carapace – Not your father's america

02/05/2012 01

By Ed Quillen

Slouched in my overstuffed chair, I had a good book near a warm fire, and I could feel a welcome attack of sloth coming on. Of course, the telephone had to ring then. It was my favorite inside source, Ananias Ziegler, media relations director for the Committee That Really Runs America.

As soon as I recognized his voice, I interrupted him. "If you’re a Voice of the Republican Establishment telling me Mitt Romney’s the One and I should attack Newt Gingrich, don’t even try."

"What, you like Newt?" Ziegler sounded nonplussed. "I have a hard time believing that, since you’re a Democrat."

"That’s why," I explained. "It does my bleeding heart good to hear him rip into robot Romney. I hope he keeps it up until August."

Ziegler sighed. "That’s what the Committee worries about."

"So why don’t you do something about it?" I asked.

"Our powers are limited," Ziegler explained. "We did manage to turn Romney into what he is now from what he had been, a pro-choice supporter of gay-rights and socialized medicine, somebody you might have voted for. But we can’t make Newt consistently sound sane."

"That would be a challenge," I consoled.

Ziegler snorted agreement. "He’ll talk about things that people care about, like jobs and houses. Then he’ll babble about making a state out of a lunar colony. And to think we used to call Jerry Brown ‘Governor Moonbeam.’ "

Ziegler switched gears. "What’s your take on Rick Santorum? You know he’s been endorsed by some of your fellow Coloradans like Tom Tancredo, Bob Shaffer and Jane Norton."

"Three losers," I pointed out. "Plus, how can Santorum go around campaigning for a smaller government when he wants one big enough to patrol every uterus in America?"

"He never said that," Ziegler harrumphed. "This is a fabrication from the Biased Liberal Media."

"What else could it mean when he says life begins at conception and all abortion should be outlawed? He’s even opposed to birth control for married people," I pointed out.

"I never thought of it that way," Ziegler replied, He changed the subject. "Got a take on Ron Paul?"

"I like his views on drugs and foreign policy," I confessed. "But I haven’t liked Ron Paul ever since I heard him speak years ago and he made fun of siestas. I cherish my siestas and I’ll never vote for anyone who questions them."

Ziegler said I should have a more open mind, and further, I should quit opposing candidates just because they say hateful things about the chattering class. "Really, it’s not becoming for you to despise them just because they despise you. You need to rise above that."

"They seem to hate the financially challenged, too," I complained.

Ziegler pointed out that I could use a personality transplant, "Help me out a little here," he continued. "Your state has its Republican caucuses next week, and the Committee would like to know what you Coloradans are talking about these days, aside from Tim Tebow."

That was easy. "Rep. Laura Bradford." I briefly explained the situation, but Ziegler interrupted.

"I know about that," he said, "and I’m sure we’ll eventually find out whether she tried to pull rank after she was pulled over. So why all the talk?"

"I think it’s because someone who had an encounter with the Denver police did not get beat up or mistreated," I explained. "After the stuff we’ve seen, with cops pounding people, lying about, and still keeping their jobs, people figure she must have pulled rank if she was treated politely."

"You know what? I don’t think I’ll have time to visit Colorado," Ziegler said before hanging up.

Freelance columnist Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a regular contributor to The Post.

Read more: Quillen: The voice of the GOP establishment – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/quillen/ci_19881534#ixzz1liWjMMQd

Sarah Jaffe / AlterNet

Jan Brewer has decided to get in on the union-busting action, introducing a bill that makes Ohio’s and Wisconsin’s attacks on public workers look mild.

February 5, 2012 |

Photo Credit: AFP

Not content to let Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Ohio’s John Kasich get all the fame (and recall elections, and ballot referenda) for their attempts to curtail union workers’ rights, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators have jumped into the fray and proposed their own anti-union bills in recent weeks.

Along with South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, Arizona’s Jan Brewer, not content with making her state the least friendly to immigrants and people of color, has decided to get in on the union-busting action as well, introducing a bill that makes Walker’s and Kasich’s attacks on public workers look mild.

Brewer, the Republican left in charge of the state after President Obama tapped Janet Napolitano to be his Secretary of Homeland Security, has been planning anti-union moves since last spring with the backing of the Goldwater Institute. (Named for Barry Goldwater, the think tank pushes for “freedom” and “prosperity”–as long as it’s not the freedom or prosperity of state workers.)

It’s not just Arizona’s right-wingers who are pushing Brewer to beat up on unions–John Nichols at the Nation notes that Walker may have had a hand in helping push an anti-labor agenda, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is involved. In a speech to the right-wing policy shop behind many of these anti-union bills last year, Brewer complained about her inability to fire government employees and supervisors’ difficulty “disciplining” workers.

This week, the Republicans in the state legislature introduced moves that would make collective bargaining for public workers completely illegal. Here, we break down what you need to know about Brewer and the GOP’s anti-worker agenda.

1. The bill would go further than Wisconsin’s, making collective bargaining completely illegal for government workers.

SB 1485, the first of the bills to take on union rights, declares that no state agency can recognize any union as a bargaining agent for any public officer or worker, collectively bargain with any union, or meet and confer with any union for the purpose of discussing bargaining.

. . .

READ MORE

Trust Us; We’re the Government

“While much has been made recently of the President’s unconstitutional appointment of Richard Cordray to be director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), lost in the hubbub has been any discussion of the unconstitutionality of, or the need for, the CFPB itself. Proponents of the CFPB claim that this new bureaucracy will help consumers by protecting them from fraudulent activity. In reality, it will only expose consumers to more financial harm…”

Click here to read the full article: http://bit.ly/xDPmqE

Taking Stock of the STOCK Act

Volume XVII No. 5: February 3, 2012

Yesterday the Senate voted 96-3 to approve a bill prohibiting lawmakers from making stock trades using insider knowledge they garner from their duties. When you see a lopsided vote, you know it’s either a completely non-controversial issue (like that nail biter 97-0 vote for a resolution to honor the people who helped kill Osama Bin Laden) or it’s something that looks good but does little.

As we wrote a couple weeks ago — the STOCK Act falls in the latter category. It’s a big anti-corruption sugar pill.

That didn’t stop lawmakers from heading to the floor offering banal rhetoric about how most likely no lawmakers traded insider trading information, and if they did, it would already be against the law. And after the STOCK Act, it would really be against the law. Wow.

Some lawmakers tried to toughen the law up. Senators Brown (D-OH) and Merkley (D-OR) offered an amendment that would require lawmakers and senior staff to either sell off stocks that represent a conflict of interest or put them in a blind trust. Clearly blind trusts aren’t a panacea, but it would be a good step in the right direction. Except the Senate rejected the amendment 26-73.

There were also dueling amendments that were intended to extend the STOCK Act to the Executive branch (where, like Congress, insider trading rules already apply). Both amendments, offered by Sens. Shelby (R-AL) and Lieberman (I-CT), passed. So now the Executive branch doubly knows they can’t trade with insider information.

The bill also ginned up dueling amendments on another controversial subject that has been the subject of corruption scrutiny in the past: earmarks. Sens. McCaskill (D-MO) and Toomey (R-PA) sought to turn the current moratorium on earmarks — those special interest spending provisions that used to litter spending bills — into an outright statutory ban. That gave rise to an amendment by one of the Senate’s biggest earmark apologists — Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — that would institutionalize earmarks under the guise of reform. Both failed, though the ban garnered 40 votes, almost twice as many as Sen. Inhofe’s amendment.

Still, in a Congress that has done little in the past year, the bill moved from the Senate like greased lightning (in Senate terms that equals a few days). And now it heads to the House for more posturing. House Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) has said he wanted to "strengthen" the bill and then talked about extending it to the Executive branch. Been there, done that — twice.

What Congress really needs is to pass real reform, blind trusts, conflict of interest restrictions, and greater availability of information. As we wrote before, it’s not just about insider trading; it’s about trafficking insider knowledge. There’s a whole industry that’s grown up around legislative intelligence. The best way to shut down that industry is to make more information public. Information is power, and Congress is an information hoarder. There has been progress in the last years, but Congressional hearing information, reports, and documents all need to be made more widely available, understandable, and usable.

The bottom line is that few people are good at policing themselves and Congress is no different. But, it’s time to shame them into action. The House shouldn’t just swallow the weak Senate bill. They should make it stronger. It’s early enough in the legislative session (277 possible legislating days until the 2012 election) that the House can pass a stronger bill and the Senate can take it up.

Okay Congress, it’s time to be a representative of the people, not just play one on C-SPAN.

###

Let us know what you think.

To keep up with the latest TCS news, follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/taxpayers Facebook: facebook.com/taxpayers and Youtube: youtube.com/taxpayersvideo

Learn how Congress can exceed $1.5 trillion in cuts!

Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form

Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week

FAA Reauthorization: EAS reforms fail taxpayers
Taxpayer-Backed Loan Guarantees for Liquid Coal: Medicine Bow, Wyoming
Oil Profits Stay High; Needless Subsidies Continue
Speaker’s "Drilling for Transportation Dollars" Proposal: A Dead End for Taxpayers [Updated 2/1/2012]
Counting on Speculative Oil and Gas Revenues to Fund our Transportation Needs is Fiscally Reckless

TCS Earmark Databases

TCS Preliminary Earmark Analysis for FY 2011
Download FY2010 Earmark Database
Earmark Frequently Asked Questions

TCS in the News
TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our website.

Notable Quote

"We have to get our fiscal house in order by reaching a big and balanced deficit reduction plan this year…Such a plan requires both getting a handle on spending and raising revenue."

– Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House. (LA Times)

Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments

From: Weekly Wastebasket www.taxpayer.net

Following the controversy surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s initial announcement that it would end its relationship with Planned Parenthood, right-wing media have tried to downplay Planned Parenthood’s efforts to fight cancer, claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms and does "nothing to prevent breast cancer." But this ignores the numerous cancer-related services Planned Parenthood annually provides to women — including more than 1.5 million cancer screenings and preventative services in 2010 — such as breast exams, mammogram referrals, and screenings for other types of cancer; moreover, contrary to right-wing claims, some Planned Parenthood clinics do indeed provide mammograms.

Read More

Sarah Seltzer / AlterNet

Here are the key issues and facts about this story, which shows no sign of slowing down.

February 2, 2012 

By now, unless you’re living on Mars, your newspaper reports, radio waves, Facebook and Twitter streams are being swamped with stories, images and chattering about the shocking decision of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s most ubiquitous breast cancer awareness foundation, to essentially sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.

Within a few short days, Komen’s "choice" went from being a heavy blow against women’s health to a heavy blow against them–and victory for Planned Parenthood supporters. On Friday morning, February 3rd, Komen issued a (weak) apology and agreed to keep funding to Planned Parenthood–although pro-choicers remained dubious that full funding would be restored without pressure. But it was too late for their brand; once people started investigating Komen, its non-partisan, mainstream image was tarnished by some unpleasant revelations.

The initial, disheartening move to end funding, ostensibly due to the latter’s being "under investigation" (a bogus congressional investigation spurred by the right wing) was clearly politically motivated, despite weak denials from Komen officials. It’s unleashed a hail of criticism and controversy that seems as large, if not even larger, than when Planned Parenthood was under threat of being defunded by the federal government. Whether Americans were suspicious of Komen to begin with or just fed up with the politicization of women’s health, this feels like the last straw.

The reality is that between the backlash and the uncomfortable facts that have been bubbling to the surface about Komen’s way of conducting business, the story has shifted from the war on Planned Parenthood to the campaign against the truth being waged by "Big Pink." Here are the key facts and context you need to know about this story, which tore through the news cycle for several days, the most decisive pro-choice victory in a while.

1. Although it started off as a blow, this ended up as a PR disaster for Komen–and a win for Planned Parenthood.

. . .

READ MORE