This commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Alfred Hitchcock film "Psycho," which I suppose was a fitting prologue for the upheaval we would witness in that decade; this of course is the most memorable scene (Janet Leigh would receive strange phone calls, letters and even tapes from people telling her what they would do to Marion Crane, Leigh's character in the film, until her death in 2004 - she turned over one letter to the FBI, but I don't know if she ever filed charges...also, will anyone ever be ale to explain to me Gus Van Sant's remake?)...
...oh, and once more, a big Happy Birthday wish goes out to Snarlin' Arlen (message to PA Dems - this guy stands a better shot against wingnut Pat Toomey; we'd better "get in the game" on this one, people)...
...and of course, even though Marc Thiessen is a liar and an idiot, that still guarantees him a job at Kaplan Test Prep Daily, as noted here (h/t Atrios...and nice job by Joe Scar on that "liberal" MSNBC network to hoot down Lawrence O'Donnell even though O'Donnell was exactly right)...
As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (and I also posted here).
House
National debt limit. Members voted, 217-212, to raise the U.S. debt limit by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion. The measure was then joined to a "pay as you go" bill (below) and sent to President Obama.
A yes vote was to raise the federal debt limit.
Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Joe Sestak (D., Pa.).
Voting no: John Adler (D., N.J.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
This vote by Patrick Murphy earned the praise of the Bucks County Courier Times this morning (here), a paper whose readership is composed largely of retired or nearly-retired Republican individuals who don’t want to spend dime one on anything they see as some dastardly liberal plot. And in the same column praising Patrick, they also found a way to compliment Mikey Fitzpatrick, of course, as if he were the very model of financial prudence.
But it’s a funny thing – I happened to come across this post which mentioned some of the appropriations Fitzpatrick managed to bring home to PA-08 while he served in Congress. And I would really appreciate it if Fitzpatrick made it clear to us how many of these were achieved through the earmarks the Courier Times so despises…
• $1.25 million for a state-of-the-art fire training center in Lower Bucks County
• $250,000 grant for the Bristol Borough Police Department which will upgrade the department’s crime fighting technology infrastructure
• $425,000 for the Bristol Weed and Seed Program and Neighborhood One Project
• $450,000 to expand the capacity of Street Road by creating additional thru lanes and turning lanes
• $3.5 million to install bus shelters and transit signage, expand parking lots and improve bus access station improvements at Croydon and Levittown Stations In Bucks County
• $3 million for the Neshaminy Creek Flood Mitigation Program in Bucks County
• $50,000 to restore the historic Andalusia property
• $40,000 to restore the historic Delaware Canal
• $2.4 million for transportation enhancements along the Delaware Canal between Yardley and Bristol
• $5.9 million for US Route 13 corridor reconstruction, redevelopment and beautification
• $250,000 grant for Bucks County to distribute to police departments to upgrade the departments crime fighting technology infrastructure
• $1.6 million for Route 313 turning lanes, truck climbing lanes in Doylestown, Plumstead and Hilltown Township
• $750,000 for the September 11 th Garden of Reflection Memorial
• $3.3 million for the Swamp Road Improvement Project
• $300,000 for the Quakertown Rail Investment Study
• $10 million for the Pennsylvania Turnpike- I-95 Interchange Project in Bucks County
• $50,000 to restore the historic Honey Hollow property
• $220,000 for a virtual business incubator at Delaware Valley College
• $750,000 for an array of construction, infrastructure improvement and tourism projects along the 160 mile Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Trail
• $2 million for a two-lane extension of Bristol Road from US 202 to Park Avenue, Chalfont and New Britain
Sooo…if Fitzpatrick manages to bring home $300 grand for a Quakertown, PA rail study, for example, that’s providing good constituent service. However, if Patrick Murphy provides $100,000 for the Edgely Fire Department, then that’s engaging in wasteful spending…???
"Pay as you go." Members passed, 233-187, a rule under which tax cuts or entitlement spending hikes must be offset. If they are not offset, 60 Senate votes and a House majority would be needed to approve them.
Voting no: Castle, Dent, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Pitts, and Smith.
As noted here, the House merely followed their Senate peers on this one, voting for it before they voted against it, if you will.
Cybersecurity programs. Members authorized, 422-5, $396 million in National Science Foundation grants to boost cybersecurity research and instruction at universities.
And Joe Pitts voted yes for cyber security? Sweet Mother of Abraham Lincoln! Nancy Pelosi must have slipped him a “mickey” or something :-).
Senate
Patricia Smith confirmation. Senators voted, 60-37, to confirm New York Labor Commissioner M. Patricia Smith as the Department of Labor solicitor. This followed the GOP's nine-month delay of her nomination.
A yes vote was to confirm Smith.
Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Ted Kaufman (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), and Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).
Martha Johnson confirmation. Senators voted, 82-16, to end a GOP filibuster against the nomination of Martha N. Johnson to head the General Services Administration. She was then confirmed, 96-0, eight months after she was nominated.
A yes vote was to advance the nomination.
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez and Specter.
Oh, and before I forget, here's wishing Snarlin' Arlen a happy 80th (here).
This week, the House debated the 2010 intelligence budget and whether to end the health-insurance industry's antitrust exemption. The Senate took up a jobs bill.
Kudos to Sen. Al Franken for standing up against the proposed NBC/Comcast merger (sorry the audio is a little weak - to learn more, click here)...
...and I would call this a pretty thorough catalogue of GOP obstruction, particularly on the stimulus (or, as Rachel Maddow says at the end, grow up, Democrats)...
(I put up a video over here - the weather has definitely reduced my blogging capability today.)
This goes out to the Op-Ed page of the Bucks County Courier Times, which just loves Mikey Fitzpatrick a whole bunch (and yep, a term-limit pledge is another maneuver from a career politician)...
...and yeah, all you climate change deniers, after we've just lived through the warmest ten years on record, just continue to pretend that there's no problem; just look outside your window in these parts and sing "Don't Worry, Be Happy" - you fools...
...but worst of all is this from our "hopey, changey" chief executive...
...and in response, I give you Paul Krugman, who said the following today...
...first, baseball players didn’t trigger a global economic collapse, and second, the baseball industry isn’t the beneficiary of a massive and continuing taxpayer bailout (continuing because banks would be in deep trouble even now if it weren’t for the belief that they have a government backstop).
Yes, he said some things about making compensation better tied to results — but it was framed purely in terms of stockholder interests, with no mention, again, of the damage bankers have done and the public support they still require.
It astonishes me (though I guess it really shouldn't) that this White House thinks it can throw a few populist, rhetorical bones out there to satisfy the Democratic Party base, but then come back a little later when it thinks people aren't paying attention and say this stuff.
And while I don't encourage "sitting on hands," no one in this White House should be a bit surprised if that happens this November and beyond (bye bye cap and trade, jobs bill, energy, and don't get me started on health care again - almost too pathetic for words)...
...and I don't know about you, but I'm sick of looking at snow - here's about 30 seconds of a sunset from Aquinnah beach in Martha's Vineyard as a "tonic" of sorts...sigh.
Hey teabaggers! You want something to protest for real? Check out the story of Kyler Van Nocker, told to us by K.O. from today's Philadelphia Daily News (here)...
...and oh yeah, it looks like the Brits have the guts to at least investigate the crimes of Dubya and Deadeye Dick on Iraq, as opposed to we utterly cowed, corporate-media-spoon-fed Americans (and making this even more preposterous - what asshats)...
..."Worst Persons" (Repug U.S. House Rep Marsha Blackburn returns to suggest privatizing Social Security...uh, and tell me one more time how long it took the Dow to climb back up to 10,000; the family of Sen. Jim Inhofe demonstrates that climate crisis denial runs in the family - utter fools; but David Steiner of the New York State Department of Education gets the "Worst" citation for refusing to accept the makeup test scores of a student who missed the regularly scheduled Regents exam...Steiner didn't think her excuse was acceptable - it turns out, though, that the student was in a seven-hour meeting the day of the exam at the Central Homeless Family Intake Center trying to keep her family from losing their home...just the kind of diligent, committed individual we should kick right in the shins while we lecture them about making bad life choices, right? What country am I living in again?)...
On this day in 1950, as noted here, the junior senator from Wisconsin, as he was once referred to by Edward R. Murrow, gave a speech in which he alleged that more than 200 employees of the U.S. State Department were members of the Communist Party.
And that was how Joseph R. McCarthy began to build his shameful legacy.
I guess the first thing you think of concerning McCarthy are the lives and careers he ruined through his inquisition that capitalized on the rampant anti-Communism of the time, but when you read about how he fought with congressional Democrats and the incumbent Democratic president Harry Truman, something else that becomes apparent is the fact that McCarthy created the Republican template through which all future Democrats would be bullied with virtual impunity ever since.
This link from PBS and playwright Arthur Miller tells us of some of the most noteworthy figures from that era who were victimized to one degree or another by McCarthy (Miller notes that the furor had died down by about 1954). Also, McCarthy enjoyed a friendship for a time with the Kennedy family, partly by virtue of the fact that both McCarthy and the Kennedys were Roman Catholic (expressions of loyalty to McCarthy were communicated by both Bobby and JFK as noted here, to the point where the future president would be scolded by Eleanor Roosevelt at the 1956 Democratic Convention). Eventually, though, “Tail Gunner Joe” grew too toxic even for the “Camelot” crew.
Someone else who benefited from McCarthy was Roy Cohn, whose career also was launched by the Wisconsin senator. As noted here, Cohn would end up with blood on his hands concerning the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and for a time, one of lawyer Cohn’s clients was the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, among many others (Cohn would also end up as an adviser to both Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan).
One of McCarthy’s staunchest defenders, by the way, was the conservative columnist Westbrook Pegler, who once expressed regret that an assassination attempt against President Franklin Roosevelt didn’t succeed and who also wished for RFK to be killed in 1965 (Pegler would get his wish three years later, of course). And for anyone who doesn’t think that “past is prologue,” consider how Pegler was quoted by Sarah Palin in her acceptance speech of the vice-presidential Repug nomination in 2008 (here), in particular that stuff about “(growing) good people in our small towns ... I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America" (implying, of course, that "good" people could grow only in "small-town America"...and how apropos for Palin to peddle that mess in the land of Pancake Joe Pitts).
Another McCarthyite echo from the past was provided here by Moon Unit Bachmann, who wanted liberals “investigated.” I would argue that one of the most notorious McCarthyite smears, though, was provided by Bushco Secretary of Defense Don (“The Defense Secretary You Have, Not The One You Wish You Had”) Rumsfeld here, when he equated critics of the Iraq War with appeasers of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany before World War II in April 2006.
So just remember, the next time you hear of a loudmouth political demagogue trying to lay waste to his or her enemies through the most groundless, inflammatory language possible, this person is carrying on the foul tradition of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.
And the cause of informed discourse dies another inch at a time (addressed by actor David Straithairn as Edward R. Murrow in “Good Night, And Good Luck”).
RIP John Murtha - I tried to embed all 31:52 of his November 2005 press conference from the MSNBC link, but it didn't work; watch all of it to be reminded of what politicians who actually are accountable to us sound like (it takes a few seconds to buffer after the ad, but it's worth the wait)...
...and I just felt like embedding this for no particular reason, so here it is.
I guess N. Gregory Mankiw was unavailable for the Sunday New York Times this weekend to condescend once more to those of us struggling to hang onto our jobs and our health care, so Tyler Cowen put on the “right-wing wanker” hat to hold court in the Business section (of course).
When it comes to the big issues, voters at the midpoint usually get the policies, if not always the exact outcomes, they want. In the federal budget, the largest line items include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and military spending — all very popular programs. The interest on the national debt is mounting because we don’t like paying higher taxes now for all those benefits, so our government borrows to postpone the pain.
That is indeed what has been happening, of course, but TPM found an item here that I thought was noteworthy…
A new Rasmussen poll supplies a very interesting data point in the ongoing debate about the budget deficit: As it turns out, Republican voters would prefer having a deficit if it meant they can get more tax cuts, instead of raising taxes in order to balance the budget.
The national poll of likely voters asked: "Would you rather see a balanced budget with higher taxes or a budget deficit with tax cuts?" A 41% plurality would rather have budget deficit with tax cuts, with 36% calling for higher taxes and a balanced budget. The internals of the poll show Republicans favoring deficits and tax cuts.
"The partisan differences on the questions are notable," says the pollster's analysis. "While 50% of Republicans would rather see a budget deficit with tax cuts, a plurality (46%) of Democrats favor the opposite approach - a balanced budget with higher taxes. Voters not affiliated with either party are evenly divided on the question."
So basically, Republicans want to continue having their cake and eating it too, Democrats want to “pay the piper” and be done with it, and those glorious independent voters are still watching the Super Bowl ads, I guess.
Continuing with Cowen…
Correctly or not, most Americans have failed to embrace the Democratic health care plans. And ever since the Republicans won the special Senate election in Massachusetts, even the Democrats in Congress have stalled on the legislation. It now appears that much of the initial support was thin.
Wrong – support has been strong for health care reform all along (particularly the public option, as noted here), but it has only dissipated as this country has watched the opportunity for landmark change for the better squandered by corporatist greed head Republicans and utterly spineless Democrats.
But wait – it gets better…
Many people are increasingly worried about deficits. That may have led Mr. Obama to announce a freeze on nonmilitary discretionary spending, and yet this freeze refuses to target major, popular budget items like Social Security. The public seems to want the self-image of being tough on spending without giving up the goodies. President Obama may well know better, but he is doing his best to oblige, if only to prevent a Republican landslide this November.
Short of the right-wing propagandistic wet dreams of the Bucks County Courier Times Op-Ed page, where all manner of charges without attribution against Democrats reign supreme, I don’t see anyone claiming “a Republican landslide” in November (assuming you can believe RNC chair Michael Steele, who, as noted here, has had difficulty making up his mind on the subject).
And as noted here, the Republican Party nationally polls lower than the Democrats or President Obama. The problem, though, is that, on the sample congressional ballot, the Republicans and Democrats are statistically tied.
(Also, it should be noted that Cowen tells us that the Supremes ruled in the Citizens United fiasco that corporate campaign contributions cannot be banned. That is incorrect – the issue was limiting contributions, not banning them.)
I do agree with Cowen on one point, though; he tells us that most people aren’t very well informed about politics and can be downright irrational or stubborn. And badly written editorial commentary that really doesn’t even belong in the business section of a newspaper will not help that one bit.
Good for John Podesta and his "push back" here (more like this - a lot more; so I guess Jake Tapper is going to be the new moderator of ABC's Sunday morning gab fest...mmmmm, o-kaaay)...
...and here's some music to listen to while we contemplate the rudeness of people who take the parking spots cleared of snow for community residents, with those space-stealers being visitors only showing up for Super Bowl parties (OK, rant mode off...and by the way, I don't have a clue about the "Doralee" - ? - and Omaha stuff in the video).
Oh gosh, I'm just a great big silly - I forgot all about those teabaggin' wingnuts holding their "White People Pity Party" in Nashville this weekend and earning all of this free press from our cousins in the corporate media, notwithstanding Rachel Maddow here (their convention having brought us this moment of "journamalism" from The Old Gray Lady - h/t Atrios)...
Update 1 2/7/10: A spot-on comment from Atrios here (I don't seem to recall that Netroots Nation got any coverage at all, or a fraction if it got anything).
Update 2 2/7/10: Gee, I'll bet Palin would probably try this trick for the State of the Union, though God help us if she ever receives that opportunity.
I got into some of this over here already, but it's so outrageous that it's worth another mention (and if you're so inclined, click here for Shelby, click here for Kyl, and click here for Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao)...
Update 2/7/10: I meant to include the Senator from "Puffy Chao" in action earlier here - even more ridiculous that Shelby couldn't "man up" and take responsibility here.
Update 2/8/10: Funny, but since this involves Shelby holding up Obama appointees over at least one earmark, you'd think "Straight Talk" McCain would be harrumphing his ass off. However, you would be wrong.
Update 2/9/10: Progress, but no resolution yet (here)...
...and this song includes that four-letter word that begins with "S," just so you know - had my fill of shoveling it for a little while today.
But look on the bright side - pitchers and catchers report to Phillies spring training in 11 days (waa-hoo!).
As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (and I also posted a video here).
House
Small-business financing. Voting 410-4, the House passed a bill (HR 4508) to extend several Small Business Administration loan and grant programs while awaiting Senate action on a House-passed bill to upgrade and reauthorize those programs.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
I was curious to find out who actually opposed this legislation, and as noted here, those voting No were all Repugs: Paul Broun, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, and Ron Paul.
Senate
Bernanke confirmation. Voting 70-30, the Senate confirmed Ben S. Bernanke, 56, for a second four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve System board of governors. Bernanke's first term was to expire (on the 31st). Bernanke has 10 years remaining in his 14-year term as a Fed board member.
A yes vote was to confirm Bernanke.
Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).
I doubt that Snarlin’ Arlen would have cast this vote were it not for Admiral Joe’s primary challenge, especially when it looked like confirmation was assured anyway. And Kaufman knows he’s a lame duck, so he won’t pay a price for this one way or the other.
Did I support Bernanke’s confirmation? I really sat on the fence on this until I read a Paul Krugman column that pointed out Bernanke’s culpability for our current mess, though it also pointed out that he could be the least worst option out there.
The question to me is how far do you want to go here. Do you want to bring in the right person (such as Joseph Stiglitz) and watch the markets react by returning the Dow to 6,000? We know that the game is rigged against us, and you’d better damn believe the Dems know that too.
Sorry that that’s not particularly profound or courageous really, but I don’t know what else to say.
National debt limit. Voting 60-39, the Senate sent the House a bill raising the national debt limit by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion. The bill (HJ Res 45) would extend Treasury borrowing authority until late 2010 or early 2011, at which time Congress would vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling.
A yes vote was to raise the federal debt limit.
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.
This was a no-brainer (and a trick replicated by the congressional Repugs during their ruinous years in charge earlier in this decade too, let’s not forget).
"Pay as you go." In a party-line vote of 60-40, the Senate reached the supermajority it needed to add a pay-as-you-go budget rule to HJ Res 45 (above). Because the House already has approved pay-go, this vote cleared the way for it to become law. Under pay-go, tax cuts or entitlement spending hikes must be offset elsewhere in the federal budget. If not offset, they need supermajorities for approval. Pay-go was a staple of congressional budgeting throughout the 1990s but was dropped to facilitate Bush administration tax cuts, among other reasons. Republicans usually oppose pay-go as a deterrent to tax cuts.
A yes vote was to enact pay-go.
Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.
Another no-brainer (and kudos to the Inky for providing the bolded context; the party-line opposition to this is proof that the Repugs learned nothing from their years of malfeasance as noted above, spending like proverbial drunken sailors).
Spending caps. Voting 56-44, the Senate failed to get 60 votes for putting spending caps on the 40 percent of the federal budget that is discretionary spending. Under the amendment to HJ Res 45 (above), two-thirds majority votes would be needed in the Senate to waive the caps in order to meet national emergencies. The caps would be based on fiscal 2010 spending levels and expire after five years.
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
Voting yes: Carper
Voting no: Casey, Kaufman, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Specter.
Leave it to Carper to vote for an amendment sponsored by a Repug (Jeff Sessions of Alabama – again, for the moment, it’s not about the deficit, it’s about jobs!!!)
Deficit commission. Voting 53-46, the Senate failed to get 60 votes needed to establish an 18-member commission that would develop a deficit-reduction plan for an up-or-down vote in Congress with amendments barred. The president would have veto power over the legislation, which presumably would be a mix of tax increases and mandatory and discretionary spending cuts. This vote occurred during debate on HJ Res 45 (above).
A yes vote was to establish the commission.
Voting yes: Carper, Kaufman, and Menendez.
Voting no: Casey, Lautenberg, and Specter.
As noted here, 23 Republicans voted against this hairbrained idea, which is good news for us all (and kudos to Casey, Lautenberg and Specter). And here is today’s New York Times column by Paul Krugman to explain why (I’ve basically said the same stuff all along, but Krugman can explain it more expertly than I ever could).
This week, the House took up bills on raising the national debt limit and authorizing federal grants for university cybersecurity instruction. The Senate schedule was to be announced.
(Note: I'm having a weird Blogger/browser issue during the day, which is why these posts are late.)
I believe this year’s Oscars are about a month away, but that hasn’t stopped Fix Noise from vying for its own coveted nod of Most Outrageous Right Wing Motion Picture Wankery.
As noted here, James Pinkerton sings the praises of the supposedly pro-war film “The Hurt Locker,” which Christine Flowers also scribbled about today in the Philadelphia Daily News. And Pinkerton lists all of the Iraq War movies that haven’t achieved the big box office desired by their backers, though he conveniently leaves out Brian De Palma’s “Redacted,” which won the Venice Film Festival award and is “a fictional story based on true events” (this is the only Iraq War film I’ve seen to date, and it is truly a harrowing experience).
Pinkerton also tells us the following…
Hollywood was on the wrong side of the public. The public was by no means unanimous in its support of the war, but ticket-buyers did not want to see the military trashed. To be sure, Hollywoodites would say that these movies weren’t anti-military, only anti-war, but that’s too fine a distinction to make. To most people, to be loudly anti-war was to be at least quietly anti-military.
And so, the Dixie Chicks, for example, were toast after their lead singer, Natalie Maines, attacked then-President George W. Bush in March 2003, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This tells us that The Dixie Chicks “(have) sold 30.5 million albums in the United States through August 2009” and “won 13 Grammy Awards, with 5 of them earned in 2007 including the coveted Grammy Award for Album of the Year for Taking The Long Way”
Sounds like somebody was “on the wrong side of the public” all right (though, as noted here, Pinkerton has been wrong about Iraq, among other topics, for years).
CNN’s Ruben Navarrette, Jr. opined as follows today, taking shots at President Obama and the congressional Dems, of course (here)…
…when the issue turns to immigration reform -- oops, better make that, if the debate turns to immigration reform, since it doesn't look like Obama is ready to "man up" on that front and keep his promise to deliver a plan -- we're likely to hear again from these Blue Dogs, who find it easier to oppose what they call "amnesty" than to take on the businesses that create the problem by hiring illegal immigrants. What profiles in courage.
The Department of Homeland Security is changing the way it tackles illegal immigration, in many cases remaking or rescinding Bush administration policies.
The changes put heavier emphasis on employers, including more investigations of hiring records and fines for violations, says John Morton, assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS.
"We have to come to grips with the market for illegal labor," he says. "To get there, we have to move beyond individual cases."
And as the New York Times tells us here (from July ’08, with a Democratic congress in charge of course)…
Under pressure from the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in two decades, employers across the country are fighting back in state legislatures, the federal courts and city halls.
Business groups have resisted measures that would revoke the licenses of employers of illegal immigrants. They are proposing alternatives that would revise federal rules for verifying the identity documents of new hires and would expand programs to bring legal immigrant laborers.
Though the pushback is coming from both Democrats and Republicans, in many places it is reopening the rift over immigration that troubled the Republican Party last year. Businesses, generally Republican stalwarts, are standing up to others within the party who accuse them of undercutting border enforcement and jeopardizing American jobs by hiring illegal immigrants as cheap labor.
So instead of using his column space to name particular companies fined by the Obama Administration for violations of immigration law, Navarrette decides to offer a blanket indictment of the Democrats only on this matter, even though the Repugs had years to resolve the issue of immigration when they ran Congress, but failed to do so.
What a “profile in courage.”
And finally, the Bucks County Courier Times offered a “Thumbs Up” to the all-but-named Repug candidate to oppose Patrick Murphy for the PA-08 U.S. House seat (and former seat holder himself, of course) Mikey Fitzpatrick here due to his promise to limit his term in office were he to win election again in the fall.
Putting aside the brass behind such a claim (typical of the arrogance that also brought us this), please allow me to point out other Republican politicians who promised to limit their term in office, only to rescind that promise after they were elected.
One is the House rep who held the PA-08 seat before Mikey was elected, and that would be Jim Greenwood. Another would be a U.S. House rep who ignored that pledge and continues to serve (assuming you could call what he does “providing constituent service”), and that would be Joe Pitts of PA-16.
It amazes me how gullible people can be, particularly those in our media who we entrust with the “gate keeping” function of filtering out partisan BS on all sides – though they often end up failing miserably at that function – in their duty to educate and inform.
(And by the way, Courier Times, that "Vent" feature of yours is just "the bomb." Gee, how many MORE times will I have to read Bill O'Neill of Northampton, PA bitch about not much in particular, with O'Neill being the guy who supposedly hates government, though that never seems to stop him from seeking elected office every two years or so?)
And while I’m on the subject of the Courier Times, I should note the paper’s “Thumbs Down” citation to our incumbent House rep Patrick Murphy here (see, Patrick had the temerity to question the paper’s coverage of him, which may be a bit of sour grapes I’ll admit, though the paper’s editorial board use this as an excuse to pillory him for not returning their calls personally).
OK, enough is enough.
Ever since he won election to the U.S. House about three and a half years ago, Patrick Murphy has been the subject of almost continual ridicule and (I believe) slander on the pages of the Courier Times. I don’t know how the paper has covered prior Democratic politicians – I didn’t live in Bucks when the House rep was Peter Kostmayer, so I can’t say anything on that subject for comparison purposes. But the attacks on Murphy are something unparalleled in my experience (and I grew up in Philadelphia, where politics is definitely not a spectator sport for the faint of heart).
On an almost daily basis any more, Patrick Murphy’s voting record is misrepresented and he is attacked for his personal beliefs. And to prove my point, a letter today claimed that “Mr. Murphy, during his three-plus years in Congress, has voted in lock step with Nancy Pelosi on every piece of legislation she has rammed through the House” (the Courier Times apparently never requires substantiation for such charges against a Democrat when they appear in letters or opinion columns).
Here is a partial list of Patrick Murphy’s votes in opposition to those of the Democratic Party, dating back to July 2009 (from here):
Vote 991, H R 2847: Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for Other Purposes
Vote 967, H.R. 4173: To provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes.
Vote 958, H.R. 4173: (See above)
Vote 746: H R 2892: Making Appropriations for Homeland Security Fy 2010
Vote 700: H RES 317: Recognizing the Region From Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri, As the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, and for Other Purposes
Vote 663: H R 3326: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
Vote 644: H R 3293: Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
Vote 636: H R 3288: Making Appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Hud, and Related Agencies for Fy 2010
Vote 623: H R 3288: (See above)
Vote 580: H R 3183: Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
All of this is damning commentary against a partisan rag which has clearly staked out its position in what it anticipates as a bellwether congressional election this fall in which its beloved “prodigal son” Mike Fitzpatrick will be returned to Washington. But this is also a commentary of the kittenish response by Democrats and progressives in this district to the tidal wave of right-wing garbage that infests this newspaper with very little protest on our part.
We can’t stop it, but we can sure as hell try to slow it down. And the time to do that grows shorter with each passing day.
This is Nicole Lamoureaux, the executive director the National Association of Free Clinics, discussing what she encountered at a free clinic in Hartford, CT (the clinics have been sponsored in part by donations raised from the viewers of "Countdown").
She is barely able to contain her disgust over the treatment she has received from our elected officials (and when it comes to elected officials in Connecticut, I'm sure I don't have to tell you who the guilty party is, as Daily Kos blogger nyceve explains here)...
...and speaking of disgust, I promised I wouldn't say much about Sarah Palin anymore, but this is "pushing the envelope" of BS even for her...
I find myself today in the highly unusual position of having to defend conservadem Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana; it seems that his GOP challenger Dan Coats has some ‘splainin’ to do when it comes to “Terra! Terra! Terra!”
…in 1998, Coats questioned Bill Clinton’s motives in ordering air strikes targeting Osama Bin Laden and associates, in the wake of the bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa.
Coats hinted it was a wag-the-dog effort to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal:
“The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action.”
This was something of a radioactive position even at the time, and those who voiced similar sentiments came under severe criticism for undermining efforts to counter a genuine terror threat.
In light of the subsequent September 11th attacks, of course, the comments look even worse, and may be used to cast doubts on Coats’ judgment and even perhaps his deference to the commander in chief’s office.
And by the way, did you know that Coats also lobbied for an oil company with ties to Hugo Chavez, as noted here (hey, no prob for a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger such as yours truly, but if you’re a Repug…).
Maybe Bayh will remember this the next time he complains about “far left-wing blogs” in the manner he did here (yes, I know – I can dream, can’t I?).
We learned the following today via Drudgico from Senate Repug Judd Gregg (here)…
Reconciliation is not the right path to achieve this goal. The process first emerged to give Congress a tool to help bring spending and revenues in line with the fiscal policy assumed in the budget resolution. In short, the intended purpose of reconciliation is to make sure there is a way to enact, via a simple majority vote, changes to fiscal policy levers that will implement the budget totals, not to force through, using an expedited process, drastic and expensive new policies that will affect every American household.
Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation.
…
…the reconciliation process has been used for plenty that did not reduce deficits. Both of President Bush's tax-cut plans traveled through the process. And the very senators who speak reverentially of the filibuster now, voted for reconciliation then. Judd Gregg, in fact, voted for reconciliation every time it was used in the Bush era.
And to think, the Obama Administration actually considered this bozo for commerce secretary.
Finally, the New York Times tells us that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke recently in defense of the dreadful Citizens United ruling (here)…
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
However, this tells us the following about the Act bearing the name of “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, passed to hurt Republicans who supported Reconstruction in the South…
(In 1907) Congress sends the bill to President Roosevelt’s desk for his signature, but not before the GOP-controlled Senate rewrites it so that the law bans only corporate or bank contributions to federal elections, not state or local ones. In practice, the Tillman Act proves to be fairly toothless. Since the law sets no limits on what individuals can give, corporations can easily get around it by having executives make donations in their own names and then reimbursing them by paying bonuses.
So…Thomas thinks it’s wrong to regulate corporations, then, because a law was passed by a segregationist that failed in that original purpose?
And while you’re pondering that one, I should also point this out from the Times story…
Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.
“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
WASHINGTON, May 16— Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court said today in a speech that the disorder and rampant crime in America's cities were results, in part, of what he called the "judicial rights revolution" that ended up treating blacks and poor people as victims of their situations rather than holding them responsible for their actions.
In his first speech on the issue of morality and justice since he joined the Court more than two years ago, Justice Thomas said well-intentioned judges and government officials had moved many American blacks from a position of slavery to one of crippling dependency.
Justice Thomas said that when black and poor people were regarded as victims and not held responsible for their actions when they commit crimes, they are being treated as children, "or even worse, treated like animals without a soul."
"Why are so many of our streets rife with drug bazaars?" he asked. "Why is there no discipline in our schools?" A big reason, he said, is that people are no longer held responsible for their acts and that judges are often lenient with criminals because of their positions in society and personal histories.
Your Honor, by virtue of remarks such as these, you became part of “the conversation” long ago (the National Review couldn’t have said it any better). So don’t act like a crybaby when that “conversation” goes in a direction you don’t like.
So, then, if Tom Campbell is supposed to be a FCINO (the hilarious video explains), so then, would Scott Brown be a PLCINO (Pro-Life Conservative In Name Only), or would Michele Bachmann be a TPCINO ("Tea Party" Conservative In Name Only)? Where oh where would the acronyms end anyway?
Or, as Jake McIntyre of The Daily Kos tells us here...
It's as if a very expensive Senate campaign for an incredibly wealthy woman in the biggest, richest state in the United States of America collectively dropped acid and decided to make an art school, prog rock "concept commercial."
Yep, this is a typical political attack ad until it gets truly surreal at about 2:30, when the dreaded "sheep with the red eyes" appears (I was disappointed not to see Nigel Tufnel..."this goes to 11").
If I watch this again, I may bust a gut (yeah, and check out the guy walking away in the sheep outfit)...
...and this should be the official theme song of the Carly Fiorina campaign.
For some inexplicable reason, the Bucks County Courier Times has decided to include a “Vent” feature on its Op-Ed page, whereby someone can write in and crank off in 25 words or less (as opposed to the usual abundant sounding off, usually by the wingnuts…a feature like this is actually pretty common for tabloids, and if that’s what the Courier Times aspires to be, then it should just perform the necessary makeover and be done with it).
And here is one of the inaugural submissions…
The height of hypocrisy or deceit is to tar the opposition as obstructionist while possessing a filibuster proof absolute majority to pass any legislation desired!
Andy Warren Middletown, PA
Hmmm, Andy Warren…the name sounds familiar.
Oh yes, I remember now. He was the “Democrat” who ran against Patrick Murphy in the 2006 Democratic primary for the right to face Mike Fitzpatrick in the general election for PA-08 U.S. House rep and did absolutely nothing to help Patrick in the general election that year (as noted here). And now he’s claiming that it’s the fault of the U.S. senators from the party he allegedly supports that “the world’s greatest deliberative body” somehow can’t manage to do a damn thing (and in fact, two of the supposed 60-senator majority are registered independents, Holy Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders).
Far be it for me to defend the likes of Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln and the other conservadems, but it’s particularly hilarious for Warren to dole out blame only to one side while ignoring the record number of filibusters executed by the other.
And as long as I’m noting the Courier Times here, does anyone have any idea as to why the paper has stopped allowing comments to its online Guest Opinions?
I know I put up the following videos already last night, but David Zurawik of The Baltimore Sun said here that it’s “rich” for Arianna Huffington to criticize Roger Ailes of Fix Noise over his coddling of that lunatic Glenn Beck, and the two Brave New Films clips are appropriate responses (and in the Zurawik clip, I love the way Baba Wawa helps propagate the lie that Fix Noise was “banned” from covering the White House, when in fact all the Obama people said was that they would be treated as an organization with a particular point of view as opposed to a news organization, or words to that effect).
And I think it’s “rich” for Zurawik to criticize anybody when he said here that MSNBC is following a path to “fascism” and unjustly compared Keith Olbermann to Sen. Joseph McCarthy here (third item...and based on the third item also in this post, I don’t think Zurawik has a clue as to what constitutes “real reporting”).
And I guess this is a fitting segue to the latest from Andrew Taylor of the AP, who tells us the following here (on President Obama’s recently released budget)…
Obama's deficit salve mixed nearly $1 trillion in tax increases on higher-income people with $250 billion in savings over a decade from a partial freeze on domestic programs. But popular benefit programs like Medicare would remain untouched.
It sure would have been nice for Taylor to note the following (from here)…
The President is committed to undertaking (health care) reform that is completely paid for and deficit neutral over the next decade. That is why he put forward in his FY 2010 Budget an historic $635 billion down payment on reform. Roughly half of this amount comes from revenue proposals, including limiting the value of itemized deductions for families making over a quarter-million dollars a year to the rates they were during the Reagan years, and about half comes from savings from Medicare and Medicaid.
You want Medicare and Medicaid savings? Fine. Stop screwing around and pass health care reform, then.
In his Philadelphia Daily News column yesterday, Smerky took on the whole “Alito head shake” thing over Obama’s calling out of The Supremes in the matter of the dreadful Citizens United decision by the High Court. Smerky of course thought Obama was wrong, and to give an example of how Smerky thought presidents were supposed to voice their disapproval with Supreme Court decisions, he cited The Sainted Ronnie R and his veiled digs at the Court over Roe v. Wade.
In case anybody ever thought this was all Reagan ever did in his fight against choice, it should be noted that Number 40 also brought us the so-called “Mexico City Policy”; Wikipedia tells us the following about it here…
Critics of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the "global gag rule", arguing that, in addition to reducing the overall funding provided to particular NGOs, it closes off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception.[15] This, they argue, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downturn in contraceptive use and from there to an increase in the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion.[15] Critics also argue that the ban promotes restrictions on free speech as well as restrictions on accurate medical information.[16][17][18][19] The European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development presented a petition to the United States Congress signed by 233 members condemning the policy. The forum has stated that the policy "undermines internationally agreed consensus and goals".[20]
And as Wikipedia also tells us, President Clinton rescinded the policy, Dubya reinstituted it, and Obama rescinded it again (so let’s all act like adults and let this thing die a natural death, then, OK?).
Finally, former Buscho Attorney General Michael Mukasey inflicted the following yesterday (here)…
(Mukasey) slammed his successor on Tuesday morning, declaring it "amateur hour" at the Justice Department and labeling current Attorney General Eric Holder weak for his handling of terrorist trials.
Appearing on "Fox and Friends", Mukasey dispensed with any of the formalities that guide how previous administrations discuss the current one. Asked about DOJ's apparent indecision over whether to try 9/11-plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York City criminal court, he unloaded.
"It makes it look like amateur night down there," he said. "Yes, it makes us look weak. It is weakness. And I can't understand the reason for the vacillation. I can't understand the choice to bring it to New York in the first place other than showboating."
The story also tells us that Mukasey said the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui was a “circus,” and he said show-bomber Richard Reid was only tried in civilian courts because the kangaroo courts military tribunals weren’t set up yet.
However, it’s not as if terrorists had never existed in this country prior to the ruinous Bushco reign. This tells us that Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing), Lee Boyd Malvo, John Allen Muhammed (D.C. snipers) and Ramzi Yousef ('93 WTC bombing) were all tried in civilian courts (McVeigh and Muhammed were executed). And as the prior post notes, civilian courts would not allow such “bogus standards of admissibility” as the military commissions.
Yes, I’ll admit that Attorney General Holder has a bit of “egg on his face” from NYC and Michael Bloomberg’s apparent flip-flop on trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan. But let’s see how many convictions the Obama Justice Department is able to obtain when they’re done versus their predecessors before we pass judgment too quickly, OK?
(I had some stuff to get to but I didn't quite make it today - I'll try again tomorrow.)
I have a feeling, ladies and gentlemen and boys and girls, that "Straight Talk" McCain could say ANYTHING and STILL be given a warm seat on the Sunday morning gabfests (and gee, I wonder if McCain's perspective on this is being affected by the fact that he has conservative primary challenges from loudmouth J.D. Hayworth and Minuteman nutball Chris Simcox? And by the way, kudos to Admiral Mike Mullen - yes, overturning DADT is long overdue, but at least he's taking a lead role here)...
...and in a way, I apologize for adding this; anyone who takes Glenn Beck seriously is an utter fool, but when he's nailed in a particularly red-handed manner such as this, it should be publicized...
...which of course is part of the larger issue Jon Stewart addresses with typical comic precision here (and good for Arianna to get Roger Ailes on the record with his utter non-answer)...
...and I always wondered what would happen if an '80s video was ever merged with a '50s sci-fi movie, and now that I know the answer, I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not.
