Maine Makes Five... Same Sex Marriage

Maine governor signs same-sex marriage bill - Bangor Daily News: "'In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,' Baldacci said in a written statement. 'I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.'"

Did Rice Finger Bush For Torture Authorization..... Pretty Damn Close! (you decide)

The following transcript starts around 5:40 in to the video embedded below. (Roble Hall, Stanford University, April 27th, 2009.) Big thanks to Renya Garcia !

Questioner: "Is water boarding torture?"

Rice: "The President instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture. So that's, and by the way I didn't authorize anything, I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency that they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department's clearance, that's what I did."

Questioner: "Is water boarding torture, in your opinion."

Rice: "And I just said the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates are obligation under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition if it was authorized by the President it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture."

The big point here is that, so far, I believe no one else has ever put GWB "in the room" when redefining torture was discussed. Rice seems to be making it clear that GWB was indeed the Decider, she just "conveyed the authorization".

There are many smaller things of interest here, not the least of which is the almost direct parallel of Nixon in the Nixon/Frost interviews finally stating that, "if the President does it it's not illegal."

Also of interest is "outside of our obligations, legal obligations..." This implies that Condi thought then or thinks now that there may have been some obligations other than the legal ones (moral and ethical perhaps) to which her statement does not pertain. Is she, by tightening her statement, showing that moral and ethical obligations were deliberately ignored, that the only concern was of legality? (Lets just make sure our asses are covered.) This question is of particular interest in light of the torture memo time lines and the origins of the SERE techniques which make it appear that the imperative for torture was not to protect the United States but to drum up false statements that would link Iraq to Al Queda which could be used to justify the administration's desire for war.

Then there is the usage "the United States was told, we were told ..." which is also interesting. It leads to several psychological questions: Why does Condi need to retrace, does she suddenly realize that the 5 or 6 people who the President "told" do not actually make up the entire United States. And if the President told the United States, what (in Condi's mind) does that make the President? The answer to that, I think, is something supra to the United States. Was this actually how Condi thought of things when she was helping decide the fate of our nation; that GWB was essentially God and that a few select administrators were the United States? I think so!

One other oddity: "the Convention Against Torture". Why choose the U.N. Convention Against Torture when most people are more familiar with the Geneva Convention? Anyone familiar with the difference between the two documents? Is there more jeopardy for the past administration in relationship to the U.N . Convention than there is with the Geneva Convention?

Sometimes We Need A Laugh: Oberman on Bachmann

Working Thread: Moderate Republicans The Party Has Lost

All these names should have room in the Republican tent. Hagel and Warner are, in particular, stunning loses. If there is no room in the party for men of calm sober reflection, high intellectual capacity, and an understanding of compromise what is left? A party of Limbaughs and Becks, a splinter group groveling to an ever smaller, ever more radical, anti-intellectual "base" that requires no credentials other a frat-boy-like insistance on quasi-philosophical "purity".

The engine left the rails eight years ago and now we slowly witness all the following cars breaking apart and spiraling slowly down into the abyss.

Consider this a working thread. Please feel free to suggest additional names and I will update.

Lincoln Chaffee

Jim Jeffords

Chuck Hagel

John Warner

Arlen Specter

Paul brings up:

Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman

Rell Makes History! : Gay Marriage Legislation Signed

From the ConnPo

On Thursday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell became the first governor in the United States to sign gay-marriage legislation, less than 24 hours after the House and Senate aligned state statutes to last year's historic state Supreme Court decision.

Rell signed the bill without comment.

The two chief proponents of the legislation, Sen. Andrew J. McDonald and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, said they were appreciative of the governor's swift approval of the legislation, which was voted in the House and Senate on Wednesday night.

"Four years ago this week, Gov. Rell signed our ground-breaking, civil-union law, which had broad bipartisan support," McDonald, D-Stamford, recalled. "Today she signed another landmark piece of bipartisan legislation affirming the rights and dignity of all Connecticut's citizens. Today, all three branches of Connecticut's government speak with one voice: Discrimination has no place in our state and will be eradicated wherever it appears."

Chrysler bigs; The Hell with cheap loans if it effects our pay!

I guess when you know your company is going down the smart thing to do is suck the bones dry!

From the WaPo

"Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, according to new findings by a federal watchdog agency.

The government had offered a $750 million loan earlier this month as part of its efforts to prop up the ailing auto industry, including Chrysler, which is racing to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler Financial is a major lender to Chrysler dealerships and customers.

In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burden on the already fragile automaker and its financing company."

............ Snip ................

The Treasury Department previously lent Chrysler Financial $1.5 billion, when less stringent requirements on executive compensation were in place for recipients of federal bailout money. But since that first loan was announced on Jan. 16, the Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.

During March, when it seemed that the first loan would run out, the Obama administration began working on a deal to lend the company an additional $750 million.

It did not take long for most of the agreement to fall in place. But on April 7, the Treasury asked Chrysler Financial to have its top 25 executives sign waivers regarding their compensation, according to the special inspector general's report.

Those waivers would have barred the executives from suing the Treasury or Chrysler Financial over new pay restrictions. As part of the economic stimulus package, Congress approved compensation limits, and the Treasury is working on clarifying what the firms must do to comply with the rules.

In other words, the executives were asked to sign the waivers without knowing what specific limits the Treasury might set.

Within a week, Chrysler Financial responded that "it was unable to obtain waivers from all 25 executives," the report said. By last week, the report added, "the request for additional funding was denied."

Instead Chrysler is taking loans from JP Morgan and Citi, at considerably more expense to the company.

Outsourcing Local Police (but not for the white folk)

After all, Blackwater worked out so well in Iraq!

Via the WSJ

"Hiring private guards is less expensive than hiring new officers. Oakland -- facing a record $80 million budget shortfall -- spends about 65% of its budget for police and fire services, including about $250,000 annually, including benefits and salary, on each police officer.

In contrast, for about $200,000 a year the city can contract to hire four private guards to patrol the troubled East Oakland district"

Teabagging in New Milford CT, Smell The Fear: A Brief Photo Journal

Went to the local Teabag event today, 10 AM to Noon. The gathering maxed out around 90 folks and what struck me, what seemed to be the commonality; they were all afraid of something.

They were a mix of fairly normal looking folk; a few freeperish looking, a few older Connecticut blue-bloods, some ex-marines, a few white supremicist-looking people, a ballet teacher, some yuppies with babes in arm, even a few emo types wandered by.

But the range of their fears knew no bounds.

Some obviously feared losing their rifles, this woman latter also spoke of the terrible things being taught and not taught in schools; specifically the Constitution is not being taught and history class consists of everything America has done wrong.

And of course there is the fear of majority rule.




This sign is a bit harder to puzzle out, I guess investing in clean energy and physical infrastructure is destroying her children's future.



One man spoke specifically about the children's future and was sorely afraid. A bit later a group of young children dressed in their Sunday best lined up in front of the speakers to demonstrate that concern.





I did find myself wondering where all these supporters of the Constitution were during the last eight years while it was being trashed.




More crowd shots; an interesting confab.




Somehow "Government Waste" doesn't quite seem to fit with the other eight issues listed here, kind of a filler I guess. He does sum up the majority of the speaker's fears though; lots of talk about immigrants, card check, cap and trade, terrorists, etc.




This gentleman seemed to be the organizer and I was under the impression that the organizing was done through the New Milford RTC, at least the email contact on this tea party website used an email address that was @nmrepublicans.com and the FaceBook link on the same page went to the New Milford Town Republicans FaceBook page which features the New Milford Republican Town Committee seal upon it.




Perhaps this uniquely worn bumper sticker encapsulates many of the fears of the more radical elements that were present.




All in all it was an interesting hour and a half. Other interesting speeches referred to Monsanto attempting to take over world agriculture which was somehow attributed to Democrats, Obama doing way too much negotiating with "pirates", Obama trying to cancel health coverage for Vets, Obama planning a census that will count every two "minorities" as three, and well you get the drift, a lot of real tinfoil-hatted kookery.

The fear though .......... its scaring me.

DHS, Right Wing Extremists, It's TeaBag Day!

At the White House presser today Gibbs was asked about the Teabaggers, "Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?

Gibbs replied, "I don't know if the President is aware of the events. I think the President will use tomorrow as a day to have an event here at the White House to signal the important steps in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that cut taxes for 95 percent of working families in America, just as the President proposed doing; cuts in taxes and tax credits for the creation of clean energy jobs." But maybe, just maybe, DHS was really answering the question.

Well, I may try to get out and take a few snaps of the local Teabagggers tomorrow but in the meantime there is this from, of all places, Faux News.

"The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement agencies that recent news is helping 'right-wing extremist groups' recruit new members and could lead to violence, and warns about the possible recruitment and radicalization of returning veterans.

The report, issued last week, is part of an ongoing review of extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.

The latest assessment by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis found no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president. The office called them 'unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment.'"

Chemically Eliminating Specific Memories: This Can Not Be Good News

Brain Researchers Open Door to Editing Memory NYTimes.com

Suppose scientists could erase certain memories by tinkering with a single substance in the brain. Could make you forget a chronic fear, a traumatic loss, even a bad habit.

Researchers in Brooklyn have recently accomplished comparable feats, with a single dose of an experimental drug delivered to areas of the brain critical for holding specific types of memory, like emotional associations, spatial knowledge or motor skills.

Human Rights move forward in Iowa

Peterr, at FDL, applauds Justice Mark Cady on the Iowa gay marriage decision.

Peterr posts Justice Cady's decision, the comments between sections are Peterr's:

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” This concept is evident in our past cases.

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, In re Ralph, we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in Clark v. Board of Directors, and Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co., we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois, and twenty five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law, see Ex parte Lockwood. In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.” See Coger.

So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

Some judicial opinions are impenetrable, even to other judges. This is not one of those opinions. By the end of it, the answer to that question above is inescapable: it can't:

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Point by point, Cady takes apart the justifications offered by the defense, like maintaining traditional marriage . . .

If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed.

. . . or the promotion of optimal environment for raising children . . .

Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children.These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.

. . . or promotion of procreation . . .

While heterosexual marriage does lead to procreation, the argument by the County fails to address the real issue in our required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation? If procreation is the true objective, then the proffered classification must work to achieve that objective. . . . The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome.

. . . or promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships . . .

While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective.

. . . or the conservation of state resources . . .

[T]he County hypothesizes that, due to our laws granting tax benefits to married couples, the State of Iowa would reap less tax revenue if individual taxpaying gay and lesbian people were allowed to obtain a civil marriage. Certainly, Iowa’s marriage statute causes numerous government benefits, including tax benefits, to be withheld from plaintiffs. Thus, the ban on same-sex marriages may conserve some state resources. Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities.

This case, as Cady points out at the very beginning, is about nothing less than the protection and preservation of the rights of ordinary people:

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto [“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”].

Outsourcing Broadway (and English)

For a Revival of ‘Dreamgirls,’ Pacific Overtures - NYTimes.com

Several months ago, when John F. Breglio told fellow New York producers that he was not only remaking “Dreamgirls,” the 1981 Broadway hit musical based loosely on the career of the Supremes, but that he was also going to South Korea to do it, they were puzzled, to say the least.

“Then they really laugh,” he said, when he told them “that it’s in Korean with Korean actors.”

The financial incentives for Mr. Breglio to go to South Korea were significant, coming as many Broadway producers are struggling to cover production costs. The fact that the set was made and financed here, and will be transferred to the United States for the run there, is a big savings for the American producers.

Hillary's First Success?

Just asking....

Dissident Reflects After 8 Years in Chinese Prison - NYTimes.com

Obama, Justice Deptarment: Still Denying Geneva Conventions...More Orwellian Than Bush?

A long one-pager in the Times today on Obama's elimination of the term "Enemy Combatant" while continuing to support the practice the term describes.

Note the following:

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

AND

"But the Department of Justice filing portrayed the adjustment of the government’s position in expansive terms. In a public statement accompanying its filing, the department said the government’s position had been devised to adhere closely to the requirements of the international law of war, longstanding principles that permit enemy fighters to be held until the completion of hostilities."

The administration continues to claim the President has the right to hold people without any criminal charges (although it no longer has a pet term for those people) and it continues to deny the rights accorded under the Geneva Convention to those people.

There is however a possibly significant change here. Justice now attempts to ground this Bush/Obama policy not in the claim of Presidential power to name a person as an enemy combatant, but instead on upon language in the 2001 AUMF. This leaves challengers open to question the Constitutionality of recent Congressional language (the AUMF). Previous challenges had to be founded on the Constitutional question of the President's ability to name a person an "enemy combatant", an act that has much longer historical prescident. Its possible that this change has accidentally increased the chances for those we once called detainees to sucessfully challenge thier detention.

For a lot more on this manuever check out Marcy at Emptywheel.

Citibank: Just a Quick Post for Historical Recall a Few Months From Now

Anybody think this bank will exist a year from now?

(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc Chairman Richard Parsons said Thursday that the bank does not need any more capital injections from the government and expressed confidence that Citi would remain in private hands.

Asked in an interview with Reuters whether Citigroup needed additional government capital injections, Parsons said: 'No, I think actually, particularly with the latest conversion ... Citi is actually one of the better capitalized banks in the world.'"

China Pressures US: Take Your Pick --- Depression or Hyperinflation

China’s Wen ‘Worried’ on Safety of Treasuries, Seeks Assurances - Bloomberg.com:

Click through and read the short article, but be sure you're sitting down first.

“China is worried that the U.S. may solve its problems by printing money, which will stoke inflation,” said Zhao Qingming, a Beijing-based analyst at China Construction Bank Corp., the country’s second-biggest lender. “If the U.S. can make sure this won’t happen, then China will continue to invest.”

Papal Infallibility Bites the Dust?

Pope 'admits Holocaust row error':

"Pope Benedict XVI has admitted to mistakes in lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, according to reports."

AIPAC Notches Gun Belt: Freeman out at NIC, shot down by Alledged Spy Steven Rosen, past director of American Israel Political Affairs Committee

Foreign Policy has posted Charles Freeman's withdrawal statement quoted in full at the end of this post.

Freeman, Obama's pick to chair the National Security Council, would have brought an independent perspective on foreign policy in general and the Mid East especially. As such his views could not be tolerated by the powerful Israeli right-wing lobbying group AIPAC.

For a brief rundown on the dust-up see this fine post from Freeman's son (and oft time political opponent.)

For a great deal more detail via Max Bleumenthal go here.

Wikipedia offers the following brief about Rosen, AIPAC, and espionage.

Main article: Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal

In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel. ^[21][22]

In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon in the office of Douglas Feith, had been arrested and charged by the FBI with providing classified national defense information to Israel. The six-count criminal complaint did not identify AIPAC by name, but described a luncheon meeting in which, allegedly, Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.

Here's Freeman's statement on withdrawing.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Welcome to the Death Spiral

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly: posts the following graph (Via Jaun Cole)

Says Benen, "See that column on the far-right edge? That's where Obama proposes the marginal top-rate should be. It's also the rate conservatives believe is so outrageous, that they're accusing the president of 'socialism' and talking openly about the 'Going Galt' scenario in which wealthy and industrious Americans would deliberately make less money to spite their country. It's all quite silly, but the graph adds some helpful context to drive the point home. Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan's first term, lower than Nixon's, lower than Eisenhower's, and lower than FDR's when he pulled us out of the Great Depression."

Couldn't Agree More!

Meanwhile in my little town some Board of Finance members are trying to force the Board of Eduation to reduce their proposed budget by an estimated amount of Federal Stimulus. Such an action would, of course, reduce the current balance of the Federal Stimulus package (60% stimulus and 40% tax cuts) as it plays out in our education budget to 100% tax cuts and 0% stimulus.

One resident, an annual opponent of any spending, accidentally realized the problem when he said that "We will be in a recession as long as GDP continues to shrink and it won't end until people start spending again." Then, in his very next sentence, he advocated shrinking our local spending! This is the common wisdom and I am sure our town is not the only one that faces this shortsightedness. Welcome to the Death Spiral!

Good Cop, Bad Cop? ....Obama and Pelosi

Bloomberg quotes an interesting comment from Phil Gingrey (R-GA) who thinks that Obama

“is trying to open up to Republicans. Quite honestly he needs to have a sit-down, heart-to-heart, come-to- Jesus talk with” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, on promoting bipartisanship. “Republicans respect this president, we like him, we want him to succeed, but we can’t be completely shut out of everything,”

Is Pelosi knowingly playing bad cop to Obama's good cop? If so she deserves a lot of credit...a whole lot!