Obama's Wrong Choices Of Advisers Predicted The Tragic Failure Of His Administration

On a tangent during his scathing indictment of his own political party, Republican operative Mike Lofgren made an interesting comment about the pathetic state of conflicted Democratic Party officeholders who have allowed the GOP to run so wild that our democracy itself is now at risk. The corporate whores and careerists the media give shelter to by dubbing them "moderates" and "centrists" are as guilty as Republicans for the great pillaging of America.

Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist" Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.

I illustrated his point with a fine portrait of two of the worst of the worst: Rahm Emanuel and Max Baucus. My friend Karoli, one of the most dogged and unflinching Obama defenders I know, pointed out another of these bad-as-a-Republican type Democrats, the President's chief of staff, Bill Daley-- and wrote that it's past time for him to step down.

If messaging is a part of the Chief of Staff's duties, and I believe it's one of the central parts, then Daley clearly fails on all counts. Every single issue is framed inside right-wing themes, from the decision to suspend new EPA standards to the debt-ceiling debate. There is no progressive message, not even a small bone offered up to progressives who might be able to swallow a short delay in implementation if there is some small sensible reason. Yet, time after time, Daley offers up those nuggets to the Chamber of Commerce, the Republican Party, and conservatives, presumably in the hope that some will be reasonable. There's a term for that. In some circles, some might call it insanity. I call it a failure to serve a wider constituency.

...[I]t's time for him to replace Daley with someone who is capable of crafting a stronger message and dealing with the right-wing idiots in Congress with a stronger hand. There was absolutely no reason for us to give up the advantage on Medicare that we had after Paul Ryan managed to lead Republicans right down the rabbit hole of destruction. The right wing was on the verge of self-destruction and instead of capitalizing on it, Daley's message seemed to affirm it. It would have been a good time for President Obama to have drawn a line. But as Chait notes:

And then, this summer, Obama let the G.O.P. hold the debt-ceiling vote hostage to extract spending cuts. I think he should have called the Republicans’ bluff and let them accept the risk of a financial meltdown. But the reason Obama chose to cut a deal is that calling their bluff might have resulted in catastrophe. And Obama made a point of back-loading the G.O.P.’s budget cuts so as not to contract the economy. He may have chosen wrongly, but he chose exactly the priorities liberals now insist he ignored-- favoring economic recovery over long-term goals.

Maybe. But do we hear this message? No. Where is Daley out there on the Sunday shows, pushing back on the idea that in hostage situations, the reasonable guy in the room will try to save the hostage? He's nowhere? Instead, week after week is filled with Republican messages and right-wing memes.

With friends like Daley, who needs enemies? It's time for President Obama to admit that his strategy of trying to co-opt the right-wing with a pro-business Republican type like Daley was a mistake, ask for his resignation, and put someone in there who will at least manage to get some liberal messaging out of the White House. We don't have time to wait. The election may well hang on what Bill Daley's next failure is.

Karoli never asks whose side Daley is really on (let alone Obama). Daley has never been and will never be on any side I'm on. He's a "Democrat" because it's part of the family business-- and his family has been an unending catastrophe for Democrats going back over 5 decades of reactionary, authoritarian and always, always, always unbelievably corrupt horror. If Obama thought he could find a worse chief of staff than Rahm Emanuel, he actually wins!

Yesterday's NY Times delved into the environmental debate that Obama has used to alienate his environmental allies.

Do environmental regulations kill jobs?

Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards.

Many economists agree that regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers. Factories may close because of the high cost of cleanup, or owners may relocate to countries with weaker regulations.

But many experts say that the effects should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors. Some argue that the costs can be offset as companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants, and others say that regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons, like a stagnant economy. As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created.

What’s more, some economists say, previous regulations, like the various amendments to the Clean Air Act, have resulted in far lower costs and job losses than industrial executives initially feared.

For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant emissions, the electric utility industry warned that they would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs. But the cost of the program has been closer to $1 billion, said Dallas Burtraw, an economist at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group on the environment. And the E.P.A., in a paper published this year, cited studies showing that the law had been a modest net creator of jobs through industry spending on technology to comply with it.

...In issuing new regulations, the administration says it weighs job creation and economic growth as carefully as it does health, safety and environmental impacts, a commitment enshrined in an executive order signed by the president earlier this year.

House Republicans say the administration is engaged in a spasm of rule-making that is retarding the nation’s economy and exacerbating persistently high unemployment. They have announced plans to review and repeal a catalog of environmental, labor and health care rules beginning this week.

Finding a middle ground is difficult, especially in the midst of heated political wrangling over how to cope with the sputtering economy. Businesses are focusing almost entirely on the costs. Environmental groups, meanwhile, tally up the benefits without paying much heed to the costs.

“My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.”

You think Sunstein cleared that remark with Daley? Maybe Daley wrote it for him. Those are the kinds of people Obama has chosen to surround himself with. Remember, he's the senator who picked Joe Lieberman as his mentor right after being elected. At one time he tried for a little balance and actually picked a few progressives here and there. Almost all of them are long gone from his disappointing administration.

Like former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who was an early adviser, one who was obviously ignored. Sunday Reich posted (and published in the NY Times) a very different kind of analysis about what ails America, which corporate shill and former bankster Bill Daley would never be able to comprehend.

The 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt-- which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income-- as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977-- the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion-- as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day-- growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007-- the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

Starting in the late 1970s, the middle class began to weaken. Although productivity continued to grow and the economy continued to expand, wages began flattening in the 1970s because new technologies-- container ships, satellite communications, eventually computers and the Internet-- started to undermine any American job that could be automated or done more cheaply abroad. The same technologies bestowed ever larger rewards on people who could use them to innovate and solve problems. Some were product entrepreneurs; a growing number were financial entrepreneurs. The pay of graduates of prestigious colleges and M.B.A. programs-- the “talent” who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street-- soared.

The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. (In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.) When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt. From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.

Eventually, of course, the bubble burst. That ended the middle class’s remarkable ability to keep spending in the face of near stagnant wages. The puzzle is why so little has been done in the last 40 years to help deal with the subversion of the economic power of the middle class. With the continued gains from economic growth, the nation could have enabled more people to become problem solvers and innovators — through early childhood education, better public schools, expanded access to higher education and more efficient public transportation.

We might have enlarged safety nets-- by having unemployment insurance cover part-time work, by giving transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, by creating insurance for communities that lost a major employer. And we could have made Medicare available to anyone.
Big companies could have been required to pay severance to American workers they let go and train them for new jobs. The minimum wage could have been pegged at half the median wage, and we could have insisted that the foreign nations we trade with do the same, so that all citizens could share in gains from trade.

We could have raised taxes on the rich and cut them for poorer Americans.

But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families. It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.) And it allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.

More generally, it stood by as big American companies became global companies with no more loyalty to the United States than a GPS satellite. Meanwhile, the top income tax rate was halved to 35 percent and many of the nation’s richest were allowed to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax. Inheritance taxes that affected only the topmost 1.5 percent of earners were sliced. Yet at the same time sales and payroll taxes-- both taking a bigger chunk out of modest paychecks-- were increased.

Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. In so doing, it allowed finance-- which until then had been the servant of American industry-- to become its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation’s profits. By 2007, financial companies accounted for over 40 percent of American corporate profits and almost as great a percentage of pay, up from 10 percent during the Great Prosperity.

Some say the regressive lurch occurred because Americans lost confidence in government. But this argument has cause and effect backward. The tax revolts that thundered across America starting in the late 1970s were not so much ideological revolts against government-- Americans still wanted all the government services they had before, and then some-- as against paying more taxes on incomes that had stagnated. Inevitably, government services deteriorated and government deficits exploded, confirming the public’s growing cynicism about government’s doing anything right.

...The real reason for America’s Great Regression was political. As income and wealth became more concentrated in fewer hands, American politics reverted to what Marriner S. Eccles, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, described in the 1920s, when people “with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game.” With hefty campaign contributions and platoons of lobbyists and public relations spinners, America’s executive class has gained lower tax rates while resisting reforms that would spread the gains from growth.

Yet the rich are now being bitten by their own success. Those at the top would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a large share of one that’s almost dead in the water.

The economy cannot possibly get out of its current doldrums without a strategy to revive the purchasing power of America’s vast middle class. The spending of the richest 5 percent alone will not lead to a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards. Nor can we rely on exports to fill the gap. It is impossible for every large economy, including the United States, to become a net exporter.

Reviving the middle class requires that we reverse the nation’s decades-long trend toward widening inequality. This is possible notwithstanding the political power of the executive class. So many people are now being hit by job losses, sagging incomes and declining home values that Americans could be mobilized.

The candidates Blue America is endorsing for Congress are people we believe will work to mobilize Americans in just the way Reich is suggesting. We hope you'll help them win election. The ultimate alternative is clear: fascism.

Selling Daley Like A Sack Of Old, Stinking Fish To The Public

I felt nearly as sick earlier this week, when I started hearing the Daley as chief of staff rumors, as I did when Obama sealed his fate just before taking over the White House by announcing that Rahm Emanuel would be his first chief of staff. Emanuel has been an unmitigated disaster for Obama and, worse yet, for the Democratic Party, and I really hope Daley will improve things but, I don't expect any miracles-- unless one interprets "improve things" to mean that Obama will get more credit for the yeoman's work he's been doing for Wall Street, Corporate America and the permanent, albeit shrinking, ruling class at the expense of society. People, including apparently President Obama's administration, mix up corporate profits with a strong, healthy economy for America. They're not the same. The growing disparity between rich and poor is very serious and dangerous and the fact that "earnings per share for all Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies are expected to have risen about 20 percent to $22.05 for the three months ended Dec. 31," doesn't mean nearly as much. It's nice that consumers have been duped into wanting iPads-- which aren't nearly as functional as Apple's own Air-- but they're made in China, the country that has really gained the most from U.S. economic policies under Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama.

But... but... but... the unemployment rate fell all the way to 9.4%, right? Smoke and mirrors, mostly, I'm afraid.

The Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in December, however much of the reason for the decline was a drop of 260,000 in the size of the labor force. The employment-to-population (EPOP) ratio inched up by 0.1 percentage points to 58.3 percent, but it is still 0.2 percentage points below the September level and just 0.1 percent above the low point for the downturn. The establishment survey showed the economy creating just 103,000 jobs in December.

On the whole, this report does not suggest a very positive picture of the labor market going into 2011. The decline in the unemployment rate is certainly positive, but with EPOPs hovering near their low point for the downturn, the main story appears to be people giving up looking for work. Furthermore, there is no sector that appears to be experiencing robust job growth at the moment, nor any likely candidates for the near future.

But Wall Street... happy days are here are again... and again... and again... and again. Everybody's happy about William Daley (the man whose #1 agenda item is reelecting Obama)-- the Conservative Consensus is having a mass orgasm-- as Karl Rove, the Bush Family and William Donahue of the poisonous Chamber of Commerce all belt out hosannas. They're as happy as Howard Dean and Robert Reich say they are. And the White House is determined to get peoples' minds off trifles like this. Ahh... the good old days:

The Bell company has lousy relationships with many state regulators and little Democratic support in Congress. Hiring former Commerce Secretary William Daley as its new president is expected to solve both problems. ... A political heavyweight, Daley is expected to wield his considerable influence on both state and national levels to garner the long-distance and broadband relief SBC has been seeking. ...

According to Scott Cleland, president of The Precursor Group, SBC has scored a coup by hiring Daley. ... “SBC has a regulatory minefield to traverse, and they need the best around to do it,” Cleland said. “They got him.” ...

Daley is well respected on both sides of Capitol Hill, said Simon Reeves, analyst for Pacific Crest Securities. “Because of his stature, SBC will be able to get access to people they might not otherwise,” Reeves said. “He will hold more sway than SBC’s existing lobbyists. Daley is another arrow in their quiver.” Being a Democrat doesn’t hurt, either. SBC is considered a Republican company led by a CEO who is close to President Bush, according to [former Illinois Commerce Commission chairman Terry] Barnich. “They need to shore up Democratic support in Congress, and Daley will help them do that.”

In Daley, SBC got the political clout it were looking for. Daley’s first assignment was to lobby Capitol Hill to pass the Tauzin-Dingell bill, which would have strengthened local phone companies’ monopolies. His biggest victory, not surprisingly, came in Illinois, where, according to Crain’s Chicago Business, Daley was SBC’s “chief lobbyist” on a bill that would let the company “start charging its rivals nearly twice as much” for using its network. (Daley has long maintained that he’s never been a lobbyist.) The measure was opposed by Democratic politicians locally (including the Democratic lieutenant governor and attorney general) and nationally: John Conyers labeled the bill “a national embarrassment. The Democratic Party is supposed to stand for consumers.” Yet SBC’s Daley-led lobbying, which included $200,000 in contributions to then-governor Rod Blagojevich’s campaign and inauguration committees, led to Blagojevich signing the bill into law just four days after it was first introduced in the state legislature. Crain’s called the speed “unheard of for non-emergency legislation. … Illinois consumers and small businesses will again be at the mercy of a local phone service monopoly.”

In fact, the bill was so anti-consumer that a federal judge blocked the rate-hike less than a month later. Many Democrats in the state legislature had gone along with Blagojevich, thoroughly cowed by Daley’s power. One of the few Dems to oppose Daley’s lobbying publicly was a young state senator, who explained his opposition by saying, “Ramrodding bills through because you’ve got the clout to do so-- rather than because you’ve got arguments on your side-- is not a good way to do the people’s business.” The state senator’s name? Barack Obama.

So how are they selling this crap on the open market of public opinion? The White House Talking Points:

* Bill Daley brings with him tremendous experience, strong values and a forward-looking vision to this White House. He will be critical to the President's mission of growing our economy and moving America forward.

* From his time as President Clinton's Commerce Secretary, Bill Daley has developed a profound awareness of how our systems of government and politics work. And his service in the private sector leading major corporations has given him a deep understanding of how to create jobs and grow our economy.

*The President is convinced that Bill Daley's leadership will benefit this White House as we work to confront the challenges facing the American people; he looks forward to working with him for years to come.

Oh, yeah, forget all my criticism; I'm jumping right on board this shitfest.



This is how Democrats used to campaign, long before so many party leaders sold out to Wall Street and Big Business. Rick Perlstein sent me this election-eve radio commercial starring Humphrey Bogart, Judy Garland and Groucho Marx for FDR's reelection. It's not slick by our Madison Avenue/Hollywood standards... but, wow!, did Democrats have balls back then! No wonder they consigned the GOP to the peanut gallery for decades! I wish Democratic politicians today could make the case for an activist government the way they did in those days. Do yourself a favor and listen all the way through:

http://ia700407.us.archive.org/5/items/Singles_And_Doubles_Singles_O-S/44-11-06epxxxxSpecialElectionShow-RooseveltforPresident.mp3

Bye-bye, Gibbsy, and don't worry, if anyone can find a worse WH mouthpiece, it'll be your boss

by Ken

Gibbs tells staffers he is leaving White House

By Anne E. Kornblut and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 11:46 AM

Robert Gibbs told White House staffers Wednesday that he is leaving his post as President Obama's press secretary, ending a two-year tenure that made him the face of the White House as he sparred with reporters and defended administration policies.

Gibbs plans to leave in early February and to become an outside political adviser for Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, administration officials said. A successor is expected to be announced in the next couple of weeks. . . .

I kind of checked out a few words into the next sentence, where our boy Gibbsy is described as "an affable Democrat from Alabama." Affable? That smug, supercilious, frequently lying son of a bitch? Affable?

Okay, in fairness, his lack of affability is a minor issue alongside his general wishy-woshiness and incoherence, and persistent uninformedness. After all, like all White House press secretaries, he was given only as much information as his bosses were willing to share with the public, and in this case it turns out to be very little, and when you've got basically nothing to say, wishy-woshiness and incoherence aren't so much vices as simply part of the job descrption.

Add to that how wishy-woshy and incoherent those bosses tend to be, and also the extent to which they really prefer that their real thinking not be a matter of public discussion. (After all, this way they can have the pleasure of hearing sympathetic outsiders attribute the administration's media difficulties to "poor communications" or "messaging difficulties.") In throwing stones at Gibbsy, we may truly just be blaming the messenger.

Surely nobody's thinking: His replacement can hardly be worse, can he? Come on, people! These are the smart folks who came up with the idea of replacing Master Rahm Emanuel with the Daley brother. Don't assume we won't someday be looking back on the Gibbsy Years as the Golden Age of Obama Media Communications.

So maybe I shouldn't be so touchy about the "affability" thing with Gibbsy. Maybe some people are just naturally easy to hate. However, my eyes did make it farther into that graf from the Post story, and there's a thought there that I'd like to salvage:

"According to three Democrats with White House knowledge, Gibbs in recent weeks had been exploring the possibility of leaving the White House, perhaps to set up his own consulting shop and play a leading role in the 2012 campaign."

Speaking as someone who would never wish to denigrate the insight of "three Democrats with White House knowledge," at least when the subject is inside-the-White House machinations, let me say that I find this totally credible. I've heard people, understandably surprised by the vagueness of Gibbsy's announced future plans, suggest that he has simply been cut loose by the administration -- you know, because he apparently isn't being slotted into a job like the briefly rumored DNC chairmanship. (Digging up my post of October 2, I find that I described the Gibbs-to-the-DNC trial balloon this way in a photo caption: "For a couple of hours this morning, White House spokesninny Robert 'Ooh, I Hate That Professional Left So-o-o Much' Gibbs was destined to become, er, the new Tim Kaine.")

It was already assumed that whenever Gibbs made his departure from the White House, he would be marking time for a role in the Obama reelection campaign. Am I the only one for whom this suggestion that he "set up his own consulting shop and play a leading role in the 2012 campaign" rings incredibly true? Think of the scandal Howie has been reporting about the incestuous relationship between the House Democratic leadership and the consultants to whom the DCCC funnels business. Conflict-of-interest-type corruption is no longer incidental or accidental -- it's structural!

So why should Gibbsy have to squeeze Tim Kaine where either Tim doesn't want to vacate or nobody else can be found to take the job? Why should Gibbsy have to wait till his "political player" days are over before he can start cashing in? Nowadays, you can stay in the game and still rake in those consultant suckerbucks!


CONFIDENTIAL TO BARACK O. --

About the political players who'll be raking in all those 2012 election-consultant suckerbucks: It has occurred to you that those consultants rake in their suckerbucks whether they help you win or lose, hasn't it?

Think about it.

#

Darrell Issa Sells His Committee To Big Business-- Even Before He Takes Over Officially!

There is some fiercer-than-usual jockeying among our degenerate political class for the limitless bribes Big Business is willing to pay to make sure their interests are well-served. That is the only true and enduring transpartisanship in DC. No one is scratching their head over Obama's apparent decision to name a corrupt Big Business hack like William Daley as his new chief of staff-- the perfect, if tragic, successor to Rahm Emanuel. It's about the benjamins, even more than about specific Chicago inbred politics. Daley was a top corporate bagman Commerce Secretary for Bill Clinton and is now the Midwest chairman of one of Wall Street's most outrageous criminal operations, JPMorgan Chase. Conventional wisdom is that the Big Business absolutist Daley "could help Obama repair frayed relations with the business community in time for 2012 fundraising." Yeah.

When the Democratically controlled House passed a series of outrageous tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires on December 17, 277-148, 139 Democrats-- one more than the 138 Republicans-- voted for the fatal "compromise." Are they all whores? Well... certainly all the Republicans are, and among the Democrats voting for Big Business' #1 priority were standout shills like Travis Childers (MS), Bobby Bright (AL), Melissa Bean (IL), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Glenn Nye (VA), Chris Carney (PA), Bill Foster (IL), Lincoln Davis (TN), John Adler (NJ), Jim Marshall (GA), John Boccieri (OH), Baron Hill (IN), Artur Davis (AL), Walt Minnick (ID), Frank Kratovil (MD), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Ike Skelton (MO), Harry Mitchell (AZ)... all of whom had already been defeated by the voters.

Of course, it's hardly only Obama and the Democrats who are up Wall Street's ass for campaign cash. The Republicans are fighting for every dime, and now that they're in power, lobbyists are once again in complete control of the House of Representatives. This week one of the GOP's biggest corporate whores-- himself the richest Member of the House-- signaled loud and clear that Big Business is getting the keys to the car back. Yes, I'm talking about the one and only Darrell Issa, one of the few Members of Congress to have been arrested, serially, for car thefts. (Interestingly, he purged his Wikipedia site of all references to his criminal activities this week.) 

Issa, now the chair of the House Oversight Committee, "wants the oil industry, drug manufacturers and other trade groups and companies to tell him which Obama administration regulations to target this year." He sent letters to more than 150 trade associations, companies and think tanks last month-- including Duke Energy, the Association of American Railroads, FMC Corp., Toyota, Bayer, the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association-- requesting a list of existing and proposed regulations that in right-wing parlance for pro-consumer/pro-environment legislation "would harm job growth."

Issa is getting his cue from and a voice to a chorus of largely disgruntled industry groups and companies that have collectively groaned about regulations in the pipeline and on the books.

"I believe for the last couple of years that we were honestly shut out of this debate at least on the House side," NPRA President Charles Drevna said. "Our policy positions haven't changed one iota. [But] is there a better chance of what I would consider a more fair hearing? Absolutely." Drevna received a letter from Issa late last month.

Issa has no qualms about giving Drevna and other administration critics a louder mouthpiece.

"As a trade organization with members that must comply with the regulatory state, I ask for your assistance in identifying existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in your members' industry," Issa wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to NAM. "Additionally, suggestions on reforming identified regulations and the rulemaking process would be appreciated."

The letter to NAM is a template for ones Issa sent other groups over the course of last month. In the NAM letter, Issa notes that federal agencies in fiscal year 2010 "promulgated 43 new regulations" ranging from new limits on "effluent" discharges from construction sites to rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. The "effluent" rule, Issa charged, will cost $810.8 million annually, resulting in the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs.

The list of regulatory grievances appears wide-ranging.

Rosario Palmieri, NAM’s vice president for regulatory policy, and Drevna both highlighted EPA greenhouse gas controls for major emitters that went into effect Sunday.

Palmieri said the group also highlighted in their response to Issa upcoming EPA decisions over whether to tighten limits on ground-level ozone and controlling hazardous air pollutants from incinerators and boilers.

Many Democrats and the environmental community certainly would push back on efforts to rein in EPA greenhouse and other controls simply in the name of preserving jobs. "The Clean Air Act is one of job creation, not job destruction, plain and simple," said Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund. These controls give companies "the lead time and certainty to invest and bring products to the market and actually create jobs."

NAM's "high-priority" regulatory list also includes OSHA consultation, noise and other policies, upcoming Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission controls regarding over-the-counter derivatives, Transportation Department limits on hours of service for truck drivers, and implementing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush.

"These are all high-priority regulations that can cost manufacturing jobs and will if implemented the wrong way or will as currently proposed or finalized," Palmieri said. "We're anxious for some oversight of these programs."

It's always useful to follow the money. Public Campaign did, and here's part of a memo they sent me yesterday about one of Congress' most egregious crooks:



Ahhh... Keith Dealt With Issa Last Night

And Jillian Barclay has moved to remedy the situation of the larcenous congressman who believes in rewriting history by deleting it from Wikipedia pages. In fact, she's been even more thorough than Wikipedia:

Of all the lies reportedly told by Darrell Issa, maybe the worst is that he guarded then President Nixon during the 1971 World Series Games. According to the Nixon Library, Nixon did not attend the World Series that year. To couple America's Greatest Pastime with a lie is unforgivable, but with Issa, that lie is the tip of the iceberg! In 1971, Issa was a 17 year old high school dropout who had enlisted in the Army. Records show that while in the Army, he did serve in an exclusive unit for less than six months, but that he was cited for bad conduct, suffered a demotion and accused of auto theft. The San Francisco Examiner ran a scathing article in May of 1998 which helped to derail Issa's then bid for Senate. The article researched Issa's actual military record and compared that to Issa's accounts of his military service and the results were devastating for Mr. Issa. The above allegations were a part of that article.

Further, Andy Cohen, writing for the San Diego News Network, reported on June 4, 2010 that Issa spent six months on a bomb disposal team while in a college ROTC program, which hardly qualified him for elite status.

Lies, open support of Hezbollah, multiple arrests for auto theft and weapons, shady land deals, suspicion of arson, alleged partner shakedowns and firing employees while toting a gun are enough to question the fitness of this Congressman! There is, sadly, for Mr. Issa, more. Mr. Issa made his millions from ownership of Directed Electronics, the largest car security company in the world. The famous Viper alarm carries Issa's own voice. The manner in which Issa obtained the company has been questioned as less than ethical.

Issa reportedly invested $7000.00 in a company called AC Custom, which was owned by Joseph Adkins. Mr. Adkins reports that the company had several millions of dollars in sales yearly. Adkins borrowed $60,000.00 dollars from Issa and used his company as collateral for the loan. When he was late on the repayment of the loan, he says that he asked Issa for an extension and Issa agreed. But a few days after that conversation, Issa appeared in an Ohio court and asked for a judgment of default against Adkins. Issa took advantage of a law in Ohio that allowed a creditor to come into court without notifying the debtor and in that way, obtained the judgment. According to Adkins, Issa then phoned him and told him that he was now the boss. Adkins was shocked and to this day, claims Issa is a thief who cheated him out of his business.

Shortly after assuming ownership of AC Electronics is when the suspicious fire took place, but not before Issa quadrupled the insurance coverage and removed blueprints and a computer from the premises. The fire was determined to be arson and Darrell Issa is still considered a suspect. It was reported in the Daily Kos that one of Issa's brothers who helped in the clean-up of the fire showed up with the hair singed off one of his arms. For more on Issa and arson, link to: http://dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/145836/417.

Yes He Can... Find Someone As Bad As Rahm To Run His Office

I grew up with a cast of bipartisan political enemies handed to me by my grandfather. Although many were Republicans, back then just as many were conservative Democrats, overwhelmingly southern Dixiecrats who ALL became Republicans or died before they got around to switching. But there were some really bad northern Democrats too and one of the worst of all was Mayor Daley. And for people of my generation, Mayor Daley, meant Richard J. Daley, Chicago's mayor for 21 years and a powerhouse in the Democratic Party, a powerhouse always on the wrong side of history. He was the posterchild for political corruption, though he always personally managed to escape formal charges. He was also an unrepentant bigot and authoritarian. During the infamous Democratic Convention in 1968-- which resulted in the election of Richard Nixon, Daley presided over a police riot and screamed "Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch" at Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff when he referred to Daley's Gestapo tactics.

Daley's oldest son, Richard M. Daley, elected in 1989, is the only man in history to have served as Chicago's mayor longer than his father. The traditionally Republican downtown interests support him despite his party. He's every bit a Conservative Consensus kind of guy. He's retiring now and making way for someone every bit as ruthless and corrupt as the Daleys, Rahm Emanuel, another Conservative Consensus dedicated follower of cash flows.

Richard J.'s youngest son, William M. Daley, was Clinton's second-term Commerce Secretary, a usually shady position reserved for shady characters whose main function is to fill party coffers. In 2004 he was made Midwest Chairman of J.P. Morgan, long one of Wall Street's most criminal enterprises. Yesterday it came to light that Obama is likely to appoint William M. chief-of-staff, keeping the whole Chicago political Mafia thing very much intact. In fact, Daley and Emanuel worked together to strong-arm Democrats in Congress who opposed NAFTA, which Big Business was demanding and which Clinton promised he would deliver.

This Daley is widely credited with being Rahm's mentor. In late 2009, when far right Dixiecrat Parker Griffith jumped the fence and officially joined the GOP, Daley penned an OpEd for the Washington Post defending Blue Dogism and Emanuel's anti-progressive jihad as former head of the DCCC. And he celebrated "a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy." He was a bastion of the Conservative Consensus which had come to power with Obama.

On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

...All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals-- and, indeed, all of us-- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

In his editorial, Daley got it all wrong. Voters rejected what he calls "moderate Democrats" but what are clearly conservatives who reflexively vote against the interests of working families and with the Republicans to back the Big Business status quo-- his own brand of Conservative Consensus Democrat. The Blue Dogs were decimated in November-- over half their anti-family Caucus was defeated (the explanation for what looked like a rejection of the Democratic Party). Disillusioned, disappointed, unmotivated Democrats just did not show up at the polls and dozens of Daley's and Rahm's misnamed "moderates" were swept out of office. With Daley as his chief of staff, a similar fate could be in store for Obama in 2012 and, much worse, for more congressional Democrats. Daley's clearly and unambiguously a Wall Street shill (the way Rahm is) and he's on the take. His advice to Obama will always be wrongheaded and will lead to more anti-family GOP policies (from NAFTA-like trade policies to the dismantling of Social Security) not just gaining traction and enactment but being blamed-- rightfully-- on Democrats.

Did you ever imagine Obama could find a worse chief of staff than Emanuel? I had faith in him that he could do it, although I never imagined it would be as grotesque as Daley. I'm guessing the guys and gals at OpenSecrets, which keeps tabs on all the sleaze-- and has all the Daley stats-- wasn't in the least bit surprised.


UPDATE: The Plot Thickens

Supposedly, at least according to Howard Fineman, the White House is also considering Acting Chief of Staff Pete Rouse, ethically-suspect Tom Daschle, and former DLC Chair, former Agriculture Secretary and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Sounds like Daley has it sewn up. Sam Stein broke the story today that Daley has publicly opposed healthcare reform and that he "was not exactly enamored with a new consumer financial protection agency, a key element of the plan and one of the president's most cherished provisions, going so far as to lobby White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to drop the idea."