Andrew Leonard: Hillary Clinton Makes the Copenhagen Climate Summit an Offer

December 17th, 2009

[Contingent on China's cooperation, which ain't gonna happen...-Ed.]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Copenhagen and promptly announced that the U.S. supported the creation of a $100 billion annual fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change. The money would be raised together with other major economies from both public and private sources.

As the Secretary noted, “$100 billion is a lot,” and the number matches up with what poor countries have loudly been demanding. But while the last few remaining optimists that anything substantive might be achieved at Copenhagen are calling the news a “bombshell” that could unlock the current stalemate, there appear to be at least two major obstacles to any such progress: China, and the U.S. Congress.

Clinton declared that the fund would be contingent, reported the Washington Post, “on whether the nations gathered here could reach a substantive pact that includes ‘transparency’ on tracking emissions cuts.” But that’s precisely what China has steadfastly refused to do all along. It’s no wonder that press coverage of the climate talks has become steadily more negative, day by day.

Furthermore, with deficit hawks occupying more and more of the rhetorical high ground in Washington, and President Obama’s ability to push his agenda apparently weakening by the day, it is difficult to see where any significant sums of money are going to come from.

Which brings to us the best line delivered so far in Copenhagen, concerning the U.S.’s commitment to meaningful action.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing standup comedian Hugo Chavez! (From Politico’s Glenn Thrush):

 ”If the climate was a bank they would already have saved it.”

The Nation: Scrap the Senate Health Care Bill, Says Howard Dean

December 16th, 2009

Dr. Howard Dean has a prescription for health-care reform:

Scrap the ridiculously compromised Senate bill — from which Majority Leader Harry Reid has, under pressure from Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, stripped both the public option and plans to expand Medicare — and use the budget reconciliation process to get over the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate.

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman said of Reid’s compromise. “Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

The budget reconciliation process, which was established in its current form by Republicans when they controlled the Senate, allows a omnibus legislation to be broken up and passed in new bills that pertain to budgetary matters.

It is complicated and imperfect, as it would require the passage of insurance regulations in a separate process with different rules.

Is this going to happen?

Probably not, as Senate Democrats would have to break not just with Reid but with President Obama, who is pressing for passage a bill, no matter how watered down it may be. [more...]

Daily Beast: Are Blacks Abandoning Obama?

December 16th, 2009

Danny Glover, Jesse Jackson, and other activists talk to Lloyd Grove about disappointment in the African-American community with the president’s first year.

Danny Glover heaved a sigh when I asked him recently what he thought of President Obama’s performance so far.

It wasn’t a sigh of relief.

“I think the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don’t see anything different,” the activist movie actor said of Obama’s policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. “On the domestic side, look here: What’s so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property. Look at the bailout of Wall Street. Why not the bailout of Main Street?”

More in sorrow than in anger, Glover went on: “What choice does he have—in four years, eight years? Let’s just call a spade a spade. Really. There are no choices out there. He may be just a different face, and that face may happen to be black—and if it were Hillary Clinton, it would happen to be a woman—but what choices do they have within the structure?”

Glover is among a growing chorus of African-American opinion leaders who are publicly and privately expressing varying degrees of resignation, disappointment, and outright anger concerning a presidency on which so many hopes have ridden. Who can forget the iconic image of the tear-streaked Rev. Jesse Jackson—who in 1984 and 1988 waged formidable campaigns of his own for the Democratic presidential nomination—as he stood overcome with emotion amid the jubilant crowd at Chicago’s Grant Park as Obama gave his victory speech?

These days Jackson is decidedly dry-eyed. [more...]

The Onion: The Top 10 Stories of the Last 4.5 Billion Years

December 16th, 2009

#10:  Four Or Five Guys Pretty Much Carry Whole Renaissance

#9:  Fire, Setting Everything In Sight On Fire Discovered

#8:  Industrial Revolution Provides Millions Of Out-Of-Work Children With Jobs

#7:  Rat-Shit-Covered Physicians Baffled By Spread Of Black Plague

#6:  Dinosaurs Sadly Extinct Before Invention Of Bazooka

#5:  Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

#4:  Duane Takes Off Owing Roommates 1,300 Bucks

#3:  Woman Domesticated

#2:  Internet Archaeologists Find Ruins Of ‘Friendster’ Civilization

#1:  Evolution Going Great, Reports Trilobite

Huffington Post: Detroit Unemployment Nears 50% of City Residents

December 16th, 2009

Officially, Detroit’s unemployment rate is just under 30 percent. But the city’s mayor and local leaders are suggesting a far more disturbing figure — the actual jobless rate, they say, is closer to 50 percent.

As many have noted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which culls federal unemployment data, does not account for all of the jobless. Among those omitted: part-time workers who are looking for full-time jobs and frustrated job seekers who abandon their job search altogether.

(For some context, the official national unemployment rate is 10 percent, but the “underemployment rate” is 17.2 percent.)

Detroit city officials argue that, when workers who are underemployed are added to the calculation, the number of city residents who are out of work is close to one in every two.

The Detroit News reports:

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that for the year that ended in September, Michigan’s official unemployment rate was 12.6 percent. Using the broadest definition of unemployment, the state unemployment rate was 20.9 percent, or 66 percent higher than the official rate. Since Detroit’s official rate for October was 27 percent, that broader rate pushes the city’s rate to as high as 44.8 percent.”

[more...]

Alternet: The Health Care Bill After Lieberman Compromise Is Worse Than Nothing

December 16th, 2009

The first rule of medicine is, “Do no harm.” The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate health care bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it.

The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.

The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85 percent medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it’s that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.

We all know America’s current health care system is failing — and it’s failing everyone, not just the uninsured. It is far too expensive: Americans spend 16 percent  of GDP on health care and get worse results than countries that spend half that. Literally.

We need health reform that expands access to quality health care, abolishes unjust practices of insurers, improves value to the country, and puts us on a trajectory to continue to improve our health care system over time.

But the Senate has systematically stripped out nearly everything I liked about what was proposed in the early, heady days of health care reform. They have done so in order to please a handful of so-called centrists who care more about protecting corporate profits than protecting the people they claim to represent. [more...]

Crooks and Liars: Obama Represents Bush’s Third Term

December 16th, 2009

The news in the last few days has continued the drumbeat of demoralizing events which started in the Bush administration, and with only a few hiccups has continued through the Obama administration. It is clear that Obama is, fundamentally, Bush’s 3rd term.

First we have the health care “reform” debacle, where it has been confirmed that the White House pushed Harry Reid to accept Lieberman’s ultimatum, not go to reconciliation. There will be no public option in the Senate bill. There will be no Medicare expansion. There will be no cap on yearly limits. What there will be is a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, some subsidies which can still leave people spending money they can’t afford, and guaranteed issue of lousy plans (Plans where only 70% of the premiums have to be spent on care, for example.) Unless progressive Senators are willing to filibuster, or House progressives are willing to vote against en-masse, something very close to the Senate plan is what will pass, because as I noted some time ago, the White House’s bottom line is that something, anything must pass, and conservative Dems are willing to kill the bill to make sure it doesn’t actually threaten health industry profits in any way, shape, or form. (Thus why drug importation, which would cost Pharma money, will be made illegal.)

All of this was completely predictable. Furthermore the weakness of progressive and liberal legislators, is largely to blame:

Obama and the Democratic leadership’s bottom line is they must pass some bill called “health care reform”. Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn’t progressives bottom line

This is Negotiation 101, and progressive legislators either don’t understand it, or are spineless. As a result they, and Americans, have been rolled yet again. What is depressing about this is that it should be a surprise to no one, but apparently has surprised many.

It is also noteworthy that spending billions on turning brown people into a fine red mist (a.k.a. the Afghan war) is acceptable, but health care (a.k.a. saving actual American lives) is something which can’t cost money. What an interesting–and clearly evil–set of priorities that reveals. I guarantee that real healthcare reform would save more American lives than the entire war on terror—assuming said “war” hasn’t cost more American lives than it’s saved, which is almost certainly the case.

Next we have what Glenn Greenwald is calling the creation of Gitmo North, in which people whom the government judges there is not enough evidence to convict, will be held indefinitely without trial. This is the very definition of tyranny. Any nation which does this is a nation of men, not laws. America has forsaken its fundamental premise and proved its degradation. Yes, this started under Bush, but as Obama embraces this, it because a bipartisan project and the new elite consensus. This is now something which has been confirmed as US policy which is extremely unlikely to change no matter who is in power.

Then we have bankers are giving themselves bonuses larger than the entire economy’s GDP growth this year. [more...]

Washington Independent: Security Experts Say Obama Administration is Overstating Domestic Al-Qaeda Threat

December 16th, 2009

It sounded like a throwaway line in President Obama’s West Point address about the Afghanistan war. “It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak,” the president said, tying his troop increase in Afghanistan to direct threats to U.S. national security. “In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.”

That was all Obama said about the relationship between al-Qaeda’s senior leadership in the Pakistani tribal areas and potential domestic terror attacks. But at a Congressional hearing shortly afterward, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cited those same recent arrests in the United States to argue for the wisdom of the administration’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The extremist “syndicate” headed by al-Qaeda and located in the Waziristan region of Pakistan has an “unmatched” capability to export terrorist activities to “Yemen, Somalia, or, indeed, Denver.” That was a reference to Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year old Afghan-American whom authorities charged in September for conspiring with members of al-Qaeda to pull off a terrorist attack.

Zazi’s case is part of a recent and rapid upswing of announced arrests of American Muslims suspected of involvement with extremism, including in Chicago and Minneapolis, where young Muslims have been accused of aiding anti-Indian terror groups and al-Qaeda-linked Somali militants. Dramatically, last week, Pakistani authorities arrested five young Virginians whom they claim were seeking to liaise with al-Qaeda in the tribal areas. Those arrests prompted stories this weekend in The Washington Post and The New York Times asking whether American Muslims’ resistance to extremism has frayed in recent years.

 But current and former counterterrorism officials and al-Qaeda experts warn that while the Pakistani tribal areas represent the center of international Islamic terrorist extremism, its connections to recent domestic terror threats are more ambiguous than the administration has recently portrayed. And they add that the recent arrests indicate a silver lining: intelligence and law enforcement are increasingly equipped to intercept domestic terror threats, particularly if they have some tie to al-Qaeda in Pakistan, raising questions about how potent a threat al-Qaeda remains.

Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials who have testified before Congress this year, is under significant threat in the Pakistani tribal areas. Pakistan’s Army has reinvaded those areas and forcibly confronted its allies in the Pakistani Taliban, constricting al-Qaeda’s freedom of action. The CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command have harassed al-Qaeda and its allies for the past two years, primarily through missiles fired from unmanned aerial vehicles. Most recently, a strike Tuesday may have killed al-Qaeda’s chief liaison to its affiliate in Yemen.

If so, the targeting will have highlighted a revealing fact about al-Qaeda eight years after 9/11: boxed into the tribal areas, the organization seeks less to pull off major terrorist attacks than to inspire and in some cases fund them. It has inspired a multiplicity of extremist websites, allowing people worldwide — including in the U.S. — access to its propaganda. And it also seeks to establish a presence in Muslim countries like Yemen and Somalia, often by offering financial or training support to existing extremist groups outside Pakistan. While those two approaches offer al-Qaeda a continued lease on life, analysts say they also dilute al-Qaeda’s brand and raise questions about the actual degree of danger it still poses. [more...]

Washington Post: Federal Government Forfeits Billions in Taxes Owed by Citigroup to Recover Bailout Money

December 16th, 2009

The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors.

While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits.

The IRS, an arm of the Treasury Department, has changed a number of rules during the financial crisis to reduce the tax burden on financial firms. The rule changed Friday also was altered last fall by the Bush administration to encourage mergers, letting Wells Fargo cut billions of dollars from its tax bill by buying the ailing Wachovia.

“The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It’s another form of assistance, maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form,” said Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting who runs a firm of the same name. “I’ve been doing taxes for almost 40 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this, where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts.” [more...]

The Guardian: BBC News Website Asks: ‘Should homosexuals face execution?’

December 16th, 2009

The BBC today asked users of its news website “Should homosexuals face execution?” on a talkboard discussion for a World Service programme for African listeners.

Posted on the BBC News premoderated talkboard Have Your Say, the thread was designed to provoke discussion ahead of the latest broadcast of the interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say.

“Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question, but this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death,” the post said.

The talkboard post asked users to send in their views to the programme, which goes out on the World Service and is also available online.

“Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored?,” the post added.

Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: “Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer ‘gay pride’ festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a ’straight pride’ festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation – after which, theoretically there should be none left!” [more...]