Wall Street Strikes Again-- Against America

By this morning, progressives started signaling that they're not getting on board with the two corrupt Beltway party establishments' intention of using the last minute/must pass omnibus appropriations bill-- to keep the government open-- as an excuse for some especially ugly legislation they could otherwise not pass. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was as clear as a bell: "Republicans in Congress got burned for shutting the government down last year. They are clearly not going to let that happen again. However, their price for keeping the government running is a 2015 Omnibus Bill that contains a pair of unacceptable provisions. The first is a legislative rider, bought and paid for by bank lobbyists, that loosens regulation on risky derivatives trading. It is inconceivable that Congress would cut crucial regulations in the Dodd-Frank Act, when risky derivatives trading was at the center of the 2008 financial crisis. Why is Congress giving Wall Street a massive Christmas present, when so many hardworking Americans are struggling to make ends meet? Secondly, I have grave reservations about the billions of dollars appropriated to the Pentagon to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Exactly what this money will be spent on has not been openly and thoroughly debated on the House Floor. Congress essentially has no idea how these expenditures fit into a comprehensive strategy in Iraq, or how much more money might be needed to combat ISIS in the coming months or years. I will be voting NO on this bill. Sadly, the 2015 Omnibus Bill shows that Congress has not learned crucial lessons when it comes to calamitous derivatives trading or costly proxy wars in the Middle East."

Let's stick to this big smooch Congress is giving Wall Street. Barney Frank-- the Frank in Dodd-Frank-- issued a statement to his former colleagues urging them to reject it outright:

"The provision inserted into the Appropriations bill is a substantive mistake, a terrible violation of the procedure that should be followed on this complex and important subject, and a frightening precedent that provides a road map for further attacks on our protection against financial instability. Ironically it was a similar unrelated rider put without debate into a larger bill that played a major role in allowing irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the crisis. How to regulate derivatives is a question about which responsible people can differ, and the subject of what insured banks should be doing in this area is a legitimate subject for debate-- but not for a non-germane amendment inserted with no hearings, no chance for further modification, and no chance for debate into a mammoth bill in the last days of a lame-duck Congress. Those who have consistently opposed any significant financial regulation should be willing to put forward their proposals to cut back on the rules we adopted in response to the crisis in a manner that allows full, open discussion, and members supporting this retreat should be required to do so by their votes without the cover of an Omnibus Appropriation, not subject to amendment."

Pelosi has actually been trying to rally all the House Dems to vote no: "Once more, Republicans are working to stack the deck for the special interests against everyone else. Buried in the more than 1,600 pages of the omnibus package Republicans posted in the dead of night are provisions to put hard-working taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street’s riskiest behavior. This provision, allowing big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC, opens the door to another taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks-- forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes. To make matters worse, the package includes a provision that would work to drown out the voices of the American people and massively expand the role of big money in our elections. With this provision, Republicans would multiply ten times the amount of money wealthy individuals can give to a political party. These provisions are destructive to middle class families and to the practice of our democracy. We must get them out of the omnibus package."

And Pelosi is more than relevant in this debate. Boehner does not have 218 votes for any spending bill that doesn't back forced deportation of Hispanic and Asian immigrants-- and that kind of nonsense isn't going to get more than than half a dozen Blue Dogs in the House and will fail in Senate. Obama wouldn't even have the opportunity to veto it. At least 50-60 radical right Republicans-- which the Beltway media idiots inappropriately refer to as "conservatives"-- will vote against any funding bill without deportation. That means the only way a bill passes is with significant Democratic support. But there are some Wall Street Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the New Dems and Blue Dogs and other regular suspects-- pushing strongly in the other direction, especially Wall Street allies like Jim Himes, the Connecticut New Dem Vice Chair who has already taken $4,512,177 in legalistic bribes from the finance sector since first being elected in 2008. Democrats are already trying to blame this travesty on Republicans-- who do deserve the bulk of the blame-- but the Republicans couldn't do it without Wall Street whores like Himes in the House and Schumer in the Senate.

In the Senate you have Elizabeth Warren leading the charge against the Wall Street provisions with strong backing from progressives like Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley. Her floor speech this morning was a barn-burner. "Who does Congress work for?," she began. "Does it work for the millionaires, the billionaires, the giant companies with their armies of lobbyists and lawyers? Or does it work for all of us?"

[T]he House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful. The House is about to vote on a budget deal-- a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.

These are the same banks that nearly broke this economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs. The same banks that got bailed out by taxpayers and are now raking in record profits. The same banks that are spending a whole lot of time and money trying to influence Congress to bend the rules in their favor.

You will hear a lot of folks say that the rule that will be repealed in the Omnibus is technical and complicated, and that you shouldn't worry about it because smart people who know more than you about financial issues say that it's no big deal. Don't believe them. Actually, the rule is pretty simple. Here's what it's called-- the rule that the House is about to repeal-- and I'm quoting from the text of Dodd-Frank-- "PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF SWAPS ENTITIES." What does it do?  The provision that's about to be repealed requires banks to keep separate a key part of their risky Wall Street speculation so that there's no government insurance for that part of their business. As the New York Times has explained, "the goal was to isolate risky trading and to prevent government bailouts"-- because these sorts of risky trades-- called ‘derivatives' trades-- were "a main culprit in the 2008 financial crisis."

We put this rule in place after the collapse of the financial system because we wanted to reduce the risk that reckless gambling on Wall Street could ever again threaten jobs and livelihoods on Main Street. We put this rule in place because people of all political persuasions were disgusted at the prospects of future bailouts. And now, no debate, no discussion, Republicans in the House of Representatives are threatening to shut down the government if they don't get a chance to repeal it.

That raises a simple question-- why? If this rule brings more stability to our financial system, if this rule prevents future government bailouts, why in the world would anyone want to repeal it, let alone hold the entire government hostage in order to ram through the repeal?

The reason, unfortunately, is simple. It's about money, and it's about power. Because while this legal change could pose serious risks to our entire economy, it'll also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks. According to Americans for Financial Reform, this change will be a huge boon to just a handful of our biggest banks - Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Bank of America.

...[T]his provision goes too far. Citigroup is large, and it is powerful. But it is a single, private company. It shouldn't get to hold the entire government hostage-- to threaten a government shutdown-- in order to roll back important protections that keep our economy safe. This is a democracy, and the American people didn't elect us to stand up for Citigroup. They elected us to stand up for all of the people.

I urge my colleagues in the House-- particularly my Democratic colleagues, whose votes are essential to moving this package forward-- to withhold support from it until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in the country.

Yesterday Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was clear where he stands on this as well: "This giveaway to Wall Street would open the door to future bailouts funded by American taxpayers. It’s been just six years since risky financial practices put our economy on the brink of collapse and cost millions of Americans lost jobs, homes, and retirement savings. This provision, originally written by lobbyists, has no place in a must-pass spending bill."

The White House says Obama opposes the rider but, predictably, that they aren’t inclined to pick a fight, blow up the whole bill, and risk a government shutdown over it. They should. Credit default swaps were the biggest factor in blowing up the economy in 2008. The Wall Street criminal class of predators love being able to use the swaps to dramatically raise the stakes on their speculative bets. If we lose this fight, it makes it 10 times more likely we will get another financial crisis sometime in the next few years. No one is trusting Schumer's bullshit blandishments that in exchange for going along with the Republicans and their Wall Street donors, Democrats have secured more money for the enforcement budgets at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There Are No Syrian Moderate Terrorists But 300 Members Of Congress Voted To Give "Them" Billions Of Our Taxpayer Dollars

We live in a political system where Congress shirks it's clear and unambiguous responsibility to declare war. Instead we get military actions of dubious legality and with superficial public support, which often quickly sours. Thursday the House came as close as they do to debating and voting for war. Disguised as H.R. 3979-- "The Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014"-- the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was clearly meant to draw as little public attention as possible. It passed by a big margin, as always, only 87 Democrats and 32 Republicans with the guts too stand up to the outrageous excesses of the Military Industrial Complex. The final vote was 300-119. The Republicans seeded it with a few goodies for Democrats, like a half-assed crack-down against sexual assault, but many of the Members who care most about the issues weren't taken in and voted no anyway. Take Donna Edwards for example, a perfect target for that kind of appeal. But too smart to fall for it. She voted against it. Donna:

“This National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) extends the authority the Administration is using to justify military action in Syria for an additional two years without explicit Congressional approval or debate. I cannot support a foreign policy to train and equip Syrian rebels and fight ISIS over the long-term absent a full debate and vote by Congress-- that is our constitutional responsibility.

“I support provisions in this House-Senate agreement to help combat sexual assault in the military, and to provide a 1.0 percent pay increase and necessary resources for our service members and their families. Nonetheless, I could not vote for this NDAA. After more than a decade of war, it’s time for a debate in Congress to reassure the American people and our military community about the best path forward.”

Across the aisle, one of the most vocal-- and credible-- opponents of the bill was Walter Jones the conservative Republican whose district includes Camp LeJeune and who has dedicated his career to serving the interests of the men and women in the ranks (rather than the contractors and mercenary corporations). His website explains exactly why he bucked the Establishment and voted NO.

Today, Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) voted against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, which cuts military benefits and provides billions of dollars in spending toward President Obama’s unconstitutional expansion of military force in Iraq and Syria.

The NDAA for FY 2015 cuts military benefits by requiring a $3 increase in certain pharmacy co-pays and a 1 percent decrease in the housing allowance for uniformed service members.

In addition to cuts in military benefits, the NDAA for FY 2015 also includes President Obama’s $5 billion request to fund Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria.  Of that $5 billion, $3.4 billion will be used for airstrikes against ISIS and $1.6 billion will be used for training Sunni tribes and forces in Iraq. Overall, the NDAA for FY 2015 authorizes $63.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere.

“I cannot vote for a bill that cuts military benefits while funding wars that Congress never declared,” said Congressman Jones. Congress repeatedly authorizes spending on undeclared wars that put our troops in danger and then has the audacity to cut the benefits of those they are unconstitutionally sending overseas to fight. It’s just not right.”

Justin Amash, one of the only Republicans in either House of Congress worth taking seriously sent out this tweet right after the vote:

Most of the House progressives voted no as well,Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Beto O'Rourke (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), etc. Most of the Democratic Leadership team voted yes, including Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Israel/Luján, Wasserman Schultz. And both freshmen who were already sworn in because of unexpired terms-- Alma Adams (D-NC) and NJ machine boss George Norcross' hopeless brother Donald Norcross both planted their flags on the side of the Military Industrial Complex. No one should have expected any more from either.

"Today," wrote Seatte Rep. Jim McDermott to his constituents, "I voted in opposition to H.R. 3979, the National Defense Authorization Act.

"I have said consistently that if President Obama was prepared to escalate military action against ISIS or to expand the arming and training of the ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition, he must come to Congress with a plan and ask for our support.

"And we, as Members of Congress, must take seriously our Constitutional responsibility when it comes to matters of war and peace. There is no question in my mind that ongoing operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have become a full-fledged military campaign, which warrants a fresh Congressional debate on an authorization for the use of military force.

"And yet, this afternoon the House passed a gargantuan NDAA with only one hour of debate on the floor, a clear abdication of Congressional authority in deciding the conditions under which we send our men and women into conflict.

"I remember the last time Congress failed to thoroughly debate a plan for military action in the Middle East; it unleashed a Pandora’s Box in Iraq and the wider region that we struggling to contain even today.

"I appreciate the unenviable position the President faces in Iraq and I even sympathize with his reluctance to seek cooperation from a Congress that has done its upmost to stymie his legislative agenda for the past five years. Nevertheless, I will not vote to authorize billions of dollars toward a military campaign, as well as a clear military campaign by proxy, without the proper and robust debate such a grave action deserves."

A senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, California Democrat John Garamendi explains, in some detail, why he voted what what he saw as "an imperfect" bill. First and foremost: pork for his own district-- through Beale and Travis Air Force Bases:

While Congressman Garamendi disagrees with portions of this extensive legislation, it earned his support through the protection of vital missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, improved transitional services for new veterans, and several important measures to reduce wasteful spending in the Pentagon budget.

“Throughout the committee process, I’ve worked to ensure that the NDAA treats our servicemembers and veterans with the respect they deserve. I’ve also done everything I can to preserve the vital Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Air Mobility missions at Beale and Travis Air Force Bases, missions that will only grow in importance as we continue to adapt to 21st century threats,” Garamendi said. “If I were the sole author of this bill, there would be some significant modifications to some of the language, but as a good faith compromise bill, it has earned my support.”

The NDAA prohibits the retirement of the U-2 and KC-10 fleets in 2015, protecting important missions at Beale and Travis, respectively.

“Military priorities change with time, and in the 3rd District, we are blessed to have two missions that will only grow with importance as America adapts and responds to modern threats: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance at Beale and Air Mobility at Travis,” Garamendi said. “As we’re seeing with the rise of organizations like ISIL, extremist organizations are becoming an even bigger threat. We need to know what’s happening on the ground, and when necessary, quickly respond. That’s why it is very important to preserve the U-2 and KC-10 missions until the next generation technologies are ready.”

The NDAA includes a 1% pay raise for the troops and improved mental health screenings to earlier diagnose and treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain injuries that so often plague servicemembers when they return to civilian life.

The bill also includes several provisions to help veterans succeed in civilian life, including:

  •         Changes to the Transition Assistance Program that make it easier for transitioning service members to understand and use their benefits. In particular, the NDAA requires additional instruction and guidance on pursuing post-secondary education, including financial guidance and detailed instructions on how to use the Veterans’ Benefits Administration’s educational benefits such as the post-9/11 GI Bill;

•         Programs to make it easier for servicemembers to obtain professional credentials (professional accreditation, Federal occupational licenses, state professional licenses, and certifications) through their military training. For example, electrical maintenance training in the military could also be used to fulfill some of the requirements needed to obtain a state electrician license; and

•         A pilot program to establish connections between the Department of Defense and state veterans’ agencies. Under this program, the Department of Defense will supply essential information to state veterans’ agencies to make servicemembers’ transition from military service to civilian life easier. This is similar to the California Department of Veterans Affairs’ Operation Welcome Home.

“Imagine spending years of your life getting certified in a skilled trade, only to be told you need to go through a nearly identical certification process once you hang up your uniform. That’s the reality for thousands of servicemembers transitioning to civilian life,” Garamendi explained. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, since we’re often subsidizing these private certification processes through financial aid programs, and it’s a waste of time and potential earnings and advancement for the new veteran looking to get a jumpstart on a civilian career. While there’s more to be done, I’m glad the NDAA is making progress on this front.”

The NDAA continues our nation’s slow but positive progress in addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military.  This NDAA:

•         Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider the preference of sexual assault victims regarding whether offenses should be prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court;

•         Allows a victim of sexual assault, who believes that their rights were violated during the court martial process, the ability to petition the Court of Criminal Appeals to require the court martial to comply with the Military Rules of Evidence;

•         Provides an appeal process for individuals who were victims of a sex-related offense and were discharged from the military for what they believe is a side-effect of their assault, such as psychological struggles, or a failure to adjust; and

•         Requires the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces.

“I believe that if victims of sexual assault in the military want to pursue their complaints through an independent civilian process, they should be given that opportunity. This NDAA doesn’t go far enough, but we’re getting closer to a system that empowers and fairly treats the victims of sexual assault and deters these horrific crimes from ever occurring,” Garamendi said.

The NDAA rejects a Department of Defense proposal to substantially cut commissaries on military bases, which would have led to a de facto pay cut for servicemembers and military families. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review, utilizing the services of an independent organization experienced in retail grocery analysis, of the defense commissary system to help determine the best way forward while still providing significant savings to patrons.

“I’m ever mindful of backdoor pay cuts to servicemembers and their families. Let’s be clear: the proposed commissary cut would have taken money out of the pockets of people defending our nation and the family members who support them at home. I’m sure there are reasonable savings we can find in the commissary program without increasing food prices, and I will review any such proposals as they’re presented to us, but of all the places to cut waste in the NDAA, commissaries are near the bottom of the list,” Garamendi added.

Countering The Demented Ravings Of Doctors Like Paul Broun And Phil Gingrey, Georgia Sociopaths

Lee Rogers, surgeon, progressive

This morning's NY Times looked at medical doctors in Congress-- although the post is mostly a puff piece about a naive right-wing pediatric neurosurgeon in Oregon who's running against Jeff Merkley. The Senate has 3 doctors now (Coburn, Barrasso and the uncertified ophthalmologist Rand Paul) and there are 17 in the House (many of whom are certifiably-- and horrifyingly-- insane, like Tennessee Republican, Scott DesJarlais, who is best known for sedating his patients with heavy drugs to have sex with them, and a couple of whacked out Georgia extremists, the embryology is straight from the pit of hell guy Paul Broun and the Todd Akin was right about rapes guy Phil Gingrey). "A heightened political awareness," wrote Jeremy Peters, "and a healthy self-regard that they could do a better job, are drawing a surprisingly large number [of doctors] to the power of elective office… With a few exceptions, these physician legislators and candidates-- there are three dozen of them-- are much alike: deeply conservative, mostly male, and practicing in the specialty fields in which costs and pay have soared in recent years."

No mention of this year's most accomplished and prominent physician running, Simi Valley, California podiatric surgeon, Lee Rogers. Alan Grayson: "I respect Lee Rogers, because he is the doctor who founded and directed the Amputation Prevention Center, and reduced amputations by 72%… I know that we need a progressive doctor like Lee Rogers in Congress, to help… counter the demented ravings of Drs. Paul Broun (R-Paleolithic), Scott DesJarlais (R-Patient Dating), Michael Burgess (R-Fetal Wanking) and Larry Bucshon (R-Guns)."

Why are so many physicians willing to trade their white coats-- not to mention the autonomy, respect and high salary-- for a job that can be so frustrating that it is now sending one veteran politician after another into retirement?

“Medicine has so changed, and it’s not necessarily the Affordable Care Act,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who had a family medical practice before being elected to the House and later to the Senate.

The senator said today’s doctors have watched the profession undergo tremendous realignments that are shifting doctors’ responsibilities away from patient care, changes they attribute to the government’s inefficacy. And many of them believe they can reverse the course.

“They’re just frustrated,” he said. “They practiced medicine when you could actually spend time with a patient, spend time to listen to them, figure out what’s wrong with them.”

The House’s only psychiatrist, Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, offered a more Freudian explanation: the desire for control.

“They want to have their hands right there on the handle so they can pull it one way or another,” he said.

As for the reason so few of them are liberal-- out of the 17 medical doctors in the House, Representative McDermott is one of only four who are Democrats-- he said he believed that politically conservative physicians were more likely to chafe at the direction of changes in health care, with greater oversight by the government and a more regulated role for the private sector. “It’s a fundamental debate about what is in the public good,” he said.

You can help put a doctor in the House-- a good one, who was campaigning to fix the mistakes in Obamacare before it even passed-- by lending a hand in electing Lee Rogers. If you'd like to make a contribution, no matter how small, you can do it at this link.

The Benign Sounding Trans-Pacific Partnership Is NAFTA On Steroids

Obamabots sometimes waste their time sending me letters asking me to stop exposing negative crap about Obama. Why don't they just write to Obama and ask him to stop generating so much negative crap? When I was deciding the reasons why I wouldn't be voting for Obama in 2012-- which was a big deal to me since it was the first presidential election in my life in which I didn't vote for the Democrat-- one of the many bullet points was his anti-working family trade policies. There were at least a dozen other reasons on the list, but Obama's catastrophic trade policies-- basically the same as Clinton's and both Bushs'-- was enough of a reason to vote against him alone. Megan Wilson interviewed Alan Grayson this week for The Hill about one aspect of Obama's latest folly on trade. Obama's Wall Street allies kicked down $6,376,619 for 2012 (and $16,924,110 in 2008), so about $23 million towards his presidential campaigns. This newest proposal he's making is a big fat wet kiss to these special interests.

The proposed U.S.-EU trade deal includes an investor-state dispute resolution that would enable companies to directly sue foreign governments involved in a treaty. It has been standard fare in trade deals for decades and is intended to hold governments accountable for reneging on contracts or agreements and changing regulations.

“This is one of the tools you could use... to get bad governments to do what they've committed to do,” said William Reinsch, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a business trade group dedicated to trade and investment issues that boasts members such as Boeing and Caterpillar.

Opponents have long railed against the trade courts, arguing that giving multinational corporations the ability to directly challenge a foreign government in an international tribunal threatens public and environmental safeguards.

Laws and regulations “reflect the actions of democratic government,” Grayson told The Hill, calling the provision “an organized assault against middle-class Americans and against democracy.”

The cases in the tribunals created by these investor-state disagreements are decided by three attorneys, who public interest groups say shuffle from acting as judges and representing corporations.

Corporations should not “get the right to sue in front of a rigged system where the outcome is preordained,” Grayson said.

...In the letter, Grayson says the investor-state negotiation provisions “undermine sovereignty without significantly increasing trade.”

“These kinds of provisions have been used to undermine country-of-origin meat labels, dolphin-safe tuna labeling requirements, regulation of hydraulic fracking,” he said. “These are not fundamentally questions of trade; why are they governed by so-called ‘trade agreements?’”

...“The issues [Congress] addresses falls into two categories: High-profile issues and low-profile issues,” Grayson said. “Lobbyists are very effective at influencing lawmakers on low-profile issues, like isolating one provision out of a 600-page bill.”

He said he wants to “change the category” of the investor-state dispute resolution by sharing his views.

“If not for this kind of effort, members would be able to support a bill like this because the public wouldn't know about it. ... Lawmakers will know that people will be judging them on this issue.”

Yesterday Grayson wasn't the only one talking about our elite's economy-destroying trade policies. Curtis Ellis explained the significance of the U.S. selling off productive parts of our economy to China in return for cheap manufactured goods and 21st Century trinkets. Curtis used Smithfield's sale to China's Shuanghui Group as the example and he asserts it's even worse than just finding antifreeze and other toxins in our Christmas hams from now on.

Smithfield's sale to Shuanghui is a direct result of our trade deficit with China, which was $295 billion in 2011. We send boatloads of money to China every day in return for the cheap consumer merchandise filling our store shelves and shopping malls. Apologists say we should send China a thank you note for 'everyday low prices,' but we don't need to-- we send them the money they use to buy our productive enterprises.

As long as we continue to run persistent trade deficits with China we'll see more deals like Smithfield and Nexteer, the one-time GM and Delphi steering operation controlled by China's biggest aerospace company. And while the doctrine of shareholder value pretty much shredded the social contract between corporations and the communities in which they operate, the rise of absentee landlords like Shuanghui takes it to the next level, with even less commitment to an American workforce being paid a living wage.

Smithfield does more than pack meat-- it's a vertically integrated operation that raises 15 million pigs a year in industrial hog operations that feed its slaughterhouses. If, as analysts say, the Smithfield sale is about supplying pork to China, we can expect a hundred factory farms to bloom and a further crackdown on efforts to regulate them and the toxic waste they produce. Industrial ag sponsors gag laws to criminalize documenting what goes on inside its operations. Now, the hands holding the gag and paying the lobbyists will be Chinese, if that makes any difference.

We don't know if China's abysmal record in food safety will become the benchmark for Smithfield. But it's safe to say that top management is not steeped in a culture of high standards-- just two years ago, Shuanghui was accused of feeding a dangerous additive to pigs destined for human consumption. Don't expect Smithfield's new owners to champion higher standards in the industrial food chain.

The FDA and food safety regulators have been captured by industrial agribusiness (a complex which includes Big Pharma, since factory farms are the largest customers for antibiotics made in China). U.S. government regulators will now be getting their marching orders from Chinese bosses. You could argue this will make little difference considering the lack of patriotic identity in the corporate suites of American-in-name-only companies. But if there's a choice between supplying more hog carcasses to China or preserving the health of Americans, you can be sure the decision will be made in a Shanghai minute.

When government regulators answer to those they are tasked to oversee and those in control are of foreign agency, the situation bears more than a passing resemblance to a banana republic.

The pliant governments of the original banana republics served foreign corporations. Today, our elected representatives prostitute themselves to those who can finance their campaigns and provide lucrative employment upon retirement from public office.

We've been accustomed to the paymasters having American monikers. No more. Now, they could be a state-owned enterprise from Henan, China as well as a private equity firm from Manhattan (or both at the same time).

In this late stage of globalization, stateless corporations with no loyalty to any country call the shots the world over, all nations reduced to virtual banana republics. Arrangements such as the TransPacific Partnership make this understanding explicit as they seek to bring national representative governments to heel under global corporatist rule.

We may not be able to do anything about Smithfield, but to preserve the promise of representative self-government in the USA, we must stop the TransPacific Partnership.

So who in Congress is backing Obama's disastrous TransPacific Partnership scheme that will be so destructive to ordinary working families? Well, basically all the Republicans and the entire Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the New Dems). Actual Democrats-- not the "New," corrupt right-wing iteration-- are opposing the latest corporate bag of tricks.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) pointed out last week that "[a]t a time when our efforts should be focused on putting people back to work, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will send American resources and jobs overseas, forcing working families already hurt by the Great Recession to get by on less and less. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a free trade agreement of unprecedented size and scope, easily dwarfing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, U.S trade policy has relied almost exclusively on free-trade agreements to gain foreign access for American businesses. The result has devastated the wages of working Americans, as corporations flee the United States to employ low wage workers abroad. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is NAFTA on steroids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5 million Americans have lost manufacturing jobs since the passage of NAFTA. Americans who are unable to go to college lose $3,300 of income every year due to NAFTA-induced trade and offshoring. TPP does not reverse this trend. It will export NAFTA’s failures across the Pacific and put more Americans out of work. There is a reason Washington wants to keep the Trans-Pacific Partnership secret from the American people. This agreement could be the biggest destroyer of American jobs coming out of Washington this year. We should encourage real fair trade, not the destruction of American jobs and communities.”

And last week, Jim McDermott, one of the clearest and strongest progressive voices advocating Fair Trade policies penned an OpEd for Roll Call on the subject of how Big Pharma and it's lobbyists have captured captured the Trans-Pacific Partnership for its own purposes. Those purposes don't bode well for... anyone else, and especially not for poor sick in need of medical care.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being negotiated right now. It includes 10 countries of the Pacific Rim, including developing countries such as Peru, Malaysia and Vietnam. If the TPP agreement is done right, it will encourage and support American exports and create needed jobs in the United States. The critical intellectual property provisions of the pact should protect inventors and developers of breakthrough innovations, but they cannot be so restrictive that they cost millions of lives in less developed countries.

At the beginning of TPP negotiations two years ago, for reasons that are unclear, the U.S. asked the other 10 countries to accept new and very rigid intellectual property measures that would greatly limit availability of the affordable generic medicines that the success of U.S.-supported global health programs require. For example, more than 98 percent of HIV/AIDS medicines used to fight AIDS in Africa are generics, mostly made in Asia.

The United States is currently party to many international agreements that include strong intellectual property protections. These agreements protect innovation, including 20-year patents on new drugs, but they also allow enough flexibility for poorer countries to respond to public health needs with accessible, low-cost drugs. We worked hard to get these rules in place and they are working well.

But the U.S.’ current TPP proposal on medicines upends the present well-structured balance by extending monopoly protections much further. It would force people in developing countries to wait longer for affordable medicines, if they can access them at all. It would extend patents beyond the current 20-year norm and block national regulators from using existing clinical trial data to approve the production of generic or “bio-similar” drugs.

Alarmingly, the proposal also outlaws “pre-grant opposition” that allows doctors and patients to provide information to their governments about patents they believe do not meet national rules, an important democratic safeguard. The proposal also requires the patenting of new versions of old medicines, even when the new versions offer no additional therapeutic benefits. It even requires patenting of surgical, therapeutic and diagnostic methods, which not only is unethical but also could increase medical liability and the cost of practice.

Can A Drive By The 1% To Institutionalize l'aristocratie Here Be Slowed Down Without Bloodshed?

You would never know it by talking to an imbecile dressed up in a tri-corner hat and calling himself a teabagger-- although they stopped calling themselves that when someone told them what it means-- but the establishment of an aristocracy of inherited wealth in this country is about as antithetical to what the American Revolution was all about as... unification with the United Kingdom. And yet decades of conservative policies and the Republican Party agenda has been based on exactly that-- establishing an American aristocracy of inherited wealth. Their aversion to an estate tax-- which the corporate media they own has successfully dubbed "the death tax"-- is a clear indication of their barely disguised intent. Last year Lexington took it up at The Economist.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent"-- in fact an inheritance tax-- on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

Yesterday progressive Jim McDermott (D-WA), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced the “Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2011” to begin the process of restoring some kind of fairness to the estate tax. It's the first estate tax reform bill introduced by a member of the tax-writing committee that does not simply extend or repeal the existing estate tax law. It doesn't go nearly far enough but it does propose bringing the estate tax rates back to the pre-2001 levels, with a maximum marginal rate of 55% and a $1 million exemption ($2 million for married couples) instead of the current $5 million exemption at a maximum rate of 35%. The current law was designed to allow over 99% of estates to pass tax-free. 

McDermott: "The U.S. economy and the American people are struggling through one of the worst recessions in our history. Now is the time to ensure our tax policy is fair and equitable for all Americans, and the estate tax bill that I am introducing today embodies these values... This legislation will take us back to an estate tax that worked during one of America’s most prolonged periods of economic prosperity. It provides the kind of certainty that practitioners and taxpayers have been calling for since the Bush tax cuts took effect. Never in our history has an exemption increased over 500% in less than a decade and known loopholes been left open for abuse. The estate tax is broken, and it’s time we fix it.” Besides the fairer rate, McDermont's bill proposes the following:

·         Reunify and make permanent the portability for spouses of the gift and estate tax exclusions;

·         Restore the credit for state transfer taxes paid;

·         Close loopholes in the asset valuation and minority discount rules;

·         Provide for consistent basis reporting between estates and beneficiaries;

·         Require a minimum 10-year period for grantor retained annuity trusts; and,

·         Provide meaningful limits to the generation skipping transfer tax exemption.

Many prominent wealthy Americans have expressed their support of an estate tax. Among them is Bill Gates, Sr. who said, “An estate tax ensures that those who have benefited the most from this great country reinvest in the very promise of wealth and opportunity America provided them.” And many less wealthy Americans like the direction McDermott is headed. Ken Aden, the Blue America endorsed candidate for the seat currently occupied with reactionary corporate shill and 1%-er Steve Womack is not just running against inherited wealth, but inherited radio stations that are being used-- probably illegally-- to undermine democracy. The very idea that Womack feels the need to hide behind his father's radio station or use his limited non combat military career as a shield from questions of his corporate agenda is nothing less than spineless. "Who," asks Aden, "wants a congressman who runs from a debate? Not one individual who fought, bled or died next to me would have. When I decided to put my life on the line for my country my constitutional values were a constant in my thought process. I ask Steve Womack who the hell is he to wear the uniform strictly for political purposes. The best of us have given their lives wearing it. Who is he to exploit it? He is a corporate owned puppet and disgrace to his constituents... The idea that we are having this argument is constitutionally absurd. No king in history is guaranteed to father a worthy prince; no heir to an American fortune could be expected to do the same. We threw away the concept of divine right to power long ago. Your father's or mother's work has little to do with the talent you possess as an individual. My opponent has yet to grasp this concept. For all his talk about entitlements, he has yet to grasp the idea of personal responsibility."

Republican Trust Fund Baby Threatens To Murder Jim McDermott: "I'll Round Them Up, I'll Kill Them, I'll Kill His Friends, I'll Kill His Family..."

Right-wing terrorist Charles Habermann threatened to kill her too

Demented apologists-- some of whom like Limbaugh, Beck and Palin go beyond mere apologists and into the realm of inciters-- for right-wing terrorist and assassin Jared Loughner claim their incendiary words don't matter. Many in the Republican Party's congressional delegation, from Virginia Foxx (R-VA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Paul Broun (R-GA), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Allen West (R-FL) to more ostensibly respectable figures like Lamar Alexander (R-TN) are frantic to deny that Loughner's mindset is rooted in the basic tenets of the American Right and refuse to acknowledge a report by the Secret Service blaming Palin's hate-mongering for a huge uptick in violent threats against President Obama.

Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists," citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

Incendiary Limbaugh billboard in Tucson, right near the crime scene

It's made trashy sociopaths like Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Hannity and O'Reilly-- none of whom ever had very promising futures-- into multimillionaires. Simple as that. All amplified by Hate Talk Radio and Fox. And Loughner is hardly the only deranged soul feeling permission from these hate-filled public figures. Enter stage right: millionaire trust fund baby Charles Turner Habermann of Riverside, California. Habermann, 32, of Palm Springs, was arrested yesterday for threatening to kill Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

According to the criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Habermann left two threatening, expletive-filled voicemail messages at the Seattle office of McDermott on December 10.

In the first message, according to the complaint, Habermann called McDermott, a Democrat, "disgusting, filthy, murderous" and a criminal and threatens to kill him if he ever "f---s around with my money."

In the second message, Habermann said, among other things, that he will "hunt that guy down and I'll f---ing get rid of him."

Habermann was scheduled to make an initial court appearance on the charges on Wednesday afternoon and could face ten years in prison if convicted.

Habermann also threatened to kill Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree and is under investigation for making threats against California Assemblyman Manny Perez. Perez, Pingree and McDermott are all progressives who have been singled out for hateful rants by demented right-wing Hate Talk Radio hosts. Habermann has told the FBI that he was drunk and/or stoned when he made the threatening calls. According to the transcript of one call, Habermann said, "He advocates stealing people's money to give it to losers... That is what a majority of the Democratic Party engage in every day of every week of every fucking year because they're scum bags. They are disgusting filthy scum bags. And you let that fucking scum bag know, that if he ever fucks around with my money, ever the fuck again, I'll fucking kill him, okay. I'll round them up, I'll kill them, I'll kill his friends, I'll kill his family, I will kill everybody he fucking knows..." Here's the first transcript:


And here's the second one, also from December 10, just after midnight:


Would it surprise you to know he brags about hating Latinos and being as angry as Limbaugh that his tax dollars would go for health care for people whose parents didn't establish trust funds for them the way his did for him? I can't wait to hear how Palin and Beck explain how this has nothing to do with the Republicans or their hate rhetoric.


UPDATE: Rich People Don't Rot In Jail, They Post Bail

Habermann's family posted a $300,000 bond for his bail and he's out again, though on house arrest with electronic monitoring. In the calls to McDermott and Pingree and his visit to Pérez's office in March (at which time he went into a racist Hate Talk Radio-type rant and was escorted out), he made it clear he was worked up over the Democratic officials' positions on health care, immigration and the tax cut extension for the wealthy. But Republicans and Fox hosts will, of course, claim he was just a lone nut and that it isn't political. I mean it isn't as though he were a Republican candidate for Congress or president-- even if he does sound just like half of them!

Habermann appears to have been directly influenced not just by pot and booze but by something far worse: the bloody, incendiary hate ramblings of Fox's Bill O'Reilly. Every advertiser of O'Reilly's show is guilty for bankrolling that hatred. Dave Neiwert reminds us that the bizarre Bill O'Reilly column attacking McDermott for daring to suggest (while discussing whether to extend the Bush tax cuts) that Jesus might have been more concerned about helping the poor get their unemployment checks than he would in ensuring rich guys get their tax cuts, was published on THE SAME DAY Habermann unleashed his death threats against McDermott. What a coincidence. Again, who advertises on O'Reilly's show and bankrolls Fox's war against America?

"Anonymous Industry Sources Control Congress": Matt Stoller targets "industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners"

"This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power."

-- Matt Stoller, in an OpenLeft post yesterday, "Anonymous Industry Sources Control Congress"

by Ken

Howie did a thorough job yesterday on CongressDaily's takedown of the Democrats next in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee -- in the event that a replacement is needed for my congressman, Charlie Rangel. "Too liberal" is the hysterical screech about both Pete Stark of Callifornia and Jim McDermott of Washington, with assorted other allegations and innuendos piled on.

As Howie pointed out, such complaints never seem to come up when rabid right-wingers or conniving and/or outright thieving thugs serve as committee chairmanships. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as too conservative, or, where the interests at stake are pro-cooperate, too close to the interests the committee oversees.

I kicked this point around recently while speculating about the possibility of Sen. Russ Feingold taking over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from VP-elect Joe Biden in the event that John Kerry were to get the nod as secretary of state. As we know, that eventuality never eventuated. But, to his credit, Senate Majority Harry Reid put himself on record unequivocally that in the event Senator Feingold's turn came up, he would not be bypassed.

There's another dimension to the CongressDaily story, though, and I have to credit Matt Stoller with not just recognizing it but making a glorious federal case of it on OpenLeft. What set Matt's bullshit detector off is that "reporter" Peter Cohn, in a piece filled with Inside the Beltway opinions, and mighty strong ones at that, used not a single identified source. Bless his heart, Matt actually counted and found that the piece uses no fewer than nine anonymous sources -- among them a strong preponderance of lobbyists, whose interest in the matter is hardly impartial, or apt to be on the side of good government.

Here is my rendering -- in countdown form -- of Matt's rundown of The Anonymous Nine:

(1) a GOP tax lobbyist, who says that Charlie Rangel is "a long way from going down."

(2) a Democrat close to leadership (and thus presumably an actual member of Congress! the only one we're going to hear from), who says, "The conventional wisdom is [Stark] would have a tough time getting elected chairman."

(3) sources, who say that Stark is prone to gaffes, as when he suggested that our troops were in Iraq dying "for the president's amusement" -- a suggestion that aroused so much quick outrage that no consideration was allowed for the extent to which this catastrophic adventure was made possible by His Chimpiness's desperate, pathetic attempt to prove that he's something other than a worthless shell of a human being. Of course you're not allowed to say that if you're a serious D.C. insider.

(4) an industry lobbyist, who says that Stark "is just not tenable." Apparently the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare."

(5) industry sources, who describe Richard Neal of Massachusetts as "someone they could work with" (unlike Stark, who's "seen as very much in tune with the labor movement").

(6) sources, who say that Jim McDermott, while "a bit more of a pragmatist than Stark," is "still in the too-liberal category" and "also is a highly partisan figure."

(7) an industry source, who suggests that John Lewis of Georgia, "the well-liked, highly respected former civil rights leader whose selection could smooth over relations with the Congressional Black Caucus if Rangel were to be nudged out."

(8) sources, wo say that Richard Neal "is the favorite of the business community and has labor bona fides as well" and "is seen as a bright, active and relatively young chairman-in-waiting, but as fifth in seniority after Rangel, the time may not yet be ripe to choose him."

(9) another industry source, who "while noting the lack of a smoking gun, referred to the steady drumbeat of allegations as potentially damaging. 'In this town, impression often matters more than fact,' the source said."

Now Matt can be both one of the most lucid, logical writers I know and, when he gets up a head of steam, one of the most eloquent. In his final two paragraphs he demonstrates both modes.

First he explains what's wrong with Cohn's stringing together of these anonymous sources:

Not one single person will go on the record to discuss why the seniority system shouldn't work in the case of Stark, not one policy idea is considered in the article vis-a-vis Stark or anyone else's record, and the reader learns nothing about the tax writing committee from it other than nine anonymous sources in Congress think something. Apparently, the amorphous business community will 'go nuclear', whatever that means, Stark is gaffe-prone, but neither the public, policy, or the shift leftward in Congress as evidenced by Waxman's recent committee victory in the Energy and Commerce tussle are even referenced.

"And this is the point," he says, setting the stage for this:

One of the most insidious aspects of DC is how the conventional wisdom that dominates policy-making is shaped by an interplay between reporters and lobbyists, with ideas and voters entirely cut out. Based on this article, I have no idea if Stark would write good tax law or manage the committee well, I have no idea who the people are that are criticizing him and so the criticisms are entirely devoid of context, and Stark -- Air Force vet, successful businessman, and experienced legislator -- is completely powerless to respond. This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power.

Wow! I'm not even going to try to add anything to that. Maybe we should just listen to that last sentence one last time:

This unaccountable and unelected system, where industry lobbyists and their incestuous journalistic partners directly contradict the power vested by the public in our elected officials, is why the public hates the Beltway and its trappings of power.

POSTSCRIPT: THE NYT'S CLAMPDOWN ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES

Thanks to our colleague John Amato at Crooks and Liars for digging out a June 2008 report by New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt, "Culling the Anonymous Sources," on the paper's serious tightening of its use of anonymous sources in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, including rather surprising results from a study he himself requested from students at Columbia University's Journalism School, which suggest that the paper has indeed reduced the use of anonymous sources by something like half.

In conclusion, Hoyt cites a memo recently sent to NYT news-room staffers by Executive Editor Bill Keller:

[H]e said it was “high-minded foolishness” to suggest that The Times or any newspaper forswear them altogether. “The ability to offer protection to a source is an essential of our craft,” he said. “We cannot bring readers the information they want and need to know without sometimes protecting sources who risk reprisals, firing, legal action or, in some parts of the world, their lives when they confide in us.”

That is why it is so critically important that anonymous sources not be used lazily or out of habit, and why, when they really are necessary, readers need to be told as much as possible about why the sources can’t be identified and how they know what they know.

#