 2010 mandatory spending including unemployment) were $571 billion, with government spending in 2011 at not quite $500 billion here, including unemployment…so welfare actually went down under Obama.

As noted here, though, Goodwin has never been one to let the truth get in the way of propagating his talking points (and speaking of Media Matters, they have been under relentless fire from Rupert The Pirate and his minions, no doubt for helping to expose News Corp’s dark deeds when it comes to hacking phone conversations…a sample is shown in the clip from here).

Tuesday Stuff

I apologize for wasting more people's time over Sarah Palin, but I think Lawrence O'Donnell has every right for some good old fashioned indignation here; I honestly thought Tina Brown would do a better job than this with this publication...

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

...and I guess this is keeping up with a bit of a folky vein I started last night - sounds good to me.

Tuesday Mashup (7/12/11)

Gee, I can hardly wait for the outrage from the racist-sign-and-funny-hat crowd when they hear about this…

Washington (CNN) -- Partisan warfare over the looming debt ceiling crisis escalated Tuesday as GOP leaders once again refused to consider any tax hikes and President Barack Obama warned that, absent a deal, he can't guarantee older Americans will continue receiving Social Security checks next month.

"There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said, according to excerpts of a CBS News interview scheduled to air Tuesday night.

"We can't guarantee -- if there were a default -- any specific bill would be paid," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Even Tom Donahue, president of the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce said the following (here)…

The business community is also upping the pressure on lawmakers, warning that a failure to increase the nation's borrowing limit could have an immediate impact on the economy recovery.

"An unprecedented default on the nation's bills would have dire consequences for our economy, our markets, and Main Street Americans," said (Donohue).

And let’s not forget that this is the same Tom Donahue who said “we’ll get rid of you” to Repugs opposing an increase in the debt limit (here).

The predictable teabagger response followed (here)…

I found Tom Donahue’s comments outrageous, tone-deaf, totally establishment, and doesn’t understand at all where we’re at right now (sic)…If Tom Donahue is more comfortable having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker next year because he wants to get rid of all of us tea party, fiscally-conservative freshman who came here on a mission to save our kids from the debt we’re placing on their backs, then fine. He can have Nancy Pelosi as his Speaker.

The person who uttered those words was Repug U.S. House rep (and freshman) Joe "Welcome To The Club" Walsh of Illinois.

As Think Progress reminds us here, failing to raise the debt ceiling could have a bigger impact than the 2008 downturn that started our current misery…

To see just how much, imagine that this debt limit crisis happened last year. The budget deficit last August and September was $125 billion. If the government had been unable to finance that deficit, it would have been forced to cut $125 billion from its spending during those two months—which if translated into a decline of that magnitude in economic activity would have resulted in GDP dropping by 2.3 percent, in nominal terms, from the previous quarter.

To put that kind of drop in perspective, consider that the biggest quarter-to-quarter drop in nominal GDP since 1947, when official statistics began, was 2 percent from the third to fourth quarter of 2008—the middle of the Great Recession, when we lost nearly 2 million jobs.

And just as a reminder, here is a record of Republican votes on raising the debt ceiling when their party held the White House versus Democratic Party control (and this chart shows us that most of the debt is due to the wars and Dubya’s ruinous tax cuts…still astonishes and sickens me that our corporate media has so thoroughly seemed to “disappear” Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History on this and other matters).

Oh, and when it comes to our local politicians, this tells us that both Charlie Dent and Mikey The Beloved voted No to raising the debt limit (remember that when you don’t get your Social Security Checks on time, you zany teabaggers).

Also voting against raising the debt limit (as Think Progress tells us here) was Pat Toomey himself; as noted here, the Chamber spent $1.5 million against Admiral Joe Sestak, who ran against Toomey, in 2010…wonder if anyone will remember Toomey’s vote against Donahue and the Chamber in 2016 when “No Corporate Tax” Pat runs for re-election? Do I even need to ask (sigh)?

Finally on this subject (as noted here), “Orange Man” Boehner said, “excuse us for trying to lead” on this issue with Paul Ryan’s plan to eliminate Medicare and gut Medicaid (kind of hard to “lead” on this issue given that Obama had submitted his own budget weeks before Ryan did, as Steve Benen points out here).

(By the way, Yahoo messed with the link above and changed it to some story about McConnell saying Obama should have new powers on the debt limit, or something. Short of passing a declaration of war, since when does Congress tell a president what he can and cannot do? I hope Obama and his people tell McConnell where he can stick his “deal.”)

Update 7/13/11: Good job, Mr. President (here - happy to compliment you instead of snark over this issue).

Next, former Bushco flak Marc Thiessen reminds us how much he has utterly forgotten that this country abides by the rule of law, assuming he ever knew that to begin with (here)…

In an interview for my Washington Post column this week, I asked Tim Pawlenty about the recent testimony of Admiral William McRaven that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling suspected terrorist leaders if they are caught alive—and that if captured terrorists cannot be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country, they are simply let go.

“I think that is preposterous,” Pawlenty told me, adding that he will end such a catch and release policy if he is elected president. Pawlenty also said he would keep Guantanamo open, and start bringing terrorists there, as well as other facilities, for interrogation again. He would restore enhanced interrogation “under certain and controlled and limited circumstances.”

Why Thiessen would think that Pawlenty of Nothing is an expert on anything except running a failed presidential campaign…oh, silly me – I just realized that the game here is for Thiessen to find some poor sap whose hopes for higher office are fading out of sight and use that individual to validate his right wing talking points, while the designated sap, meanwhile, can claim some kind of thoroughly undeserved foreign policy “cred” and risk no shot of getting called out in the process. Your basic win-win, I guess.

Well, to begin with the argument about bringing terrorists to “other facilities,” this tells us that...

The Obama administration approved the secret detention of a Somali terror suspect on board a US navy ship, where for two months he was subjected to military interrogation in the absence of a lawyer and without charge.

The capture and treatment of Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame has rekindled the debate within the US about the appropriate handling of terror suspects. Republicans in Congress have objected to Warsame being brought to New York this week to be tried in a criminal court – an attempt by the Obama administration to avoid sending the prisoner to Guantánamo Bay, which it has promised to close.

…

Last week Admiral William McRaven, soon to become head of US Special Operations Command, told his confirmation hearing that militants captured outside Afghanistan were often “put on a naval vessel” to be held until they could be sent to a third country or a case was compiled against them for prosecution in the US courts.

Gosh, didn’t Thiessen just tell us that Admiral McRaven testified that Obama “has no clear plan for handling suspected terrorists”? Sounds like Number 44 and company have a “plan” of sorts that they’ve been executing already.

That said, I should also point out that I’m not sure how legal it is to keep these individuals on a ship for two months prior to charging them (and how exactly is this supposed to be an improvement over keeping them at a Bushco “black site”?). The standard I always use is how much we would object if foreign individuals subjected our people to the same treatment.

Besides, as noted here from 2008…

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that (Mohammed) Akhtiar was one of dozens and perhaps hundreds of men whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments. . . .

From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there. . . .

I’ve often wondered how Thiessen would hold up under the methods of interrogation he so easily advocates for others. My guess is that he would be bawling his eyes out in a matter of seconds.

Finally, I missed this little item from Joke Line last Thursday; did you know that Head Start is a failure? Well…

…Head Start did work well in several pilot programs carefully run by professionals in the 1960s. And so it was "taken to scale," as the wonks say, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.

It is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.

According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't."

Call me a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger, but I thought the point of Head Start wasn’t to turn school-age kids trying to emerge from poverty into little Einsteins. It was to help them to achieve parity with their peers, and from that point, whether or not they failed or succeeded in school was up to them (and in the event of the former, why should Head Start necessarily be held accountable each time as the reason why?).

Besides, this tells us about the success of the Head Start program in Harlem, this provides a list of “Better Chance For School Success” programs courtesy of Arkansas Head Start, this tells us of Head Start success stories in greater Dallas, and this tells us how the local Head Start program of Georgia is “maintaining success.”

Klein ends his column with this…

"The argument that Head Start opponents make is that it is a jobs program," a senior Obama Administration official told me, "and sadly, there is something to that."

This is criminal, every bit as outrageous as tax breaks for oil companies — perhaps even more outrageous, since we are talking about the lives of children.

First of all, this “senior Obama Administration official” ought to have the guts to go on record with such a cowardly cave-in to a right-wing talking point (who cares if it’s a “jobs program” – as if that’s something to be ashamed of somehow – as long as the kids benefit from it?). Second, I see no way whatsoever to equate $7 billion in Head Start funding with $21 billion in tax breaks for oil companies.

This is typical of a soulless corporate media Beltway shill like Klein, though, who apparently only practices the actual craft of journalism during fleeting lucid moments (with items such as this sadly more representative of his type of “reporting”).

Monday Stuff

(Not so good of a posting day again today - I'll try again tomorrow.)

Gee, that Van Jones is a pretty bright guy. Why exactly did "President Hopey Changey" give him the boot again? Oh, some wingnuts got mad over some 9/11 "truther" stuff, or something - riiiight...

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

...and RIP Facundo Cabral, a true champion of human rights in Latin America who was murdered for his beliefs; I don't know what he's saying in this tune, but it is a work of true beauty.

Saturday Stuff

You can run but you can't hide forever from yesterday's truly stinky jobs report, Orange Man (here)...



...and here's some timely music for and from the DFHs, even if they did chop off the ending.

Friday Stuff

Yours truly was busy with non-blogging stuff today, hence no posts. However, this is the link to last week's Area Votes in Congress (Senate only - really not much to comment about).

Also, Mikey The Beloved's stenography service provided a link to his let-me-hide-so-I-don't-have-to-face-any-cameras-or-actual-constituents "town hall" here. It can be summarized as follows...

Austerity, bitches! Taxes are evil, government get its house in order, Obamacare bad, uncertainty, blah blah blah…

You get the idea.

...and now turning to the videos, I think I'll just cheat by grabbing a few from Crooks and Liars, including this one in which Ezra Klein had a good idea...



...and kudos to Ed Schultz for giving it to "Saint Orrin" (here)...



...and at least Moon Unit Bachmann is honest enough to say what her fellow Repugs are thinking (here - and by the way, she got her "law degree" from the O. W. Coburn School at Oral Roberts U, which became Regent University, where 60 percent of the Bushco DOJ flunkies came from)...



...and here's a jaunty little number to commemorate this story.

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 :-).