Tag Archives: News

Two scandals deflated, one persists

Salon – Joan Walsh

The Obama administration started Tuesday mired in three scandals the GOP seemed able to tie “into one ‘Big Brother Obama’ storyline,” in the words of Greg Sargent, and ended it appearing to face political culpability on only one, the Department of Justice’s broad subpoenas obtaining phone records from the Associated Press. It’s not to say Benghazi or the IRS mess went away, but the GOP’s creepy plot line got a whole lot less plausible.

The Benghazi “scandal” lost velocity thanks to CNN’s Jake Tapper reporting that an email key to the notion that the White House doctored talking points to protect the State Department didn’t at all read the way ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported it. Karl quoted White House national security communications advisor Ben Rhodes’ email specifically saying the talking points should “reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” but the actual email obtained by Tapper didn’t mention the State Department at all. Karl ended the day with the shocking admission that while he’d reported on air that he’d “obtained” the emails in question, and wrote online that he’d “reviewed” them, in fact he’d only heard about them from the notes of a source – presumed to be a House GOP staffer.

Amazingly, Karl insisted Tapper’s reporting didn’t challenge the basic facts of his story, even though he acknowledged for the first time that he hadn’t actually “obtained” or “reviewed” the actual emails, but rather had notes about them read to him by his source. The fact that Karl put the purported email from Rhodes within quotation marks – which in actual journalism means you’re reading a direct quote from someone – seriously damages his credibility. But the ABC reporter reported concluded his self-defense by blaming the White House for failing to release all the emails – rather than blaming his source for misleading him, or himself for misleading his readers by using quotes around the Rhodes email.

Here’s hoping ABC News explains why the paraphrased depiction of notes about an email from a hostile source wound up within quotation marks attributed to Rhodes, and whether that’s the news organization’s policy.

On the IRS mess, the day closed with the release of the Inspector General’s report on the improper review of applications by Tea Party-related groups for tax-exempt “social welfare” status. The report blamed “inadequate management” for the review process, which began under Bush-appointed leadership, and it reads like everyone’s worst nightmare of incompetent government. But it finds no evidence that anyone higher than middle management was responsible for the review. Moreover, although it’s clear that groups with Tea Party or Patriot in their names came in for more scrutiny and delay than most liberal groups,  more than two thirds of the groups flagged for review had nothing to do with the Tea Party. And none of the conservatives were denied tax-exempt status, though many faced long delays.  Ironically, the only group that saw its status denied (for 10 of its chapters) was Emerge America, which works to elect Democratic women to office.

Within hours, President Obama sent a scathing statement about the IG’s findings, calling them “intolerable and inexcusable” and promising that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew would make sure all of its recommendations to correct the flaws in the IRS’s review process were implemented.

It’s the DOJ’s subpoena of phone records for 20 AP phone lines used by at least 100 reporters, in pursuit of a government official who leaked information about the U.S. foiling another al Qaida underwear-bomb plot, that has the capacity to damage the Obama administration. This White House is already shadowed by the fact that it has prosecuted more government “leakers” – also known as whistleblowers – than all previous administrations put together.

As Marcy Wheeler explained in Salon, the DOJ’s own guidelines require it to go directly to the news agency in question with its subpoena, which would have given AP the right to negotiate over it, or challenge it in court. The DOJ may subvert that requirement if going to the news agency would “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” Since the investigation into the identity of the leaker was already big news – in fact, congressional leaders in both parties had demanded it – it hardly constituted a secret operation that would be blown by negotiating with the AP.

So did Tuesday’s developments on the Benghazi and IRS fronts break scandal fever in the Beltway? Sadly, no. On Wednesday MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” remained scandal central, setting the day’s agenda. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank’s wispy, fact-light “President Passerby” seems to be the top talking point: Even if some of the smoke is clearing, Obama hasn’t done enough personally to put out the fires. That’s leading the Drudge Report as I write.

Obama is not without blame here; the AP scandal particularly seems to stem from his administration’s overall approach to secrecy. With hindsight, he probably should have directed Jack Lew to take bolder steps on Friday night, when the IRS story broke. On Benghazi, the Beltway is determined to punish the president for insisting the talking points scandal is a “sideshow” – when that’s exactly what it is.

As I wrote Monday, before the AP news, some of the same bad actors who paralyzed the country during the Clinton years over phony scandals are getting ready to do it again. It’s too bad the genuine overreach by the DOJ is going to give some progressives understandable pause about wholeheartedly defending the administration. But people need to acknowledge that two of these three scandals were concocted by the GOP outrage machine.

Meanwhile, the headline crawl on “Morning Joe” announced: “U.S. deficit shrinks far faster than expected.” But the words sat there silently, drowned out by noise about mostly made-up scandals.

 

Comments Off

Filed under White House "Scandals"

The New York Post gets the Onion treatment

The New York Post gets the Onion treatment

Back home in New York City, I rarely read The New York Post, for the same reasons…

Salon

The news outlet spread rumors that a Saudi suspect was in custody, and the satire site is holding them accountable

The Onion’s bold attempts at humor are not always successful, but today the satire news site took a risk in the wake of a national tragedy, and hit the nail on the head. In a column satirizing the New York Post, the Onion ridiculed the Post’s poorly sourced story that disseminated virtually no new information, and instead fueled fears of Islamophobia during a period of heightened anxiety.

Under the headline “This Is A Tragedy—Does It Really Matter Exactly How Many People Died Or What Any Of The Details Are?” the Onion writes as a New York Post columnist:

Yesterday’s violent attack at the Boston Marathon has left all of us struggling to come to terms with such a senseless display of carnage. In the wake of this devastating tragedy, we at the New York Post join the nation in mourning those who were lost in this horrible event so that we may console one another and ultimately emerge from this catastrophe stronger and with a greater compassion for one another.

And so, as we attempt to begin the healing process, let us not bicker over such trivial matters as the actual death toll and what exactly happened at yesterday’s bombing. After all, is it really important, in the aftermath of an event so disastrous and sad, to pick apart the so-called information surrounding this horrific situation and find out what actually happened?

1 Comment

Filed under Boston Marathon Bombings, New York Post

Entitlement reform” is a hoax

I have a feeling that a lot of people knew this already…but this is for those who might not know…

Salon – Robert Reich

No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits

It has become accepted economic wisdom, uttered with deadpan certainty by policy pundits and budget scolds on both sides of the aisle, that the only way to get control over America’s looming deficits is to “reform entitlements.”

But the accepted wisdom is wrong.

Start with the statistics Republicans trot out at the slightest provocation — federal budget data showing a huge spike in direct payments to individuals since the start of 2009, shooting up by almost $600 billion, a 32 percent increase.

And Census data showing 49 percent of Americans living in homes where at least one person is collecting a federal benefit – food stamps, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, or subsidized housing — up from 44 percent in 2008.

But these expenditures aren’t driving the federal budget deficit in future years. They’re temporary. The reason for the spike is Americans got clobbered in 2008 with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. They and their families have needed whatever helping hands they could get.

If anything, America’s safety nets have been too small and shot through with holes. That’s why the number and percentage of Americans in poverty has increased dramatically, including 22 percent of our children.

What about Social Security and Medicare (along with Medicare’s poor step-child, Medicaid)?

Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits. By law, it can only spend money from the Social Security trust fund.

That fund has been in surplus for the better part of two decades, as boomers contributed to it during their working lives. As boomers begin to retire, those current surpluses are disappearing.

But this only means the trust fund will be collecting from the rest of the federal government the IOUs on the surpluses it lent to the rest of the government.

This still leaves a problem for the trust fund about two decades from now.

Yet the way to deal with this isn’t to raise the eligibility age for receiving Social Security benefits, as many entitlement reformers are urging. That would put an unfair burden on most laboring people, whose bodies begin wearing out about the same age they did decades ago even though they live longer.

And it’s not to reduce cost-of-living adjustments for inflation, as even the White House seemed ready to propose in recent months. Benefits are already meager for most recipients. The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Besides, Social Security’s current inflation adjustment actually understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients — who spend far more than anyone else on health care, the costs of which have been rising faster than overall inflation.

That leaves two possibilities that “entitlement reformers” rarely if ever suggest, but are the only fair alternatives: raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes (in 2013 that ceiling is $113,700), and means-testing benefits so wealthy retirees receive less. Both should be considered.

What’s left to reform? Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to soar. But here again, look closely and you’ll see neither is really the problem.

The underlying problem is the soaring costs of health care — as evidenced by soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles that all of us are bearing — combined with the aging of the boomer generation.

The solution isn’t to reduce Medicare benefits. It’s for the nation to contain overall healthcare costs and get more for its healthcare dollars.

We’re already spending nearly 18 percent of our entire economy on health care, compared to an average of 9.6 percent in all other rich countries.

Yet we’re no healthier than their citizens are. In fact, our life expectancy at birth (78.2 years) is shorter than theirs (averaging 79.5 years), and our infant mortality (6.5 deaths per 1000 live births) is higher (theirs is 4.4).

Why? Doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have every incentive to spend on unnecessary tests, drugs, and procedures.

For example, almost 95 percent of cases of lower back pain are best relieved by physical therapy. But American doctors and hospitals routinely do expensive MRI’s, and then refer patients to orthopedic surgeons who often do even more costly surgery. There’s not much money in physical therapy.

Another example: American doctors typically hospitalize people whose diabetes, asthma, or heart conditions act up. Twenty percent of these people are hospitalized again within a month. In other rich nations nurses make home visits to ensure that people with such problems are taking their medications. Nurses don’t make home visits to Americans with acute conditions because hospitals aren’t paid for such visits.

An estimated 30 percent of all healthcare spending in the United States is pure waste, according to the Institute of Medicine.

We keep patient records on computers that can’t share data, requiring that they be continuously rewritten on pieces of paper and then reentered on different computers, resulting in costly errors.

And our balkanized healthcare system spends huge sums collecting money from different pieces of itself: Doctors collect from hospitals and insurers, hospitals collect from insurers, insurers collect from companies or from policy holders.

A major occupational category at most hospitals is “billing clerk.” A third of nursing hours are devoted to documenting what’s happened so insurers have proof.

Cutting or limiting Medicare and Medicaid costs, as entitlement reformers want to do, won’t reform any of this. It would just result in less care.

In fact, we’d do better to open Medicare to everyone. Medicare’s administrative costs are in the range of 3 percent.

That’s well below the 5 to 10 percent costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It’s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25 to 27 percent of premiums). And it’s way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40 percent). It’s even far below the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.

Healthcare costs would be further contained if Medicare and Medicaid could use their huge bargaining leverage over healthcare providers to shift away from a “fee-for-the-most-costly-service” system to a system focused on achieving healthy outcomes.

Medicare isn’t the problem. It may be the solution.

“Entitlement reform” sounds like a noble endeavor. But it has little or nothing to do with reducing future budget deficits.

Taming future deficits requires three steps having nothing to do with entitlements: Limiting the growth of overall healthcare costs, cutting our bloated military, and ending corporate welfare (tax breaks and subsidies targeted to particular firms and industries).

Obsessing about “entitlement reform” only serves to distract us from these more important endeavors.

Edit: Emphasis is mine

<><><>

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

Comments Off

Filed under Entitlement Reform

The wingnut trifecta

The wingnut trifecta

In this instance, Joan Walsh says what most pundits won’t…

Salon

Crazy GOP claims that Hillary Clinton is faking her illness slur the country’s three most popular Democrats

Right-wing claims that Hillary Clinton faked illness to avoid testifying about the Benghazi tragedy would be funny if they weren’t so ugly. It’s the wingnut trifecta, smearing our most popular past Democratic president, Bill Clinton, along with our current president, Barack Obama, and the current 2016 front-runner, all with one shot. Imagine birtherism crossed with the worst of the hateful anti-Clinton lies, like the “Vince Foster was murdered” claim. That’s Hillary-health trutherism.

But so far right-wingers claiming that Clinton somehow faked her concussion have gone virtually unchallenged on Fox News and right-wing sites like Newsbusters and the Daily Caller. Everyone from Charles Krauthammer to Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton have gotten into the act. Even after reports that Clinton also suffered a dangerous blood clot between her brain and skull, Bolton not only failed to apologize, he suggested that she was dodging Benghazi questions in order to protect her 2016 chances.

This is crazy. Obviously, the Benghazi-coverup stories began as a way to hurt Obama, by alleging that he wasn’t telling the truth about Libya because he didn’t want to reveal that al-Qaida was a factor in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, especially at the height of election season. After the election, the claims continued, and they mainly focused on the Sunday-show statements of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. They managed to torpedo Rice’s chances to succeed Clinton as secretary of state.

Now they’re going after Clinton herself, and no doubt some of it is designed to hurt her 2016 chances, even though she herself insists she won’t run. It’s remarkable to me how few mainstream, respectable Republicans have come to Clinton’s defense.  The Washington Post’s  Kathleen Parker did so today, in a column that declared “the attacks on Clinton during her illness, essentially attacks on her character, have been cruel and unfair.” But Parker is the rare Republican known for fairness and honesty (she was an early public critic of Sarah Palin, when others merely trashed the V.P. nominee anonymously).

It would be nice to see the three amigos, Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, who cruelly and vindictively railroaded Susan Rice, get together and tell their wingnut friends the same thing. But tolerating Clinton health trutherism is like tolerating birtherism for the GOP: You don’t necessarily share in the craziness (and in the case of birtherism, the racism) that inspires it, but you benefit from its toxic half-life nonetheless.

I talked about the crazy Benghazi allegations on “Hardball” today and I was surprised to find myself in strong disagreement with the Daily Beast’s Lauren Ashburn. Ashburn acted shocked at the Clinton slurs; I argued they’re just the latest outbreak of Clinton-Obama derangement syndrome. But even more significant, Ashburn tried to declare that both sides are somehow equally to blame for the “incivility” of our current political debate, claiming that someone (she didn’t say who or where) had wished death on former President George Bush when the news broke that he was in the intensive care unit.

I’m on record, often, saying that false equivalence about haters on the right and left is dangerous. To equate Democrats and Republicans on this front, you’d have to imagine, say, Susan Rice suggesting something that crazy, not to mention unethical, about Mitt Romney’s secretary of state, had the 2012 race ended differently. And you can’t equate some random commenter on the HuffPost with people like Krauthammer and Hannity who have regular perches atop Fox News. That would be like Chris Matthews wishing death on the former president; it would never happen.

Watch my segment with Ashburn and Michael Smerconish…

4 Comments

Filed under Hillary Clinton, Wing-Nuttery

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Questions Whether Race is a factor in the debt ceiling talks…does she have a point?

Discussing race in this country is such a divisive topic that most people would rather deny its existence or at least sweep it under the rug and discuss it at a later date.  In my years online, I have learned to stay away from the topic in general discussion forums.  People will attack you as being a “militant”, “prejudice”, “racist” and “anti-white” or one is “playing the race card”.  Mostly because they don’t want to talk about it.

I suspect Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee will get the same response…(See related articles, below.)

Ebony Mom Politics

We have never seen the debt ceiling issue play out like this before. We have never seen or heard talk of the United States of America defaulting on its loans, but we also have never had a black president before. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee raised this issue on the floor of Congress. I have heard several people that I know ask this same question this week. So tell me what you think is  race a factor?

Related articles

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Is Weiner Scandal Retaliation From Clarence Thomas?

As I’ve previously mentioned, I’ve been following the Rep. Anthony Weiner hoopla since last Friday.

I’ve asked myself the same question, is the Weiner scandal retaliation from the Clarance Thomas issue which Rep. Weiner exposed

Just before the faux scandal  about Weiner broke out on May 27th, Weiner had been tweeting  about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ possible  ethics violations on his tax returns.

News One

As Rep. Anthony Weiner’s alleged crotch-shot dominates the news, information on possible motives to deface Weiner’s credibility are surfacing under the radar. And as it appears, Weinergate just might be a smear campaign executed by  conservative activists looking to defend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

For months, Rep. Weiner has prompted Thomas to disclose the money his wife, Virginia Thomas made working for Liberty Central, a political organization that has openly opposed President Obama’s health care reform agenda. According to Weiner, Mrs. Thomas’ political affiliations put the justice’s impartiality on the bench in question.

Details of Virginia Thomas’ salary and other payments were disclosed Friday night as the press and most Americans prepared for the Memorial Day weekend.

The timing of Thomas’ disclosure quickly became ammunition for Weiner, who made it a point to shed light on the hush-hush disclosure via twitter, hurling numerous tweets at  #ConflictedClarenceThomas.

The tweets read:

“Pretty crazy that the Scout does a pre memorial day Friday dumping of its financial disclosure forms. #ButImOnTheCase”

“#ConflictedClarenceThomas dumps his conflicts forms on Friday before memorial day. #AhFreshAir”

“Spouse of #ConflictedClarenceThomas has every right to work for whomever, but he must recuse himself.”

A day after Weiner waged his assault, political pundit Anthony Breitbart broke a story on his site Big Government of a lewd picture sent to a 21-year-old college co-ed from Weiner’s Twitter account. The picture of an unidentified crotch, was sent to Breitbart from Twitter user @patriotusa76 as a screenshot, which @patriotusa76 said he captured reading Weiner’s feed moments before the tweet was deleted.

Breitbart ran with the photo and the story took off, while  Thomas’ disclosure became an after thought. Weiner defended himself by claiming his Twitter account was hacked, but his claims have yet to be substantiated.

As a result, pundits and conspiracy theorist are probing deep into the coincidence. The liberal website The Daily Kos published a story with evidence they claim proves Weinergate is a conservative-led smear campaign.

UPDATE:

Rep. Weiner’s Wife, Huma Abedin Not Worried About Infidelity

NEW YORK– Huma Abedin, Rep. Anthony Weiner’s wife isn’t worried about infidelity after the news of a lewd picture of his crotch was sent to a 21-year-old college student via Twitter, according to friend a of Abedin. 

“She’s not worried about infidelity,” said her friend. “She’s confident and comfortable in her marriage.”

Abedin, a former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, married Weiner in July 2010.

7 Comments

Filed under Judicial Ethics, Justice Clarence Thomas, Rep. Anthony Weiner

Tea Party Activist Wants Mandatory Christmas Carols In Public Schools

We’ve all seen this movie before.  It’s no different than my previous post about banning an atheist from public office.   Both the demand for Christmas Carols to be sung in a public school and an atheist banned from holding office because of his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are First Amendment issues.

Huffington Post:

The Tea Party movement is supposed to be all about keeping the government out of your business. But if some California members get their way, the state will force public schoolchildren to sing Christmas carols.

It’s called the “Freedom to Present Christmas Music in Public School Classrooms or Assemblies” initiative.

Merry Hyatt, a substitute teacher and member of the Redding Tea Party Patriots, is behind the push. The Record Searchlight reports:

The initiative would require schools to provide children the opportunity to listen to or perform Christmas carols, and would subject the schools to litigation if the rule isn’t followed.Schools currently are allowed to offer Christmas music as long as it is used for academic purposes rather than devotional purposes and isn’t used to promote a particular religious belief, according to an analysis by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Parents are allowed to have their students opt out of the caroling if they express that desire in advance.

“We were having Christmas without Jesus,” Hyatt complained of her previous school district.

The initiative has the support of the local Tea Party Patriots president.

“Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas,” said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. “That’s why we have it. It’s not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It’s like, ‘Wow you guys, it’s called Christmas for a reason.’ “

So much for limited government?

Ok, there is so much wrong with this Tea Party backed rule, on so many levels,  I don’t know where to begin. The president of the Redding Tea Party says:

“Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas,” said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. “That’s why we have it. It’s not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It’s like, ‘Wow you guys, it’s called Christmas for a reason.’ “

I truly wonder if these people ever read ANYTHING except anti-Obama and anti-government sites.  Someone needs to tell Ms. Ryan that Christmas IS about the Winter Solstice.

Personally I am NOT an atheist, but believe strongly in First Amendment rights for everyone.  In fact there are laws against religious repression as defined by The Constitution. 

 One might ask where is the religious repression in the christmas carol issue? 

The fact that the schools were threatened with litigation if they didn’t obey the rule, is sufficient basis for repression.  The state mandating teachers to remove children who are either not religious, or are of a different faith,  to be separated from their classmates, taken to another area while the Christmas celebrations are in  progress,  is a repression of THEIR religious freedoms.

370 U.S. 421 Engle v Vitale:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

I rest my case.  :)

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Redding Tea party