A Blue View

Listen To The "Landslide" Loser Of The Iranian Election

This interesting interview with Al Jazeera was recorded just before the election:

And here's the reaction in the streets of Tehran Saturday morning to his "landslide" loss to Ahmadinejad:

The GOP's Ice Age

From Mike Murphy:

The demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer. For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough. 

It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing.

In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow.

Rather than face up to all this, too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia. Most of our party leaders come from bloodred GOP states or safe districts, so they are far more at home in the tribal politics of Republican primaries than in those of the country as a whole. You could say their radio dials are stuck on AM ...

It is true that attitudes change. A magnificent Republican renewal may still be possible. Conservatism is traditionally energized by a reaction to liberal excess, and the unabashedly leftish tilt of the Obama Administration's domestic agenda does give hope. But demography is a powerful force. Waiting and hoping didn't do much for the Whigs. I prefer a Republican reformation right now.

Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House. The pro-life movement can still be a central part of the GOP — it has support among all ages (and a slim majority of Latino voters) — but the overall GOP view on abortion must aggressively embrace the big tent.

Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration. That shouldn't be a hard lesson for the GOP to learn; every 2008 presidential-primary candidate who went for the cheap applause of the anti-immigration right couldn't win even the Iowa caucus, let alone the nomination. Instead, the GOP should support practical immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Republicans should differentiate themselves from the left by heating up the lukewarm American melting pot with a firm insistence on learning English and a rejection of the silly excesses of identity politics. A smart GOP would be deeply in the microloan and free-English-lessons business in immigrant communities. Illegal immigrants can't vote. Their children will.

Much of this is still heresy to the party as it stands now. Many will support an alternative strategy: stand pat, fight it out on fiscal issues on which the GOP has strong support and exploit liberal-Democrat excess. In the short term, that could work, but eventually the demographics will win out. Saving the GOP is not about diluting conservatism but about modernizing it to reflect the country it inhabits instead of an America that no longer exists.

Weekly Radio Address

Obama Revives Bush Project To Sequester Coal CO2

From the NY Times:

A public-private project to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions that was abandoned by the Bush administration is being restarted, Steven Chu, the energy secretary, announced Friday.

The project, known as FutureGen, was dropped in January 2008 because the Bush administration said that costs had doubled to $1.8 billion, from $950 million. A study later found that a math error had caused the increase to be overstated; costs had actually risen 39 percent, to $1.3 billion.

Under the project, a coal plant will be built in Mattoon, Ill., that will store nearly all of its emissions underground, where they cannot contribute to global warming.

“This important step forward for FutureGen reflects this administration’s commitment to rapidly developing carbon capture and sequestration technology as part of a comprehensive plan to create jobs, develop clean energy and reduce climate change pollution,” Mr. Chu said in a statement.

The project does not have a green light yet. The Department of Energy said it and FutureGen would make a final decision early next year, after additional cost assessments. For now, the department is estimating government contributions at slightly more than $1 billion, with most of that coming from stimulus money designated for advancing clean coal technologies. The FutureGen Alliance of large coal producers and users will provide $400 million to $600 million.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, praised the decision to restart the project. “For nearly a year and a half, the people of Illinois have endured delays, reversals and disagreements over costs and funding of FutureGen,” Mr. Durbin said. “Today, patience and perseverance pay off.”

Henry Henderson, the director of the Midwestern program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that from the perspective of climate, it was critical to pursue carbon sequestration projects like FutureGen at a commercial scale.

“We need to get actual experience at scale, and this is a way to do it,” he said.

The plant would test techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants and burning the gas for power. The carbon dioxide would be compressed and pumped into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would test whether any had escaped into the air.

Future Cigarette Ads

Obama's Stance on Israeli Settlements

From the Wash Post:

President Obama's close friends and key advisers have helped him shape the toughest line against the continued expansion of Israeli settlements since the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

The result has been a confrontation with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that has surprised the Israeli government and many analysts. Netanyahu is preparing to make a major speech tomorrow in which he is expected to respond to the new American pressure.

Obama's aides are steeped in the complex issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in U.S. attempts to resolve it. Many of them bring long memories of difficult dealings with Netanyahu when he served as prime minister more than a decade ago.

Obama's advisers have concluded that peace in the Middle East will require an end to the construction of new Israeli homes on occupied territory that Palestinians claim for a new state. In his speech in Cairo this month, Obama made it clear he had reached the same conclusion. Forcing Netanyahu to relent on settlements would offer the U.S. administration leverage in persuading Arab states to engage in peace talks.

"There is a strong consensus in the White House that the status quo is not going to produce progress and that the moment could slip away here for a real, just, lasting peace that would bring Israel the security it needs," said David Axelrod, one of Obama's top advisers.

But several senior White House officials described the president's views on Israeli settlements as years old and not the product of recent events or discussions. "It would be a mistake to suggest that anyone led him to this position," a senior adviser said. "It's one that he generated himself."

In Chicago, long before becoming president, Obama's closest confidants included staunch supporters of Israel whose tough views on the need to stop settlements mirror his current public position <Continue reading.>

The Sewer Rats Come Out

 

Tortoise & Hare, Venus & Mars, the US & Europe

First the NY Times provides some context:

Just as the policies pursued during the Great Depression have been dissected ever since by economists, the fate of the United States and Europe as the two regions emerge from the global crisis will be analyzed for decades to come. The lessons will not only guide policy makers in future crises, but also could redefine the debate over how much state intervention in the economy is appropriate.

“History is one big laboratory experiment that only gets run once,” said Niall Ferguson, an economic historian at Harvard who has been one of the loudest critics of the White House’s spending initiatives.

Then they describe the unintended economic "experiment" we're all living through:

There was more evidence Thursday that the United States economy might be stabilizing, if not rebounding, even as economic reports in Europe remained gloomy.

The American news — showing slight growth in retail sales and a dip in first-time jobless claims, as well as rising stocks — was not enough to end the disagreement between bulls and bears over how soon the economy would improve.

But the apparent divergence of fortunes between America and Europe highlighted the different approaches to solving the financial crisis, and why some economists say the more aggressive American strategy may be working better, at least for now ...

Some private economists are even predicting that the American economy will resume growth in the fourth quarter, while Europe’s economy is expected to remain in recession well into 2010, after contracting an estimated 4.2 percent this year compared with an expected 2.8 percent decline in the United States ...

Almost from the beginning of the crisis, the United States and Europe chose largely different paths to aiding their economies. The most stark was Washington’s willingness to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulus spending — in addition to moving aggressively to shore up banks and keep credit flowing — versus Europe’s worry that similar spending would increase inflation in the future ...

The argument behind the American approach — staggering stimulus spending — is that the economy must be prevented from falling into a self-perpetuating downward spiral, and that increasing the deficit to do that is prudent.

One crucial concern about America’s increased deficit spending — that it would lead investors to demand higher interest rates on United States debt, making it far more expensive to borrow and slowing the economy — has been allayed, for now. An auction on Thursday of $11 billion in 30-year Treasury bonds found enthusiastic buyers, helping to push the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index to a seven-month high.

But it is impossible to know how much the apparent, if nascent, stabilization of the American economy comes from the stimulus spending and how much from moves like propping up the banking and credit systems, especially because much of the stimulus money has yet to make it to the economy.

“I think America is further ahead in terms of fixing problems with the banks,” said Mr. Pisani-Ferry, “and countries like Germany have been hurt tremendously by the decline in world trade.”

Figures released this week showed that German exports plunged 28.7 percent in April from a year earlier, the steepest drop since the government began keeping records in 1950.

Still, some experts say that Europe’s approach could pay off over the longer run.

There remains a significant risk that deficit spending in the United States could lead to inflation in the long run. Concern over the deficit has already led to a sharp rise in interest rates in the last month. A continued rise could threaten any American recovery.

And while its growth is expected to be muted for years, Europe will not be burdened by as much debt as the United States, having avoided big stimulus spending.

'Why Americans Need Health Reform' For Dummies

An interesting animation, geared especially at small business:

Maybe The A.M.A. Isn't Opposed To A Public Plan ... What's A Public Plan Anyway?

Regarding my earlier post (A.M.A. Opposes Public Insurance Plan), Karen Tumulty now posts this from the American Medical Association: 

Statement attributable to: Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
President, American Medical Association

“Make no mistake: Health reform that covers the uninsured is AMA's top priority this year. Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care coverage.

“Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.”

Which brings us back to what I will continue to emphasize: A "public plan" can mean many things.

Her last point is an important one we all need to remember.  Much of the fight in the political arena is over labels (Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life, Stimulus Bill vs American Reinvestment Act, etc) so we have to be careful and pay attention to the details of what is likely to end up being called the 'public plan' option regardless of whether it really is.

Homegrown Terrorism

 

Robinson & Krugman On Right Wing Terrorism

Eugene Robinson:

In April, a prescient Department of Homeland Security memo predicted that the election of the first African American president and the advent of economic hard times could worsen the threat from "right-wing extremist groups." In particular, the memo warned of an increase in anti-Semitic activity by extremists who buy into the whole Jewish-banker-secret-cabal paranoid fantasy -- and would blame "the Jews" for engineering the global financial crisis, just as they blame "the Jews" for everything.

For days, some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating "right-wing" with "terrorism." It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn't matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn't to illuminate a subject with light but to blast it with heat.

And it wasn't just the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world who pretended to be outraged. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused the administration of trying "to segment out Americans who dissent from this administration, to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration, and labeling them as terrorists." Steele seems to have decided that telling the truth isn't nearly as important as the high-temperature exercise known as "firing up the base."

The thing is, though, that words have consequences.

Paul Krugman:

With the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the [DHS] analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

I've Said It Before, The Right Wing Is Full Of Historical Ignoramuses

Thomas Frank got it wrong yesterday (Right-Wing Terrorism Feeds Conspiracy Theories About Liberal Media Which Feeds Right-Wing Terrorism).  The right-wing is not blaming the liberal media for right-wing terrorism, they're blaming the left! First Glenn Beck, and now the de facto head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh:

This is so historically ignorant of history and political science I wont bother with refuting these ludicrous claims. Instead, there's this 30 April post: Why Is The GOP So Full Of Scientific & Historical Ignoramuses?

Obama Giving Up Plan To Bring Cleared Gitmo Detainees To US, But Trials For Others Will Still Be Held Here

From the Wash Post:

The Obama administration has all but abandoned plans to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to live in the United States, administration officials said yesterday, a decision that reflects bipartisan congressional opposition to admitting such prisoners but complicates efforts to persuade European allies to accept them.

Four Uighur detainees, Chinese Muslims who were incarcerated at the U.S. military prison in Cuba for more than seven years, arrived early yesterday in Bermuda, where they will become foreign guest workers. An administration official said the United States is engaged in negotiations with other countries, including Palau, an island nation in the western Pacific, to find places for the remaining 13 Uighurs held at Guantanamo.

The Uighurs, who were ordered released by a federal judge last year, never counted America as an enemy, according to the men's lawyers and human rights groups, giving the administration grounds to argue that they should live in the United States. Picked up in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2002, the Uighurs were later cleared of the "enemy combatant" label but remained in minimum-security confinement at Guantanamo.

Attempting to settle non-Uighur detainees in the United States would generate even greater congressional opposition, and the administration has decided not to pursue it broadly, an administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. But he said there may yet be "a few" candidates for settlement in the United States among the dozens of Guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release.

Congressional Democrats yesterday reached agreement on a war-funding bill that would allow detainees to be sent to the United States for trial. The draft bill included no provision for prolonged detention without trial, a step that President Obama has said will be necessary to incarcerate detainees who are too dangerous to release but who cannot be prosecuted.

An Eternal Bullseye

Landmark Legislation Empowering The FDA To Regulate Tobacco Passes Senate

As predicted in a 6 June post, the NY Times now reports the bill has passed the Senate:

More than four decades after the surgeon general declared smoking a health hazard, the Senate on Thursday cleared the final hurdle to empowering federal officials to regulate cigarettes and other forms of tobacco for the first time.

The legislation, which the White House said President Obama would sign as soon as it reached his desk, will enable the Food and Drug Administration to impose potentially strict new controls on the making and marketing of products that eventually kill half their regular users. The House, which passed a similar bill in April, may vote on the Senate version as soon as Friday.

“This is a historic step changing the nature of tobacco in society forever,” said Clifford E. Douglas, the director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network, which has extensively studied the health effects of smoking and was one of many groups that have long pushed for tobacco regulation.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the new law would reduce youth smoking by 11 percent and adult smoking by 2 percent over the next decade, in addition to reductions already achieved through other actions, like higher taxes and smoke-free indoor space laws.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as it is called, stops short of empowering the F.D.A. to outlaw smoking or ban nicotine — strictures that even most antismoking advocates acknowledged were not politically feasible and might drive people addicted to nicotine into a criminal black market.

But the law would give the F.D.A. power to set standards that could reduce nicotine content and regulate chemicals in cigarette smoke. The law also bans most tobacco flavorings, which are considered a lure to first-time smokers. Menthol was deferred to later studies. Health advocates predict that F.D.A. standards could eventually reduce some of the 60 carcinogens and 4,000 toxins in cigarette smoke, or make it taste so bad it deters users.

The law would also tighten restrictions on the marketing and advertising of tobacco products. Colorful ads and store displays will be replaced by black-and-white-only text. Beginning next year, all outdoor advertising of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds would be illegal.

And cigarette makers will be required to stop using terms like “light” and “low tar” by next year and to place large, graphic health warnings on their packages by 2012.

“This is a bill not for a one-year or two-year splash, but for a long-term impact,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington advocacy group that took a lead in coordinating support for the legislation.

Obama Pardons Girl Missing School for Town Hall Meeting - Writes Her Teacher A Note

This:

in our instant culture was quickly turned into political fodder by an enterprising cartoonist:

Right-Wing Terrorism Feeds Conspiracy Theories About Liberal Media Which Feeds Right-Wing Terrorism

From Thomas Frank:

The culture war's inevitable cycles of accusation and counter-accusation ... began with the chorus of outrage directed at elements of the antiabortion movement after Tiller's murder on Sunday May 31. The crime, some suggested, was the logical culmination of certain pro-lifers' apocalyptic rhetoric and their penchant for singling out particular individuals to calumniate.

Pro-life leaders declared themselves shocked and surprised. How could this happen? And how could anyone associate them with this crime? After all, as far as we know, the man accused of the murder wasn't acting on anyone's instructions; he didn't go to movement meetings; he wasn't a member of the main groups dedicated to making Tiller's life difficult. He was, by all reports, an extreme outlier, a wingnut's wingnut.

A larger reason for the shock and surprise -- and this is true for the right generally -- is this: The culture wars are not meant to be taken seriously. Yes, right-wing invective dabbles in nightmare visions of treason and conspiracy and rampant paganism and a homegrown holocaust right here on Main Street, U.S.A. Yes, it ritually denounces liberals as members of a class fundamentally alien to the American way of life. But these are the ingredients of entertainment, not politics.

Culture war makes you feel noble and heroic. It sells books, it drives up the ratings of "The O'Reilly Factor," it brings in millions in direct-mail contributions -- but everybody knows you can't make Hollywood change its ways by walking the streets of Wichita carrying a sign deploring the "culture of death."

According to the unwritten rules of the culture wars, the "base" isn't supposed to act on it when the performers describe a world gone crazy. They're an audience; they're supposed to hiss, applaud, donate, vote and go home.

The people who are empowered to act are the usual suspects in Washington, where the only Armageddon is the one facing the steak some lobbyist just bought for your congressman.

Public memory is short, however, and it won't be long before this incident, too, has been carved and sanded and fitted neatly into the grand narrative of the culture wars, in which true-believing patriots are eternally disrespected by all-powerful liberals. And that will bring us to Act II in our red-state story, in which certain pro-lifers discover that they are the real victims of the Tiller tragedy, unfairly slandered by the left for their views.

We know this will happen because this is what some seem to recall most vividly about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing -- not so much the act itself, but the clumsy way then-president Bill Clinton tried to blame conservative talk radio for the crime.

We also know it because this part of the cycle has already begun. Fox News star Bill O'Reilly, who adopted the "baby killer" rhetoric of the Kansas right in his many attacks on Tiller, seemed uncomfortable to find himself on the receiving end of public outrage after the doctor's slaying. He also had an explanation for it: "the far left is exploiting this," he said last week, "trying to shut guys like me up by saying O'Reilly's responsible for this murder."

Others have tried to force the story into the familiar narrative of liberal media bias. After all, there were other murders in America, they pointed out, and to the extent that newspapers chose to focus on this one, their liberalness could be measured most precisely.

You and I will forget about Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, but I suspect that certain pro-lifers never will. They will cherish their memories of those awful days when the bloggers and the pundits suggested that maybe they deserved some of the blame for his murder. They will memorize the unjust accusations, exaggerate the sting of the insults, shed a tear for their own suffering -- and get back to imagining themselves as modern-day John Browns.

Something Might Be Happening In Iran

Empowering Shareholders & The SEC To Exercise More Oversight Over Exec Pay At Public Firms

From the Wash Post:

Senior administration officials are moving to address concerns at firms well beyond those implicated in the [banking] crisis. Yesterday, officials proposed two pieces of legislation that separately empower shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission to exercise more oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms.

The first measure would give shareholders more say on what companies pay executives. Traditionally, stockholders have had limited influence and the authority only to elect a small number of members who sit on a company's board of directors.

The second measure would expand the SEC's power to ensure that the corporate committees responsible for deciding compensation act independently of the top executives whose pay they set. Most large corporations have such committees, and their record in rewarding risky management has at times been troubling. Conflicts of interest between committee members and executives are common.

These efforts reflect the administration's conclusion that companies cannot police themselves on matters of pay.

"This financial crisis had many significant causes, but executive compensation practices were a contributing factor," Geithner said yesterday.

And more initiatives to address these practices are coming. The Federal Reserve is examining how regulators can oversee pay at all banks. Geithner and senior White House officials, meanwhile, plan to make executive pay a focus of their efforts to overhaul financial regulation, which officials say will be detailed next week.

Poll Data Reveal The Depths Of The GOP's Problems

From Gallup poll #1:

From Gallup poll #2:

More than 6 in 10 Republicans today are white conservatives, while most of the rest are whites with other ideological leanings; only 11% of Republicans are Hispanics, or are blacks or members of other races. By contrast, only 12% of Democrats are white conservatives, while about half are white moderates or liberals and a third are nonwhite.

And probably the most dangerous statistic of all for the GOP from Gallup poll #3: 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have an unfavorable opinion of their own party:

Small Business Will See Savings From Health Care Reform

From the NY Times:

As Washington debates an overhaul of health care, many small businesses are vehemently opposed to the idea of requiring employers to help pay for their workers’ medical coverage.

But at least one small-business group says the proposals now being considered by the Obama administration and Senate leaders could save small companies tens of billions of dollars a year in health care costs — even if there is a mandate for employer coverage.

An analysis by the group, the nonprofit Small Business Majority, to be released Thursday, concludes that the changes would be better for small employers than continuing the current system, which leaves many of those businesses struggling to afford health benefits for their workers. Half of companies with nine or fewer workers do not currently provide employee coverage ...

The analysis, conducted by Jonathan Gruber, an M.I.T. economist who helped advise Massachusetts on its overhaul of health insurance, examines proposals being discussed by the Senate Finance Committee and others in which small companies would have to pay some portion of their payroll toward health benefits but would also receive some form of tax credits to defray the expense.

Small businesses would save in two major ways, Mr. Gruber said. Because small companies traditionally pay much more than large corporations for the same coverage for an employee, they would benefit from proposals streamlining the purchase of insurance and lowering the administrative expenses associated with the policies. The companies, he said, would also benefit from the success of any legislative efforts to contain the rapidly escalating cost of health care.

Over all, the study estimates that the proposals under debate could save small businesses anywhere from $546 billion to $855 billion over the next decade.

If nothing is done, on the other hand, the study says the health care bill for small businesses — estimated at $156 billion this year — would more than double, to $339 billion in 2018.

Chicken Hawks

A.M.A. Opposes Public Insurance Plan

Bad news from the NY Times:

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

In the presidential campaign last year and in a letter to Congress last week, Mr. Obama called for a new “public health insurance option,” which he said would compete with private insurers and keep them honest.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Wednesday that she supported that goal. “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said Wednesday on MSNBC.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans” ...

MSNBC Reacts To The Holocaust Museum Shooting

Keith Olbermann on increasing right-Wing, domestic terrorism:

Joan Walsh on the mainstream hate:

US Govt Makes Multi-Billion Profit On TARP

From PolitiFact:

Admit it, when the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone.

Not so, President Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009.

"Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers," he said. "And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit."

A quick summary of how we got to this point:

As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock.

A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program.

On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road.

To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program.

Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us.

There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends.

... the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. "It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks," Hall said. "It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some."

Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit.

The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable.

"People think the government gave banks money," Ely said. "They made investments in banks."

As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True.

Fox Reacts To The Holocaust Museum Shooting

Fox's Beck typically has a idiotic reaction: he blames the left!

But Fox News' Shep Smith is scared by the email Fox receives:

And then goes on to discuss the conservative-derided DHS report on domestic terrorism:

Wow. Even some Fox talking heads are scared by these recent events.

How Obama Saved The Banks Without A Bank Plan

From Derek Thompson:

The country's largest banks appear stable even as Obama's largest bank plan is dead. Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner's Public-Private Investment Plan to price and buy toxic assets from the banks has withered on the vine, and it's enough to make some writers wonder whether the Obama bank plan has failed. But wait, how can you say the big bank plan failed if the biggest banks aren't failing?

Half a year ago, our financial system was in catastrophe, and the debate was over how much money it would take to bail them out, or even take them over. Today, the biggest banks are -- or at least appear to be -- on stable footing, and the debate is over how much TARP money they will be allowed to give back. To be clear, this is a statement of confidence from the banks, not evidence that they will be OK in four or six months. But it is still a remarkable turn of events, one we can credit to the Obama administration's overall strategy of ... what again?

Consider: Geithner's first plan was a flop. PPIP is dead, or hibernating. So what exactly saved the United States' financial system? Ezra Klein elegantly encapsulates the first rule of the bank bailout as: "heads the economy improves, tails the taxpayers bail them out." That is exactly right. But was it a bad rule? In the short term, maybe not. The Libor inter-bank lending rate is falling. Unemployment is slowing. The banks are finding it easier to raise capital. Green shoots galore. What exactly fertilized them?

Perhaps it was simply the guarantee that the United States would not let any bank fail. Not ever. Consider the incredible response to the stress tests, when the US told Bank of America it would need $34 billion to last a deeper downturn. Rather than scare investors away, BofA's results allowed them to raise that capital in about month. The stress tests essentially said to investors: Raise this money and the United States will continue to be there, always. Too big to fail is an indictment of our banking system, but it was also used as the animating philosophy of US banking policy. Hasn't it kind of worked?

Of course the answer is yes and no. From the perspective of Tuesday, June 9, 2009, the federal government's strategy to hold the banks' hands and say everything will be all right seems to have stabilized Wall Street. The good news is that we're on our way back to square one. The bad news is that...wait, we're on our way back to square one! What happened to the much needed reforms that would be forged in the cauldron of the crisis? That will require something more than, as Yglesias puts it, ad hoc "strings attached." It will require real reform. It will, in other words, require a real plan.

"If someone's on the road to hell, you have to rescue them"

So says Pat Robertson, in discussing what the mother of a gay man should do. He also dismisses any notion of biological causes (or "problems") and says it is caused by abuse by a "coach or guidance counselor or other male figure." It's also revealing that lesbians aren't even a part of his world view.

Obama Suspends Bush Policy Of Deporting Widows

From the Wall St Journal:

The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday it is temporarily freezing a policy of deporting widows and widowers of U.S. citizens, a sign of the Obama administration's interest in new approaches to immigration.

Only a few hundred people were at risk of deportation under the policy, but critics viewed it as one of the most painful consequences of President George W. Bush's immigration crackdown.

Under the current interpretation of federal law, some immigrants whose American spouses had died faced possible deportation because their legal status was in limbo. The rule applied to immigrants who had been married for less than two years or whose green-card process hadn't been completed when their spouses died. The clause, known as the "widow penalty," had resulted in a spate of lawsuits.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her agency was freezing any action against such widows and widowers for two years. "Smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with common-sense, practical solutions to complicated issues," Ms. Napolitano said.

A Department of Homeland Security statement said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees immigrant petitions, would give favorable consideration to requests for reinstatement of cases that previously had been revoked under the law.

Ms. Napolitano's directive offers relief, if only temporary, to some 200 widows and widowers. However, it suggests the Obama administration could be testing a softer approach to other contentious aspects of immigration policy.

Greatest Drop In Charitable Giving In 50 Years

Read the story.

The Supremes Clear Way For Chrysler Sale

From the Wall St Journal:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Chrysler LLC to exit bankruptcy court, lifting a stay on its proposed sale to a group including Italy's Fiat SpA.

The high court's move marks a victory for the Obama administration and its ambitious plan to remake the American auto industry by pushing both Chrysler and General Motors Corp. through quick and painful restructurings under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

But the order is a setback for a group of Indiana pension funds and others who maintained the government's heavy-handed treatment of creditors in the case could chill private lending to distressed firms and alter the rules of bankruptcy reorganizations.

The Supreme Court, in a brief order, said that the funds had not "carried the burden" of proving that their grievances merited the court's attention.

Both Chrysler and the Obama administration argued strenuously that speed was of the essence in the company's Chapter 11 restructuring, and that any delays could jeopardize the Auburn Hills, Mich., auto maker's future, chasing away potential customers, straining its suppliers, and potentially causing Fiat to turn away from the deal ...

The ruling clears away a major legal obstacle for Chrysler and, as important, for GM's much larger and more complex Chapter 11 restructuring. The administration is hoping to bring GM out of bankruptcy and put it under majority government ownership by the end of the summer.

The brief stay imposed by the high court on the Chrysler transaction shocked the administration Monday, provoking concerns that the White House's approach to restructuring the two firms might have been built on faulty legal logic.

Under prodding by the Treasury Department, Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection on April 30, and GM followed on June 1.

Chrysler now appears set to exit bankruptcy as soon as Wednesday. On Tuesday another hurdle was cleared when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan approved its plan to drop 789 dealer franchises from its retail network ...

Under an agreement with Chrysler, Fiat could have pulled out of the deal next Monday if it hadn't cleared the courts, though the Italian auto maker said Tuesday that it had no intention of abandoning the arrangement. Fiat initially will get a 20% stake in Chrysler without putting up any cash ...

The daylong Supreme Court stay arose from an appeal launched last month by a group of Indiana state pension funds and a coalition of consumer groups, which argued that the government-orchestrated settlement discriminated against secured lenders and abrogated key liabilities. The pension funds owned a small portion of Chrysler's secured debt and objected to a plan that would have paid them just 29 cents on the dollar.

Their first appeal was denied by a federal appellate court. The Supreme Court issued a stay of the Fiat deal late Monday to have more time to decide whether to hear the case.

In the end, the high court pulled back from the matter. "Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone," the Supreme Court said in a short order.

Boston Globe Union

Palin Quote Of The Day

In an interview, Sean Hannity cued up a "he's a socialist" answer when he asked Sarah Palin about where President Obama is taking the economy.  Instead she answered with this nonsense:

A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric, but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans are paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our countries had in mind for us.

It's good to see some things from the campaign haven't changed.

Chinese Pornography

President Obama's Agenda Responsible "for only a sliver of the deficit"

From the NY Times:

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it ...

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Jon Voight Is A Lunatic

He's right up there with Limbaugh: "Everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous," "We are becoming a weak nation ... Obama thinks he's Julius Casear," "Obama oppression," "this false prophet Obama" ... Wow!

Have The Terrorists Won? Dr Tiller's Clinic To Close

From the NY Times:

The Kansas abortion clinic run by the doctor who was shot to death in church last month has closed permanently, his family said on Tuesday.

The clinic of Dr. George R. Tiller, in Wichita, had been one of a few in the country to provide abortions to women late in their pregnancies, and for decades, women had traveled there from all over the nation and overseas. The office, Women’s Health Care Services Inc., was also the state’s only remaining clinic, even for abortions performed early in pregnancy, outside the Kansas City area ...

“It is unacceptable that anti-abortion intimidation and violence has led to the closing of Dr. Tiller’s clinic,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Not only have we lost a fearless defender of women’s fundamental health and rights in Dr. Tiller’s murder, but the closing of his clinic leaves an immediate and immense void in the availability of abortion.”

Warren M. Hern, a doctor from Boulder, Colo., who also performs late-term abortions and was a friend of Dr. Tiller, described the outcome as “horrifying.”

“Where does it end?” Dr. Hern said. “The anti-abortion fanatics got exactly what they wanted”...

The president of the Kansas Coalition for Life, Mark S. Gietzen, who since 2004 had arranged for daily volunteers to stand outside the clinic and call out to the women going in, said his group might turn its efforts to abortion centers in the Kansas City region now, or perhaps to North Dakota.

“It looks like our prayer was answered,” Mr. Gietzen said of the clinic’s closing ...

Scott P. Roeder, an abortion opponent from Kansas City, Mo., is in a Wichita jail, charged with murder in Dr. Tiller’s death. In Wichita, the anti-abortion groups have said Mr. Roeder was not a member or donor, though some leaders said they had seen him before or received phone calls from him.

In a jailhouse interview on Tuesday, Mr. Roeder told a reporter from CNN that he had received letters of encouragement, and described the closing of the clinic as “a victory for all of the unborn children,” according to CNN.

Rachel Maddow Calls Out Obama On "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Take That Conservatives: "Apologizing" & "Appearing Weak" Works

So much for all the bullshit during the campaign, and especially since Obama's New Beginnings Speech, about moral equivalence, of apologizing for America, of not appearing macho enough, that the only way to get what you want is by threatening and being bellicose, that you're either with us or against us, that talking & diplomacy (especially without preconditions) are wastes of time, or worse, dangerous.

President Obama didn't do any of those things in his Cairo speech; instead he was smart, culturally sensitive and came across as as an honest broker (it's not exactly a secret, after all, that the CIA helped depose the elected Iranian leader in 1953, so why is acknowledging a historical fact, that is unimportant to us but critical to a people we're trying to sway, wrong?). And, according to the NY Times, it might already be working:

There were many domestic reasons voters handed an American-backed coalition a victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections on Sunday — but political analysts also attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world.

Most analysts had predicted that the Hezbollah-led coalition, already a crucial power broker in the Lebanese government because of its support from Shiites who make up a large part of Lebanon’s population, would win handily. In the end, though, the American-aligned coalition won 71 seats, while the Syria-Iranian aligned opposition, which includes Hezbollah, took only 57.

It is hard to draw firm conclusions from one election. But for the first time in a long time, being aligned with the United States did not lead to defeat in the Middle East. And since Lebanon has always been a critical testing ground, that could mark a possibly significant shift in regional dynamics with another major election, in Iran, on Friday.

With Mr. Obama’s speech on relations with Muslims still fresh in Lebanese minds, analysts point to steps the administration has taken since assuming office.

Washington is now proposing talking to Hezbollah’s patrons, Iran and Syria, rather than confronting them — a move that undermines the group’s attempt to demonize the United States. The United States is also no longer pressing its allies in the Lebanese government to unilaterally disarm Hezbollah, which, given the party’s considerable remaining clout, could have provoked a crisis.

“Lebanon is a telling case,” said Osama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies here. “It is no longer relevant for the extremists to use the anti-American card. It does look like the U.S. is moving on to something new.”

In fact, some analysts said that it was possible that Lebanon’s election could be a harbinger of Friday’s presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi.

While President Ahmadinejad has grown unpopular for many reasons, including his troubled stewardship of the economy, political analysts said that President Obama had blunted the appeal of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s confrontation with the West.

The results in Lebanon may also make it more difficult for Israel to capitalize on fears of Hezbollah dominance and shift the conversation away from the peace process with the Palestinians — a tactic that many analysts here attributed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I think the speech of Obama in Cairo more likely played a role in neutralizing anti-Americanism,” said Khalil al-Dakhil, a sociologist from Saudi Arabia. “It was a positive message. It was a conciliatory message.”

Nonetheless, there are many other factors at play that do not depend on the United States. The Lebanese election did little to change the balance of power in a country where Hezbollah is by far the strongest player. Christians, who played a moderating role and have traditionally tilted toward the United States, are not a political force elsewhere in the region. And it will probably be weeks, even months, before all sides can agree on the makeup of a new government, suggesting the paralysis that has often enveloped Lebanon’s government may continue.

... Hezbollah and its allies charging that the March 14 coalition, as the Western-backed parties are known, has allowed the United States to control Lebanon and serves as an agent of Israel. But among important Christian swing voters, fears of Iran and Syria appeared to trump concerns about interference from Washington.

When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. visited Lebanon in late May, and appeared to threaten withdrawal of financial aid if the opposition won, that was widely derided as a kiss of death. But now, some political analysts believe the vice president may have helped by crystallizing for voters their choice: alliance with the United States, France and the regional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; or with Iran and Syria and their allies, Hezbollah and Hamas ...

While those internal details were being worked out, all eyes are expected to shift to Iran for Friday’s presidential election. An upset victory there for the challenger would not fundamentally alter Iran’s priorities, but it would be taken as another step in the moderation of the region.

“Iran did not get a chip and neither did Syria,” said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “Today, the U.S., France, Egypt, Saudi, they all feel better.”

Fair & Balanced From Fox?

That's right, it actually happened ... but it occurred on Fox Business in this discussion of the impact of Obama's New Beginning speech:

Apparently, the business community is convinced there's money to be made if Obama can get this right. Watch this Bloomberg News interview with Republican Senator Richard Lugar as he refutes the right wing attacks against Obama's speech:

Just Asking

Have you noticed how often the two female journalists recently convicted in North Korea are referred to as "girls" by the talking heads on cable news?  I was too so I checked: Laura Ling is 32 and Yuna Lee is 36. Would male journalists of that age be called boys?

Mid-East Political Cartoons

Drum Roll:

Israeli dilemma:

 

Obama and Israeli settlements

Insight Into The Iranian Election: "The Marriage Crisis"

Azadeh Moaveni, writing in Time, paints a picture of Iran as a modernizing democracy ... not at all the caricature we hear about in the news all the time:

These days, the phrase "marriage crisis" pops up in election debates, newspapers and blogs and is considered by government officials and ordinary Iranians alike to be one of the nation's most serious problems. It refers to the rising number of young people of marrying age who cannot afford to marry or are choosing not to tie the knot. By official estimates, there are currently 13 million to 15 million Iranians of marrying age; to keep that figure steady, Iran should be registering about 1.65 million marriages each year. The real figure is closer to half that. 

Why does this matter? Because Iran's government cannot afford to further alienate the young people that comprise more than 35% of its population. The young are already seething over their government's radical stance in the world and its trashing of the economy, and their anger easily expresses itself politically. As they decide how to vote in Friday's presidential election, young people like Farhad and Mahnaz are likely to base their decision in part on who they think will address the problem closest to their heart.

Iran used to be a society in which people married young. In a Muslim culture that viewed premarital sex and dating as taboo, this was pretty much a social imperative. My mother married at 28, and in the 1970s that meant she had brushed up against spinsterhood. But today, Iranian women are attending university in unprecedented numbers — they account for over 60% of students on Iranian campuses — and typically enter the workforce after graduating. This has turned their focus away from the home sphere, made marriage a less urgent priority and changed women's expectations of both marriage and prospective husbands.

With young people pursuing more liberal lifestyles and shunning the traditional mores of their parents' generation, the marrying age is steadily climbing. This terrifies Iran's religious government, which still peddles the virtue of chastity and views young people's shifting attitudes toward sexuality as a direct threat to the Islamic Revolution's core values. "The sexual bomb we face is more dangerous than the bombs and missiles of the enemy," said Mohammad Javad Hajj Ali Akbari, head of Iran's National Youth Organization, late last year.

Unfortunately for the government, the mismanagement of Iran's economy — with its high inflation, unemployment rates and soaring real estate prices — has deepened the marriage crisis, and with it the resentment among young Iranians.

Boston Globe Union Insists They Will Only Make Buggy Whips

Apparently, keeping lifetime employment for 170 newsroom employees is more important than making the Boston Globe viable:

The Boston Globe's take: Globe union votes no, Paper declares impasse, slashes wages 23 percent.

The NY Times report: Boston Globe Union Rejects Wage and Benefits Cuts

Why Workers Aren't Angrier About Health Care

Ezra Klein thinks it's because they don't realize how health care costs negatively impact their wages:

Here's a counterintuitive thought: Health care reform is a pretty big issue in the United States. Arguably the biggest domestic issue there is. But it's a much smaller issue than it should be.

That's not meant as a normative statement. It's meant as an introduction to this graph from the Council of Economic Advisers' health care report. The top line -- the solid one going up and up and up -- is projected total worker compensation. The full amount employers pay for wages, benefits, and so forth. The second line -- the dashed line slumping down -- is compensation minus health care costs. That's pretty much what workers see in their paycheck.

The mechanism here is simple enough. As the report says, "Since health insurance premiums are growing more rapidly than total compensation in percentage terms, an increasing share of total compensation that a worker receives goes to cover health insurance premiums."

But workers don't see it that way. That slumping line isn't normally called wages-minus-health-premiums. It's called wages. And most workers think stagnant wages mean their employer is paying them less. They don't know that the main reason for stagnant wages is that their wage increases are going to pay for their health insurance premiums. If they did -- if they realized that compensation is pretty much a zero-sum endeavor and their employers don't so much buy them health insurance as garnish their wages to pay for their health insurance -- you'd probably see a lot more general anger at rising health care costs.

Some Militants Respond Positively To Obama Speech

From the AP:

In his speech in Cairo Thursday, Obama listed confronting "violent extremism" as the top priority in addressing tensions between the U.S. and Muslims. He urged the Islamic world to reject radical ideologies and promised to work aggressively to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also said the U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement in the West Bank and endorsed a Palestinian state.

There are already some indications his words are having the desired effect of undercutting extremists. A militant leader in Egypt called on the Taliban to respond positively to Obama's gestures, and Hamas militants in Gaza say they are ready "to build on this speech."

Obama may have managed to "plant the seed of doubt in some minds," said Robert Malley, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. "There was enough ... that represented openings for those who wanted openings."

Yet Obama's eloquent promises were seen as only a small step toward halting the region's drift toward militancy, accelerated in recent years by the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's perceived pro-Israel bias ... "Extremists will only be disarmed when the U.S. takes a more neutral stand on Israel," said Abdel Wahab al-Qasab, a Qatar-based analyst ...

Obama's message also contained an assurance that U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban won't stay longer than absolutely necessary. That too may have resonated with militants in that region, said Ahmed Rashid, a Lahore-based analyst and author of a book on the Taliban. "The extremists used to lie that the U.S. wants military bases in this region," he said.

Essam Derbala, a leader of one of Egypt's largest militant groups, al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya Al-Qaida, told an Egyptian newspaper over the weekend that the Taliban should reciprocate by announcing they will no longer target Americans. That would ensure U.S. troops will eventually leave the region, he said.

Still, many extremists remain wary of the U.S outreach.

President Barack Obama On Sesame Street

From Time:

When Sesame Street founder Joan Ganz Cooney met Obama at a fundraiser last year, she was prepared to hear what she always does. "I'd have bet you a million dollars," she says, "that [Obama] would tell me how his kids watched Sesame Street." But instead the President-to-be told her that he and his little sister watched the show. "I realized that this is the first President young enough to say that."

The Obamas clearly have a deeper personal connection to the show than their White House predecessors did; it was aimed, after all, at kids like them ... When Michelle Obama visited the set in Queens, N.Y., to talk about "healthy habits" a few weeks ago, she was practically fizzing. "I'm on a high," she said. "I never thought I'd be on Sesame Street with Elmo and Big Bird." Let it be noted that this visit came after she'd met the Queen of England at Buckingham Palace and welcomed Stevie Wonder to the White House and enjoyed all kinds of other not-too-bad perks of being First Lady. "I think it's probably the best thing I've done so far in the White House."

The President is every bit as much a product of the show, but it's not just his age and mastery of the alphabet that make Obama the first Sesame Street President. The Obama presidency is a wholly American fusion of optimism, enterprise and earnestness — rather like the far-fetched proposal of 40 years ago to create a TV show that would prove that educational television need not be an oxymoron.

"This was not a speech ... It was an intervention"

From Andrew Sullivan:

It is sometimes easy to forget the sheer bizarreness of what happened in Cairo and Riyadh last week. Then the White House transcript of an international press interview brings it home. An Indonesian journalist, after asking why the president didn’t make his speech in that vast Muslim south Asian country, followed up with this:

Q: Actually I live only 300 metres from your old house.

President Obama: Is that right?

Q: Yes, Menteng Dalam.

President Obama: Except now it’s all paved.

Q: Yes, it’s all paved.

President Obama: Yes, see, when I was there it was all dirt, so when the rains came it would all be mud. And all the cars would get stuck.

How many previous American presidents addressing the masses in the developing world have been able to say that? The last presidents to break through in this global fashion — Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy — represented American glamour and style and otherness. Barack Obama does, too — but he combines it with a unique developing-world biography. It’s this tension that many of us believed was a huge asset for the West in defusing the clash of civilisations with Islam.

It’s that biography that made a speech that echoed some of George W Bush’s themes reach a critical mass of credibility. But in many respects this was not a speech, as traditionally understood. It was an intervention.

The Middle East is addicted to its past; Obama spoke of the need to move into the future. The Middle East is fixated on conflict and identity; Obama emphasised quotidian common interests. The Middle East loves quibbles; Obama landed slap-bang in the middle of most of them and refused to budge. And driving all of it was a critical question of tone — a measured, careful and stern message of respect and realism.

The obvious critique that this was just a set of words seems to me to miss the point. An intervention begins with words because it requires the actions of others. You don’t get an addict to go into recovery by cuffing him and throwing him into an ambulance. You talk to him and his family and speak calmly about what everyone in the room knows to be true but no one will face. So, for me, the core sentence of the speech was obvious: “It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true” ...

When you see how many delicate balancing acts are required to pull the grand bargain off in the region, scepticism is entirely justified. But I don’t believe Obama is naive about the difficulty of the task. He knows that unless a real attempt is made to avert peacefully a catastrophic nuclear arms race in the region, to save the Israelis and Palestinians from themselves and to reconstitute the image of America in the psyches of a vast young generation of Muslims, we face a darkness that could spread very fast globally and engulf us all.

There are a lot of constantly shifting balls in play — the Iranian electorate, the Syrian elite, the US Congress, the Iraqi military, the Israeli governing coalition. Each one could derail everything on its own. Yet this young president presses forward with the kind of self-confidence and assurance not seen in the region in decades. He knows, I sense, that even if he fails, the message of Cairo will endure in the minds of many young Muslims for much of their lives. Mere words? So were Reagan’s and Kennedy's.

Perhaps the fruit of those words — of that respect and engagement — won’t be felt for another generation or so. That merely underlines why they matter and how vast Obama’s ambition truly is.

A New Dawn For Healthcare