A Blue View

Often It's The Little Things That Make You Realize How Large The Problem Is

I was struck by this little "news brief" from the AP:

Gay Couples May Use Married Names on Passports 

Gay couples traveling overseas can now show passports that feature their married names ... [the change] allows same-sex couples to obtain passports under the names recognized by their state through their marriages or civil unions.

Now I certainly "knew" that the Americans who live in the 6 states that no longer practice marriage discrimination were still being denied Federal marriage benefits, but until seeing this brief, I didn't realize what this might mean on a daily, human level.

It is hard to imagine anything more fundamental to your identity than your name. Ask any married woman who's adopted her husband's name if that name were hers, if it was not part of her identity and I doubt you'd get many who said it was not. Yet until this rule change, the U.S. government was in the business of unilaterally deciding what the names of married gay Americans should be, ignoring what they wanted or their own view of who they are.

Think about this. How would you feel if the government decided what your name should be?

This is why, even if marriage discrimination ended in all 50 states, the Federal government must also do so. Until then, gay marriage, even in the 6 states that permit it now, is separate and unequal.

Bar Talk

Obama Makes Funny At Radio & TV Correspondents' Dinner

President Obama:

I'm pleased that in our quest to reform the health care system, I have gained the support of the American Medical Association. It proves true the old expression that it's easier to catch flies with honey. And if honey doesn't work, feel free to use an open palm and a swift, downward wrist motion.

Part I:

Part II:

The NRA Wants Those On The Terrorist Watch List To Be Able To Buy Guns & Explosives

A mind-blowing story from the NY Times:

People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report. In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

“This is a glaring omission, and it’s a security issue,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who requested the study, said in an interview.

Mr. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists ...

Gun rights advocates said showing up on a terrorist watch list should not be grounds for being denied a gun.

“We’re concerned about the quality and the integrity of the list,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “There have been numerous studies and reports questioning the integrity, and we believe law-abiding people who are on the list by error should not be arbitrarily denied their civil rights” under the Second Amendment.

John Hodgman Gives Obama A Geek Test

Hodgman was the keynote speaker at the Radio & TV Correspondents' Dinner. Nerds, geeks & jocks should watch these:

Part I:

Part II:

President Exhorts Fathers

From the NY Times:

President Obama donned his father-in-chief hat on Friday, devoting much of his afternoon to emphasizing the importance of mentors and father figures for young people and to prodding young men to be better parents ...

Mr. Obama sprinkled his talk with references to his own absent father, who left him with his mother in Hawaii when he was 2 and visited him only once after that.

“I say this as someone who grew up without a father in my life,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s heart that governments can’t fill.”

He said children raised without fathers were more likely to drop out of school and abuse drugs. But aware of his own example, he told his audience — a diverse group that included Darryl McDaniels of Run-DMC and the skateboarder Tony Hawk — that growing up fatherless did not mean a person could not succeed.

That Mr. Obama was giving such attention to the issue at a time of crisis in Iran and high-stakes debate on health care and financial overhauls shows how personally he takes fatherhood, White House officials said ...

During the question-and-answer part of the event, one student, who introduced himself as Larry Holmes from St. Albans School, asked Mr. Obama: “Traveling from state to state, country to country, being the president, which one is funner? Being a father or being a president?”

“There’s nothing more fun than being a father,” Mr. Obama said, then quipped, “Now, my kids aren’t teenagers yet, so I don’t know whether that will maintain itself” ...

Mr. Obama also provided a glimpse of his feelings about his daughters. Another student asked him how he felt when he became a father.

“Malia was born on the Fourth of July,” he said, adding that his wife, Michelle, woke him at 3 a.m. to tell him she was about to have the baby. He described jumping out of bed and looking for the hospital bag, and, after Malia was born, driving home “really slow” from the hospital. He told of the wonder of suddenly being aware that “there was a new life in your house,” and of how he checked on the baby “every five minutes” to know that she was still breathing.

What's Coming

Iranian's Expert Opinion Is Clear: Obama Should Not Get Involved In The Dispute

Did you know that here are 1 million Iranians living in the US as part of the "Iranian diaspora"? I didnt.  Well, according to the Wash Post, they strongly support Obama's position and disagree with the Neocon's one:

Mindful that the Iranian government could seek to discredit the protests as foreign-backed, some in the diaspora are also arguing over how much the Obama administration should get involved. In an informal poll put out this week by the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, 60 percent of respondents said that U.S. involvement would be counterproductive but that human rights violations must be condemned; 19 percent said the United States should not get involved at all.

Fox News Hypocrisy Not Limited To Politics, They're Hypocritical With Business Competitors Too

So Fox has been on a tirade about a pending ABC News special on health care.  The folks at DailyKos TV illustrate their hypocrisy using Fox's own words:

Once Again, The Neocon GOP Gets It Foreign Policy Dangerously Wrong

Their complaints about Obama's subtle handling of Iran, and the Mideast in general, have been inane. Their confusion of subtley and showing respect with apology is just plain stupid.  Dainel Larison, posting on the American Conservative mag's site, draws a logical conclusion from this that the GOP will not like:

Earlier this month, I said that the Congressional Republican leadership was lacking in credibility on fiscal and economic policy, because so many of them were tainted by very public support for the former administration’s financial sector bailout, and on account of this and their subsequent political blunders I said they should be replaced. My point at the time, which quite a few seemed to miss, is that this leadership will not be able to challenge Obama’s domestic agenda effectively, because they have neither the ideas nor the judgment to do so.

Now we are seeing the utterly inadequate and foolish response of several members of the current House GOP leadership to one of the first major events overseas since Obama was inaugurated, the Iranian election, which reminds us that the GOP has destroyed its credibility on foreign policy and has been reduced to irresponsible sniping as demonstrated by Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, the minority whip and conference chairman respectively. It is also a reminder that Obama has occupied the political and policy center with respect to foreign policy, and a majority of Americans (57% or 54%) apparently approves of his handling of foreign policy so far. Meanwhile, the reputation of the GOP continues to sink ever lower (25% fav/45% unfav).

One reason why Cantor and Pence have been demanding that the President take a stronger public line in support of the protesters in Iran is that supporting Mousavi’s voters openly is the emotionally satisfying, easy, almost mindless thing to do, so it is very appealing for opposition figures who have no ideas. But there is more to it than that. All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration, in which sanctions and condemnation are the only “soft” tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender.

To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly. It will also mean building up the credibility and knowledge to challenge and resist the President if he embarks on misguided or irresponsible courses in the years to come. Cantor and Pence have shown this week that they do not have either one.

Two Thought-Provoking Cartoons

The Evidence Is Against Don't Ask, Don't Tell

From John Shalikashvili, a retired Army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, who was fired by Bush for correctly predicting we'd need more troops when invading Iraq:

News that the president would change the [DADT] policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military. They wrote as part of a larger effort by more than 1,000 retired officers to keep the ban in place.

According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately "break the All-Volunteer Force." Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness.

Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting -- and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems.

In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a "solid achievement." The flag officers neglected to acknowledge Britain's experience, instead dismissing the relevance of nations such as "Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada." While it is true that the U.S. armed forces are unique, it is important that we not marginalize the lessons learned in other countries -- particularly those that often conduct joint operations with us.

But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion.

A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corp. found no correlation between a unit's readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness.

While the proper timing of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I've held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it ...

The officers who oppose lifting the ban argued in The Post that there is "no compelling national security reason" to let openly gay troops serve. They also say, however, that "losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers" -- those they believe might bolt -- are unaffordable. Under current policy, we have lost more than 13,000 of those people, such as the Arabic language speaker featured in the new film "Ask Not." In addition, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles have found that nearly 4,000 people leave voluntarily each year because of the ban, and that more than 40,000 recruits might join if the ban is ended.

President Obama has wisely indicated that he will consult carefully with military leadership before making any change to "don't ask, don't tell." In the same way that military leaders take into account research about what works and what doesn't when contemplating a new strategy or doctrine, it will be important for the conversation about gays and lesbians in the military to be informed by data, not speculation or emotion. That people on all sides of the issue feel strongly about it is more reason, not less, to let the evidence do the talking.

The Party Of Slow

Regulatory Reform That Falls Far Short Of It

Steven Pearlstein is not impressed with Obama's proposed financial overhaul:

What does it tell you when banks, investment houses, insurance companies and derivatives traders are so pleased with their regulators that they are prepared to pull out all the stops to keep them?

What it tells me is that the current system of financial regulation has been thoroughly captured by the companies it was meant to restrain -- and that the only way to put things right is to bring in new rules, a new structure and tough new regulators. Anything short of that, and you can almost guarantee that the inmates will be back in charge of the asylum by the time the next bubble starts to develop.

Judged by that standard, the proposals the Obama administration put forward this week to reform the regulatory apparatus were a bit of a disappointment ...

I don't mean to minimize the political difficulty that would arise from confronting these issues. But given that we have just gone through the worst financial crisis in 75 years, one would hope that the government's response would be something more than an exercise in political triangulation ...

The Obama team, hoping to ride the wave of public outrage before it crested, determined to fashion a reform proposal even before a thorough analysis could be completed. And by deciding to contort and trim their proposal to accommodate the objections from powerful interest groups and key members of Congress, members of the Obama team have now made it politically acceptable for everyone to treat this as just another special-interest free-for-all of the sort that helped cause the crisis in the first place.

The good news is that, at the end of the day, it will matter less how the boxes are moved around the regulatory org chart than the quality of the people put in them. It is no coincidence that this crisis developed while the Fed, the Treasury and other agencies were headed by people who were responsive to Wall Street and believed deeply that markets should never be second-guessed by government bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats proved to be exquisitely sensitive to the signals they received from above.

The best way for Obama to change that and avoid the next crisis is to appoint tough and independent regulators who understand that their role is to protect markets from their own excesses while protecting their agencies from being captured by the companies they are meant to oversee.

More Iranian Political Cartoons

 

 

Senator Baucus: "We are getting closer and closer .... There’s no doubt in my mind that we will have a bipartisan [health care] bill”

From the NY Times (see their graphic that summarizes most of the issues in the health care debate):

The high cost of securing health insurance for all Americans, the top domestic priority of President Obama, has Congressional Democrats scrambling to scale back their proposals or find ways to trim tens of billions of dollars a year from existing health programs ...

Mr. Obama suggested earlier this week that the total cost to overhaul the health care system would be “on the order of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.” But initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper on the cost of legislation, have come in much higher, leaving many lawmakers with sticker shock and casting about for alternatives.

As the Senate health committee continued drafting a companion bill on Thursday, one of its Democratic members, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, said, “Obviously this is not going to go as fast as we thought.”

The Finance Committee has wrestled all week with the three biggest issues in the health care legislation: how to pay for coverage of the uninsured, whether to create a new public insurance plan and whether to impose new obligations on employers.

But it is the cost of the legislation that seems to bedevil lawmakers the most. A budget office estimate of $1.6 trillion as the cost of an earlier Finance Committee draft sent members hunting for ways to pare the expense. Peppered with questions about the legislation, the committee’s chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, has postponed a drafting session that was to have begun early next week.

Still, Mr. Baucus was upbeat on Thursday. “We are getting closer and closer and closer,” he said after a two-hour meeting of a half-dozen senators — three Democrats and three Republicans. “There’s no doubt in my mind that we will have a bipartisan bill.”

Other Democrats said the cost estimate and the resulting delays were a temporary setback, not a deal-killer.

Indeed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said they were evidence of a vibrant democratic process.

Grasshopper Obama Swats Pesky Fly

This video of the President showing off his David Carradine moves is the most viewed political video on YouTube today and sixth most popular for the week (and rising fast).  Too bad he can't handle the GOP this way ;)

Congress Passes Cash-for-Clunkers Program

While this Wash Post story on the passage of the Cash-for-Clunkers program focuses on its ability to increase car sales, A Blue View readers know the impact will go far beyond that by providing three (not just one) critical benefits (see The Unexpected Brilliance Of The Threefer Idea and A Clunker Threefer: Stimulate The Economy, Reduce Foreign Oil And Help The Environment)

The Senate approved a $1 billion program yesterday to give vouchers to consumers who trade in their gas-guzzling clunkers for more fuel-efficient models ...

Congressional leaders attached the legislation to a $106 billion spending bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The spending bill passed by a 91 to 5 vote but not before some Republican lawmakers unsuccessfully sought to strip the measure from the bill ...

Dealers, unions, trade groups and automakers have been lobbying for months for the legislation in hopes that it would stop the streak of dismal U.S. auto sales ...

The auto sales program, which offers vouchers of up to $4,5000, now moves to the White House for the president's signature. President Obama has repeatedly encouraged Congress to pass a so-called cash-for-clunkers bill.

Consumers would be able to start using the vouchers as soon as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalizes the rules -- a process that must conclude within 30 days of the president's approval.

Under the program, trade-in vehicles, 1984 models or newer, must have average fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon. And the new car or truck must get better gas mileage than the one that was scrapped.

The payoff grows depending on the difference in the fuel efficiencies of the old and new cars. For instance, a new car getting at least 4 more miles per gallon than the old car will be eligible for a $3,500 voucher. A new car getting at least 10 more miles per gallon would get a $4,500 voucher.

To guarantee vehicles are actually roadworthy -- and not just sitting on cinder blocks -- trade-ins must be registered and insured to the same owner for at least a year.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said the program "will provide a much-needed boost to the automobile industry."

The legislation's funding would last through the end of the fiscal year, Nov. 1. But some lawmakers are already pushing to expand the program.

Several other countries, such as China and Italy, have offered similar trade-in vouchers. And lawmakers point to the success of Germany's program as indication that vouchers can turn dismal auto sales around.

At the end of the program's first month, sales in Germany were up 21 percent from a year before. During the same period, U.S. sales slumped 41 percent.

Cheney & GW Are "Reunited" By SNL

Sorry it's taken me so long to post this:

Test post from my iPhone

Isn't tech grand?

Now that the iPhone supports cut & paste here's my first test post from my phone:

The poll found a distinct gulf between Mr. Obama’s overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results.

"This is a Depression-sized event"

We are not out of the woods yet. Economic measures continue to track remarkably closely with the the start of the Great Depression in 1929 according to Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin O'Rourke of Trinity College, Dublin in their Tale of Two Depressions:

Globally we are tracking or doing even worse than the Great Depression, whether the metric is industrial production, exports or equity valuations. Focusing on the US causes one to minimise this alarming fact. The “Great Recession” label may turn out to be too optimistic. This is a Depression-sized event.

That said, we are only one year into the current crisis, whereas after 1929 the world economy continued to shrink for three successive years. What matters now is that policy makers arrest the decline.

New findings:

• World industrial production continues to track closely the 1930s fall, with no clear signs of ‘green shoots’.

• World stock markets have rebounded a bit since March, and world trade has stabilised, but these are still following paths far below the ones they followed in the Great Depression.

... To summarise: the world is currently undergoing an economic shock every bit as big as the Great Depression shock of 1929-30. Looking just at the US leads one to overlook how alarming the current situation is even in comparison with 1929-30. The good news, of course, is that the policy response is very different:

      Money Supplies, 19 Countries, Now vs Then
   

The question now is whether that policy response will work.

Hypocrisy

Wall St Reacts With "Relief & Resignation" To Obama's Financial Proposal

From the Wall St Journal:

Reaction on Wall Street to the proposed overhaul of financial regulations ranged from relief that the changes aren't as drastic as many had feared to resignation that tougher rules and lower profits likely are unavoidable.

The White House plan touches nearly every part of the money-making machine that churned out record profits for bankers, brokers, traders, hedge funds and private-equity firms, but then backfired with disastrous results.

The proposed revamp includes a new consumer-protection regulator, mandatory registration of hedge funds and private-equity firms, and new powers aimed at helping the Federal Reserve ensure market stability ...

Reality is sinking in that the Obama administration's plan to boost the amount of capital required at financial institutions, consolidate the regulation of "large, interconnected financial firms" and "create comprehensive regulation" of customized over-the-counter derivatives point toward a less-profitable future.

A proposal to impose a "fiduciary duty" on brokers who give investment advice would represent a "fundamental change" in how Wall Street brokers do business, said Barry Goldsmith, co-chairman of the securities-enforcement practice group at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Under the current legal standard, brokers must meet a lower "suitability" test.

"Regulatory reforms will bring about the end of 'light-touch' regulation," Philip Finch, an analyst at UBS AG, wrote in a note to clients. "The future will be one of lower average return on equity," a measure of profits.

Proposed regulations for asset-backed securities and over-the-counter derivatives would impose new record-keeping and reporting requirements. All "standardized" derivative contracts would have to be traded on regulated and transparent venues, such as exchanges or electronic marketplaces, and cleared centrally to reduce their risk to the financial system ...

Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant who works with banks and hedge funds, said the overhaul's impact could stretch far beyond the large, systemically important institutions at the heart of the plan.

"It's like the Sarbanes-Oxley of compensation," he said. The Obama administration proposed the creation of executive-compensation rules that would apply to all banks and bank-holding companies, regardless of size.

The Obama plan also raised the prospect of greater federal oversight of insurance, instead of the current patchwork of state regulators that has been criticized as confusing, costly and ineffective. Life insurers have long pushed for a so-called optional federal charter that would concentrate oversight into a single federal authority.

Can The Stain Be Removed From The Fabric?

A New Consumer Agency With Enforcement Teeth

From the Wall St Journal:

President Barack Obama's proposed regulatory revamp includes sweeping changes to help consumers make informed decisions about financial products, save for retirement and get better investment advice.

A centerpiece is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with authority to write and enforce rules across a slew of financial products.

Firms will be given the option of offering "plain vanilla" products -- such as a credit card without hidden fees or penalty interest rates -- without having to jump through regulatory hurdles. The goal is to make it possible for consumers to shop around without worrying about getting burned by the fine print.

"The new agency is about making consumer credit markets work," said Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversees the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program. Ms. Warren had proposed the idea of a financial-products safety commission in an article published in the journal Democracy in 2007.

"Today, it's not possible for a customer to compare three or four credit card products to determine which one is the cheapest or which one poses the least risk," Ms. Warren said. "This agency is about changing that."

Consolidating the job of consumer oversight into one agency could help resolve consumer disputes more quickly and effectively.

Not only would the agency have the authority to write rules and require better disclosure, but it would also have the teeth to enforce its mandates. The agency, for example, would be able to ban financial products it deems overly risky.

"If you're going to pitch more complex, dangerous products, you face higher potential fines and higher regulatory scrutiny," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America.

Firms may have to put "warning labels" on their alternative products or require applicants to fill out financial-experience questionnaires, according to the administration.

"This is a game changer," said Ed Mierzwinski of U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer watchdog in Washington, D.C. "This is to me as big as creating deposit insurance in the 1930s."

The proposal also aims to resolve a long-simmering debate over how brokers and investment advisers are regulated by establishing a fiduciary duty for broker-dealers offering investment advice.

Currently, brokers are only required to offer products and advice that are deemed suitable for their clients. By contrast, investment advisers operate under a fiduciary standard, meaning they have to give investors advice that is in their best interests.

A proposal for an automatic individual retirement account would help those whose employers do not offer a retirement-savings plan by diverting regular payroll deductions to an IRA unless the employee opts out.

The Obama regulatory revamp also proposes increasing tax incentives for retirement savings for families that earn less than $65,000 a year.

MSM Divergence On Gay Rights Continues

Continuing on yesterday's divergent MSM theme, here's what Obama said when he signed the executive memo ending discrimination in benefits for same-sex partners of Federal employees:

I actually thought, while perhaps not his most eloquent speech, it was pretty good--especially towards the end when he explicitly comes out against DOMA and argues for its repal.

So now, here's the NY Times headline and story:

Outcry on Federal Same-Sex Benefits

The package of domestic partnership benefits that President Obama established for federal workers on Wednesday drew the loudest protests from some of those it was intended to help, gay men and lesbians who criticized the move as too timid.

The administrative memorandum extending some partnership rights to federal workers in same-sex relationships, which Mr. Obama signed late Wednesday, allows administration personnel to take leave to care for sick partners and requires the government to recognize their partners as household members when determining overseas housing allocations for State Department employees, among other things.

But several of the nation’s most prominent gay and lesbian political leaders quickly attacked the president for failing to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, questioning the administration’s explanation that it is precluded from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama had vowed to repeal during his presidential campaign.

Their outcry put the administration on the defensive for an action it had hoped would help address increasing complaints from gay activists who supported Mr. Obama’s election but now say he is ignoring the issues he promised to address, like a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gay men and lesbians in the military. And it has tested the balance the administration has tried to strike between avoiding hot-button cultural issues that could distract it from pushing its ambitious economic agenda and avoiding angering key liberal constituencies that expect Mr. Obama to make good on campaign promises.

Followed by the Wash Post's very different take:

Gay Couples Express Hope

The presidential memorandum signed yesterday afternoon by President Obama extends some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, among other things allowing them to be included in the long-term-care insurance program. But it still leaves them without federal health and retirement benefits. That will require the passage of legislation now before Congress.

Nonetheless, Obama's order has cheered Holmes and left her optimistic that more change is coming. "Hopeful. Excited," she said of her mood yesterday. "Wanting to believe this is the beginning of equality" ...

The order signed by Obama also will allow federal employees to use sick leave to take care of domestic partners, as is already allowed for heterosexual couples ...

Jamie Price, a lawyer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said she hopes Obama's action will "perhaps spur Congress" into approving the bipartisan legislation that would provide domestic partners of federal workers the same benefits as the spouses of federal employees.

"It's a very important issue to me," Price said. "I have a partner of 20 years who would like to retire, but to do so, I have to keep her on my insurance."

Price said she also hopes the presidential memorandum will help gay employees feel more comfortable in the federal workforce. "Most gays and lesbians tend to keep a low profile," she said. "We stay out of the office coffee pot conversations about what you did over the weekend. We don't feel we can or should contribute."

Obama's action "may help younger workers feel they can be open," Price added.

Heated Debate on 'The View' About Republicans & Racism/Domestic Terrorism

Two New Polls Confirm Obama More Popular Than His Policies. Choppy Waters Ahead?

Sorry this is such a long post but I found these two polls chock full of interesting results. First, from the Wall St Journal (complete results):

After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

There's good news for the administration, too, including tentative support for Mr. Obama's health-care plan and approval of his nominee for the Supreme Court. The public seems more optimistic about the country's economic future than it did a few weeks earlier, and Americans are still more likely to blame the last administration for the deficit.

But the poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.

A solid majority -- 58% -- said that the president and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down, even if takes longer for the economy to recover.

Laura Zamora, 40, of Orange, Calif., voted for Mr. Obama but says she is frustrated by the economy and finds her support for the president waning. She says she's facing a possible layoff as a local government worker in California.

"He's bailing out the private sector. He's putting all kinds of money into the private sector," says Mrs. Zamora. "The money should be going to social programs, not to bailing out banks and GM. It should go to people who are unemployed."

The survey of 1,008 adults, conducted Friday to Monday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample.

The results come after weeks of Republican hammering of Mr. Obama for spending too much and taking on too many issues, arguments that appear to be resonating with some voters.

Mr. Obama's overall job approval and personal ratings have slipped, particularly among independent voters. His job approval rating now stands at 56%, down from 61% in April. Among independents, it dropped from nearly two-to-one approval to closely divided.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, President Obama ... ran down some of problems he said he had been forced to deal with, and said the real argument is about whether to take on health care and energy.

"I suppose we could just stand pat and not do anything on either of those fronts...That's been tried for four or five decades. And in both energy and health care, the problems have gotten worse, not better," he said.

By some measures, the public seems to agree. Only 37% of people said that Mr. Obama is taking on too many issues. A solid majority -- 60% -- said that he is focused on many issues because the country is facing so many problems.

The president and his advisers appear to be aware of the peril they face over the deficit. That helps explain why Mr. Obama has emphasized his effort to cut health-care costs over his effort to expand health-insurance coverage, and why he has promised that the cost of any health-care package will be covered by spending cuts or tax increases.

When asked what the most important economic issue facing the country is, 24% cited the deficit, vs. just 11% who named health care.

Mr. Obama has some breathing room. Nearly three in four respondents said that the president inherited the current economic conditions, versus just 14% who said he is responsible for them. Only 6% said the Obama administration is most responsible for the budget deficit. Nearly half blame the Bush administration.

On the economy, the poll had some bright spots, with a rising expectation of recovery. The portion of people who think the economy will improve over the next 12 months rose to 46% from 38% in April. And 20% predicted the recession would end in six months to a year, nearly double the comparable figure from April.

Still, overall, the public finds the economy in dreadful shape today, and people living in the Midwest were much less likely to express optimism about the future than those on the coasts.

On health care, the public remains open to persuasion. Without being told anything specific about the Obama plan in the survey, about a third of people said it's a good idea, about a third said it's a bad idea and the rest had no opinion. When given several details of his approach, 55% said they favored it, versus 35% who were opposed.

There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.

At the same time, nearly half the participants said it was very or somewhat likely that their employer would drop private coverage if a public plan were available.

As for how to pay for the package, estimated at more than $1 trillion over 10 years, the public favors proposals to require all Americans to get insurance, to raise taxes on the rich and, to a lesser extent, to require all but the smallest businesses to offer insurance or pay into a fund.

But majorities oppose plans to tax health benefits, even if the taxes only apply to particularly generous plans. The public is divided about cuts to Medicare.

Regarding Mr. Obama's pick to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, half the public said she's qualified for the post, versus just 13% who said she's not qualified. That's equivalent to numbers in November 2005 for Samuel Alito, Mr. Bush's nominee who was subsequently confirmed to the court.

One in three people said her decisions and views seem out of the mainstream, vs. 28% who say they are in the mainstream. The rest had no opinion. But overall support for her confirmation is strong.

There was some good news for General Motors, despite the widespread antipathy to using taxpayer money to aid the company. More than half the participants said they are considering or have recently considered buying an American car. Of those people, 40% said the recent problems of the U.S. auto industry make them more likely to buy American. Just 14% said it made them less likely.

 

Then the NY Times (complete results):

A substantial majority of Americans say President Obama has not developed a strategy to deal with the budget deficit, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which also found that support for his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, falls well below his job approval ratings.

A distinct gulf exists between Mr. Obama’s overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results.

As Mr. Obama finishes his fifth month in office and assumes greater ownership of the problems he inherited, Americans are alarmed by the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been doled out to boost the economy. A majority said the government should instead focus on reducing the federal deficit.

But with a job approval rating of 63 percent, Mr. Obama has the backing of Democrats and independents alike, a standing that many presidents would envy and try to use to build support for their policies. His rating has fallen to 23 percent among Republicans, from 44 percent in February, a sign that bridging the partisan divide may remain an unaccomplished goal.

The poll was conducted after Mr. Obama completed his fourth international trip as president. He received high marks for his focus abroad, with 59 percent of those polled saying they approve of his approach to foreign policy. And after weeks of criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans, 57 percent say they approve of how Mr. Obama has dealt with the threat of terrorism.

The White House is entering a critical summer with Mr. Obama pledging to push his plans to revamp health care and financial regulation through Congress and Senate hearings scheduled on his first nominee to the Supreme Court. The poll suggested Americans remain patient, even as a strong majority expressed concern that they or someone in their family could lose their jobs in the next year.

“My feeling is that Obama is just throwing money at things, but I don’t see anything being specifically targeted,” Lynn Adams, 62, a Republican from Troy, Mich., said in a follow-up interview. “But I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt because he hasn’t been in office long enough” ...

The poll highlights the political and governing challenges on the horizon for Mr. Obama, including the towering federal budget deficit, which is expected to push the national debt to levels that many economists say could threaten the economy’s long-term vitality. Six in 10 people surveyed said the administration has yet to develop a clear plan for dealing with the deficit, including 65 percent of independents.

Mr. Obama, in an interview on Tuesday with CNBC and The New York Times, said the budget deficit was “something that keeps me awake at night.”

While Republicans have steadily increased their criticism of Mr. Obama, particularly on the budget deficit, the poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28 percent of those polled, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57 percent said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

The nomination of a Supreme Court justice, as well as the fatal shooting of an abortion doctor in Kansas late last month, injected a fresh dynamic into the national abortion debate. But the poll found essentially no change in the public’s views of abortion in the last two decades, with 36 percent saying it should be generally available, 41 percent saying it should be available but under stricter limits than are now in place and 21 percent saying it should not be permitted ...

[Obama] faces a divided public as he works to carry out his executive order to close the prison for terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay. The poll found that 8 in 10 expressed worry that detainees released to other countries might be involved in future attacks here.

Half of the poll respondents said closing the prison would have no effect on protecting the nation from terror threats, but 3 in 10 said they thought it would make the United States less safe. Many of the detainees being held at the prison have not been charged, and nearly 7 in 10 people surveyed said they would support charging them or releasing them back to the country of their capture. Just 24 percent said the detainees should continue to be held without charge for as long as the government deems necessary.

Iranian Landslide

3 Divergent, MSM Views Of The Pending Obama Decision To End Federal Benefit Discrimination

Over the course of the 16 months I've been blogging every day, I often read about the same event from multiple sources and the differences in the way mainstream, theoretically impartial, unbiased news outlets cover a story has been eye opening.  Bottom-line: there is no such thing as objective reporting, everyone has a partisan slant, some just acknowledge and/or are more obvious about it. 

So here in, their entirety, are how 3 "legitimate" sources--not partisan blogs but major newspapers spanning the political spectrum from right to left--reported Obama's decision to stop the Federal government's discrimination against gay & lesbian employee benefits.

So what's the truth? Is Obama's decision a break through or an incomplete bone thrown to his supporters? It all depends on which story you read it seems.

The conservative Wall St Journal spins it as a break through that implies homosexuality is going to be added to the list of things that can't be discriminated against:

President Barack Obama will sign a directive Wednesday barring discrimination against federal workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The move is similar to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would apply to the private sector and which Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to move through Congress.

Nondiscrimination laws now on the books apply to gender, race and other factors but not to sexual orientation.

The president doesn't have the power to grant gay and lesbian partners of federal workers health care and many other benefits. But he could take other steps, such as offering family services like language training and evacuation assistance for State Department workers

The Wash Post plays it more down the middle and implies that Obama's decision will include health insurance:

President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said tonight.

Obama will sign an executive order implementing the change in the Oval Office, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president's announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department announced a similar extension of benefits last month, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling it "the right thing to do."

The action will come as welcome news to gay-rights activists, who have voiced loud disappointment with Obama's handling of several issues important to their community.

Obama has signaled his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying that he instead supports civil unions for gay men and lesbians.

Most recently, the Justice Department argued in court that the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples, should be upheld. Gay-rights groups were infuriated by the administration's linkage of same-sex marriages to marriages between cousins or of an underage girl.

The administration's reluctance to reconsider the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members -- after Obama promised during the campaign to repeal it -- has also been a sore point among these activists.

The order Obama intends to sign tomorrow would apply to the Defense Department's civilian workforce but not the Pentagon's men and women in uniform.

The liberal NY Times main take is that health insurance is not going to be covered and implies this is some half thing being done to placate Obama's gay rights supportes:

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

Trolls & "Patriots"

Conservative YouTuber Lightbeam33 makes two points here:

1. He wants people to be civil in the comments they post on his videos.  Do you hear that Jimmy?
2. He uses the word patriot as a synonym for right-winger. That's outrageous and is indicative of exactly the thing in this post that got Jimmy so outraged.

A Comment Worth Drawing Your Attention To

Jimmy left the following comment on TN Rejecting Federal Gun Control (Little As There Is); Part Of "states’-rights movement that is picking up steam across the country"

So now that the states are finally standing up to the tyranny of the federal government and enforcing their constitutional rights you say: "it's really scary as it will join a secessionist sentiment, gun fetishism, hatred of abortion doctors, Jews, Blacks & Hispanics. It's all a piece of the same right-wing cloth that starts on the disagreeable but legitimate end of the spectrum and ends at murder and terrorism."

What kind of off the hook, radical, leftist, neo-liberal propaganda crap is that? I think you would be happier living in China or N.Korea. Thats more your kind of system. This is what it boils down to now in the leftist media. Any patriot that asserts their rights is an anti-semite, racist, murdering terrorist! F*** off!

What do you dear A Blue View reader think about this? Is Jimmy just proving my point or do yo think he's on to something?

If you have a comment you'd like to add, please do so in the post's comment thread.

New Financial Regulations To Be Announced Today

Not surprisingly, the Wall St Journal was all over what Obama would be announcing later today about new financial regulation.  Here's a sample:

White House Details Financial Revamp
Obama's revamp of financial regulation seeks to toughen oversight, push for more regulation of derivatives and create a consumer protection agency.

Consumer Agency to Seek Wide Reach
A new consumer-protection agency pushed by Obama would have wide powers to regulate financial products used by millions of Americans.

Plan Calls for Charter Bank Regulator
The Obama administration's plan to rewrite financial industry rules proposes the creation of a single regulator to oversee all federally-chartered banks.

Plan Would Create Insurance Office
The administration is proposing the creation of a new office within the Treasury to coordinate policy in the state-regulated insurance sector.

Obama Wants SEC, CFTC to Police Derivatives
The SEC and CFTC should get "clear, unimpeded authority to police and prevent fraud" in the derivatives markets, according to Obama's regulatory plan.

Consumer Agency to Seek Wide Reach

Obama Gives Bernanke Pat on Back

And if you haven't already, yesterday's post, Approach To New Financial Regs Unique For Obama Admin, is worth reading too.

Iran: The 3rd Largest Nation Of Bloggers - Can Technology Force Change?

The Real Struggle Going On In Iran?

From Robert Baer, who was a CIA field operative in Iran from 1976 to 1997:

In Iran nothing is ever as it seems, including presidential elections. It's arguable that Friday's election had less to do with a vote for or against Ahmadinejad than it did with a vote for or against Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. And if the elections were stolen, it was likely in an effort to maintain Khamenei's hold on power rather than Ahmadinejad's.

Iran is not a theocracy. It is a military dictatorship headed by Khamenei and advised by a coterie of generals from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Army, as well as hard-liners in the secret police. Ahmadinejad is little more than the spokesman for this group. He may have a say in the day-to-day management of the economy and other parts of Iranian administration--but all important decisions, particularly those related to Iran's national security, including rigging presidential elections, are made by Khamenei.

What makes this such a tenuous situation is that Khamenei's legitimacy has been in question from the day he succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. It was widely understood among intelligence analysts that Khamenei did not have the religious credentials to succeed Khomeini as supreme leader, Iran's head of state who is supposed to be the most learned religious cleric. In fact, Khamenei is not even really an ayatollah--his license was in effect bought--and he has no popular religious following as other legitimate ayatollahs do. It doesn't help that Iranian leaders of Khomeini's generation have never particularly liked Khamenei and see him as a man who muscled his way into power, perhaps even  by killing Khomeini's son, the person most likely to challenge his rule.

A sure signal of Khamenei's political weakness occurred when Ahmadinejad attacked former president Rafsanjani for corruption during the election campaign. Rafsanjani is and always has been a threat to Khamenei's legitimacy. Not only is he more of a real ayatollah, but he is also Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council, two powerful government bodies. The Assembly of Experts has the power to remove Khamenei and appoint a new Supreme Leader. And though facts are impossible to come by, it is almost certain that Ahmadinejad's attack on Rafsanjani could not have been made without a green light from Khamenei, who knew that charges of Rafsanjani's corruption would strike a chord with Iranians. Khamenei saw and probably still sees Rafsanjani as a threat to his power, even to his position as supreme leader, and this was an effective way to pounce. 

Still, if the protests and demonstrations in Tehran cannot be controlled, we should seriously start to wonder about Khamenei's future. Rafsanjani is rumored to be in the holy city of Qum plotting against Khamenei, seeing if he has enough votes in the 86-member Assembly of Experts to remove Khamenei. A vote recount is unlikely to change the results of the election, but it could lead to more demonstrations, which backed by Rafsanjani and the other mullahs, might just end Khamenei's 20 year run.

The Revolution Will Be Digitized

How Different Would Things Be Now If McCain Had Won?

A very intriguing thought experiment from Michael Lind:

Picture, if you will, an America apparently like our own. A country like ours bogged down in war on two fronts and suffering from the greatest economic slump since the Great Depression of the 1930s. An America indistinguishable from ours in every respect except that when you turn on the nightly news you see the face of President John Sidney McCain ...

OK, Rod Serling as host of "The Twilight Zone" probably would have said it better. But seriously -- where would we be in the summer of 2009, if in last November's election John McCain rather than Barack Obama had been elected president of the United States?

"No difference!" would be the answer of those alienated populists and leftists for whom Republicans and Democrats are merely different tentacles of the same Bilderberger or Trilateral Commission octopus. Certainly from the perspectives of socialists or libertarians -- or fascists or Islamic theocrats -- the consensus shared by America's two parties seems much greater than their differences. But from the vantage point of mainstream American politics, the differences between the Obama administration and a hypothetical McCain administration would have been real and can be vividly illustrated by counterfactual history.

<Continue reading>

On balance, however, I think it is hard to argue that the country would not be in worse shape today under President McCain than it is in under President Obama. In foreign policy we would probably have a revival of neoconservatism, with incalculable damage to America's reputation in the world. In domestic policy, President McCain might have used his veto power and an alliance with conservative Blue Dog Democrats in a Democratic majority Congress to salvage the Bush tax cuts and thwart an adequate stimulus. Then there's regulatory reform of the financial sector, which has yet to occur. As deferent as the Obama administration is to Wall Street, can anyone doubt that a McCain administration would have been even more deferent?

The Obama administration deserves, and can benefit from, thoughtful criticism. But before giving up on Obama after only a few months, critics of this president should ask: WWMD? (What Would McCain Do?)

Don't Look Over The Hill

Poll: Obama Most Stylish Man In The World

From Reuters:

Move aside Brad Pitt. U.S. President Barack Obama has beaten all the usual male style icons to be named the world's most stylish man in a poll.

The survey of 3,000 men put the 47-year-old president at the top of the style list after impressing people all over the world with his suits and dress sense.

Actor Brad Pitt came second, praised for his ability to look stylish in a suit or in jeans. Third in the poll, conducted by researcher OnePoll.com, was British footballer David Beckham, whose trendy style has seen him become one of the most photographed men in the world and the face -- and body -- for Giorgio Armani's underwear campaign.

"Barack Obama has a great sense of style, which no doubt adds to his popularity," said Jonathan Heilbron, CEO of luxury British shirt brand Thomas Pink which commissioned the poll.

"World leaders and politicians are not known for their dress sense, so it's refreshing to have Obama who seems to genuinely care about his appearance."

James Bond star, actor Daniel Craig, was voted fourth in the list, followed by U.S. actor Al Pacino. Rounding out the top 10 were actors George Clooney, Bill Nighy, Clint Eastwood a

Approach To New Financial Regs--To Be Announced On Weds--Unique For Obama Admin

From the Wall St Journal:

In drafting its proposed revamp of financial-sector regulation, the Obama administration sought to leave few of the initial details to Congress, a risky strategy that could pin much of the plan's success or failure on the president himself.

The exhaustive series of meetings and nitty-gritty debates that forged the comprehensive plan -- to be presented to Congress Wednesday -- contrasts with the way the administration has approached other priorities, such as health care and energy policy. In those cases, the White House has left the fine print to be filled in by Congress.

The different approaches reflect how some of the administration's most senior officials are personally invested in the finance overhaul, worried that political tinkering by lawmakers could undermine their goals. Others say the package only works if all the pieces are designed to fit together.

"We identified lots of options and we approached some of them with presumptive answers, but in a way nothing was nailed down until it was all nailed down because so much of this is interconnected and interrelated," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin.

Roughly once a week, sometimes more, the team met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers to run through ideas. Mr. Summers became known for his ability to shred and discredit any idea presented, forcing aides to scramble to defend their proposals.

"The challenge for many people...is that he can argue both sides of an argument better than anyone," said Diana Farrell, deputy director of the NEC.

Officials now feel that this exercise with Mr. Summers, which left some red-faced at the time, will make it much easier to defend their ideas on Capitol Hill.

The plan would bring sweeping changes to the way financial markets are overseen, empowering federal regulators and limiting the amount of risk financial companies can extend. It also would allow the government to take over and break up large firms, boost consumer protections and push for changes in the way loans are securitized ...

The team was built to have contrasting views so officials could debate a wide range of alternatives. Key players included Treasury Assistant Secretary Michael Barr, an expert on financial institutions and consumer protection; Cass Sunstein, a constitutional-law expert who joined the White House from Harvard Law School; and Patrick Parkinson, a markets expert who took a leave from the Federal Reserve to join the Treasury Department ...

People involved in the process described it as unique because, at least so far, insiders have driven the agenda without substantial pressure from outsiders.

Obama Speaks From The Belly Of The Beast: The AMA

First, a MSNBC report before he spoke to the AMA. At about 2 minutes in, it gets interesting as Nora O'Donnell throws the GOP's talking points at Howard Dean (who responds very effectively):

Then, there is the NY Times' take:

President Obama went before a convention of receptive but wary doctors on Monday to make the economic case for a health care overhaul, both for the nation and for the physicians’ own bottom lines.

But as the president spoke at the annual conference of the American Medical Association in Chicago, it became clear that one of the major health plans on the table would cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years yet leave tens of millions of people uninsured.

Congress is wrestling with how to pay for Mr. Obama’s vision to extend health care to all Americans, and some lawmakers are considering tax increases and spending cuts different from the ones he has proposed. House Democrats, for example, are weighing a tax on soft drinks and a value-added tax, a broad-based consumption tax similar to the sales taxes many states levy.

An analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office raised the hurdles for draft legislation in the Senate just as its Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee planned to begin voting on Wednesday. The office concluded that a plan by the committee’s Democratic leaders, Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, would reduce the number of uninsured only by a net 16 million people. Even if the bill became law, the budget office said, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017.

That finding came as a surprise. Robert D. Reischauer, an economist who headed the budget office when Congress tackled the health care issue in the Clinton administration, said that if so many people remained uninsured, it might not be feasible to cut special federal payments to hospitals that serve many low-income people.

Mr. Obama said Saturday that the government could save $106 billion over 10 years by cutting such hospital payments as more people gained coverage ...

Mr. Obama took the cost issue head on in Chicago. “The cost of inaction is greater,” he told the doctors, because rising health care prices are “an escalating burden on our families and businesses” and “a ticking time bomb for the federal budget.”

Opening a week in which health care will dominate attention in Congress, the president’s speech on Monday was the latest example of an oft-used ploy to press his case: appearing before skeptical audiences, confident of his powers of persuasion but willing as well to say what his listeners do not want to hear.

What Will Happen When The Gays Take Over

Hat tip to Botany

Obama Admin Rejects CA's Pleas For Bailout

From the Wash Post:

The Obama administration has turned back pleas for emergency aid from one of the biggest remaining threats to the economy -- the state of California.

Top state officials have gone hat in hand to the administration, armed with dire warnings of a fast-approaching "fiscal meltdown" caused by a budget shortfall. Concern has grown inside the White House in recent weeks as California's fiscal condition has worsened, leading to high-level administration meetings. But federal officials are worried that a bailout of California would set off a cascade of demands from other states.

With an economy larger than Canada's or Brazil's, the state is too big to fail, California officials urge.

"This matters for the U.S., not just for California," said U.S.  Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs the state's Democratic congressional delegation. "I can't speak for the president, but when you've got the 8th biggest economy in the world sitting as one of your 50 states, it's hard to see how the country recovers if that state does not."

The administration is worried that California will enact massive cuts to close its deficit, estimated at $24 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, aggravating the state's recession and further dragging down the national economy.

After a series of meetings, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, top White House economists Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer, and other senior officials have decided that California could hold on a little longer and should get its budget in order rather than rely on a federal bailout.

These policymakers continue to watch the situation closely and do not rule out helping the state if its condition significantly deteriorates, a senior administration official said. But in that case, federal help would carry conditions to protect taxpayers and make similar requests for aid unattractive to other states, the official said. The official did not detail those conditions.

California is among several states that have asked for a bailout from the Treasury Department. A few have gotten some traction, notably Michigan, whose economy is among the country's weakest and is struggling to deal with the fallout from the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler. To stave off mass layoffs, Treasury officials are considering helping the state's auto suppliers stay afloat and convert their businesses to support other industries.

California Controller John Chiang, a Democrat, warned last week that the state was "less than 50 days away from a meltdown of state government."

Rachel Maddow & Howard Dean On Obama's Defense Of DOMA

Dean defends Obama and says the language in this brief "is a terrible mistake" and that Obama is going to "have to dig himself out of this." He predicts Obama will now accelerate the repealing of Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

Read the WSJ's account of the letter the Human Rights Campaign sent to Obama.

TN Rejecting Federal Gun Control (Little As There Is); Part Of "states’-rights movement that is picking up steam across the country"

If this states-rights stuff described in this NY Times story is really a precursor of a trend, it's really scary as it will join a secessionist sentiment, gun fetishism, hatred of abortion doctors, Jews, Blacks & Hispanics. It's all a piece of the same right-wing cloth that starts on the disagreeable but legitimate end of the spectrum and ends at murder and terrorism.

Cities and counties across Tennessee are preparing this week to deal with the fallout from a raft of pro-gun bills recently signed into law in the state, where Republicans are flexing their new-found strength in the legislature.

Among the new laws is one that would allow people who have gun permits to carry guns in all public parks in the state. Another would exempt from federal regulation guns and ammunition made in Tennessee and kept within its borders ...

The law exempting Tennessee from federal gun regulations, while having little immediate effect, may have broader implications down the road. It comes as part of a states’-rights movement that tries to test the limits of federal power. The Tennessee bill is nearly identical to one signed into law in Montana and similar to ones under consideration in other states. Since Montana’s law does not take effect until Oct. 1, the one in Tennessee, which takes effect July 1, could become the first test case in the courts.

“The purpose of this bill is to let people know we have state sovereignty and the federal government has no business telling us what to do,” State Senator Mae Beavers, a Mount Juliet Republican who sponsored the bill, said in an interview ...

Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Tennessee already had among the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Still, Mr. Malte said, the flurry of pro-gun bills was highly unusual and reflected a push by the gun lobby in a state with a newly sympathetic legislature, of which both houses are now controlled by Republicans.

Gun-rights advocates say expanded rights are needed so that law-abiding citizens can protect themselves in more situations. The new Tennessee laws also include measures that will allow permit holders to carry guns in bars and restaurants, if they are not drinking alcohol, and to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicles if the ammunition is in the magazine but not in the chamber, although it can be in the chamber for purposes of self-defense.

The new law exempting the state from federal gun regulations is less about the Second Amendment, involving the bearing of arms, than the 10th Amendment, reflecting a states’-rights movement that is picking up steam across the country.

North Korea

DC To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages From Other States

Sorry Minister Leroy Swailes, your homophobic testimony did not sway the DC Elections Board. From the Wash Post:

The D.C. elections board blocked an effort today to hold a referendum on whether the District should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, handing gay rights advocates a major victory.

The decision by Board of Elections and Ethics removes one of the last remaining hurdles to the legislation that the D.C. Council approved in May.

The bill is slated to become law in early July after the required congressional review period has ended. It does not appear as if the Democratic-controlled Congress plans to intervene.

... the elections board sided with city officials and gay rights advocates, who argued a referendum would violate the law.

Under District elections law, a referendum cannot appear on the ballot if it violates the city's Human Rights Act. The act, approved in 1977, prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minority groups.

"To the extent that the proposed referendum would suspend the Council's action to recognize lawful foreign same-sex marriages on the same terms as lawful foreign heterosexual marriages, the proposed measure would run counter to the letter and spirit of the" Human Rights Act, Attorney General Peter Nickles argued to the elections board in written testimony last week.

In its ruling, the elections board also cited the Human Rights Act. "Because the referendum would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for referendum, and may not be accepted by the Board," the ruling states ...

Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) said he plans to introduce a separate proposal later this that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District. At the gay pride parade on Saturday, Catania was handing out "marriage equality now" signs.

That proposal could trigger another battle over whether voters should have a say. Today's ruling applies only to the bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The board's opinion, however, suggests that opponents will have to develop new arguments as to why same-sex marriage should not be considered as a civil right protected under the Human Rights Act.

More Iranian Political Cartoons

Reactions To Netanyahu's Speech

Israeli PM Netanyhau's delivered a "major"speech that was a response to President Obama's Cairo speech. Based on these two reports in Israel's Haaretz newspaper, it does not appear likely to advance the peace process very much.

From Haaretz:

Netanyahu, Mideast peace and a return to the Axis of Evil

The prime minister's speech last night returned the Middle East to the days of George W. Bush's "axis of evil." Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a patriarchal, colonialist address in the best neoconservative tradition: The Arabs are the bad guys, or at best ungrateful terrorists; the Jews, of course, are the good guys, rational people who need to raise and care for their children. In the West Bank settlement of Itamar, they're even building a nursery school.

No empathy for the refugees from Jaffa who lost their entire world, not a word for the Muslim connection to Jerusalem - neither a fragment of a quote from the Koran, nor a line of Arabic poetry.

Netanyahu's provincial remarks were not intended to penetrate the hearts of the hundreds of millions of Al Jazeera viewers in the Muslim world. Instead, he sought to appease Tzipi Hotovely, the settler Likud lawmaker, and make it possible to live peaceably with the settler foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman. Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people didn't even leave him an opening for forging reconciliation with the Arab citizens in the country.

The prime minister's declaration that Jerusalem will remain he "undivided capital" of Israel - only Israel - slammed the door before the entire Muslim world. And his Hebron is solely the city of the Jewish patriarchs; the Arabs have no such rights at all. The Palestinians can have a state, but only if those foreign invaders show us they know how to eat with a fork and knife. Actually, without a knife.

The demilitarization of the Palestinian state was mentioned in the Clinton guidelines, the Taba understandings and the Geneva accord, as was the right of return to Palestine, not Israel. The difference between these documents and the Bar-Ilan address is not only that the former recognized the Palestinians' full rights to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The real difference lies in the tone - in the degrading and disrespectful nature of Netanyahu's remarks. That's not how one brings down a wall of enmity between two nations, that's not how trust is built.

It's hard to believe that a single Palestinian leader will be found who will buy the defective merchandise Netanyahu presented last night

Hareetz also cataloged the Arab reaction:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand in a key speech Sunday that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people "scuttles the chances for peace," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Monday ...

The president said he had informed Netanyahu of his position, according to which Israeli-Palestinian peace talks must be renewed from the point at which they were broken off, and that the call for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would only complicate matters.

"You won't find anyone to answer that call in Egypt, or in any other place," Mubarak was quoted as telling the troops ...

Hamas, meanwhile, has dismissed Netanyahu's speech as a "racist" attempt to deny Palestinian national rights.

"[Netanyahu wants] to recognize Palestine as pure Jewish land, denying the Palestinian people any rights in their land," the Palestinian news agency Ma'an on Monday quoted the Islamist group as saying in a statement ...

On Sunday, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said that the speech "sabotages" regional peace efforts, due to Netanyahu's refusal to accept an influx of Palestinian refugees into Israel and his unwillingness to compromise on the status of Jerusalem.

"Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralyzed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions," said Nabil Abu Rudeinah.

Michael Moore: Save Our CEOs