Did Trump Cause The Plane Crash In Ethiopia? No... But It's His Fault

For anyone who thinks Maddow is only good for explaining complicated Putin-Gate conspiracy theories and related judicial developments, the video above is one of her best-ever segments... and unrelated to Putin-Gate. This is Maddow at her very best-- and probably started a ball rolling that put enough pressure on Trump for him to order the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max 8 jets "immediately." Key points about the two crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX 8:

• American pilots have been "describing the same sort of difficulty on take-off, the same specific problem where they are ascending after take off, rising towards the cursing altitude when something in the automated systems in that plane basically takes over and pulls the nose down."
• Although most other countries have banned the Boeing 737 MAX 8, our FAA issued a statement: "This far, our review shows no systemic performance issues and provides no basis to order grounding the aircraft."
• This could happen at anytime and "it just makes you wish and hope and pray for competency and capacity in the leadership you've got that has to deal with a crisis like this at all levels. This is the sort of thing that makes you want really good, really smart, really qualified people in place-- when a crisis like this arises. With this particular crisis happening now, at this point in our country, of course, we have some novel concerns right now in our country that we might not necessarily have with any other president in place... For example-- that statement from the FAA today, saying everything's fine as far as they can tell... no need to worry... That statement was put out in the name of the acting FAA administrator, Daniel K. Elwell... Why do we still have an acting FAA Administrator? ... President Trump had wanted to install as the Administrator of the FAA [a year ago] his own personal pilot, the guy who flies the Trump plane. Not Air Force One-- no, the one that says "Trump" on it.
• "Boeing has, in the works, a software fix that they believe will address that problem in these planes... a way to fix the accidental nose-dive problem... The fix had been expected early in January... U.S. officials have said that the federal government's recent shutdown also halted the work on the fix entirely for 5 weeks."

So why is this important? Is a picture still worth a thousand words? How about two-thousand with a caption? Or one-thousand five hundred words if the caption is in French?

This is how presidential candidate Marianne Williamson addressed the Boeing scandal in a note to her supporters this afternoon:

Question: Why was America the slowest, and most reluctant of the planet’s most advanced nations to ground their potentially dangerous fleet of Boeing Max 8's?

Answer: Because last year alone Boeing spent 15 million dollars and hired more than a dozen firms to lobby the government, to the point where the FAA now serves Boeing’s interests before it serves ours.

This is how our country operates now in situation after situation: the powers of our government are used to advocate for corporate profits more than for the people or planet on which we live.

And that is morally wrong.

The FAA seeking first to protect Boeing was not an isolated incident, but rather an example of how a corporatocracy operates. It is not just the FAA playing footsies with Boeing. The Department of Defense (DOD) acts at the bidding of the top five Defense Contractors, who hire one quarter of departing DOD employees every year. And of course the FDA shills for opioid-pushing pharmaceutical companies like Purdue, when these companies pay 45% of the FDA’s budget.

What are we to call this? There’s only one word for it, and that’s corruption. The nefarious influence of unlimited corporate money allowed to flood our political system has created a system of “dark money” that literally imperils the safety of our food, the safety of our environment, the safety of our health care, and even the safety of our skies.

Government “of the people by the people and for the people” has become a “government of, by, and for” the major corporate conglomerates whose money and influence dominate Washington.

And they do not just dominate Washington, I’m afraid. They dominate too often state legislatures and Governor’s mansions as well-- cutting educational funding, compromising safety standards for workers, lowering food and environmental standards, even seeking to suppress the votes of people who might rise up against this. All of this for the sake of an outdated, obsolete and increasingly dangerous economic ideology that turned America into a veiled aristocratic system, in which we steal from the many in order to bolster the profits of a very few.

We cannot function as both a corporatocracy and a democracy at the same time; we must choose between the two. Let’s become a generation of Americans who saw our country get way too close to the cliff, and then pulled it back. In fact, let’s get out of the vicinity of the cliff altogether. Let’s return the power of the United States government to the hands of, and placed at the service of, we the people to whom it belongs.

As citizens, we must rise up. We must not allow ourselves to be in denial about any of this, or distract ourselves from our responsibility as citizens to put our country back on track.

Unanimous Consent-- If Not Courageous

Keith took that oath-thing seriously

Yesterday everyone was upset that the Senate had passed-- by voice vote (so no record of who voted for and against it) and by unanimous consent-- a work-around for the sequester for the FAA. TPM pointed out that Eric Cantor was crowing how the craven Democrats had backed down. Cantor's Memo:

As a CQ / Roll Call reporter tweeted last night, "Make no mistake, this FAA fix is a complete, utter cave by Senate Democrats and, if signed, by the White House." This is a sentiment expressed in other press reports over the last 12 hours, including, Politico: "Democrats blink first on aviation” and Chicago Tribune: “White House Scrambles For Damage Control."

Consider that the Democrats opening position was they would only replace the sequester with tax increases. By the first of this week Senator Reid proposed replacing the whole sequester with phony war savings. And by last night, Senate Democrats were adopting our targeted “cut this, not that” approach. This victory is in large part a result of our standing together under the banner of #Obamaflightdelays.

Ezra Klein came right out and said in the Washington Post that The Democrats have lost on sequestration. "The original theory," wrote Klein, "was that the specter of sequestration would be so threatening that Republicans and Democrats would agree to a budget deal rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. But Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too."

In effect, what Democrats said Friday was that in any case where the political pain caused by sequestration becomes unbearable, they will agree to cancel that particular piece of the bill while leaving the rest of the law untouched. The result is that sequestration is no longer particularly politically threatening, but it’s even more unbalanced: Cuts to programs used by the politically powerful will be addressed, but cuts to programs that affects the politically powerless will persist. It’s worth saying this clearly: The pain of sequestration will be concentrated on those who lack political power.

...It is worth noting how different the Democrats’ approach to sequestration has been to the GOP’s approach to, well, everything. Over the past five years, Republicans have repeatedly accepted short-term political pain for long-term policy gain. That’s the governing political principle behind their threats to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling, and, for that matter, accept sequestration. Today, Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for long-term policy gain. They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.

In the House Friday, the bill passed 361-41, a dozen Boehner-hating Republicans joining just 29 Democrats willing to stand up for principle. I was shocked to see Hoyer was one of the Democrats taking a principled position along with people like Donna Edwards, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Mark Pocan, Rick Nolan, Chellie Pingree, who we usually expect this kind of courageousness from.

You see, what's at stake here is that, of course there should be no sequester on the FAA air traffic controllers. We've come a long way since Reagan. But by signaling to the Republicans that they'll fold on each individual sequester matter, it puts the Republicans-- most of whom don't give a shit about public opinion-- to pick and choose. That means things like Head Start will never get dealt with-- just destroyed. That's what Obama will be remembered for, just or not. And that takes us back to the Senate vote Thursday night.

The unanimous voice vote came around 8pm and only had two participants, Harry Reid and Susan Collins. They were unanimous. Now, to be fair, Reid had requested-- in writing-- that any Democrat who didn't agree to the unanimous consent agreement speak up. Not ONE SPOKE UP... until the next day. Who can argue with what Bernie Sanders said on the Ed Schultz Show Friday after the House vote?

What we have to understand is that clearly there was a serious problem. We're seeing air traffic delays all over the country and that's something that has to be addressed. The problem is that when it's Members of Congress who are flying-- and they do a lot of flying-- when it is business people, upper class people who fly, we respond. But what my worry is, you've got 70 thousand kids that are going to lose slots in Head Start [and] I don't think our Republican friends are going to be quite so quick to respond to the serious crisis and what it means to working families. When you've got folks not getting the public health that they need, I don't think our Republican friends are going to be there. When teachers are going to be laid off, I don't think our Republican friends are going to be there. Clearly the answer is we need to end sequestration but do it in a way that makes sense, which is to have more revenue coming in, primarily, in my view, by ending these outrageous loopholes, such that one out of four corporations in America pays nothing in taxes. But not just cut, cut, cut.

I asked another very progressive congressman, a House Member, why he voted for the bill today. "Because the world is better with it than without it," he told me, "even though it’s a stupid way to accomplish that." We went back and forth a little and I mentioned that the Republicans would get their way on everything about the sequester they had manipulated Obama and the foolish Democrats into to begin with. "It’s worse than that," he told me. "What we voted on doesn’t end the sequester for air traffic control. All it does is give the White House the authority to move a certain amount of FAA money from certain other accounts to the air traffic control account. The FAA still is subject to the sequester cut, in full. It’s just a device to shift blame from the Republicans to the White House if anything goes wrong. Notwithstanding that, it’s better than the status quo, and I’ve got the world’s 23rd largest airport to think about."

Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a senior member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, voted for it as well, pointing to over 3,500 flight delays reported since Sunday "as a result of the indiscriminate budget cuts which were mandated by the so-called sequester." His statement:

“While this bill is not nearly good enough, I nevertheless support its effort to help the FAA deal with the effects of severe and misguided budget cuts. Indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts were never a good idea, and their effects on things like air travel were all too predictable. So while this bill may help the FAA to better handle such draconian budget cuts, it unfortunately does nothing to prevent equally damaging cuts to other critical public sector programs. It does nothing for the 70,000 children who will be forced off of Head Start, or for the millions of Americans who will have to wait longer for new prescription drugs to reach the market, or for the 600,000 women, infants, and children who will be left hungry after being dropped from the supplemental nutrition program. Only by repealing the sequester outright can we avoid these severe budget cuts and prevent their crippling effects on vital public services.

“Unfortunately, instead of addressing these problems and working to create jobs, Republicans in Congress have spent their time pursuing a single-minded obsession with cutting government spending. Meanwhile, the deficit has been shrinking at the fastest rate since the demobilization after WWII. In this fiscal year alone we have seen deficit estimates fall 15% on the strength of our growing economy. The deficit was originally projected to be $900 billion. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office revised it down to $850 billion. And just last week it was revised down again to $775 billion. That is a $125 billion savings. It is enough already. With these savings alone, we could cancel the sequester without increasing the deficit by a penny.

“We are already reducing the deficit by more than we planned, and the results of these cutbacks are being felt across the nation in ways that slow our economy, hurt the elderly, take food out of the mouths of women and children, and undermine our students as they try to prepare for their futures. We can no longer afford Republican attempts to pursue such a contractionary fiscal policy during a period of high unemployment and stagnant middle class wages.

“In order to build on our economic recovery, we need to stop all of the severe budget cuts-- not just those affecting air travelers. It is time to cancel sequestration and start pursuing policies that will actually help Americans get back to work.”

So... what I would ask Nadler and Sanders and our other progressive friends whose hearts I know are in the right place, where do we go from here? Is there a strategy? We seem to have unilaterally disarmed. Is all that's left starting petitions and wringing our hands? By the way, Keith Ellison, one of the few strategic thinks among the Democrats, voted NO. He explained exactly why to Minneapolis voters:

“I oppose the harmful furloughs for air traffic controllers, which create unnecessary flight delays, and impact our hardworking pilots, flight attendants, and airport workers. Air traffic controllers keep our families safe and support an economy that relies heavily on air travel to function. But avoiding these cuts should not come at the expense of millions of teachers, researchers, and American families who are also feeling the devastating impacts of the sequester. By maintaining cuts to students on Head Start, women and children on nutrition assistance, and funding for cancer research, we are neglecting the communities who can least afford it.

“This bill does not address the 8,000 fewer students who will receive primary and secondary education assistance in Minnesota or the 100 teachers and aides who may lose their jobs because of it. It does not help the more than 2,000 civilian Department of Defense employees in Minnesota who will be furloughed-- losing $12.5 million to support their families. And it does not help the more than 3,000 Minnesotans who will not be tested for HIV because the Minnesota Department of Health will lose about $127,000 in funding.

“The flight delays this week are only one example of what will happen if Republicans in Washington get the huge budget cuts they are demanding. Instead of only addressing the most visible impacts of these harmful cuts, we should fully repeal the sequester and adopt a balanced approach that asks wealthy corporations and individuals to pay their fair share. It’s time to stop pushing broken ideas and start investing in America’s working families.”

My cowardly congressman, Adam Schiff, a New Dem, happily voted to give the Republicans their way. The word courageousness is not part of his vocabulary. Thank God there are a few like Ellison around. In fact... you can find Keith here if you want to let him know you support what he did Friday.

I've pretty much given up on Obama altogether. I voted for a protest candidate in November. But he's still the president and there's nothing but worse on the political horizon. This morning, though, he used his weekly address to talk about dumping Sequestration altogether and replacing it with a Grand Bargain.

Two months ago, Congress allowed a series of automatic budget cuts to fall across the federal government that would do the opposite. In Washington-speak, these cuts were called the “sequester.” It was a bad idea then. And as the country saw this week, it’s a bad idea now.

Because of these reckless cuts, there are parents whose kids just got kicked out of Head Start programs scrambling for a solution. There are seniors who depend on programs like Meals on Wheels to live independently looking for help. There are military communities-- families that have already sacrificed enough-- coping under new strains. All because of these cuts.

This week, the sequester hurt travelers, who were stuck for hours in airports and on planes, and rightly frustrated by it. And, maybe because they fly home each weekend, the Members of Congress who insisted these cuts take hold finally realized that they actually apply to them too.

Republicans claimed victory when the sequester first took effect, and now they’ve decided it was a bad idea all along. Well, first, they should look at their own budget. If the cuts they propose were applied across the board, the FAA would suffer cuts three times deeper.

So Congress passed a temporary fix. A Band-Aid. But these cuts are scheduled to keep falling across other parts of the government that provide vital services for the American people. And we can’t just keep putting Band-Aids on every cut.  It’s not a responsible way to govern. There is only one way to truly fix the sequester: by replacing it before it causes further damage.

A couple weeks ago, I put forward a budget that replaces the next several years of these dumb cuts with smarter cuts; reforms our tax code to close wasteful special interest loopholes; and invests in things like education, research, and manufacturing that will create new jobs right now.

So I hope Members of Congress will find the same sense of urgency and bipartisan cooperation to help the families still in the crosshairs of these cuts. They may not feel the pain felt by kids kicked off Head Start, or the 750,000 Americans projected to lose their jobs because of these cuts, or the long-term unemployed who will be further hurt by them. But that pain is real.

The American people worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one economic crisis just to see your elected officials keep causing more. Our economy is growing. Our deficits are shrinking.  We’re creating jobs on a consistent basis. But we need to do more to help middle-class families get ahead, and give more folks a chance to earn their way into the middle class.  And we can, if we work together. That’s what you expect. That’s what I’m going to work every single day to help deliver.

But don't expect him to veto it. He won't. He's not FDR... and never will be. We've seen what he is.

Bingo!

Has Miss McConnell Clamped Down On Some Of The Senate GOP's Obstructionist Excesses?

Supposedly there was an agreement to proceed in the Senate as though what matters is what's good for he American people, not what's best for the narrow partisan strategies for the political parties. The "agreement" was put to a test last week when votes for aid to the victims of Hurricane Irene came up. At first the Republicans blocked it with their use of the pocket filibuster last Friday, followed a day later-- as they came under increasing pressure from the public-- with a grudging acquiescence. Half a dozen Republican joined all the Democrats in shutting down the filibuster, including even one of the Senate's worst obstructionists, David Diapers Vitter, understanding that hurricane aid is something Louisiana voters pay attention to. This Thursday the Senate then rejected Kentucky crackpot Rand Paul's amendment to take the disaster relief money from foreign aid. Only 19 Republicans (+ deranged Nebraska multimillionaire reactionary Ben Nelson) voted for this latest nihilistic spasm. All the regular suspects were on board-- the die-hard extremists McConnell has virtually no sway with: Jim DeMint (SC), Ron Johnson (WI), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Richard Burr (NC), Jeff Sessions (AL), Vitter (LA), Rand Paul, of course, the 2 degenerate Oklahomans, Coburn and Inhofe...

And then came the votes on H.R. 2887, the Surface and Air Transportation extension which the GOP was determined to use as a vehicle for some anti-union action at the FAA. Rand Paul was on a role Thursday so he offered a poison pill amendment which was promptly rejected 36-61, 10 Republicans lining up with every Democrat in a bit of a kabuki show that appeared to turn back the barbarians making a last stand for their lunacy for the bloodthirsty extremists in the base. In the end, though-- like 10 minutes later-- the bill passed, as it had to, with a resounding 92-6. Rubio down in Miami, it was only the 6 worst die-hard extremists who voted NO: Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Paul (KY) and Toomey (PA), the Senate teabaggers.

Chuck Schumer pointed out that the extremism of arch-obstructionists like Paul and Coburn was starting to make an impression on the public-- and that Republicans see the danger it poses to themselves.

"The public sent a message after the debt-ceiling debate. They said they didn't want brinksmanship. We're beginning to see that," Schumer said, noting that the House sent the FAA and highway bills over without adding any poison pills or dramatic cuts.

"The American public has said stop fighting all the time," Schumer said before the vote. "This is a classic example of what they don't like."

Although Coburn backed down, Schumer argued that GOP leaders need to do a better job reining in lawmakers like Coburn and Tea Party leaders like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

"If the Republican leader were to say to Tom Coburn, 'I am not giving you the votes, you don't have 40 other colleagues to go with you,' he would stop doing these things," Schumer said. "But every time a Sen. Coburn or a Sen. DeMint wants to hold everything up, they have the tacit backing of his party and his leadership, so they're all holding this up in a certain sense."

"The brinksmanship that they exercised on the debt ceiling and the negative reaction to it seems to have given them second thoughts," he added.

And now, about those dilapidated bridges that connect Ohio to Kentucky-- Boehner's area to Miss McConnell's state. Watch the interview with Rep. John Yarmuth in the clip above. In about a week President Obama will be in Cincinnati and he'll no doubt be talking about these bridges and asking why the Republicans are blocking the funds to repair them-- and hundreds of similar situations around the country. Cincinnati is represented by one of Boehner's unpopular cronies, Steve Chabot. Rather than work on solving the economic and infrastructure problems plaguing his constituents, the GOP solution to Chabot's problems was to add an extreme right-wing county, Warren County, onto his district. The bridge is still shut down, but they hope that their are enough lockstep, clueless Fox listeners in Warren so that Chabot won't be thrown out of office again, the way he was in 2008. Thursday, though, The Hill reported that Obama will be discussing the Brent Spence Bridge when he's in town next week.

The 48-year-old bridge, which spans the Ohio River between Ohio and Kentucky, has been under review by transportation officials in the two states for massive repair or replacement. The double-decker inter-state bridge has been described as “functionally obsolete.”

Obama also used the bridge as an example of necessary infrastructure repair in his jobs speech to Congress, prompting both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to respond that while the bridge is an important priority for their constituents, they would not support funding repairs through earmarks or another stimulus.

Obama’s trip to this particular bridge will likely serve to put additional pressure on the GOP leaders. According to Carney, the choice is a result of Obama’s focus on jobs, not politics.

“It’s not a coincidence in that the bridge is one we can get to and highlight from the White House on a day trip that absolutely illustrates the problems that we have with infrastructure in this country,” he said in Thursday’s press briefing.

Obama’s campaign to pass his jobs bill has included a strong push for mending bridges. In North Carolina on Wednesday, Obama said his bill needed to be passed before any state faced another tragic bridge collapse. “Why would we wait to act until another bridge falls?” he asked.

Obama promised the bill would provide 19,000 construction jobs that would improve public safety. It is his second trip to Ohio within a two-week span. He was in Columbus on Tuesday to promote his jobs bill.

Rather than talk about terrorist slugs like John Mica and Tom Coburn, let's turn to the day's found-cat news

Not eaten by coyotes after all: Six-year-old Willow isn't telling how she got from Colorado to NYC, or what she's been doing these last five years. But then, you know how cats are.

by Ken

So I was reading a ThinkProgress War Room report called "Dr. No Jobs":

Last month, it was Rep. John “Job Killer” Mica (R-FL) whose extreme anti-worker agenda shut down the Federal Aviation Administration. After being dogged by accusations of killing jobs thanks to a successful campaign by the Communications Workers of America (the union fighting to organize workers at Delta Airlines), Mica cried uncle and the House of Representatives passed a clean four-month FAA extension to stop the FAA from shutting down again tomorrow when the current short-term extension runs out. The House bill also includes a short-term extension of the surface transportation (“highway”) bill to keep badly-needed construction projects around the country on track.

It looked like smooth sailing for this vital bill until one of the Senate’s masters of gridlock stepped in to block the Senate from acting on the House-passed bill. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is known as “Dr. No” due to his penchant for blocking even routine bills over various and sundry petty grievances. . . .

Of course the piece goes on to quote that slimy son of a bitch Tom Coburn's usual mental defective's "reasoning," blah-blah-blah. My position is, I don't have to sit in front of my very own computer reading that scumbag mental defective's latest crock of mentally defective scumbaggery. But actually, my attention had already been diverted back in that first paragraph. Return with me:

Mica cried uncle and the House of Representatives passed a clean four-month FAA extension to stop the FAA from shutting down again tomorrow when the current short-term extension runs out. The House bill also includes a short-term extension of the surface transportation (“highway”) bill to keep badly-needed construction projects around the country on track. [Emphasis added.]

Yes indeed, ladies and germs, we have reached the point in our experiment in quasi-democratic government where "a clean four-month extension," passed the day before blackout, is regarded as a triumph of the legislative process. Be sure to tune in four months from now. Meanwhile, we bring you the latest exercise in sociopathic irresponsibility for one of the finalists in the World's Most Worthless and Hateful Life Form competition (and against such formidable competition, just within Your Republican Party Inc.), Dr. Tom "The Butcher" Coburn.

Oh sure, by late afternoon the stench of "The Butcher" was overwhelming a lot of its GOP colleagues and the miserable sack of puke backed down, for the moment. It's only a matter of seconds, though, before the next assault from the band of anarcho-terrorists who have coopted the already-sorry dregs of the Republican Party, providing not just rampaging sociopathology but colorful cover for the completion of the conversion of the U.S. economy by the plutocratic elite to an indentured-servitude model.

Is it any wonder that I'd rather devote this evening's post to the pet-recovery news? Here's the account from local online newspaper DNAinfo:

Missing Cat Turns Up in Manhattan Five Years After Vanishing in Colorado

September 14, 2011 8:34pm | By Ben Fractenberg, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer


GRAMERCY -- Apparently it doesn't take nine lives to get from Colorado to New York City.

A cat that vanished in Colorado five years ago was found safe and sound thousands of miles away on East 20th Street on Sept. 7, thanks in part to a microchip, according to a spokesman for Animal Care & Control.

Willow, now 6-years-old, snuck out of her Boulder, Colo., home while the bathroom was being renovated, her owner, photographer Jamie Squires said Wednesday.

Five years later, she somehow ended up nearly 2,000 miles away unharmed. A passerby found her and turned her in.
"We were really surprised," Squires said. "We didn't tell our kids right away."

Squires had Animal Control send her a picture of the cat, and verify it through a microchip implanted in its skin when she was a kitten.

"It just makes sense," she said. "If I could, I would microchip my children."

Squires added she has no idea how the cat made it to the city, but suspects someone adopted it and drove it to New York at some point.

Willow is in good shape, but suffering from a cold, her owner explained.

The family is still figuring out how it is going to get her home. Squires said she may fly to New York to pick her up, or fly her back to Colorado via an animal transportation service, Pet Airways.

The Squires family was even in New York in the spring and stayed at the Plaza Hotel for a weekend.

"We had no idea at the time our cat was there, too."

#

Boehner Opts To Leave The FAA In The Lurch

The Republicans were perfectly happy to scurry out of town for a month with the unexpected and unprecedented victory Barack Obama handed them on a silver platter. Obama and his apologists are-- laughably-- trying to deny this is a huge win for the GOP. Right after the vote one of Capitol Hill's most notorious hacks and most practiced liars, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was telling TV viewers it was a vote to protect Social Security and Medicare and Yay, my-best-friend-Gabby-is-back-America-is-great. Anyway, Chris Hayes sat in for Rachel Maddow Monday night and he came up with a rather compelling graphic (above) that I'd love to see Wasserman Schultz explain.

So as I was saying before I interrupted myself with a detour down Wasserman Schultz Mania Lane, the GOP has scurried out of town to celebrate their startling victory. And to add insult to injury they decided to leave the closing of the FAA unresolved 'til they wander back in September. Let's start with a look at what newspapers are saying about the Republican Party's latest nihilistic threat against the normal functioning of the government:

Last week, contractors across the country were told to stop work on critical airport modernization projects after Congress failed to pass legislation giving the FAA the authority necessary for work to continue. Dozens of “stop work orders” were issued for major projects designed to build and modernize control towers and other aviation infrastructure from coast to coast. Construction workers, engineers and planners were told not to come to worksites across the country after the FAA was forced to issue stop work orders on projects ranging from the construction of new air traffic control towers to the rehabilitation and modernization of air traffic facilities. Nearly 4,000 FAA personnel, many needed to oversee various aspects of these projects, were furloughed beginning on July 23. The Association of General Contractors estimates that as many as 70,000 construction workers are unable to work because of Congress’ inaction. Stopping work on these projects could significantly increase the ultimate costs of construction for taxpayers. 
                                     
“Since 2007, lawmakers have been unable to reach agreement on a broad measure to finance the Federal Aviation Administration, so they have passed 20 temporary ‘extensions.’ Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty. But, as of 10 days ago, Congress couldn't even agree on another extension. Compromise […] can't come soon enough. Like spoiled children, members of Congress have stamped their feet and scored their points while other people pay for their inaction. If the lawmakers were back in school, they'd deserve to be in the time-out corner.”
     --USA Today, August 2, 2011
 
“The FAA is “another victim of partisan politics in Congress... And here we are. A prolonged halt to needed airport modernization is not in the country’s interest.”
     --Washington Post, July 26, 2011 

“Now Congress has managed to bring much of the Federal Aviation Administration to a standstill… locally, needed expansion and resurfacing projects at Orlando's two commercial airports could atrophy mirroring the inertia of Republican and Democratic congressional leaders who can't-- or won't-- move their way around the labor issues and subsidies for rural airports that separate them. Pathetic.”
     --Orlando Sentinel, July 27, 2011 
 
“The F.A.A. has also had to furlough some 4,000 workers. Needed airport construction projects-- to maintain runways, build new traffic control towers and upgrade other facilities-- have been halted across the country. The only good news is that the air traffic control system is still working because traffic controllers are paid from the Aviation Trust Fund, which still has a positive balance.”
     --New York Times, July 27, 2011 

“At a time when jobs are scarce and the construction industry is ailing, this is the worst time possible for a halt in funding…The real problem is Congress’ inability to iron out partisan disputes, a failure of governance at the most basic level…These are serious issues, but surely reasonable lawmakers can come to an agreement without shutting down a vital government agency.”
     --Miami Herald, July 27, 2011  

“The way the FAA shutdown has come about is anything but good government. And it could damage the fragile economic recovery… Federal lawmakers need to step up and continue funding for the agency.”
     --The Denver Post, July 28, 2011 

“Americans are frustrated with our congressional representation, and holding the world's best air travel system hostage magnifies just how inept and ineffective Washington has become.”
     --Charleston Daily Mail, July 26, 2011 
 
“One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. economy has long been its transportation system… But how much longer will that be true if petty political differences can't even be put aside long enough to keep an agency that is critical to that system on the job?”
     --Reno Gazette Journal, July 26, 2011 
 
“Congress’ failure to act and pass a short-term extension is preventing critical improvement projects from getting off the ground – projects that support and create good-paying jobs in Colorado and across the country.”
     --The Denver Post, July 28, 2011
  
“Failure to pass a clean extension bill is needlessly putting Americans out of work in a fragile economy.”
     --The Sacramento Bee, July 29, 2011
 
“…It is simply outrageous that members of Congress would put an ideological argument above the important work the FAA does… And how, as our nation sluggishly continues to try to recover from the recession, can you throw 4,000 FAA employees, and an unknown number of contractors, out of work? They are all just victims of the current political climate, where an inability to compromise has become an inability to govern.”    
     --Press of Atlantic City, July 29, 2011

“…The inability of Congress to reach a compromise on raising the nation’s debt ceiling isn’t the only example of how partisanship and, dare we say, sheer incompetence is getting in the way of conducting the people’s business. Not to mention interfering with its much-repeated pledge to put America back to work. That became crystal clear this past weekend, when the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to furlough roughly 4,000 workers…”
     --Nashua Telegraph, July 28, 2011
 
“Congressional squabbling is blocking reauthorization of funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result, $2.5 billion in airport improvement projects have been halted and about 4,000 FAA workers have been furloughed. The issues ought to be resolved quickly... Essential transportation services should not be held hostage in the meantime.”
     --The Detroit News, July 29, 2011
 
“Unlike the debt ceiling standoff, with its competing claims of trillions in cuts, the FAA impasse involves only a tiny slice of the federal budget. Yet its effects are plain -- workers furloughed, construction stopped -- just to make a misbegotten point.”
     --The NV Daily, July, 28, 2011 

“Such sorry decision making shows how out of touch politicians are with average Americans. Jobs are the No. 1 concern across our great nation and Congress effectively killed public and private jobs by failing to reauthorize this [FAA] law.”
     --The Billings Gazette, July 29, 2011

Boehner, Cantor and their empowered cronies DO NOT CARE. Nothing, short of the voters, can stop them now. And that's a long way off. The $200 million per week in lost ticket taxes? They're perfectly happy to see their right-wing allies at Delta collecting and pocketing those taxes for themselves, knowing full well that Delta will kick back some of the dough to right-wing organizations and right-wing politicians. Delta, after all, has quite a record as THE anti-working family airline-- and as a very active fascist tool in the right-wing network.

It should come as no surprise that Delta Airlines is using its lobbyists and campaign donations to try to overturn a decision that makes it less difficult for workers at airports to organize. That's what corporate America does, even during times of economic hardship-- they maximize profits at the expense of good jobs. But Delta's lobbying has taken it one step further. With millions out of work, Delta's opposition to the legislation to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running has stopped it cold-- and Congress will conclude its business for the summer without passing it. That means thousands of workers responsible for the safety and operation of airports all over the country are getting furloughed without pay.

Delta's been spending money wisely to try to overturn the decision to let workers organize more easily. They spent $1.6 million on lobbying during the first half of 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Over the past ten years they spent at least $32 million to influence Washington.) Their PAC has given $826,243 to members of Congress since 2000. Adding additional incentive for Republicans in Congress to stand with them, Richard Anderson, Delta's CEO, made a $5,000 contribution to the Senate Republican's campaign committee earlier this year-- apparently his first one ever.

It's yet another example where common sense gets a back seat-- or perhaps is left on stand-by-- to corporate CEOs and the lobbyists lining members' pockets.

Even Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) was aghast at Boehner's dishonable move! Hutchison:

"[I]t is not honorable for the House to send an extraneous amendment on an FAA extension, and shut down airports that are being repaired and built in our country, jeopardizing an estimated 75,000 jobs, jeopardizing the certification of a major new airplane that wants to get out there and start being used, and an airport trust fund, an aviation trust fund that will lose over a billion dollars because we're not collecting the tax, and the airlines are pocketing the money by having a higher ticket charge, mostly, they may not all be doing that, but most of them are. And Mr. President, that's just not right. And we're gonna have to make that up because there are contracts pending that are gonna have to be paid for. It's not fiscally responsible and it's not honorable, and it's time for us to pass a clean extension of the FAA.

 

Nepal-- An Unhappy Model For The Republican Party? Or China?

Last month I was in Nepal and writing about how deplorable their system of aviation is... as well as their environmental controls and food safety regulatory systems. Their capital, according to the UN, is now the most polluted city on earth; it was practically pristine the first time I visited. And it is so dangerous to fly on their airlines or land at their airports that you have to take those considerations into your plans. Recently the national carrier sacrificed two goats on the tarmac in the hopes it would help get a malfunctioning plane to take off. If the Republicans keep up their Terrible-Twos kind of behavior, this country will grow more and more backward and "catch up" with Nepal... maybe soon. In fact, yesterday we hear that their latest fit goes beyond taking the debt ceiling (and economy) hostage to their petulant and unpopular demands to gut Social Security and Medicare and into the realm of air safety. Now they're threatening to defund the Federal Aviation Administration if they don't get their way on their latest attack on unions. And it could shut down... tomorrow! Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the government will lose about $200 million a week in airline ticket taxes and that $2.5 billion in airport construction projects will come to a halt if Republican anarchists force the Federal Aviation Administration to shut down.

The Federal Aviation Administration could shut down on Friday because House Republicans are tying its funding to an anti-democratic (note the small "d") provision to hinder union organizing. The anti-union provision is not included in the Senate bill, and President Obama has said he might veto it. If they don't reach an agreement, the FAA's operating authority expires on Friday and it shuts down.

This is the right-wing's idea of governance-- destroy everything if you can't get your way. They're a scourge on humanity and they're always on the wrong side of history.

Only tangentially related-- after all, China is right over the Himalayas from Nepal now that they've absorbed Tibet-- I can't help bringing up China as an economic model for America, as has been publicly suggested by two of the most extreme Republican reactionaries in the Senate, Pat Toomey (PA) and Ron Johnson (WI), each of whom benefited from illegal campaign contributions from China that were funneled through the Chamber of Commerce last year. Yesterday Bird Abroad suggested that we might as well forget about counterfeit handbags from China because now there's a whole counterfeit Apple store there. I wonder if Ron Johnson is an investor in what he insists proudly is the remarkable and rapid change in the world’s fastest growing economy.

[W]hen we strolled down a street a few blocks from our house a couple weeks ago, I was only sort of surprised to see this new place, one that any American of my generation can probably recognize instantaneously:

It's an Apple Store!

Or is it?

RP and I went inside and poked around. They looked like Apple products. It looked like an Apple store. It had the classic Apple store winding staircase and weird upstairs sitting area. The employees were even wearing those blue t-shirts with the chunky Apple name tags around their necks... [T]his was a total Apple store ripoff. A beautiful ripoff-- a brilliant one-- the best ripoff store we had ever seen (and we see them every day). But some things were just not right: the stairs were poorly made. The walls hadn’t been painted properly.

Apple never writes “Apple Store” on it’s signs-- it just puts up the glowing, iconic fruit.

The name tags around the necks of the friendly salespeople didn’t actually have names on them-- just an Apple logo and the anonymous designation "Staff." And of course, Apple’s own website will tell you that they only have a few stores in Beijing and Shanghai, opened only recently; Apple famously opens new stores painstakingly, presumably to assure impeccable standards and lots of customer demand.

Is this store a copy of one of those in Beijing? A copy of a copy in another Chinese city? A copy of a copy of a copy?! While you’re pondering that, bear in mind: this is a near-perfect ripoff of a store selling products that were almost unknown when we first came to China. My white MacBook was likely to draw only blank stares or furrowed brows as I sat gnashing my teeth trying in vain to get a piece of Chinese software to run on it.

Being the curious types that we are, we struck up some conversation with these salespeople who, hand to God, all genuinely think they work for Apple. I tried to imagine the training that they went to when they were hired, in which they were pitched some big speech about how they were working for this innovative, global company-- when really they’re just filling the pockets of some shyster living in a prefab mansion outside the city by standing around a fake store disinterestedly selling what may or may not be actual Apple products that fell off the back of a truck somewhere.


And the best part? A ten minute walk around the corner revealed not one, but TWO more rip-off Apple stores.

In Kunming!

And the White House responded to the Republican tactics on closing down the FAA:

The Administration strongly supports passage of a clean extension of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs, as the Congress has done 20 times without controversy, in order to allow bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to continue on a full reauthorization.

H.R. 2553 includes controversial provisions that, because they have not been negotiated, needlessly threaten critical FAA programs and jeopardize thousands of public and private sector jobs. Without timely passage of a clean extension, all of FAA’s capital accounts (Grants-in-Aid for Airports, Facilities and Equipment, and Research, Engineering, and Development) would be shut down, and approximately 4,000 employees would be furloughed. FAA’s ability to award new grants, including for infrastructure upgrades at airports across the country, as well as to move forward with vital testing and implementation of the Next Generation air traffic control system, would come to a stop.

After the debate yesterday, the Democrats offered an alternative measure that "prohibits air carriers from charging a fee for four or fewer items of baggage checked by a member of the Armed Forces who is traveling in scheduled air transportation on official military duty." This is a real problem, as we saw last month when Delta was caught ripping off active duty servicemembers again. Although every Democrat voted for it, so few Republicans crossed the aisle-- just 3-- that it was defeated 187-233. The Republicans then went on to ram through their crazy turn-America-into-a-third-world-hellhole bill. It passed 243-177, only 6 Republicans with the guys to oppose Boehner and Cantor. Thirteen of the worst Democrats let their freak flags fly and voted with the GOP, reactionary a-holes like John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), and Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC).

Should "presidential historians" "facilitate" noted war criminals like Donald Rumsfeld?

Oh no, Rummy's back! And fifteen dollars seems a reasonable price to pay to see the noted war criminal "facilitated" by a certified "presidential historian" -- the kind of guy who's apt to ask erudite questions that begin, like, "Secretary Rumsfeld, as President Millard Filmore used to say . . ."

The "first stop on [Donald Rumsfled] highly anticipated national book tour" will be next Wednesday at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a center news release tells us. The book "chronicles his long career in public service," from his time in Congress - he was elected 48 years ago - to his work in the Nixon, Ford and Bush II administrations.

"Long career" is a euphemism for very, very long book, and this one weighs in at a hefty 2.6 pounds and 832 exciting pages, all for just $36. The Wednesday launch [that's next Wednesday, February 9 -- Ed.] includes a "conversation" to be "facilitated by presidential historian Michael Beschloss," where Rumsfeld "will discuss previously undisclosed details and insight into the Bush administration." Tickets for that are only $15, and books will be available for purchase (and signing) right there. . . .

-- from the item "The author you have . . .,"
in Al Kamen's WaPo "In the Loop" column

by Ken

Now just a doggone minute there. No, not the part about them charging suckers $15 for the privilege of watching Donnie R's live infomercial -- with the option of shelling out that additional $36 for the damned book. Hey, if they can get away with it, and people want to spend the money to be flimflammed, well, I guess more power to the whole lot of them.

No, I mean the part about the thing being "facilitated" by Michael Beschloss? Presidential historian Michael Beschloss is shilling for noted war criminal Donald Rumsfeld? Er, I mean, facilitating?

Back in the days when Imus was my morning mainstay, when his basic take on matters political was breezy irreverence, he built up a stable of crackerjack guests. Frank Rich was an almost always scintillating regular, for example, and "presidential historians" Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss were also frequent guests -- both really smart folks, who knew that Imus expected them to "bring something to the table" and usually did.

A QUICK NOTE ON "PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS"

I'm sorry to keep putting "presidential historian" in quotes, by the way. It just always seems to an odd job description, even though I understand the logic of it. History is too vast a field for any particular historian to attempt to encompass whole, and so specialization is inescapable, and I suppose that, especially for historians attached to the "great man" view of the subject, it seems reasonable to focus on presidents. I just can't ever help thinking that a calling that commits you to the study of, say, Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Calvin Coolidge is kind of a peculiar career choice. But then, who am I to talk about peculiar career choices?

I confess that I probably haven't read more than one or two of Doris KG's books, though probably a lot more articles, but she's always seemed pretty solid to me. I haven't kept up, but I assume she eventually finished that Lincoln book she seemed to be working on forever (working title: Yet Another Lincoln Book), and has moved on to Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B. Hayes, or Calvin Coolidge -- if not all three. (Presumably, the way it works is that the Presidential Historians Association, the industry trade group, serves as some sort of clearinghouse for divvying the available presidents up among its members, with the proviso that any fully-paid-up member can write a book about Washington or Lincoln, on the theory that somebody's got to keep those bookstore remainder tables overflowing.)

I'm not sure I've ever read anything by Michael Beschloss, but he seemed okay too. Only now he's fronting for (shudder) Donald Rumsfeld? I shudder to think how much he's being paid for his "facilitation." Even if by chance Michael B is doing this for nothing -- "pro bono," as it were -- it doesn't wash; what "good" can there be in helping a monster sell books? What our "presdential historian" is facilitating, of course, is the Rumster passing himself off as a respectable citizen, worthy of being listened to to the tune of those "hefty 2.6 pounds and 832 exciting pages," when he ought to have been shuffled off to the Hague for prosecution.

The title of the book, Known and Unknown, by the way, says Al, "echoes Rumsfeld's famous observations about 'known knowns' and 'unknown unknowns' and so on."

Unclear whether there will be questions from the audience, but you should have some ready. For example, you might ask what caused the Army chief of staff at the time, Gen. Eric Shinseki -- now secretary of veterans affairs -- to be so completely wrong when he said the United States would need a few hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

Rumsfeld might also explain how the prediction that the war would pay for itself was pretty much on target, or perhaps how the post-invasion Iraqi turmoil was just like Germany in 1945-47, or how those weapons of mass destruction may yet be found -- okay, maybe in Iran, but that's not all that far away and, after all, they are spelled similarly.

Say, if it turns out that "presidential historian" Michael Beschloss is too immersed in, say, the administration of Benjamin Harrison to fulfill his facilitating commitments, I'll bet our pal Al would make a jim-dandy facilitator. Here's his parting thought on the even:

Washington memoirs are famous for settling scores, so if you're lucky enough to get a seat, buy the book , go immediately to the index and look for Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice . . .

Not to be missed. Reservations can be made online at www.constitutioncenter.org.

The event again is next Wednesday, February 9, in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Independence Mall, Philadelphia. Don't forget that Valentine's Day is coming up. Wouldn't this make a sweetheart of a gift for the One You Love?


TOMORROW: AL HAS AN UPDATE ON FLYING ACE
"CRAZY JIM" INHOFE'S RUN-IN WITH THE FAA

Remember the story Al reported in October about Sen. "Crazy Jim" Inhofe's airport-landing misadventure? (I passed it on as Crazy Jim Inhofe flies planes???) In today's column, Al has an update, straight from the Crazyman's mouth. I tried to squeeze it in tacked on to the above item, but that didn't seem to me to do justice to either. So we'll pick up Crazy Jim's story tomorrow.

#

Jerrold Nadler vs The Machine-- What Is Change? Health Care And Air Safety Meet The Republican Party Philosophy

Right wing mindset is far from dead

Yesterday I saw something so horrible on CNN-- an interview with FAA safety inspector Christopher Monteleon about the Colgan Air crash near Buffalo on February 19-- that I haven't been able to get it out of my head. You see, I fly a lot... and after watching the interview, I'm nervous about air safety. I couldn't find the CNN tape and the one below (on Fox) isn't nearly as powerful. What scared me most about the interview, something touched on by this NY Times story as well is that the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, made it clear that their job was not to protect passengers but to protect the bottom line of the airline companies. This is right in line with what Arianna Huffington reported in her brilliant indictment of the way the Bush Regime governed in Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe.

Since closing down EPA headquarters altogether or turning the Consumer Product Safety Commission's offices into a Home Depot might reveal the radical extent of their plans, the Right embarked upon a sneak attack: put the foxes in charge of the henhouses and let them eat the chickens so gradually that no one would notice. Free markets are inherently self-regulating, the reasoning goes, so why can't businesses be? Irresponsible or incompetent corporate behavior produces poor results and, in turn, a change in management or management strategy. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

Perhaps we should ask the relatives of the 50 people who died as a result of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash. They were victims of the Republican Party's philosophy about regulatory agencies-- that their job descriptions had morphed into protecting corporate profits, not to look after the consumers for which their agencies were founded to protect.

Listen to Monteleon's description of what happened when he reported violations of the safety codes to his superiors, who he says were "cozy" with the very folks they were supposed to be regulating. If your hair doesn't stand on end, you've got greater intestinal fortitude than I do.



So what does all this have to do with New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler? Glad you remembered. He's dealing with healthcare today and he wrote an Op-Ed for The Hill about the need for a robust public option. Nadler's one of the smartest, savviest members of Congress I've ever spoken with-- and he's still a true believer. He starts his argument right at the crux-- the difference between progressives and reactionaries, Democrats and Republicans, Blue Dogs and normal Democrats: "The true test of a healthcare system is how effectively and affordably it delivers care, not how profitable it is for business." The statement sounds obvious enough, right? I bet not even ultimate corporate whores like Mitch McConnell or Max Baucus would dare argue against it, at least not publicly.

But how far have we come in the culture of government since January 20? Was the banishment of Bush to Dallas and Cheney to Fox News the end of the Republicans' and their allies' war against American working families? The tenor of the health care debate tells us the answer is no.

Around the country, we see millions of people with inadequate or no coverage, families who go to sleep at night knowing they are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and rising ranks of the unemployed who face going it alone in the prohibitively expensive individual coverage market-- or worse, going without insurance at all. So, while insurance companies have unabashedly experienced record profits, it is clear that our healthcare system is failing.

Because of the current upside-down approach to healthcare, I have long advocated for a single-payer system, the most effective and least costly way to provide everyone with quality care. Unfortunately, the political winds have drifted away from single-payer.

Today, the road to refocusing our misguided healthcare approach to put patients and doctors, not corporate bottom lines, at the forefront, and ensuring that all of us have access to the health services we need for a price we can afford, runs through a robust and competitive public health insurance option.

The public option must be robust and competitive, and incorporate, at a minimum, the following principles:

• Effective immediately. The public health insurance option cannot merely be a “fallback,” a “trigger,” or some other dubiously named mechanism out in the future. A trigger proposal, like the one in Medicare Part D, will do nothing more than ensure that the public option never happens.

A public plan in name only serves no one. The public health insurance option must be a part of overall reform, and it must have a clear and unambiguous start date.

• Run through a government or independent agency. While it is heartening to hear the insurance industry tout its openness to oversight, merely setting up a marketplace with regulated private insurance options will not bring about the reform we deserve. To achieve true cost savings, create competition in the marketplace, ensure that people are getting the health care they need, and promote transparency in the private insurance market, we must establish an insurance option that is administered by a government agency or some other independent entity. This is the only way to keep private insurers honest.

• Open to anyone. The public plan should be open to everyone, and not reserved only for those without insurance. Consumers should not be limited to the choice of their employers when it comes to their healthcare, and should be able to elect their employer’s private plan or the public insurance option.

• Based on Medicare. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Medicare’s existing infrastructure keeps overhead costs low (a miniscule 2 percent compared to private insurers’ 15-30 percent) and spending down (from 1997 to 2006, per-enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59 percent faster than spending in Medicare), and should be available for the public option.

Moreover, to ensure that the public option does not operate at a disadvantage with respect to private insurers, it must be able to use Medicare’s preexisting payment structure and physician base as it transitions to being a self-sufficient plan. And this should not scare providers who know that Medicare is a timely payer who pays in full-- the same cannot be said of private insurers.

• Competitor in the marketplace. The public option should compete in the marketplace like private insurers and should become reliant on collected premiums to cover costs. Similarly, the public plan should be able to use its purchasing power-- for medical services, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment-- to establish or negotiate rates the same way private insurers can.

• Instrument for innovation. If deemed necessary by the overseers of the program, the public plan should be able to offer rates to providers that exceed Medicare rates in order to remain competitive and spur use of innovations, such as e-records, medical homes, strengthening home-based care, and implementing cultural competency programs and translation services.

• Accompanied by additional reform measures. A robust public option cannot, on its own, repair our healthcare system or ensure that services are delivered in a more effective or efficient way. In conjunction with the public option, we must establish a baseline of coverage that includes necessary care such as mental health and prevention measures. We must move toward community-based rating, and we must end discrimination against pre-existing conditions, gender and geography by requiring guaranteed issue. We also must do more to support and grow the medical workforce-- from primary care physicians to nurses to home health workers-- because no amount of coverage can do any good if there is no one to deliver quality care.

To some, this plan may seem monumental, impossible even. But President Obama is right that we have a unique opportunity to do something remarkable this year. We have an opportunity to make fundamental changes to the way we view healthcare and deliver services, to implement a robust public health insurance option that puts the patient before the quarterly financial report. That really would be monumental. But, I hope, not impossible.

Nor is it just a liberal from Manhattan's Upper West Side and Greenwich Village who sees the opportunity to address this glaring inequity-- although I am wondering who's going to explain all this to reactionaries and sell-outs like Mary Landrieu, Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. Take a look at this short clip of Oregon's pro-family senator, Jeff Merkley, addressing this last night on the Senate floor:

Is It Safe To Fly Domestic U.S. Airlines While Bush Is Still In The White House?

Airline safety officials being sworn in a few months ago, prior to testifying before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on FAA safety oversight

This morning Blue Texan at Firedoglake alerted us to another aspect of the GOP's war on federal regulatory agencies via a very frightening story in the Statesman.

Pilots are complaining that their airline bosses, desperate to cut costs, are forcing them to fly uncomfortably low on fuel.

Safety for passengers and crews could be compromised, they say.

The situation got bad enough three years ago, even before the latest surge in fuel prices, that NASA sent a safety alert to federal aviation officials.

There has been no action.

This year the Air Transport Industry "donated" $347,658 to McCain, more money than to any other member of Congress; in fact, more money than to any politician in America. They love that deregulation and they know exactly who will let them get away with murder. Over at my travel blog I've been talking about how the airlines are trying to save money by charging for everything short of the toilets. But saving money by scrimping on fuel-- against the advice of professional pilots seems to be nothing short of criminal. Do we have to wait for a crash before doing something? Two crashes? Ten? If the Bush Regime has accomplished one goal-- aside from vengefully devastating Iraqi society and enriching their campaign contributors-- it is the destruction of the federal regulatory system that protects consumers and workers from the excesses of predatory capitalism gone mad. This is another one for the off the table impeachment trials Pelosi has made sure would never take place.

... [P]ilots, flight dispatchers and others have continued to sound off with their own warnings, yet the Federal Aviation Administration says there is no reason to order airlines to back off their effort to keep fuel loads to a minimum.

"We can't dabble in the business policies or the personnel policies of an airline," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr. He said there was no indication safety regulations were being violated.

The September 2005 safety alert was issued by NASA's confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows air crews to report safety problems without fear their names will be disclosed.

"What we found was that because they carried less fuel on the airplane, they were getting into situations where they had to tell air traffic control, 'I need to get on the ground,' " said Linda Connell, director of the NASA reporting system.

With fuel prices now their biggest cost, airlines are aggressively enforcing new policies designed to reduce consumption.

In March, for example, an airline pilot told NASA he landed his regional jet with less fuel than required by FAA regulations. "Looking back," he said, "I would have liked more gas yesterday." He also complained that his airline was "ranking" captains according to who landed with the least amount.

...Labor unions at two major airlines — American Airlines and US Airways — have filed complaints with the FAA, saying the airlines are pressuring members not to request spare fuel for flights.

American notified dispatchers on July 7 that their records on fuel approved for flights would be monitored, and dispatchers not abiding by company guidelines could ultimately be fired.

...Former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall said the situation merits an industrywide investigation by [Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin] Scovel.

"It's a safety-of-flight issue, and it needs to be treated as such," said Hall, now a transportation safety consultant. "If dispatchers and pilots are saying the airlines are pressuring them, and it's having a chilling effect on the decisions they make every day in regard to the fuel loads, and it looks like it's eroding the authority of the pilot in command, then that issue needs the attention of the government regulators who are there to oversee the system."

And while Bush-- or any Republican-- is in the White House, don't just think everything will be fine because you can take a bus. This is a complex society. Sensible regulation is the only way we can all live together in any kind of harmony. And that doesn't mean closing the barnyard door after the cow gets out.