Kandahar Riddle: How Many Soldiers Does it Take
to Screw in a Light Bulb

Answer: Zero. The military shouldn't even be involved in Afghanistan. If we want to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan, we need sustainable, civilian-only solutions.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/43516

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Ben Nelson joins Senate Republicans in voting to
stop financial reform bill

It's not dead yet, but it's the first filibuster vote, and the Dems (America) lost.

A sweeping proposal to revamp Wall Street suffered a legislative setback today when the Senate failed to bring the measure to the floor for debate.

Voting 57-41, Senate Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overturn the threat of a GOP filibuster and begin formal debate on the bill, which has become President Obama's top priority following his success on health care.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a centrist Democrat from Nebraska, voted with 39 Republicans against advancing the measure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote to "no" on the measure -- a procedural move that allows him to call for a new vote later this week.

Senate Democrats likely think the issue of Wall Street reform breaks down fairly well for them in terms of putting pressure on the Republicans blocking reform, such that repeated attempts at invoking cloture won't be seen so much as a failure to "get things done" as an illustration of Republican intransigence on behalf of Public Enemy #1: Wall Street tycoons who love to rip off ordinary working people and then wallow naked in their stolen retirement funds. Let's hope they're up to the game. There's no reason to think protecting the Gordon Geckos of the world is going to become more popular any time soon.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

'No Political Will' For Additional Unemployment
Benefits No, A Massive Public Relations Screwup.

You know what? If I hear one more Beltway insider tell me there is "no political will" for another tier of unemployment benefits, I think I'll scream:

My inbox is filled with desperate people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are hoping that somehow Congress will include additional weeks of coverage in future legislation.

But after speaking with a number of House and Senate staffers in recent hours, it appears less and less likely that a so-called "Tier 5" of unemployment coverage will become law anytime soon.

According to one House staffer, the problem is while many on the Hill believe that adding a Tier 5 of additional weeks of benefits makes good economic sense, any such legislation faces several formidable hurdles.

One of the reasons they cite is "lack of political will." You want to know what they mean by "political will"? They mean they're not being deluged with calls, letters and faxes. (Although there is an online petition. Hint, hint.)

You know why they're not being deluged with calls, letters and faxes?

Because people are confused. They think that last extension of the filing deadline added additional benefits - and it didn't.

For the past month, I had to dig deep to find details on that bill, and got confusing and misleading responses from everywhere. (Believe me, I was motivated.) I even talked to Hill staffers who thought the bill added additional benefits. All it did was move the deadline for filing for the extension that already existed. It didn't do a thing for people who'd used up their benefits in this jobless recovery.

So is it any wonder the American public is confused? It doesn't help that there's no major TV coverage - and the big-name progressive groups like MoveOn are strangely silent on this crucial economic issue. (Not to mention the Democratic leadership. Hel-lo? Mid-term election issue, anyone?)

People know there aren't any jobs. And while the Tea Party folks seem to think everyone else is unworthy of a helping hand, most people don't want their neighbors and relatives to suffer during a major recession. Since they were barraged with news stories about passing an unemployment extension, they think the problem was already taken care of.

I know. My benefits just ran out with no job in sight, and everyone I've told - intelligent, informed people who are political junkies - told me I wouldn't have to worry because the new legislation added more benefits. It didn't.

It's not that people don't care. It's that they don't know.

Call your Congress critters. Tell them if we have money to bail out Wall St., we have money to help people who can't find these mythical jobs.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Guernica: April 26, 1937

"I urged him [Adolf Hitler] to give support [to Franco] under all circumstances, firstly, in order to prevent the further spread of communism in that theater and, secondly, to test my young Luftwaffe at this opportunity in this or that technical respect"[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/mETGM8DZ-ug/guernica-april-26-1937

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Still Pushing Forward On Climate/Energy Bill

It's practically a rite of passage. No serious legislation ever makes it very far in Congress before it's declared dead - at least once, sometimes two or three times. Here's just a few headlines and statements from pundits from the last couple years about a major reform effort you might remember:

Health Care Bill Dies? (July 2009)

Health care may be 'dead' if Scott Brown wins (January 2010)

The health care bill ... is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection. (January 2010)

Health Reform Is Dead. (February 2010)

"I suspect serious health insurance reform is over for yet another generation." (January 2010)

I could go on and on, and the Senator in me tempts me to do exactly that, but this isn't the time for a filibuster.

No, I raise these examples to make a simple point: Congress defied the cynics and naysayers and passed historic health care reform.

The Senate is more than capable of relegating the recent gloomy headlines about comprehensive climate and energy reform to the place they belong at the Newseum - right next to the 1948 Chicago Tribune headline that declared "Dewey Beats Truman."

Look, passing legislation is never easy - it's supposed to be that way. The bigger the reform, the tougher it gets. And there are always countless places along the way where it looks like it's difficult because, well, because it is difficult. Almost all of the snags get worked out without anyone noticing them, but sometimes, they get noticed, and you know what happens.

But here are three things I want everyone to know.

First, Lindsey Graham has invested enormous amounts of time with Joe and myself, bringing people to the table, and doing the hard, grinding work it takes to get a bill this far. It's been a real team effort between the three of us.

Second, there's a larger team effort that's also important. I had a lot of conversations yesterday and today with key folks from an historic and unprecedented coalition that were going to stand up today and support our proposal. Some unlikely partnerships have been built. And the good news is, I heard from all of them this weekend saying to us, "don't give up - keep this moving forward." It's because they're so committed that I know we can get this done this year.

Third, and lastly, the best damn message I heard this weekend came from Tom Friedman on Face the Nation. Tom had written a column for that morning which urged, "if there is going to be a Green Tea Party, it will have to emerge from a different place -- the radical center, a center committed to a radical departure from business as usual. Acting on that impulse, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that deserves an energetic centrist Green Tea Party to support it."

And by the time most people picked up that Sunday newspaper, they were reading that our efforts were stuck. but a couple hours later, there was Tom Friedman again on television, reacting to the not so great news - and he summed it up best - and made it clear this isn't a Washington parlor game, this is bigger than the Senate and bigger than politics:

"The result is, Bob, right now in Beijing, they're high-fiving each other. Oh, yeah, baby. This means the Americans are going to be paralyzed on green tech, okay, for another couple of years. China is already leading the world now in wind production. China is already leading the world in solar production."

We need to get back on track for exactly those reasons Tom identified. Because this is about something bigger - it's about our country - and our leadership, America's leadership. So don't get too caught up in the inside-the-Beltway parlor game of declaring reform efforts "dead." We're still pushing, we're still talking, we're still fighting, it's very much alive - and I won't quit until they're high-fiving on Main Street America not Beijing, Tehran, or Caracas.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

AR-Sen: GOP candidate, "Halter scares me"

He's right.

Republican State Sen. Gilbert Baker predicted Saturday that his main rival for the Republican Senate nomination, Rep. John Boozman, would have trouble besting Democrat Bill Halter in the general election.

"I'm telling you, we run the risk of losing this, because Bill Halter's going to be the [Democratic] nominee," Baker told POLITICO following an Associated Press debate between the eight candidates vying for the GOP nomination.

Halter is trying to wrest the Democratic nomination from two-term Senator Blanche Lincoln.

"It's going to be Halter, and Halter scares me if Congressman Boozman's our nominee," Baker added.

Baker, who carries a blue tarp with him while he campaigns as a symbol of his opposition to the financial bailout, has an interest in making the case for Halter, who polls show trailing Lincoln, since they are both running on an anti-Washington message.

"As soon as Congressman Boozman prevails, guess what Bill Halter's going to do? D.C., not. Wall Street bailout, not. Deficits, Arkansas balanced budget. And we lose three bullets at that point. That's why I believe I need to be the nominee to carry this forward," Baker said.

This actually tracks my argument in favor of Halter. The current political climate is less anti-Democratic, than it is anti-incumbent. That's the reason Blanche Lincoln is DOA, whether in the primary or in the general. As an incumbent in a tough state, she's toast.

Bill Halter isn't a D.C. insider, thus he can run a populist general election campaign entirely against D.C.

Now, if Arkansas Republicans nominated one of their local nuts, that would make for a particularly tough general election, with both parties amping up the anti-DC rhetoric, and on that front, I'd give Republicans the edge -- they could argue that Halter would simply reinforce the unpopular incumbent Democratic majority.

But lucky for us, U.S. Rep. John Boozman has entered the fray and is the prohibitive favorite to win his party's nomination. He is solidly conservative, giving the other candidates vying for the nomination little room to teabag him from the Right. His money, name ID, and connections will carry the day.

But check it out -- with Boozman as the nominee, Halter is suddenly in great shape. Boozman plays the role of entrenched DC insider incumbent, while Halter can run his full-throated outsider populist campaign.

Our best shot to retain this seat in Democratic hands is for Halter to win the Democratic nomination, and for Boozman to win the Republican.

We can do something about the former:

Contribute to Bill Halter
Bill Halter for Senate
Volunteer

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Henry Brown makes fiscal year 2011 'earmark'
request for Georgetown port

Are my eyes deceiving me...

No. Henry Brown has actually made a request in the fiscal year 2011 for - wait for it - funding to dredge the Georgetown port. Not the $9 million suggested, however.

Georgetown Harbor, SC
Amount: $8,000,000
Intended Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District,
69A Hagood Ave
Charleston, SC 29403

Explanation of the Request: This project will fund emergency dredging and associated material placement work in Georgetown Harbor. The Port of Georgetown supports a large share of the jobs in Georgetown County. Failure to maintain the harbor?s authorized depth has?in part?caused these manufactures to curtail operations at these facilities and lay off their employees.

State and local officials have tried to proactively address this problem, securing commitments from four companies to ship their products through the Port of Georgetown, provided the Port is maintained at its authorized depth. These businesses will mean 128 new jobs?in an area with 15.3 percent unemployment?and ship 4.4 million tons of cargo through the port.

Charleston Harbor, SC ? O&M
Amount: $10,240,000
Intended Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District,
69A Hagood Ave
Charleston, SC 29403

Explanation of the Request: This project will fund the annual maintenance dredging of Charleston Harbor. Charleston Harbor is one of the busiest container ports in the U.S., supporting over 700 companies in South Carolina alone, which, in turn, pay $11.8 billion in wages to 260,800 South Carolinians. Not maintaining the channel will result in vessel light loading, ships entering the port only at high tide or bypassing Charleston in favor of other ports, all of which have the capability to reduce the economic impact of the port.

Charleston Harbor, SC ? Investigations
Amount: $2,500,000
Intended Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District,
69A Hagood Ave
Charleston, SC 29403

Explanation of the Request: This request will continue the study phase of deepening Charleston Harbor. The Port of Charleston, serves as one of the most important economic drivers for our state. Today, the Port is responsible for $44.8 billion in total economic output and over 260,000 jobs across our state.

A key component in the Port of Charleston?s continued success is its harbor depth. However, its current depth of 45 feet is only able to accommodate deep draft ships under the most optimal conditions. Without an increase to the harbor?s depth, the deep draft ships that will dominate world trade in a few short years will be forced to wait for optimal tides, be light loaded, or simply choose to call on other ports. Should any or all of these happen, the effectiveness of the port and the opportunities for South Carolina companies will be degraded.

Understanding that our country faces a fiscal crisis; I have requested that other portions of the Federal Budget be decreased by at least the amount that I have requested for these projects.

And while my requests do not guarantee funding for these projects, it is guaranteed that these projects will not be funded without Congressional action.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Wall Street reform vote thoughts

The motion to proceed on debates and amendments on the Wall Street reform bill was defeated 57-41.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/2Tiz-_aAeBw/wall-street-refo
rm-vote-thoughts

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Sunday Train: Kasich Lies About Strickland's 3C
Victory, 3C Moves Ahead

Burning the Midnight Oil for Living Energy IndependenceThere was recently a fight over the 3C starter line for Ohio's High Speed Rail system, which Governor Strickland won ... and the presumptive Republican nominee for Governor took this position:... GOP[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/u419LcRL4pc/sunday-train-kasich-lies
-about-stricklands-3c-victory-3c-moves-ahead

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The Importance of Getting Wall Street Out of
Washington, and Washington Out of Wall Street

Washington's relationship with Wall Street is growing more schizophrenic by the day. On the one hand, Congress is trying to show how tough it can be on the financial sector by enacting a law ostensibly designed to prevent another near-meltdown and taxpayer-supported bail-out. As the mid-term election looms, a staggering number of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, and most Americans blame Wall Street (whose top bankers are raking in almost as much money as they did before the crisis). The lawsuit launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Goldman Sachs for alleged fraud only confirms the view held by many that the economic game is rigged.

On the other hand, both parties are going to Wall Street seeking campaign donations to fund critically important television advertising in the months ahead. After all, the Street is where the money is, and TV ads demand huge amounts of it. In recent years, the financial industry has become the second-biggest source of campaign contributions in America - just behind the healthcare industry.

Even as Congress debates legislation to tame it, Wall Street is conducting a bidding war between the parties for its continued beneficence. More than 60 per cent of the $34m given by the financial industry to fund the 2010 elections has so far gone to Democrats, but since January the Street has switched its allegiance to the Republican camp. In the first quarter of this year, Citigroup, Goldman, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley donated twice as much to Republicans as to Democrats.

It is hard to bite the hands that feed you, especially when you are competing for food. The finance reform bill emerging from Senate Democrats takes a hard line in many respects - requiring that most derivatives be traded on open exchanges where buyers can see what they are getting and sellers have adequate capital, establishing an agency to protect unwary consumers from predatory lending, and giving the government authority to wind down the activities of banks that get themselves into trouble. Democrats point to these and other features as evidence of their willingness to be strict with the Street, despite their dependence on its generosity.

But the American public has no independent means of judging how tough the bill really is. Most people do not understand the intricacies of finance, and still do not know exactly what Wall Street did to bring the economy to the brink. The dependence of both parties on the financial industry for political support inevitably feeds suspicions that the bill is not nearly tough enough. Why, for example, are so-called "customized" derivatives exempted from the exchanges? Does this not create a big loophole? Why does the bill not limit the size of banks so none can again become "too big to fail"? Why is the Glass-Steagall Act - which once separated commercial from investment banking - not being fully restored? Why does the bill not separate investment banking from the private banking and wealth management activities that got Goldman into trouble?

It does not help that in recent months both parties have held at least three-dozen fundraising events with Wall Street bankers and their lobbyists. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader, has trekked to Wall Street cup in hand, while in February and March the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee invited financial industry executives to pony up $10,000 each for the chance to confer with Republican senators.

Tight connections between Washington and Wall Street are nothing new, of course, especially when it comes to Goldman. Hank Paulson ran the bank before becoming George W. Bush's Treasury secretary. Robert Rubin followed the same trajectory under Bill Clinton, then returned to Wall Street to head Citigroup's executive committee. Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House leader, lobbies for Goldman. Some 250 former members of Congress are now lobbying on behalf of the financial industry. President Barack Obama himself received nearly $15m from Wall Street during his 2008 campaign, of which almost $1m came from Goldman employees and their families.

But politicians cannot continue to have it both ways. Given the Street's excesses, Washington's continued financial dependence on it is eroding trust in government. The distrust has already helped spawn the so-called "Tea Party movement" of disaffected Republicans. Many Democrats and Independents are no less cynical.

If Washington knew what was good for it and the nation, it would sever its financial connections with the Street. Better yet, it would enact legislation seeking to limit the impact of private and corporate money in politics. That goal is made more difficult to achieve by the grotesque recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission) holding that corporations, including financial firms, have the right to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. But there are ways around this, such as more generous public funding for candidates that choose not to take private contributions. Hopefully as well, the president will nominate Supreme Court justices who understand the importance of public trust in democratic institutions, and the difference between companies and people.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!