What Used To Seem Simple Now Seems Very Complicated

Too much information. I am fatigued and overloaded with all of the information concerning the health care debate. I no longer understand what the hell is going on.

If you include the comments, there may be more words in this single post on the health care debate than there are in the entire bill.

Made To Answer

From To Paraphrase Howard Baker by Anglachel:

Yeah, I'm pissed at the cowards in Congress, too, and with the lack of backbone in the Democratic leadership. I'm pissed about both of those situations today and not just on the topic of torture.

The trouble is that the hoopla over Pelosi is doing the Republican's dirty work for them by implying that she has some responsibility for the policy of torture, rather than her true responsibility, which was reviewing, comprehending, and opposing such policy.

The crime lies first and foremost with the people responsible for authorizing the use of torture. Once they have been made to answer for their original crimes against humanity and the nation, then we can get around to the pissant Congress critters who may or may not have been informed fully and unequivocally about the use of torture.

Let's Disinfect Wall Street

Wall Street needs to have some very bright sunlight shone on it.

From Commentary: Investigate Wall Street by Julian E. Zelizer:

Partisan warfare in the 1990s, including the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, made many Americans cynical about congressional investigation, as it seemed to be just another tool in the bitter culture of Capitol Hill.

But Congress can help us learn. We need another Pecora Commission, another Fulbright Committee, another Sam Ervin to use the power of Congress to shed light on the causes of our current economic meltdown.

Congress needs to learn more, not only about the kind of criminal activity for which Bernard Madoff is being charged, but also the legal practices -- such as risky home loans -- that created dangerous bubbles and put families at risk.

If voters and politicians are going to be able to evaluate legislation that is being proposed on a weekly basis, citizens must understand what has gone wrong.

This will be the first step toward restoring the confidence that the country needs if it is to start a better day.

Weary

I am weary of indignant Congresspeople holding hearings where they “question” those involved in our economic problems. Congress is as much to blame as anyone. In fact, they probably deserve the most blame. They changed the regulations and rules of the money game. They allowed Wall Street to go berserk. They voted for two illegal wars that have consumed huge amounts of taxpayer money. I wish they would stop grandstanding and acting holier-than-thou. If they don’t like the way that the Wall Streeters have behaved then put some of them in jail, stop giving them more money, and shut the hell up.

From What Did the Banks Do With Your Cash? by Matthew Jaffe:

"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., recently said from the Senate floor.

"I'm mad," she said. "Everyone I work for is mad."

Congress is the problem. I’m mad at them. Congress has allowed Wall Street to kick sand in the face of the American taxpayer. Instead of reminding us of what we already know, Congress should stop the sand kicking. If they don’t have the power to do this, who the hell does?

Stimulating Thoughts

From Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol. by Steven Pearlstein:

Equally specious is the oft-heard complaint that even some of the immediate spending is not stimulative.

"This is not a stimulus plan, it's a spending plan," Nebraska's freshman senator, Mike Johanns (R), said Wednesday in a maiden floor speech full of budget-balancing orthodoxy that would have made Herbert Hoover proud. The stimulus bill, he declared, "won't create the promised jobs. It won't activate our economy."

Johanns was too busy yesterday to explain this radical departure from standard theory and practice. Where does the senator think the $800 billion will go? Down a rabbit hole? Even if the entire sum were to be stolen by federal employees and spent entirely on fast cars, fancy homes, gambling junkets and fancy clothes, it would still be an $800 billion increase in the demand for goods and services -- a pretty good working definition for economic stimulus. The only question is whether spending it on other things would create more long-term value, which it almost certainly would.

And then there is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), complaining in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal that of the 3 million jobs that the stimulus package might create or save, one in five will be government jobs, as if there is something inherently inferior or unsatisfactory about that. (Note to Coburn's political director: One in five workers in Oklahoma is employed by government.)

In the next day's Journal, Coburn won additional support for his theory that public-sector employment and output is less worthy than private-sector output from columnist Daniel Henninger. Henninger weighed in with his own list of horror stories from the stimulus bill, including $325 million for trail repair and remediation of abandoned mines on federal lands, $6 billion to reduce the carbon footprint of federal buildings and -- get this! -- $462 million to equip, construct and repair labs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"What is most striking is how much 'stimulus' money is being spent on the government's own infrastructure," wrote Henninger. "This bill isn't economic stimulus. It's self-stimulus."

Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.

Don't Be Distracted By Those Shiny Republicans

It’s the slime that makes them so shiny.

From It's the Stupid, Stupid by Josh Marshall:

The campaign isn't over. November 5th was just a big hurdle. The arguments still have to be made for the direction we want to take the country. We need the big picture or we'll run again on distractions and the efforts of discredited malefactors.

Here’s an example of an utterly stupid distraction and waste of taxpayers money:


From What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill:

On Monday, House Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

The Republicans seem to be in favor of pollution, global warming, terrorists, more pollution, sexual transmitted diseases, water and soil pollution, stupid/ignorant people, and more terrorists. Not to mention petty partisan bickering while the rest of the country goes down and down into the abyss.

Look at that list again. Why is money that would go to construction jobs, computer manufactures, federal employees who help keep us safe, auto manufacturers, engineers, and health professionals a bad thing? We need people to be working. All except these dimwitted Republican Congresspeople. Let's fire them.

Why is it OK to send money to Wall Street but not anywhere else?

Off Center

From Fetishizing off-center centrism by Jamison Foser:

From the way the media have covered this week's stimulus package vote, you would think the goal of the legislation was to get Democrats and Republicans to sit together for lunch in the House cafeteria, rather than to turn around an economy in free fall.

After the House passed the stimulus package by a comfortable margin, much of the media reacted not by examining the bill's contents and the likelihood that it would provide a much-needed boost to the economy, but by focusing on the fact that it passed without a single Republican vote.

Why the GOP's unanimity in opposing the stimulus package should be surprising is anybody's guess; the last time we had a newly elected Democratic president, in 1993, congressional Republicans were unanimous in opposing his economic package, too. Then-Rep. John Kasich went so far as to promise that if Bill Clinton's plan worked, Kasich would switch parties. (It did; he didn't.) Point being: Congressional Republicans do not have a strong track record of working with Democratic presidents in recent memory. Perhaps because they were too busy trying to subpoena the White House cat.

Nonetheless, the Democrats' purported failure to get Republican support for the bill was, according to many reporters, the story.

Read the rest here.

Under The Table

From Industry Shorts by Nichole Wagner:

While all eyes were fixated on the bailout bill at the end of September, the Treasury slipped a tax policy change under the Congress’ radar. It took several days for lawmakers to become aware of the change, but when they did, many were angry and questioned the legality and motivation behind it.

The change in tax code repealed a 22-year-old law that prevented tax-motivated mergers. The current policy has no limit on the amount of taxable income a bank can deduct after an acquisition. This change could cost taxpayers $105 billion to $110 billion says Robert L. Willens, a prominent corporate tax expert.

As of press time, legislators have not publicly declared that the alteration is illegal because they are afraid that recent bank mergers may unwind as a result. However, Charles Grassley, most-senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is seeking an investigation into possible conflicts of interest.

In a letter, Grassley stated that he wants to investigate the independence of several Treasury officials who were also ex-Goldman Sachs executives, as well as the relationships between the Treasury officials and bank board members. Specifically, the relationship with Robert Steel, former Treasury advisor and ex-Goldman employee, who is now the chief executive of Wachovia.

The senator is disturbed that the tax change was made one day after Wachovia agreed to be acquired by Citigroup. This alteration gives the “appearance of preferential treatment” Grassley says by sweetening the deal for Wells Fargo that later stepped in and acquired Wachovia. Under the new tax code, the merger saved Wells Fargo nearly $20 billion in taxes.

Our Very Religious Congress

From 111th Congress reflects greater religious diversity in the U.S. by Joanna Lin:

"I think there's an incentive, certainly, for a politician to have some sort of a religious affiliation," Masci said. Americans, he said, have "a desire to have people in office who, to at least to some degree, reflect your own belief."

Yet a religious affiliation does not always correlate to a certain religious belief, said Woody Kaplan, chairman of the advisory board of the Secular Coalition for America.

Take Rep. Pete Stark: The Democrat from the Northern California city of Fremont identifies himself as a Unitarian but acknowledged no belief in a supreme being in 2007, making him the first member of Congress to publicly do so. Atheist groups said Stark was the highest-ranking elected official ever to admit he didn't believe in God.

Stark said in a recent interview that in the week following the announcement, he received more than 5,000 e-mails from around the world, nearly all congratulating him for his courage.

The reaction took Stark by surprise. Stark said he had simply filled out a survey sent by the secular coalition.

Stark, 77, said he was "agnostic at best" by the time he graduated from college in 1953, but his religious beliefs played little part in his first campaign for the U.S. House in 1972. His 13th District covers a variety of Bay Area cities, including Alameda, Union City and Hayward.

"In my district, it just didn't come up; nobody asked me," he said. "They didn't care much about what I did on Sundays."

Then in fall 2006, the secular coalition embarked on a quest for the highest-ranking non-theist public official in America. It offered a $1,000 prize to whoever identified the winner.

Nearly 60 members of Congress were nominated. The coalition sent them surveys, and Kaplan said that when he interviewed the lawmakers, 22 confided that they did not believe in a god. Fearful of exposure, all but Stark told the group to keep quiet.

"The perception is it's politically dangerous" to be godless, Kaplan said.

Indeed, a USA Today/Gallup poll in early 2007 showed that atheism would be a huge obstacle for a presidential candidate: 45% of respondents said they would vote for a nonbeliever, compared with 55% for a gay person, 88% for a woman and 95% for a Catholic.

For many Americans, "there's this idea of morality being linked to belief in God and to religion," Masci said. "Atheism is different in that it's a real departure from the common-denominator faith that at least most people accept."

But if more atheists, humanists, freethinkers and nonbelievers "come out," Kaplan said, "the stigma -- which is clearly there -- will begin to go away."

The evidence? Kaplan points to Stark. In November he was elected to his 19th term with 76.5% of votes.

Action, Reaction, And No Action

“More often than not the government does things that I don’t want them to do, and they don’t do the things that I want them to do.” Paul Thoreau

“Inactivity strikes us as intelligent behavior.” Warren Buffett

"First, do no harm." Unknown

Sometimes it is better to be inactive, rather than active. Sometimes it is better to step back and take some time to assess the situation. Sometimes decisive action is necessary. Knowing whether a situation warrants inaction or action is the hard part. Obviously Warren Buffett does something.

Two recent inactions are pleasing to me. And in both cases I believe I am taking the side of Republicans. That is unusual for me. I believe New York State needs to do something about the fiscal problems it is facing. However, I do not agree with David Paterson’s proposals to cut education and health-care spending. He should find other places to cut spending. Recent opposition to Paterson’s proposals actually pleased me. Recent opposition to a bailout of the big three automakers also pleases me.

Here is an example of some positive activity by General Motors:

It seems like the struggles of the automobile industry have been in the headlines everyday - and General Motors is no exception. Now, the work of GM researchers right here in our backyard may signal better times ahead.

A car developed in Honeoye Falls may be one of the solutions. It's the General Motors Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Car. There are only 100 in the United States. Zero gas; zero pollution.

GM know this car works. But O'Connell says it can't be put on the market until the country builds more hydrogen fueling stations. "We've calculated that you need about 12,000 stations in order to put a station within 5 miles of about 75% of the population."

I would hope for some positive activity on the part of the federal government in regards to the building of more hydrogen fueling stations. So far all I see is inactivity on their part. Once upon a time we had automobiles without good roads to drive them on. Dwight D. Eisenhower took action when he championed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Who benefitted from this? Nearly everyone, including the automobile industry. In fact the automobile industry lobbied for it. Now we have non-polluting automobiles with no place to fuel them. There should be a Federal-Aid Fuel Station Act of 2008 that would retrofit existing gas stations and/or build new stations to service alternative energy fuels such as electricity, hydrogen, and bio-fuels. This would be government activity that I would whole heartily support. Government activity that would help General Motors, as well as consumers and workers and the economy. And the planet, too. It’s such a no-brainer, is that why the government isn’t doing anything about it?

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Mark Twain

Congressional Booty

Have you ever wondered why Congress likes to favor the rich so often?

From Frosh Could Join ‘50 Richest’ by Paul Singer and Jennifer Yachnin:

Last week’s elections have created room in one of Washington, D.C.’s most exclusive clubs: Six members of Roll Call’s “50 Richest Members of Congress” will be gone in January.

But fear not — the freshman class of 2009 is bringing reinforcements who appear ready to join the high-rollers on the Hill.

Candidates for Congress file financial disclosure forms that are similar to the annual disclosure forms filed by Members and that carry some of the same caveats. Personal property that is not held for investment purposes — such as second homes — is not disclosed, and the value of each asset is recorded in broad categories that make it impossible to estimate net worth with any precision.

Nevertheless, the disclosure forms do offer a way to compare relative worth of Members, providing a glimpse of some incoming Members who may be worth more than $5 million, which was the minimum for membership in the most recent top 50 list.

The departing Members on the list are: Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), whose minimum net worth of about $79 million made him the fifth-richest Member last year, but was not enough to win re-election; Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who lost re- election by a razor-thin margin, but gets to keep the $29 million that made him the 10th-richest Member; Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who lost her seat as well as her spot as 19th on the list with $16 million; Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), who gave up his House seat and 31st place at $8 million in an unsuccessful bid for the Senate; Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who retired, taking about $6 million in net worth that qualified him for 45th place; and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who was No. 50 on the list with $5 million until he agreed last week to become chief of staff to President-elect Obama.

Read the rest here.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Why does AIG think that any of its workers are “valuable”?

From AIG to Pay Millions To Top Workers by Carol D. Leonnig:

American International Group plans to pay out $503 million in deferred compensation to some of its top employees, saying it must tap the funds to keep valuable workers from exiting the troubled insurance giant.

News of the payments to top AIG talent comes as the federal government has just put more money into saving the company from bankruptcy, beefing up the total public commitment to $152 billion. Meanwhile, members of Congress are questioning the company's expenditures -- including lavish business trips to resorts -- during a time when taxpayers are on the hook for the bailout.

Read the rest here.

Bailout Blues

George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and Congress don’t seem like the U.S. Cavalry to me.

From Stock crunch deepens by Aaron Smith:

Stocks were in for a bruising Monday after a deepening financial crisis in Europe heightened worries about a global economic slowdown.

The S&P, Dow and Nasdaq futures - trading that gives an indication of how stocks may move in the early going - were sharply lower about one hour before the open. That followed a broad sell-off around the world on Monday.

Japan's Nikkei index plunged 4.3% to close at a four-year low. European indexes - the Britain's FTSE 100, Germany's Xetra DAX 100 and France's CAC 40 - were down about 5% as investors looked beyond the bailout, focusing instead on Europe's growing crisis.

"It's this fear factor ... continuing to grow," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners. "It's becoming like a cancer which is spreading all over the place."

From U.S. bank failures almost certain to increase in next year:

Here's a safe bet for uncertain times: A lot of banks won't survive the next year of upheaval despite the U.S. government's $700 billion rescue plan to restore order to the financial industry.

The biggest questions are how many will perish and how they will be put out of their misery, whether it's outright closures by regulators scrambling to preserve the dwindling deposit insurance fund or in fire sales made under government pressure.

Congress does what Bush and Paulson want, and things get worse. You guys are doing a heck of a job. Perhaps McCain needs to cancel his campaign, not just postpone it.

Why Are We In A Financial Crisis?

We have had tax cuts, economic stimulus packages galore, and rebate checks. All from the Bush administration and Congress. So, why are we hurting?

From Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration:

During his first term, George W. Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and are set to expire in 2011.

President Bush tried to calm turmoil in financial markets on March 17, 2008, by saying that his administration is "on top of the situation" in dealing with the slumping Economy of the United States. Bush and Congress had responded to signs of a slowing economy with the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 on February 13.

Since he first took office President Bush has been working on the economy. How’s he doing so far?

Should anyone pay attention to Bush anymore? Does he have any credibility left at all?

Let’s not forget his little wars.

From Bush Economic Policy Caused Crash:

…for every $400 spent worldwide, $1 of it was spent by the US on the Iraq war. I'm not sure anything personifies waste more than that statistic.

“…we, alongside the mujahedin, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Osama bin Laden

Could it be possible that President Bush has been wrong about the economy for eight years?

Update:
Perhaps the solution to the financial crisis is under Bush’s desk. Has he looked under there recently?

"Let these companies die"

From Mad as hell - taxpayers lash out by David Goldman:

"NO NO NO. Not just no, but HELL NO," writes Richard, a reader from Anchorage, Alaska.

"This is robbery pure and simple," Anna from Denver posted on CNNMoney.com's TalkBack blog this weekend.

"It's our money! Let these companies die," added Claudio from Plainville, Conn.

After President Bush petitioned Congress Saturday for the authority to spend up to $700 billion to to bail out a financial industry on the verge of collapse, he said the high price tag was not only justified, but essential.

"It is a big package because it's a big problem," Bush told reporters at a news conference. "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package."

But when asked what they thought of the government's proposal, most readers gave an overwhelming thumbs down.

"I'm tired of rewarding institutions and people for the bad decisions they have made," said Dean from Madison, Wis. "Sure, it will hurt tax payers if/when some of these institutions fail, but perhaps we need to let that happen. We do not need more big government involved in our lives. Enough is enough."

Don't hand me the tab

Readers focused most of their indignation on having to foot the bill for irresponsible lenders and borrowers.

Read the rest here.

This one is my favorite:

And John from Springfield, Va., said the government action actually hurts the people it is intended to help.

"The government does not have $700 billion dollars. WE have $700 billion, and it is being taken from us. If this is passed then the next administration and the next will be extracting this one from the people who are supposedly being protected by this bailout."

And Yet They Still Believe Him

Bush lies over and over and over… Yet they still believe him. It’s like some perverse version of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

From The complete (though ever-changing) elite consensus over the financial collapse by Glenn Greenwald:

Leave aside for the moment whether this gargantuan nationalization/bailout scheme is "necessary" in some utilitarian sense. One doesn't have to be an economics expert in order for several facts to be crystal clear:

First, the fact that Democrats are on board with this scheme means absolutely nothing. When it comes to things the Bush administration wants, Congressional Democrats don't say "no" to anything. They say "yes" to everything. That's what they're for.

They say "yes" regardless of whether they understand what they're endorsing. They say "yes" regardless of whether they've been told even the most basic facts about what they're being told to endorse. They say "yes" anytime doing so is politically less risky than saying "no," which is essentially always and is certainly the case here. They say "yes" whenever the political establishment -- meaning establishment media outlets and the corporate class that funds them -- wants them to say "yes," which is the case here. And they say "yes" with particular speed and eagerness when told to do so by the Serious Trans-Partisan Republican Experts like Hank Paulson and Ben Bernake (or Mike McConnell and Robert Gates and, before them, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell).

So nothing could be less reassuring or more meaningless than the fact that the Democratic leadership has announced that what they heard scared them so much that they are certain all of this is necessary -- whatever "all this" might be (and does anyone think that they know what "this" even is?). It may be "necessary" or may not be, but the fact that Congressional Democrats are saying this is irrelevant, since they would not have done anything else -- they're incapable of doing anything else -- other than giving their stamp of approval when they're told to.

Read more here.

From Thoughts On Sunday Bobbleheads by tristero:

The Republicans are also playing politics. They believed it is necessary, before actually addressing the crisis in real terms, to make sure they are carefully positioned as the "protectors of the American people" advocating a "clean" solution. Given the shared sense of imminent crisis requiring immediate action, the oversight, compensation limits, and "reciprocity" - whatever that is - put on this bill will be limited. In other words, Congress is about to hand the Bush administration the biggest blank check they have received to date.

And finally, I am confident that the American people will greatly benefit from this. Which American people? After 8 years of Bushism, you have to ask? Why, those who caused this crisis and who exploited this crisis, of course. They will slurp up the trillion dollars of our hard-earned money that's gonna be served up on a silver platter faster than you can say "Americans are suckers if they vote Republican."

Update from digby: I just have to add that when I heard Paulson say this bail out was actually going to make money for the government, I couldn't help but remember Paul Wolfowitz assuring us that the Iraq war would pay for itself.

Trust 'em?

Read more here.

From Before We Jump In by Josh Marshall:

There are subjects I know a lot about and others I know very little about. And the high-wire financial mess we're currently in falls clearly into the latter category. But I know enough to be troubled that we appear ready to give upwards of a trillion dollars in unfettered and unreviewable spending authority to the ... let's face it, the Bush administration, the folks who did such a bang up job in Iraq and New Orleans.

This morning a friend told me it's like the Iraq War all over again -- Shock & Awe, followed by an occupation of Wall Street, and all with no exit plan.

The United States Institute of Peace

Did you know that there is an organization called The United States Institute of Peace? I’ve never heard of them. I think they need a new press agent. I also think they need to work much harder.

From The United States Institute of Peace home page:

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and development, and increase conflict management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide.

The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peacebuilding efforts around the globe.

Here is a little historical background:

In 1976, the first cornerstone for the campaign that led to the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace was laid when Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana and Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon introduced a bill to create the George Washington Peace Academy. After hearings in the Senate on the Hartke-Hatfield bill, it was decided that further study was needed. In 1979, a provision was successfully added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriation Bill for the establishment of the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution.

From their FAQ page:

How is USIP funded?

Funding for USIP operations, activities, and programs comes from the USIP's annual appropriation from Congress. USIP may, however, receive gifts and contributions from private agencies, organizations, corporations, or other legal entities for use in program hospitality and for the purchase, construction, furnishing, and maintenance of its permanent headquarters building, now being constructed.

So essentially our tax dollars fund both war (The Pentagon, etc.) and peace (The United States Institute of Peace.) How very Kafkaesque.

Just Do It

Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith say that there are Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now:

Retired General Antonio Taguba, the officer who led the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib, recently wrote in the preface to the new report, Broken laws, Broken Lives:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Should those who ordered war crimes be held to account? With the conclusion of the Bush regime approaching, many people are dubious, even those horrified by Administration actions. They fear a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the country apart. They note that such division could make it far harder for the country to address the many other crises it is facing. They see the upcoming elections as a better way to set the country on a new path.

Read the rest here.

Gerald Ford used the same argument that the country would face “a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the country apart.” Ford was wrong to pardon Nixon way back when. What Bush has done is much worse than what Nixon did.

Both Bush and Congress have fallen so low in popularity that the case could easily be made that investigating the Bush administration would only bring the country together, not tear it apart.

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Mark Twain

When The Donothingers Actually Do Something

I happen to have missed this little bit of news. I was reading the transcript for Bill Moyers Journal for July 11, 2008 and came across this:

BILL MOYERS: And after crusading for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, conservatives pushing family values turned out to be their own worst enemies. Some of their foot soldiers in politics and the religious right were outed for adultery, stalking Capitol Hill pages, soliciting sex. Believe it or not, just the other day Senator Larry Craig, who had been arrested for lewd conduct in a public bathroom, and Senator David Vitter, a strict moralist revealed to have been a frequent customer of brothels, signed on as co-sponsors of the Republicans' Marriage Protection Amendment.

I read that, and I’m thinking what is “the Republicans' Marriage Protection Amendment”? So I googled it and found out it is that stupid amendment to ban gay marriage. Obviously my brain must still be in first gear.

Let’s take a look at who else is sponsoring this Bill:

Wayne Allard (R-CO) was named by Time magazine in 2006 as one of "America's 5 Worst Senators."

Sam Brownback (R-KS) who once, while on the Senate floor, put words in the mouth (didn’t know they had one, but how else can they speak?) of an embryo: “Are you going to kill me?”

Richard Burr (R-NC) who once said of George W. Bush: "I'm not embarrassed to vote with the president 96 percent of the time. He's right that often."

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) who once said: "We need better intelligence. If we had better intelligence in the Civil War we'd be quoting Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln."

Mike Crapo (R-ID) who managed in 2005 to receive “more than twice as much money in donations from people in the U.S. Virgin Islands than from his home state.” He does not support health care for American Veterans, but does support guns in our parks.

James DeMint (R-SC) who once said: "If a person is a practicing homosexual, they should not be teaching in our schools." He later said he felt the same "if a single woman who is pregnant and living with her boyfriend should be hired to teach my third-grade children."
Michael Enzi (R-WY) introduced HIMMAA to the Senate.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even racist conservatives don’t like him.

James Inhofe (R-OK) who once said: ”As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, ‘much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.’ I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,’ a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.”

Johnny Isakson (R-GA) who once said “Robert Reich, once observed ‘most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.’ He is right.” (Yes, you guessed it, Isakson is a multi-millionaire. I'd like to call him an asshole, but I'm too polite.)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was named by Time magazine in 2006 as one of "America's Best Senators." Go figure.

Pat Roberts (R-KS) who supposedly leaked classified intel hurting efforts to find Saddam Hussein.

Richard Shelby (R-AL) who also supposedly leaked classified information.

John Thune (R-SD) doesn’t like children.

Roger Wicker (R-MS) apparently accepted illegal campaign contributions.

Placing the importance of one or two religious issues above everything else and, because of that, voting for people like these is suicidal, to say the least.

Lastly, I would just like to say that this post was way too much work. That old saying about the do-nothing Congress appears to be true. Trying to find out what all of these guys have actually done was murder. Wayne Allard is the best example of a do-nothinger.

Why is it that when the donothingers actually do something it usually pisses me off?

It's Not Just Bush

It’s not just President Bush upsetting many Americans. Most are not that happy with Congress as well.

Tidbits from Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever by rasmussenreports.com:

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.