You can access all the past editions of The Daily Planet on the green Category bar on the top of each page under the heading PlanetPOV.
______________________________________________________
BUDGET
Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that boosting the amount of individual income subject to Social Security taxes should be considered as a way to put the retirement program on a stronger fiscal footing.
[…]
Obama noted that Social Security has not been a driver of budget deficits, though the program will be unable to pay out full benefits to retirees in a few decades. For that reason he said “tweaks” are needed to stabilize the program’s finances.
“For the vast majority of Americans, every dime you earn, you’re paying some in Social Security,” Obama told college students in Virginia. “But for (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion he’s not paying a dime in Social Security taxes.”
Obama: Do We Want To Be Pothole Nation?
During the first stop of a three-day campaign-style blitz across the country promoting his vision for reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit, President Obama decried the country’s “crumbling” infrastructure and said proposed GOP cuts would lead to “potholes everywhere.”
The Republican plan, he said, would cut transportation costs by a third, leading to more deterioration of the nation’s roads and bridges, which would in turn, would hamper economic growth.
“So we have potholes everywhere….and we think that businesses are going to come here and invest?” he told a townhall gathering at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, VA. “Businesses are going to start investing in other countries because they’re gonna say it costs us too much money because our trucks going over those potholes costs us too much money to fix.”
[…]
“I cannot afford to have all of you as bystanders,” Obama said. “There are powerful interests in Washington … they are going to want to reduce the deficit on your backs.”
BUSINESS
Top ‘U.S.’ Corporations Outsourced More Than 2.4 Million American Jobs Over The Last Decade
The Wall Street Journal reports today that Corporate America certainly isn’t doing its part to help bring America out of its economic malaise. The paper surveyed employment data by some of the nation’s largest corporations — General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Chevron, Cisco, Intel, Stanley Works, Merck, United Technologies, and Oracle — and found that they cut their workforces by 2.9 million people over the last decade while hiring 2.4 million people overseas.
The paper notes that this is actually a sharp reversal from trends in the late 1990s, when these major companies were creating more jobs in the United States than overseas. Yet by 2001, things took a turn for the worse, and these corporations have been adding more jobs abroad than at home, as is illustrated here:
As you can see from the chart, the economic recession has had little impact on Corporate America’s patriotism. In fact, in 2009, representatives of many of the nation’s most powerful corporations attended the “2009 Strategic Outsourcing Conference” to talk about how to send American jobs overseas. Conference organizers polled the more than 70 senior executives who attended the conference about the behavior of their companies in response to the recession. The majority said their companies increased outsourcing in response to the downturn, with only 9 percent saying they terminated some outsourcing agreements:
Another question asked of the executives found that the top reason for companies to outsource was to “reduce operating costs” (46 percent of respondents). Only 12 percent of respondents said their reason for outsourcing was “access to world class capabilities.” This means companies are outsourcing to save themselves money, not make better products.
Unfortunately, for some of these companies, sending American jobs overseas isn’t enough. They also want to bring the profits back into the United States with as little tax liability as possible. Cisco Systems, which had 26 percent of its workforce abroad at the start of the decade but 46 percent of its workforce abroad by the end, is currently involved in a lobbying campaign titled “Win America” calling for a tax repatriation holiday that would let big corporations “bring money they have stashed overseas back to the U.S. at a dramatically lower tax rate.” A similar tax break in 2004 actually increased the amount of money companies store overseas.
With Lawsuit Over, Taco Bell’s Mystery Meat Is A Mystery No Longer
USDA moves to let Monsanto perform its own environmental impact studies on GMOs
Last August, Federal Judge Jeffrey White issued a stinging rebuke to the USDA for its process on approving new genetically modified seeds. He ruled that the agency’s practice of “deregulating” novel seed varieties without first performing an environmental impact study violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
[…]
How has the Obama USDA responded to Judge White’s rebuke? By repeatedly defying it, most recently in February, when the agency moved to allow farmers to plant the engineered seeds even though the impact study has yet to be completed. Its rationale for violating the court order will raise an eyebrow of anyone who read Gary Taubes’ recent New York Times Magazine piece teasing out the health hazards of the American sweet tooth: the USDA feared that the GMO sugar beet ban would cause sweetener prices to rise. Thus the USDA places the food industry’s right to cheap sweetener for its junk food over the dictates of a federal court.
In early April, the USDA made what I’m reading as a second response to Judge White, this one even more craven. To satisfy the legal system’s pesky demand for environmental impact studies of novel GMO crops, the USDA has settled upon a brilliant solution: let the GMO industry conduct its own environmental impact studies, or pay other researchers to. The USDA announced the program in the Federal Register for April 7, 2011 [PDF].
ECONOMY
The GAO explains the debt ceiling
Ezra Klein:
My column today was mostly about how the market would react to uncertainty about when and whether the government will raise its debt ceiling. But there’s a lot that I wasn’t able to get to in the piece, including what the government can do to stave the market off, how the budgetary process could be changed so we don’t keep getting pushed up to this abyss and why past successes at waiting till the last minute may not work this time. Luckily, this Government Accountability Office report has lots of detail on all those issues. You’ll learn, among other things, that:
l “Since 1995, the statutory debt limit has been increased 12 times to its current level of $14.294 trillion.”
l “Managing debt near the debt limit diverts Treasury’s limited resources away from other cash and debt management issues.”
l “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”
l “Treasury’s past success at managing cash and debt when near or at the debt limit is no guarantee that it can continue to manage successfully in the future and may be misleading. Given the size of current and projected borrowing needs, the extraordinary actions Treasury uses to manage debt near or at the debt limit will be more limited in coming years. As a result, once debt is at the debt limit, Congress will likely have less time to debate raising the debt limit before there are disruptions to government programs and services and to the Treasury market.”
Your 2010 Federal Taxpayer Receipt (interactive)
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that this year, for the first time ever, American taxpayers would be able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent. Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care.
The Invisible Recession
Dean Baker:
The stimulus package helped to reverse the economic decline, but it was not nearly large enough. The package came to roughly $300 billion a year in tax cuts and new spending, roughly one-quarter the size of the shortfall created by collapse of the housing bubble. And much of this stimulus faded out by the end of last year.
This is where President Obama’s plan should have stepped in to make up for the lack of demand in the economy. Spending by the government has, in the past, helped to stimulate demand.
But instead of explaining to the public the need for the government to make up the spending gap until the private sector recovers, President Obama is now pushing the line from Wall Street that we have a huge deficit problem. Remarkably the same people who wrecked the economy in the first place are again dictating our country’s economic policy.
The reality is that cutting the deficit means cutting demand in the economy and fewer jobs. There is no storeowner or factory manager anywhere in the country who is going to hire people because the government reduced its deficit.
What 1986, 1993, 2001 & 2009 have in common: right makes bold economic predictions, which prove to be wrong
Steve Benen:
Kornacki has several entertaining clips, featuring remarks from Newt Gingrich (current presidential candidate), John Kasich (current Ohio governor), and a parade of like-minded Republican lawmakers, all of whom were certain Clinton — a president whose legitimacy they questioned from Day One — was making a drastic mistake. Gingrich went so far as to predict, “I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat [sic] machine’s recession. And each one of them will be held personally accountable.”
I like the idea of politicians being “held personally accountable” for the accuracy of projections. Indeed, it seems especially relevant in this case.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now know every GOP member of the House and Senate — literally, all of them — was wrong, and Clinton was right. Indeed, watching the clips Kornacki posted, it’s eerie how similar the rhetoric is to Republican talking points of the Obama era. The language has barely changed at all (and they’re still wrong).
[…]
In the late ’80s, many conservative Republicans said Reagan’s plan that raised taxes would hurt the economy. They were wrong. In 1993, Republicans said Clinton’s plan that raised taxes would cause a recession. They were wrong. In 2001, Republicans said Bush’s plan that cut taxes would create an economic boom and balance the budget. They were really wrong. In 2009, Republicans said Obama’s plan would make the Great Recession worse and fail to create jobs. And again, they were wrong.
I realize the political world tends to have a short memory, but shouldn’t the pattern tell us something?
“Every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown.”
PolitiFact:
FALSE
EDUCATION
Cerf’s Up: How Privatization Will Wipe Out Public Education in New Jersey (Part 1)
Global Education Advisors is giving Cerf some Edison-style issues – first he said he was not connected to the company, then admitted he founded it and now is leaving the door open to still financially profiting from it as it gets business from the state on studying privatizing education – more “synergies”!
So now the question becomes scope. Is this all just a quid pro quo between Christie and Cerf, a payback for years of throwing business Christie’s way? You know, typical Jersey stuff. Or is there a larger strategy at work? How does Derrell “Dangerous Minds” Bradford fit into of all of this? Why is Cory Booker giving Cerf’s company secret contracts to study privatizing Newark’s schools?
Who is going to make money if Christie, Cerf, Klein, Bradford and others get their way?
ENVIRONMENT
Washing Away The Arctic Coastline
JUSTICE
President Obama on the military trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed:
Bob Cesca:
“I remain convinced we could have handled this in New York. We could have handled it in a normal court.”
Oh — just words. He should have circumvented Congress somehow — bullied his way around all of its pesky “laws” and “appropriations.” It’s not like we progressives spent eight years screaming about “the rule of law” and how the president shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent Congress to fulfill his agenda.
Unless, that is, all of our screaming was “just words.”
Snark aside, the president clearly wanted to close Gitmo and move the KSM trial to New York. Congress passed laws forbidding him from doing that. I’m not sure how progressives believe he could have discovered a legal way around those laws. But they’re laws. And the president is not above the law. Yes, we spent eight years screeching about the rule of law.
Obama’s DISCLOSE Act end run (Exec. Order)
The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky reports:
An impeccable source has provided me with a copy of a draft Executive Order that the White House is apparently circulating for comments from several government agencies. Titled “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” it appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to implement — by executive fiat — portions of the DISCLOSE Act.
…
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:
Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.
Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:
(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
Jay carney: Re signing statements: as a candidate, POTUS spoke out against their abuse, not their appropriate use. See answer #4:
MEDIA
Thom Hartmann: I’ll bet you didn’t see this Palin on “Face the Nation”
WATCH: DylanRatigan’s wet kiss to Breitbart today on MSNBC
Breitbart admitted to tricking the press and the American people about ACORN.
In his speech, Breitbart talked about the beginning of his website and how the media didn’t take him seriously. And they didn’t. So how does he get their attention? The Acorn videos.
So I’m going to have to stage a series of tricks to get the mainstream media to have to pay attention to it. So that’s what I did. I admit it, I tricked you.
MILITARY
WikiLeaks Suspect Being Moved Out of Quantico
The Army private suspected of giving classified data to WikiLeaks is being moved to a state-of-the-art facility at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where Pentagon officials said more extensive mental, emotional and physical health care will be available.
[…]
But the transfer, which Johnson described as “imminent”, comes in the wake of international criticism about Manning’s treatment during his detention at the Marine Corps base at Quantico. And the conditions of Manning’s detention have been the focus of repeated protests from human rights groups and lawmakers.
[…]
But the transfer, which Johnson described as “imminent”, comes in the wake of international criticism about Manning’s treatment during his detention at the Marine Corps base at Quantico. And the conditions of Manning’s detention have been the focus of repeated protests from human rights groups and lawmakers.
POLITICS
Obama Returns to His Moral Vision: Democrats Read Carefully!
George Lakoff:
But the speech went well beyond the budget. It went to the heart of progressive thought and the nature of American democracy and it gave all progressives a model of how to think and talk about every issue.
It was a landmark speech. It should be watched and read carefully and repeatedly by every progressive who cares about our country – whether Democratic officeholder, staffer, writer or campaign worker – and every progressive blogger, activist and concerned citizen. The speech is a work of art.
[…]
All politics is moral. Political leaders put forth proposals on the assumption that their proposals are the right things to do, not the wrong things to do. But progressives and radical conservatives have very different ideas of right and wrong.
With his April 13, 2011, speech, the president is back with the basic, straightforward idea of right and wrong that he correctly attributes to the founding of the country – as UCLA historian Lynn Hunt has observed in her important book “Inventing Human Rights.”
The basic idea is this: Democracy is based on empathy, that is, on citizens caring about each other and acting on that care, taking responsibility not just for themselves but for their families, communities and their nation. The role of government is to carry out this principle in two ways: protection and empowerment.
[…]
Analogous moral arguments can, and should, be given constantly for all progressive policies at all levels of government on all issues: the environment, education, health, family planning, organizing rights, voting rights, immigration, and so on. It is only by repetition of the across-the-board moral principles that the voting public gets to hear how all these ideas fit together as realizations of the same basic democratic principles.
Systems Thinking
President Obama, in the same speech, laid the groundwork for another crucial national discussion: systems thinking, which has shown up in public discourse mainly in the form of “systemic risk” of the sort that led to the global economic meltdown. The president brought up systems thinking implicitly, at the center of his budget proposal. He observed repeatedly that budget deficits and “spending” do not occur in isolation. The choice of what to cut and what to keep is a matter of factors external to the budget per se. Long-term prosperity, economic recovery and job creation, he argued, depend on maintaining “investments” – investments in infrastructure (roads, bridges, long-distance rail), education, scientific research, renewable energy, and so on. The maintenance of American values, he argued, is outside of the budget in itself, but is at the heart of the argument about what to cut. The fact is that the rich have gotten rich because of the government – direct corporate subsidies, access to publicly-owned resources, access to government research, favorable trade agreements, roads and other means of transportation, education that provides educated workers, tax loopholes and innumerable government resources taken advantage of by the rich, but paid for by all of us. What is called a “tax break” for the rich is actually a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class, whose incomes have gone down to those who have considerably more money than they need, money they have made because of tax investments by the rest of America.
[…]
Linguists have discovered that every language studied has direct causation in its grammar, but no language has systemic causation in its grammar. Systemic causation is a harder concept and has to be learned either through socialization or education.
Progressives tend to think more readily in terms of systems than conservatives. We see this in the answers to a question like, “What causes crime?” Progressives tend to give answers like economic hardship, or lack of education, or crime-ridden neighborhoods. Conservatives tend more to give an answer like “bad people – lock ’em up, punish ’em.” This is a consequence of a lifetime of thinking in terms of social connection (for progressives) and individual responsibility (for conservatives). Thus, conservatives did not see the president’s plan, which relied on systemic causation, as a plan at all for directly addressing the deficit.
Differences in systemic thinking between progressives and conservatives can be seen in issues like global warming and financial reform. Conservatives have not recognized human causes of global warming, partly because they are systemic, not direct. When a huge snowstorm occurred in Washington, DC, recently, many conservatives saw it as disproving the existence of global warming – “How could warming cause snow?” Similarly, conservatives, thinking in terms of individual responsibility and direct causation, blamed homeowners for foreclosures on their homes, while progressives looked to systemic explanations, seeking reform in the financial system.
[…]
There is one big problem with the speech that he apparently felt he could not avoid: He stayed within Republican issue framing, keeping to the Republican’s definition of the issue as the deficit and the budget – even while the main features of the talk were his moral vision and systems thinking. The media and the politicos have mostly not been able to get beyond issue thinking, that the speech was about the deficit and the budget, missing the larger themes. And the president, since the speech, hasn’t pressed the political public on those major themes. He needs help. He needs progressives to start talking publicly about that moral vision and about the importance of systems in our lives and in our politics.
Finally, Democrats need to understand why expressing their moral views is so vital. The crucial voters in recent elections have been misleadingly called “independents,” “moderates” and “the center.” In reality, they are what I will call the “duals” – people who are conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in all kinds of combinations. They have both moral systems in the neural networks of their brains, but applied to different issues. When one moral network is activated, the other is inhibited – shut down. The more one moral network is active, the stronger it gets and the weaker the other gets. In 2008, the Obama campaign activated and strengthened the network for the progressive moral system – and won over the duals. In 2010, the Democrats stopped talking morality and kept on talking policy, ceding morality to the conservatives, especially the Tea Party radical conservatives. In doing this, they ceded the election. Policy without an understandable moral basis loses.
Democrats need to both activate their base and activate the progressive moral vision dormant in the duals among the voters. They can only do this with an overt appeal to the progressive moral vision inherent in our democracy. It’s time for the Democrats to shout their patriotism out loud.
Shared Responsibility, Shared Prosperity
Before he took questions, President Obama spoke about the plan he laid out last week to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years while investing in the things that matter most to our future: funding Pell Grants, strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, and building a 21st-century infrastructure—”the best roads, the quickest trains, and the fastest broadband networks.” But shared prosperity requires shared responsibility, and solving our budget problems is going to require everyone to make sacrifices—including our government and the wealthiest among us. The President said:
“I believe the right way to do it is to live up to an old-fashioned principle of shared responsibility. That means everybody has to do their part. So what my plan does is it starts with combing the budget for savings wherever we can find them, and we had a good start a few weeks ago when both parties came together around a compromise that cut spending but also kept the government open and kept vital investments in things that we care about. …
“We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice, and if we’re asking community colleges to sacrifice, if we’re asking people who are going to see potentially fewer services in their neighborhoods to make a little sacrifice, then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice.”
Addressing the concerns of the students in the room, the President made it clear that reducing spending does not mean cutting education and eliminating college scholarships, saying it would be a “huge mistake to balance the budget on the backs of students.”
Obama Calls Out Republicans For Having No Plan To Lower Gas Prices
During a town hall event in Virginia today, President Barack Obama called out the Republicans for bemoaning higher gas prices, but offering no plan of their own to lower them. Obama called the Republican plan to cut clean energy investments by 70% a mistake, “I think that cutting clean energy investments by 70 percent — 70 percent, which has been proposed by some in Congress -– would be such a mistake.”
President Obama discussed the Republican desire to gut funding for clean energy
“Some folks in Washington also want to close the deficit by gutting our investments in things like clean energy or medical research or basic science. That’s not a viable choice. America has always been the world’s engine of innovation and discovery. That’s who we are. That’s how we’ve prospered. I don’t want other countries to lead in the industries of tomorrow. I want new technologies invented here in the United States. I want new solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars and advanced batteries all to be made right here in the United States of America. I want us to invent them right here.”
Obama specifically took on the Republicans on the issue of gas prices, “I mean, let’s just take energy as an example. Folks are out there dealing with gas at four bucks a gallon. It’s just another hardship, another burden, at a time when we’re just coming out of a recession and things are already pretty tight for folks. Now, whenever this happens, just like clockwork, you see politicians going in front of the cameras and they’ll say they’ve got a three-point plan for two-buck-a-gallon gas. The truth is the only real solution to helping families at the pump in the medium and the long term is clean energy.”
Effective Messaging (When you refuse to lie)
It’s a heck of a lot easier to out-message your opponent if you’re willing to make up total bullshit to do so and Republicans are more than happy to do that. Republicans lose on policy, and they know it, which why they stick to buzz-words and catchy phrases like “government-takeover” and “job killing.” That’s where they win. They win on messaging.
That’s changing now, and not because Democrats have suddenly decided they are going to follow the Republicans playbook, but because Republican policy has gone so far to the right, and become so heinous, that the negative effects of their policies have become self-evident, self-incriminating, and self-deprecating.
[…]
“Repeal the job-killing government takeover of healthcare” is an inherently false proposition, but it is an effective message. On the other hand, “Seniors will have to resort to desperate measures” is both true and effective.
For the purposes of effective messaging, the Republicans may as well have written this new ad for us.
A new Democratic ad portrays seniors as having to engage in acts of economic desperation to pay their health care bills in a hypothetical future in which the House-approved GOP budget that privatizes Medicare becomes law.
The 30-second spot, titled “How Will You Pay?”, begins with one elderly man sitting behind a stand selling lemonade for 50 cents per cup. The next scene shows a senior mowing someone’s lawn as the resident berates him. It ends with an older man dressed up as a firefighter and stripping for young women.
Seniors As Strippers: House Dems Target GOP On Medicare Vote (VIDEO)
A missing piece in the tale of King Rick Snyder and his new financial martial law
From The Political Carnival:
Earlier, Paddy posted the Rachel Maddow video in which Rachel reported on King Ricky Snyder of MichiganLand’s financial martial law enforcement. That law would be your actual, gen-u-ine, real live big intrusive government, GOP style, as opposed to, say, legally upholding laws for legal abortions, that are, you know, legal.
Nothing hypocritical about that at all.
But then reader Wizardkitten kindly left this comment under the video post, along with a link:
I’m glad this is getting the publicity it is, but the real action is going to come when someone tosses a union contract, or messes with retirement funds and so on. That hasn’t happened yet. Benton Harbor may be the fuse that leads to a major blow-up, say, in Detroit.
IMO, the story everyone has missed is the lawsuit that was filed by Detroit’s pension boards in federal court over the new EFM [emergency manager statute] law.
Here is the Detroit News piece about that very lawsuit that alleges that the statute is unconstitutional, would alter the City Charter, mess with collective bargaining agreements, and more.
This is why your voices are important. Many of us would have been unaware of this had it not been for Wizardkitten.
All our previous Rick Snyder posts here, including recall progress.
[I urge you to watch Maddow’s opening segment last night on this, because it is CHILLING.]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#42672552
Senator Jon Kyl had his lie about Planned Parenthood erased, using a tactic that only members of Congress can use.
The (Tea)Party’s Over?
A listing of events on the umbrella group Tea Party Patriots’ website for Monday and Friday showed a total of 145 events — the same listing shows 638 events on tax day 2010.
One example finds rallies in Tulsa went from 5,000 attendees in 2009, to “several thousand” in 2010, to “less than 30” in 2011.
POLLS
Marist/McClatchy poll: Raise taxes on the rich, preserve social insurance program
Poll: Huckabee Still Dominating GOP Field In Iowa
70% of Tea Partiers Don’t Want to Cut Medicare Either
Poll: Majority Supports Legal Recognition For Same-Sex Marriage
Disconnect: Poll finds indys strongly agree with Obama on taxes and Medicare, but disapprove of him on deficit
Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation Poll: A look at geography
Poll: 48% Of Iowa Republicans Say Obama Wasn’t Born In U.S.
Economic anxiety threatens Obama in 2012, but in poll he edges GOP rivals
In the survey, 47 percent approve of the job Obama is doing, down seven points since January. Half of all Americans disapprove of his job performance, with 37 percent saying they “strongly disapprove,” nearly matching the worst level of his presidency.
Driving the downward movement in Obama’s standing are renewed concerns about the economy and fresh worry about rising prices, particularly for gasoline. Despite signs of economic growth, 44 percent of Americans see the economy as getting worse, the highest percentage to say so in more than two years.
The toll on Obama is direct: 57 percent disapprove of the job the president is doing dealing with the economy, tying his highest negative rating when it comes to the issue. And the president is doing a bit worse among politically important independents.
If Obama is running into headwinds, however, his potential Republican opponents face serious problems, as well. Less than half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they are satisfied with the field of GOP candidates.
That field is still taking shape, but the sentiment is a big falloff from four years ago, when nearly two-thirds of Republicans were satisfied with their options.
SCOTUS
The Court and Global Warming
The case about global warming scheduled to be argued on Tuesday before the Supreme Court is a blockbuster. Eight states — from California to New York, plus New York City — sued six corporations responsible for one-fourth of the American electric power industry’s emissions of carbon dioxide.
Rather than seeking money or punishment for the defendants, they seek what everyone should agree is the polluters’ responsibility: abatement of their huge, harmful part in causing climate change. The purpose is not to solve global warming or usurp the government’s role in doing so. It is, rightly, to get major utilities to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions before the government acts.
Because there is no federal regulation of this problem in force, it is fortunate that there is a line of Supreme Court precedents back to 1901 on which the plaintiffs can build their challenge. When this lawsuit began seven years ago, one of the defendants’ main defenses was that, because the Clean Air Act and other laws “address” carbon dioxide emissions, Congress has “legislated on the subject” and pre-empted the suit. The pre-emption claim was spurious when they made it and remains spurious now.
Seven years ago, neither Congress nor the Bush administration showed interest in pushing comprehensive laws or rules to curb these gases. Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that greenhouse gases endanger public health as “the primary driver” of climate change and has regulated vehicle emissions.
But the electric power industry is working to scuttle this regulation, with the help of the Republican-controlled House. In court, the industry pushes for letting the E.P.A. regulate. On Capitol Hill, it tries to torpedo that authority.
UNIONS
Wis. Elections Board: ‘No Major Discrepancies’ In Waukesha County Vote Numbers
WEDGE ISSUES
The World Considers the Racist Obama Chimpanzee Email
Ku Klux Klan Distances Selves From Westboro Baptist Church, Tea Party
Koran-burning pastor plans Mich. Protest
David Barton: The Bible says to oppose Net Neutrality
AND IN OTHER NEWS…
Plane carrying Michelle Obama aborts landing because of controller error
Both go-arounds and errors by air traffic controllers are not uncommon. Controllers at Potomac TRACON, who direct more than 1.5 million flights a year to area airports, made a record number of errors in 2010.
Nationwide, recorded errors by controllers increased 51 percent last year to 1,869.
TAKE ACTION
This is what a Power Shift looks like: Thousands of young activists protest in the streets of DC today
US Uncut: Flashmob stands up to corporate free-loader Bank of America, for not paying their taxes! FRESH!
Stand Against Paul Ryan’s Extreme Budget Plan
Sign our petition and stand against Republican extremism. It’s simply immoral to take crucial health care away from seniors and the most vulnerable among us and use the proceeds to pad corporate pockets – and score political points.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
I never think of the future – it comes soon enough. ~Albert Einstein
___________________________________________
The Daily Planet, Vol. 57
The Daily Planet, Vol. 56
Re: World Considers Chimpanzee Email
“Decorative doses” – I like that, and does actually fit my smattering of the Gaelics, among other oddly random dabblings. Western Armenian though? she’s got me beat there.
I must watch out for Iranian press. They love to show the worst of America, frequently. Didn’t hear about a drugged up rape somewhere in some small Midwestern town? Oh, they’ll carry it.
That KKK one was priceless. And phew, just when I was agreeing with them on the Tea Party, they went and called them progressives! 😆
I forgot to mention, Cher, those shots of the Arctic coastline are just stunning. I’d really like to visit the Yukon (before the permafrost is all gone!!)
Another great line-up, Cher. Those outsourcing numbers are really worrying. I used to think “Oh well, all’s fair,” but nowadays I truly believe this is a huge danger to our economy. There’s no way American workers can compete with the slave wages overseas. The only thing that will save us is the equalization of economies. I understand salaries in India are already much higher than they used to be, but I know software companies just switch to other countries like Russia and Ukraine. I work with two Ukrainian programmers — language issues are always a huge problem. But they probably get paid a fraction of what the rest of us get paid and we do everything over the internet anyway. There’s no turning back.
Thanks, e’cet. The thing about that chart –for me–is that it should shut up the meme that the corporations should be untaxed because they are “job creators.” Yeah, but not in the USA! That’s what has to be driven home over and over again until people get it. Multinationals have zero stake in America.
Agreed. Multinationals have become their own “nation” and that’s where their loyalties lie. We should regard them the same way universities regard students from out of state — who always must pay a much higher tuition.
Been over at HP lately? There have always been a bunch of nasty paid posters and trolls but it’s becoming absurd. The 2012 races are going to be some of the nastiest since Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800.
tex, that’s why I never post there any longer. I don’t need the aggravation. And thanks for the reminder that there have been ugly UGLY elections in our history.
Indeed. I get a little annoyed with the “it’s never been this bad” line.
People say that every generation.
Take a look back at that one, or the Jackson election to set oneself aright.
Yes, tex. I go there for a bit every day or so. One of my least favorite features is all the idiots with “texas” in their names. It’s downright embarrassin’. Paid posters. What a concept. Wish I’d thought of it.
Hey young ‘un– hit the hay, or NO fruit cup for you!
LMAO!
Stand Back- Cher and MsAbbyrose are gettin fired up!! 😉
The one with the Jan Brewer av, too. And it’s totally unironic!
I didn’t post but read an article by Ariana that had all the talking points minus any explanations, e.g. Obama didn’t close Gitmo, but didn’t mention the EO or the 90/6 Congressional vote not to approve funding to move the prisoners. Of course the article brought all the roaches out of the woodwork.
Ugh. I’m glad I missed that one.
“Congress passed laws preventing him from doing that…”
In all fairness, Obama had to sign these bills for them to become law. Did he lose his veto pen?
KT, If you mean about Gitmo, yes, he could have vetoed that law, and the veto would have been overwritten by the same Congress. Beyond that, he issued 3 Executive Orders trying to close Gitmo. Also, there were no places to house those prisoners–no other facility in the world wanted them. What more could he have done?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/07/the-gitmo-dilemma.html
Personally I think he should have vetoed. To assume that they would be overwritten is a form a giving up. Maybe what you say is exactly what would have happened, then again, maybe not.
Federal prisons cannot say they will refuse to house this type or that type of prisoner. They have to obey federal dictates.
Actually, I don’t think it really matters much where they are held. To me, the biggest wrong is that they are not being protected by Habeus Corpus. Many of these prisoners are being held for months and months without a speedy trial, and without specific charges against them. This is the biggest wrong, in my opinion.
KT, may I ask what was the bill and what was all in it? Was this an amendment to a larger “must pass” bill?
bito, I honestly don’t know for sure. Maybe a military appropriations bill. It is a good question to ask, and I will look into it further.
My view towards using the veto pen is that while it may be overturned, it would also go toward his image among more radical progressives as being one who fights for change. It might, in some way, make them see that he IS also on their side.
Should he appease those who have written him off? I think, at times, he should.
Obama is a very pragmatic man. Maybe, sometimes, he shouldn’t be so pragmatic and put up a fight, if only to get the ultra progressives back on his side.
“It’s a heck of a lot easier to out-message your opponent if you’re willing to make up total bullshit to do so and Republicans are more than happy to do that. Republicans lose on policy, and they know it, which why they stick to buzz-words and catchy phrases like “government-takeover” and “job killing.” That’s where they win. They win on messaging.”
I know, that I and many others have been saying this for quite some time that it’s the messaging and lying by certain sects of our political system that are winning the messaging war. I know, that many of us have been complaining on these forums for quite some time about the LYING coming from the right and the lack of effective marketing by the left….what to do about this problem? To me, this is the crux of the issues we are having across the board. THE right out and out lies and makes shit up and the left SUCKS at sales and marketing!
IF we could market our messages better (hello LEFT) maybe just MAYBE we could win more elections and thus MAKE our message the message of the AMERICAN people. I’m not suggesting the left should or would use the other tactic (lying) but we could maybe frame the messages better….using the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principal.
One thing I have to say about Obama…he and his people get THIS concept much better than most on the left.
Also, I have to reiterate I like how the Pres is using modern technology and trends to get his message out to the youth. SMART move…as the young ARE our future.
Abby, I think they are really getting a lot better. If you haven’t already done so, you would enjoy reading George Lakoff. Not only his piece above, but his other works. I think he completely understands political messaging.
Cher, I do think there has been some improvement by some on the left. Thankfully! I still think we have a way to go to really start getting the message out simply.
I thought Obama did a good job with his last speech, by putting forth the ideals of the left, and the morality of the message in a simple and concise manner, but I think we still need to come up with some bumper sticker like catchy phrases and make THEM go viral.
For the most part, I don’t think the masters of the rightwing have really mastered the internet. I mean, they have their paid bloggers and right wing websites, which do somewhat work with their base, but they haven’t taken control of the net or it’s capabilities yet, nor have they had much success with the younger generations who are ON LINE and who use twitter, faceback, text, etc….I think that is where the left may have an advantage on the messaging thing, the use of social media and the young.
MsAbbyrose hath pulled up her soapbox and is dispensing Truth! 🙂
I’ve been off my soapbox for a few weeks now! I need to get back on! 🙂
Hmmm, that certainly was a fine start, young lady! 🙂
Well said, Abby. I personally like the “explainers” on the left and find progressive politicians much more eloquent and interesting. However, we have to remember that most people aren’t particularly paying attention and only remember the catch phrases like “death panels” (a very effective Big Lie). Lefties need to learn how to come up with these catch phrases. Who was who posted here the other day about the left reclaiming the idea of “freedom.”
Escribacat, I too prefer the explainers myself…but I’ve come to accept that WE are in the minority! As you said, MOST people aren’t paying enough attention and are attracted by the simple catch phrases. Sadly those catch phrases work…marketeers have been using such tactics, since they discovered how well they work.
For the most part, most on the left are very intelligent…however not necessarily good at sales. As a result they lose the message by being TOO analytical and academic. WE really do have to do a better job at making the complex messages simpler.
Abby, Bob Cesca did a piece on something similar saying one of the problems is Dems don’t like to lie. He went on to say with the passage of the Privatize Ryan budget Dems have an opportunity to make their platform known by simply telling the truth.
On seeing some change, I found this interesting. Thom Hartman on Oprah Winfrey! We can make light of that but a lot of people watch her show.
http://bit.ly/iiqC6T
Finally, on grassroots organizing:
http://www.drewmckissick.com/activism
LIVE NOW: Kloppenburg Files Recount Paperwork
http://www.wisn.com/r-video/27615519/detail.html
For the MI GOP the main target is the city of Detroit. Benton Harbor is to see how their system will work.
At the end of the day, it is about moral values. It is very important to see to it that those values come front and center. Part of that is pointing the harm that the GOP is capable of doing. And, will do, if they are able.
They are nihilists whose main moral value is: “reward your friends; punish your enemies”.
All very tribal, isn’t it? Yet we presume to lecture Afghanistan. See what tribalism can bring? Wow. We have so much to look forward to…….
Agrippa, I hadn’t heard that about Detroit but it doesn’t surprise me. And it is NO coincidence that they are both heavily African American cities. Where is the NAACP???
Just in from the Nation.
Big Brothers: Thought Control at Koch
Read this!
http://www.thenation.com/print/article/160062/big-brothers-thought-control-koch
Thank you SCOTUS for your decision on “Citizens United.”
WHY or WHY Am I not surprised by this tidbit?
Duress comes in many forms…and for anyone to think that an employer does NOT have an effect on their employees ( who after all NEED their income to survive) is beyond me!
That SCOTUS decision was beyond unconscionable. IT was downright evil and utterly changed the concept of democracy…that whole being a government BY And for the people thing, seems to have been decimated with that one. I hope they who ruled enjoy their eternity in Hades( I’m not a religious person…but sometimes I DO like certain concepts that it provides…such as evil people rotting in hell).
Bito, I remember a while ago there was another large company who did that and I can’t remember which one, but I do remember that one McDonald’s owner/operator tried that and was hit with massive push back once it became known, and he backtracked. I think that Koch Industries is so vast that people don’t even know where to begin to push back. I honestly think it should be illegal as voter intimidation.
Cher, from what I have been reading today, it was illegal until the “Citizens United” decision. Now, dey be peeps and have free speech.
Meanwhile, Unions can’t say anything on the job, because it’s “private property.” Something is is really skewed here!
“BYW, Cher, there is a meeting tonight and if you like working here, you should consider attending, and the party you belong to is public record.”
Bito, I didn’t realize that CU made it legal. Pretty soon we will literally need UN inspectors to verify elections. And how is it public record which Party one belongs to anyway? I think that is one reason why more and more people register as Independents.
Cher, It’s public record because one has to register with a government entity in order to vote. Political parties or any one, can get them for a fee from the clerks in their county. I have used many of the lists for mailings and the dreaded phone banks. They can be expensive depending on what they charge and what you want.
Oh yes, bito–I know it’s been public record but it just made me realize that it shouldn’t be, not if the vote is secret.And this situation is exactly why!
This is awful – it doesn’t mean you have to vote that way in privacy but I find most people don’t like to “rock the boat” like most of us do.
Cher, where do I pay for my subscription?
I am addicted to and reliant on The Daily Planet for my “morning paper”.
As for raising the SS cap, that is such a no-brainer and a perfect Progressive tax. It will only affect the top 1% of earners and go a long way to stabilize SS.
We know the Corporate/Repub “killing the golden goose” mindset, let the roads and infrastructure fall apart tomorrow and outsource jobs today to destroy the middle class tomorrow, if it means cash in hand today. The concept is, the wealthier they become will only make it easier to abandon the US for greener pastures once their destruction of it is in full swing.
Love Obama implementing provisions of the DISCLOSE Act by EO, the SCOTUS has already said that such terms should follow, if this goes through, the Kochs will be crying in their Cokes.
Thom Hartman’s video really lays bare how we the public are played like fools by the MSM, warping the reality of events so blatantly to advance their own agendas. Every voter should watch that piece to know that what they see on tv should be immediately questioned and discounted as accurate until verified through other sources.
The Financial Marshal Law in MI really outrages me. What kind of democracy are we living in where the democratically elected government of a city and contractual commitments can be arbitrarily cancelled? Aside from all the other constitutional reasons this is illegal, the lack of any defined requirements, the fact that this power could be exercised at will in any prejudicial or political way takes away any legitimate argument for it’s existence. I am furious about a state legislature literally legislating dictatorial power. WTF?
Cher…you so rock!
AdLib, you have it backwards! I subscribe here and the Daily Planet is how I pay for it. I’m really glad you like it–Thanks!
Same here AdLib!
I read Kalima first for the International update, then move to the Planet, and next I tackle Khirad’s ME coverage.
Sometime around Late, I pull up the local news here, and in Indianapolis!
Y’all Rock!! 😉
Jkk– seriously, you must be the most well-informed person I know! You must be a treasure at a dinner party–the go-to person for information. Brava! And I agree about PPOV–I am really proud to send people to this site.
jkk, how can anyone drink their coffee without reading MB, lucky for me I have a PPOV/MB mug! ( cheap commercial 😉 http://planetpov.com/planetgear-store/ )
These jumped out at me:
“Analogous moral arguments can, and should, be given constantly for all progressive policies at all levels of government on all issues: the environment, education, health, family planning, organizing rights, voting rights, immigration, and so on.”
AND
“Democrats need to understand why expressing their moral views is so vital.”
This is why anecdotal evidence (which we tend to poo-poo as invalid) is so important when we’re talking to right-leaning brains.
Case in point: While discussing the corporate impact on radio/television careers (loss of jobs, matching 401ks, drastically lower wages) over the last 15 years with one of my dear republican friends, she defended the corporations. It was not until I reminded her of the direct impact the corporate policies had on her friends (us) that she had an epiphany. “Oh, my God! I hadn’t looked at it that way. I don’t know what I was thinking!”
Lesson learned. Don’t attempt to make a point in the abstract with these gentle souls. Bring it down to earth and make it personal. In many cases, they’re not stupid, just limited.
Chase, That story gave me a lot of hope because it points out that sometimes we make assumptions (well, I always do) about why people on the Right think the way they do. I hear people say that they know Reeps who are not bad people, and I have doubted that–how could they NOT be bad people with such repugnant ideas? But your friend just never thought things through. That’s why Lakoff is so spot on!
Cher–I wish that we could get beyond the notion that those with whom we disagree must be bad people. For the most part,they’re not any badder than we are. We just disagree. VEHEMENTLY. (And, I think we’re right.)
That said, in polite society and in families, we should smile, scoop the ice cream into the bowl, and change the subject.
Chase, it’s true that most people are the same as us, especially since, as you said below, that the vast majority don’t even pay much attention to politics at all. They are just trying to get by and live their lives. But it is the politically active Right that I really do believe to be bad people. They may be willfully uninformed–which I could argue makes them “less than good”–but they also advocate for policies I honestly believe are evil. I wish I didn’t think that, because it makes any dialogue impossible, but I just do.
cher, it is truly a battle for hearts and minds. I really don’t know HOW to get through to the willfully ignorant. But I do know that we will never reach them as long as they are on the defensive. Maybe they need to be approached with kid gloves. And they definitely need to understand that politics is not a sport, but an important function within our society that affects them as much as it does us. They really need to be shown that they should be questioning their allegiances.
KT–I agree, and we both acknowledge that there are many who are beyond reason. But polls confirm that when asked pure policy questions, more people agree with the more progressive positions. So that means it’s essentially a partisan issue, not an issue of ideas for most. That means that they are reachable, I think. If only I could learn to debate or converse like C’lady or many others here. I get too pissed off!
cher, but are not policies made in accordance with ideals? This is what I am referring to. The changing of hearts and minds. Changes that will lead people to question their support. Changes that go beyond partisanship.
KT – I don’t seem to ever convert anyone so I don’t try anymore. I’ll speak up and try to politely make my point but it seems that changing minds is tough business. I used to be very frustrated because it all appears so logical to me but I don’t think I won many hearts and minds. Now I just encourage others to read an article or send them an email – give them a little food for thought. You always seem so calm people probably listen to you.
Artist, I think it’s easier for me to be calm when I am on the computer than I would be in person. On the computer, I have more time to think about what I should or shouldn’t say. I’m not so sure I would be able to do that person to person.
Cher–you’re exactly right. I look forward to kicking the politically active right’s ass every day I draw a breath. It’s just that we (I) need to pick our fights. Not everyone lives and breathes this political stuff as much as we do or we would like. Some of our friends, families, co-workers are just…ach, eff it. You know the rest.
I gotta go night-o-night. Love this place. Sweet dreams.
Sleep well, Chase!!
chase, as I said yesterday, it’s the WILLFULLY ignorant that are the problem. No matter what you tell or show them, they just refuse to consider it. They are so imbued with party rhetoric and fear the prospect of being wrong, or lied to, that they willingly deny themselves simple truths.
I do commend you for changing your friend’s perspective, and we should always make the effort, but many people in America today don’t really want to recognize the the truth.
I also think that when we (I don’t mean you personally) insult the willfully ignorant, we are giving up ANY chance at all, of getting them to consider the facts. Once they go into the defensive mode, they are unreachable.
KT–The “willfully ignorant” PLUS the politically active. So frequently they do not even cross paths. There are so many out there who are not like us–they’re just mowing their lawns, going to soccer practice and figuring out what to feed everyone for dinner. I don’t blame them. We talk about different things. And when we have a chance to talk current affairs, we’re all respectful and, for the most part, open.
Did you mean politically inactive? I think people on this site are, generally speaking, not the norm, but the exception. I think of all the townhall meetings that just disintegrated into shouting matches, and now the shouting matches between the union supporters and the those seeking to weaken those unions. Far too much shouting and far too little rational discussions. The people, “we the people,” should not be fighting among ourselves but against the corporations. I know, easier said than done.
Amen, KT!
KY–Well, yes. Politically inactive. That first sentence was inartful and difficult to parse. I agree with you.
Yes, the complacent are just as bad as those who refuse to see. In my humble opinion.
KT – I think this group is definitely not the norm! I’m a political junkie and everyone here knows far more than I do, which makes them super junkies! I have a group of 12 old high school friends that stays in touch by email almost daily, we also get together from time to time. We even take trips every five years, but we never discuss politics. We’ve found it’s a touchy subject, of course they all know I’m a lefty and some of them are not. As close as we are, we’ve found that there are some things best left unsaid – now individually I know who I can talk with.
That’s pretty cool, Artist. But really, how much do 12 year olds know about life and the world they live in? I am not putting them down, I just think that they haven’t been here long enough to understand a lot of the issues that arise.
Having almost daily contact with you may place them a bit ahead of their peers though! 😉
KT – I graduated with them – 12 high school friends!!!! We have a language problem here – that’s why you don’t see me writing articles! Too funny!
Artist, that IS funny. It is attributable to a poor reading of your comment. My apologies!
KT and Artist– I read it wrong the first time too–but it was NOT your writing! 😆
Cher:
The Maddow Show segment on Michigan is indeed a powerful piece. Her assessment about the Republican takeover / corporatization of Government being the issue that should be driving the debate is spot-on. I don’t understand why this story isn’t MSM news — or maybe I’m just in denial about the negative effect that corporate ownership of our national media.
Amidst all the fervent Republican shouts about Freedom and Liberty, the GOP actions are in direct opposition to their words. I hope Americans are paying attention.
Thanks, as always, for what you do to get the message out.
“I don’t understand why this story isn’t MSM news.” Really? The MSM is the voice of the very corporate establishment which is in the process of taking over the gov’t. Look it up – all the main news and information companies are owned by a handful of people at the very summit of power in the West. Why would CorpUSA publish articles in opposition to their ultimate aims?
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/woodsa/www/chart.html
Audadvnc–“Really?” and “Look it up” is the kind of superior, snarky attitude that better belongs at PuffHo Yahoo. Bob made a straightforward comment and he asked a perfectly logical and perhaps rhetorical question. But thanks for enlightening us. None of us had any idea that there is a corporate press until you pointed it out. (See how that works?)
Keep it classy, please.
Tell it to aud, ‘kay?
Sorry Cher, it was meant to be a collective ask. I should have made myself clear.
NP, bito.
TY, Cher!
Bob, I actually think it is incipient fascism.