Friday, April 3, 2009

Dems Investigating Bush Administration Role In AIG Collapse



















Dems Investigating Bush Administration Role In AIG Collapse
A House oversight panel is investigating the role Bush administration officials and regulators played in the collapse of American International Group. The first step of the investigation begins Thursday, House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Towns (D-N.Y.) tells the Huffington Post, when the committee hears testimony from former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg.

In November 2004, the Bush Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed not to prosecute AIG for allegedly helping companies fudge their books. In exchange, AIG agreed to host a government-appointed auditor in company meetings. At the time, Greenberg said it brought “finality to the claims raised by the SEC and the Department of Justice.”

Towns said that Greenberg should be able to identify Bush administration officials involved in the decision-making around the settlement. Towns added the committee wants to know what Bush administration regulators knew about AIG’s credit default swaps and other highly risky positions that brought the company down.

Asked if he would be directly pursuing Bush administration officials, Towns said: “No doubt about it. That’s the reason I want to talk to Greenberg first. He might even point some folks out. That’s of great interest to us.”

[ ]…The Bush administration’s preferred way of dealing with corporate scandal was to defer prosecution. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Bush prosecutors made 103 deferred and nonprosecution agreements with U.S. companies between 2002 and 2009. While Clinton was president, meanwhile, only 11 such pacts were entered into.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Republicans In Congress Advance False Claim That Green Economy Bill Imposes $3,100 Tax On Families




























Republicans In Congress Advance False Claim That Green Economy Bill Imposes $3,100 Tax On Families
Yesterday, the Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas noted that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have been attacking a cap-and-trade proposal before Congress, falsely claiming that the measure would cost American families over $3,000 per year in extra taxes.

They base their claim on a 2007 MIT study. However, after interviewing one of the study’s researchers, MIT professor John Reilly, PolitiFact reported on Monday that the GOP claim is false, giving it a “pants on fire” rating on the website’s “Truth-O-Meter.” According to Reilly, the report actually finds that any tax burden resulting from the bill’s enactment wouldn’t be felt until 2015 — at $31 per person and $79 per family per year, not $3,100.

Regardless of the facts, at least nine other Republican members of Congress have made this false claim since PolitiFact’s report. However, some haven’t exactly nailed down the talking point. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said the tax would be levied on “every living American,” not tax-paying families, while Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) upped the tax to $4,560 per family. Watch the compilation:

Congressional Republicans haven’t been the only ones advancing this myth. As Fox News usually does with GOP talking points, the network ran with the false claim. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported last night that the MIT study says the price on taxpayers for the cap-and-trade measure “will be substantial.” He then quoted — without challenge — Gregg’s false claim:

GREGG: And their estimate is it will generate over, over $300 billion in new taxes every year. It works out to about $3,000 per household.

ANGLE: Some say less, some say more. And in states relying the most on coal, it could be a lot more.

Gregg continued to repeat the $3,000 false claim this afternoon on Fox, saying that “every time you turn on your light switch, you’re going to be paying a tax.”

Reilly told PolitiFact that some House Republicans had contacted him two weeks ago about the study but he “had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it.” Clearly, the GOP did not take his advice and Reilly has now written a letter to Boehner and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to denounce the GOP’s distortion of his study.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Lou Dobbs, McCain and LA Times Lie About GM Chairman's Departure







































LA Times, Dobbs uncritically forward McCain's false claim that Wagoner's departure was "unprecedented"
In a March 31 article, the Los Angeles Times uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain saying of Rick Wagoner's resignation as General Motors CEO: "This is a remarkable move by the federal government -- I think unprecedented in the history of this country. ... What does this signal send to other corporations and financial institutions about whether the federal government will fire them as well?" Similarly, on the March 30 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs stated that "[s]everal leading Republicans immediately criticized the president's plan and blasted his decision to fire GM's CEO Rick Wagoner. Senator John McCain said Wagoner's dismissal is a remarkable and unprecedented act." In fact, the government did not fire Wagoner as Dobbs claimed. Rather, the government told GM that Wagoner had to step down as a condition of GM receiving further government aid. Moreover, contrary to the characterization of the government's action as "unprecedented," similar actions occurred at AIG and at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where chief executives were removed in September 2008 as part of agreements to accept government aid.

As Media Matters for America has noted, in announcing his resignation, Wagoner stated, "On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with Administration officials. In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have." Indeed, The New York Times reported on March 30, "The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid" [emphasis added].

Moreover, contrary to McCain's claim that the decision to ask for Wagoner's resignation as a condition for further government aid was "unprecedented," since September, several executives have been asked to resign as a condition for receiving government aid:

* In a September 7, 2008, jointly released statement, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then-Federal Housing Finance Agency director Jim Lockhart announced that as part of the government's decision to take Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, "New CEOs supported by new non-executive Chairmen have taken over management of the enterprises."

* A September 17, 2008, Washington Post article reported of the Bush administration's decision to bail out AIG, "The terms of the rescue package allow the government to replace [chief executive Robert] Willumstad, and a source familiar with the matter said last night that Willumstad would be succeded [sic] by Edward Liddy, former chief executive of Allstate." On September 17, 2008, the Associated Press likewise reported Willumstad's removal as a part of the bailout deal.

From the March 30 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: Chrysler reacting quickly to the president's demand for action on forming an alliance with Fiat. Chrysler today said it has reached agreement on what it called a framework for a partnership with Fiat. No details were given, however.

President Obama gave Chrysler 30 days to complete work on such an alliance with Fiat or face losing as much as $6 billion in additional money from the federal government.

Several leading Republicans immediately criticized the president's plan and blasted his decision to fire GM's CEO Rick Wagoner. Senator John McCain said Wagoner's dismissal is a remarkable and unprecedented act.

Another leading Republican, Senator Bob Corker [TN], said, quote, "Firing Rick Wagoner is a side show to distract us from the fact that the administration has no progress to announce today." Senator Corker added, "With sweeping new power, the White House will be deciding which plants will survive and which won't, so, in essence, this administration has decided they know better than our courts and our free-market process how to deal with these companies."

From the Los Angeles Times article by reporter Jim Puzzanghera:

In a message to GM employees Monday, Wagoner said he agreed to the administration's request Friday to step aside and called his replacement as CEO, longtime GM executive Fritz Henderson, "an excellent choice."

"GM is a great company with a storied history. Ignore the doubters, because I know it is also a company with a great future," Wagoner told them.

Obama said the decision was "not meant as a condemnation" of Wagoner, but was done because the company needs a "new vision and new direction."

Some Republicans, however, were alarmed at the decision to oust the head of a private company, even one that has received government bailout money. GM and its financing arm have received a total of about $19.3 billion. Chrysler and its financing arm have received about $5.5 billion.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Zero-Tolerance Policies Wreak Havoc on Children’s Education

































Zero-Tolerance Policies Wreak Havoc on Children’s Education
There are children who matter so little that no government agency even bothers to count or keep statistical track of them. They are the children of prisoners. Nationally, the justice systems have no interest in how children or families are affected by an offending parent's imprisonment. The state ensures that the sins of the father are visited upon the son.

The number-one predictor of a child going to prison is having had a parent in prison.

The number-one drag on a child's academic success is family chaos of any kind. And nothing is as chaotic as having a parent yanked out of their lives and branded as a convict.

Sen. Leo Blais, D-Coventry, has submitted Bill S0320 to the General Assembly, to reduce the penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to a fine of $100. Excellent. Hopefully this bill will pass. Hopefully it will start a trend of rethinking all of the state's morally-righteous but destructive laws that don't take families into account.

The 1990s surge of harsh zero-tolerance laws stuffed the U.S. prisons to the point where we lock up a higher percentage of our own people than any other country in the world. Some unlucky inmates got caught with an ounce or less of marijuana. In Rhode Island, 89 percent of the marijuana arrests are for possession. Is passing a joint among friends that much more pernicious than sharing a bottle of wine?

Well, some would say marijuana is the gateway to more serious drug use.

Sol Roderiquez, director of the Family Life Center in South Providence, would say, "Incarceration itself leads to worse drugs, often worse crimes. And with a prison record, it's so hard for an ex-offender to get a job, crime is one of the few options left." And so the cycle continues.

The Family Life Center helps ex-cons piece their shattered lives back together so they can live in the mainstream again.

According to the 2007 Pew prison report, Rhode Island spends $44,860 a year per inmate - the highest in the country. And that doesn't include the court costs.

But neighboring Massachusetts passed a law similar to Blais' that will save their taxpayers almost $30 million a year in arrests, bookings, and basic court costs alone. Eleven other states have also passed such laws. Vermont is considering one now.

Blais' bill is not legalization of marijuana, but decriminalization. The mom, dad, uncle, or sister caught with a joint won't have a criminal conviction on their record that makes supporting a family with legitimate work nigh impossible.

According to a survey done by RI Kids Count, as of Sept. 30, 2007, roughly two-thirds of the 3,081 inmate responders had children - 4,520 children, to be exact. When the parent goes to jail, many children go into foster or residential care, or stay with relatives who resent the unasked-for burden and cost. Families split up. Children act out. The stress is intense.

Roderiquez says, "When the state imposes such a severe punishment, it should take the whole family into account. Prison has huge consequences for the whole family. But we've dehumanized this population. They don't have feelings or respond emotionally. No one pays attention to the fact that we're pushing the families into falling apart."

Roderiquez and her colleague Nick Horton, policy researcher at the center, have seen it all, and rattled off story after story.

There was the family with three daughters. When the husband and breadwinner went to prison, the mother went on welfare. In time, the youngest child had to be treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, and the oldest became a classically enraged young adolescent, getting involved in serious escapist bad habits. All three girls' grades at school have tanked. Roderiquez and Horton add that children's grades always suffer. Always. "It's the first thing to go," said Roderiquez.

Then there was the single father responsible for two children. When he went to prison, one dropped out of school immediately, and the other ran away.

I'll gladly stipulate that smoking dope could be an indicator of growing or potentially dangerous social behavior. But wouldn't it be more effective in the long run, more healing for everyone, to send a family-services worker to the home to help those families who are in fact dangerously drug-involved? The City of Providence has a nationally recognized "go-team" of family-service workers whom the police call to crime scenes when children are present or a family is traumatized. Use them for marijuana busts. If you must punish the offender, revoke a bit of the family's privacy by investigating whether a family has unhealthy stresses driving the drug use. If we're serious about "corrections," the only real way to correct misbehavior is to get to the root cause, which prison does not.

When the best solution to a social problem is treatment, provide treatment. It's cheaper than courts and prisons, healthier, and more long-lasting. For my money, the state should look at all their laws with an eye to the collateral damage that harsh penalties cause to an offender's extended community. Is the damage worth it? Sometimes prison is necessary, but often it's just vindictive.

And for heaven's sake, start collecting data on the inmates' children. Bring those children to light. They are our responsibility.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Real Plumbers Disagree with Joe the fake Plumber



















Real plumbers rip Joe the Plumber for shilling against the Employee Free Choice Act.
Greg Sargent reports that Joe the Plumber has been tapped by the anti-labor Americans for Prosperity to do “a series of events throughout Pennsylvania rallying opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.” Here’s why Americans for Prosperity spokesperson Mary Ellen Burke said Joe was chosen:

“The public loves Joe the Plumber,” the spokesperson, Mary Ellen Burke, claimed to me. “They see him as a role model.”

Asked whether Joe the Plumber had any particular knowledge or expertise about EFCA that might explain the decision to enlist him, Burke said that he was being enlisted to provide a “grassroots perspective” and “the working perspective” on the measure.

Pressed on whether Joe the Plumber has any particular claim to being a spokesperson on the issue, Burke replied that “he represents the American worker.”

Joe the Plumber may not represent the average worker — or at least not the average plumber. Remember that Joe never had a plumbing license, and many of the people in that profession are members of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (UA). UA political and legislative director Rick Terven responded to the latest news, saying, “Real plumbers want and need the Employee Free Choice Act as a way to empower themselves to join a union, without fear of intimidation or losing their jobs. Joe the Plumber doesn’t speak for real plumbers.”

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Hope in the Mountains




































Hope in the Mountains
Yesterday was a great day for the people of Appalachia and for all of America. In a bold departure from Bush-era energy policy, the Obama administration suspended a coal company's permit to dump debris from its proposed mountaintop mining operation into a West Virginia valley and stream. In addition, the administration promised to carefully review upward of 200 such permits awaiting approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

With yesterday's action, President Obama has signaled his intention to save this region. His moratorium on these permits will allow the administration to develop a sensible long-term approach to dealing with this catastrophic method of coal extraction.

I join hundreds of Appalachia's embattled communities in applauding this news. Having flown over the coalfields of Appalachia and walked her ridges, valleys and hollows, I know that this land cannot withstand more abuse. Mountaintop-removal coal mining is the greatest environmental tragedy ever to befall our nation.

This radical form of strip mining has already flattened the tops of 500 mountains, buried 2,000 miles of streams, devastated our country's oldest and most diverse temperate forests, and blighted landscapes famous for their history and beauty. Using giant earthmovers and millions of tons of explosives, coal moguls have eviscerated communities, destroyed homes, and uprooted and sickened families with coal and rock dust, and with blasting, flooding and poisoned water, all while providing far fewer jobs than does traditional underground mining.

The backlog of permit applications has been building since Appalachian groups won a federal injunction against the worst forms of mountaintop removal in March 2007. But the floodgates opened on Feb. 13 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond overturned that injunction. Since then, the Corps has been working overtime to oblige impatient coal barons by quickly issuing the pending permits. Each such permit amounts to a death sentence for streams, mountains and communities. Taken together, these pending permits threatened to lay waste to nearly 60,000 acres of mountain landscape, destroy 400 valleys and bury more than 200 miles of streams.

The Corps already had issued a dozen permits before the White House stepped in, and coal companies have begun destroying some of these sites. The bulldozers are poised for action on the rest. Typical of these is Ison Rock Ridge, a proposed 1,230-acre mine in southwest Virginia that would blow up several peaks and threaten a half-dozen communities, including the small town of Appalachia.

In a valiant effort to hold back destruction, the Appalachia Town Council, citing its responsibility for the "health, safety, welfare, and properties" of its residents, recently passed an ordinance prohibiting coal mining within the town limits without approval from the council. But that ordinance lacks the power to override the Army Corps of Engineers' permit. And while the Obama administration order will reverse the Bush-era policies and stop the pillaging elsewhere, the town of Appalachia remains imperiled.

The White House should now enlarge its moratorium to commute Appalachia's death sentence by suspending the dozen permits already issued. The Environmental Protection Agency should then embark on a rulemaking effort to restore a critical part of the Clean Water Act that was weakened by industry henchmen recruited to powerful positions in the Bush administration. Former industry lobbyists working as agency heads and department deputies issued the so-called "fill rule" to remove 30-year-old laws barring coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams. This step cleared the way for mountaintop removal, which within a few years could flatten an area of the Appalachians the size of Delaware. This change must be reversed to restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act and prevent mining companies from using our streams and rivers as dumps.

The Obama administration's decision to suspend these permits and take a fresh look at mountaintop removal is consistent with Obama's commitment to science, justice and transparency in government and his respect for America's history and values. The people of Appalachia, Va., and the other towns across the coalfields have been praying that Barack Obama's promise of change will be kept. Thanks to yesterday's decision, hope, not mining waste, is filling the valleys and hollows of Appalachia.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) Lying Hypocrite
































Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) Lying Hypocrite
Today, Politico reported that Republican senators are prepared to go “nuclear” — essentially shutting down the Senate through the use of parliamentary maneuvers — if President Obama attempts to use budget reconciliation to pass key parts of his legislative agenda, such as health care reform and and cap-and-trade. Reconciliation allows some legislation to be protected from filibusters and passed by a simple majority. On NPR this morning, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) repeated a now familiar attack on budget reconciliation:

BOND: “In this post-partisan time of Barack Obama, we’re seeing a little Chicago politics. They steamroller those who disagree with them, then, I guess in Chicago, they coat them in cement and drop them in the river.” [NPR, 3/24/09]

Bond appears to be parroting his colleague Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who said any use of budget reconciliation by President Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans, and likened it to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.” Other GOP senators have chimed in against reconciliation, with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) calling it a “purely partisan exercise” and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) saying it “would be a mess.”

Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items (which were supported by all four aforementioned Senators):

– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

As ThinkProgress has noted, Gregg defended using the reconciliation procedure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for domestic drilling in 2005, arguing, “The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for.” Evidently, Gregg has lost the same sense of patriotic duty.

While Republicans seem to be experiencing a particular form of political amnesia from the Bush years, they ought to be reminded that budget reconciliation has been used by several other presidents, including Clinton and Reagan. In fact, Republicans — with Bond and Gregg among the leaders of the charge — were instrumental in pushing through key provisions of their signature legislative agenda, the Contract with America, using budget reconciliation.