“I did see that Tina Fey was named entertainer of the year and Katie Couric’s ratings have risen. And I know that a lot of people are capitalizing on, oh I don’t know, perhaps some exploiting that was done via me, my family, my administration. That’s a little bit perplexing, but it also says a great deal about our society.” –Sarah Palin, victim http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17217.html

Gaza: UN Calls for Cease-fire: The fighting and attendant civilian casualties is now an old story. The humanitarian situation only worsens- The fighting has prevented the Red Cross from continuing aid shipments which were temporarily suspended after UN trucks came under Israeli fire and suffered casualties.

On a day of rising tension between Israel and international relief agencies, the Red Cross and the United Nations curtailed operations in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Thursday, and the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Palestinian territory. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-gaza9-2009jan09,0,6167413.story

The ‘good’ news: The new shelling coming from Lebanon early Thursday has not continued and no one has claimed responsibility. And, at least talk continues about a cease-fire:

The U.N. Security Council has approved a resolution calling for an immediate and durable cease-fire between Hamas militants and Israeli forces now fighting in the Gaza Strip. Thursday night's vote was 14-0 with the United States abstaining.

The vote followed three days of intense negotiations between ministers from key Arab nations and the council's veto-wielding Western powers _ the United States, Britain and France.

Despite the U.N. decision, it will be up to Israel and Hamas to decide to stop their military activities. But the United States, Israel's closest ally, and Arab nations that have close ties to Hamas negotiated the text of the resolution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010800325_pf.html

The Bush-Cheney Contribution: How we got there:

The Bush administration encouraged Israel to withdraw from Gaza and demolish its settlements there, arguing that it was a step forward on peace. But, as a condition, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 demanded a letter from President Bush in which the United States conceded two critical peace issues on settlements and refugees to Israel. The Israeli government later cited the letter as giving implicit permission to continue some settlement expansion during peace talks brokered late in the Bush administration, undermining those efforts.

The Bush administration also did not effectively push Israel to negotiate its 2005 withdrawal from Gaza with [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas, who had just been elected president after [Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser] Arafat died. Abbas wanted to demonstrate that he could negotiate with the Israelis, but Jerusalem withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, as had been the plan when Arafat was still alive.

Ghaith al-Omari, a former top Abbas aide, remembers bitterly that Hamas strung up a huge banner after Israeli troops departed: 'Three Years of Intifada Beat Ten Years of Negotiations.'

"Hamas took all the credit for the withdrawal,” Omari said. “It was a clear strategic mistake.”

Then the United States pushed for legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in early 2006, hoping for a demonstration of democracy on the march in the Middle East. The Israelis tried to sound a warning about including Hamas on the election list. In October 2005, then-Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (now foreign minister) flew to Washington to plead that Hamas not be permitted to run, only to be told by U.S. officials: 'Don't worry, Hamas won't win.'

Hamas defeated Fatah, instantly elevating its status and spawning the crisis that led to today's conflict. Hamas eventually took over all of Gaza, giving it the ability to terrorize Israeli cities with increasingly sophisticated rockets." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010602868.html

Targeting Holder: The principal target for the GOP. The obvious reason: to delay / preempt investigations/prosecutions of Bush-Cheney officials.

Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents.

Details of the role played by Holder, who was deputy attorney general at the time, had not been publicly known until now. The new details are of particular interest because Republican senators have vowed to revisit Holder's role during his confirmation hearings next week. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-holder9-2009jan09,0,2083528.story

Obama Economics: The numbers are awful, which hopefully will now apprise Americans as to the extent/seriousness of this “downturn.” For instance:

Private sector jobs fell 693,000 in the U.S. in December, according to a revamped national employment report published Wednesday by payroll giant Automatic Data Processing Inc. and consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers.

That’s far higher than the 515,000 loss forecast in a Dow Jones Newswires survey.

The December ADP survey is the first to incorporate a major overhaul of the methodology, including new regressions. The changes were introduced because the ADP survey has underestimated the monthly number of job losses as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since the recession began in December 2007.

For instance, under the old calculations, the ADP Survey showed a loss of 250,000 private-sector jobs in November. The new methodology shows a 476,000 job drop in November, closer to the 533,000 reported by the BLS. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/07/adp-reports-693000-private-sector-jobs-lost-in-decemb

And, China isn’t willing to play ball:

China has bought more than $1 trillion of American debt, but as the global downturn has intensified, Beijing is starting to keep more of its money at home, a move that could have painful effects for American borrowers.

The declining Chinese appetite for United States debt, apparent in a series of hints from Chinese policy makers over the last two weeks, with official statistics due for release in the next few days, comes at an inconvenient time.

On Tuesday, President-elect Barack Obama predicted the possibility of trillion-dollar deficits “for years to come,” even after an $800 billion stimulus package. Normally, China would be the most avid taker of the debt required to pay for those deficits, mainly short-term Treasuries, which are government i.o.u.’s.

In the last five years, China has spent as much as one-seventh of its entire economic output buying foreign debt, mostly American. In September, it surpassed Japan as the largest overseas holder of Treasuries.

But now Beijing is seeking to pay for its own $600 billion stimulus — just as tax revenue is falling sharply as the Chinese economy slows. Regulators have ordered banks to lend more money to small and medium-size enterprises, many of which are struggling with lower exports, and to local governments to build new roads and other projects. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/worldbusiness/08yuan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print

Dean Baker looks at the extent of the collapse: This is no mere down-turn:

As for 2009, the ongoing collapse of the housing bubble, the coming collapse of the commercial real estate bubble, and the ensuing wave of bad debt will all be major sources of drag on the U.S. economy—even if the dollar bust happens later.

Indeed, subprime mortgages were just the trigger for a much broader crisis. Plunging house prices are now leading to record default rates on prime loans as well, with most of the fallout ahead of us. We’ll also see much higher default rates on car loans, credit card debt, and other forms of consumer debt, because homeowners can no longer draw on their home equity to pay other debt.

Commercial real estate faces its own reckoning. When the housing market began to fade at the end of 2005, it kicked off a boom in nonresidential construction. In less than three years, this sector expanded more than 40 percent. There is now considerable excess capacity in retail space, office space, hotels, and other nonresidential sectors—leading to falling prices, plunging construction, and another major source of bad debts for banks.

In short, beware the happy talk from those who say we are “turning the corner,” ignore the daily ups and downs of the market, and tighten your belts. This is going to hurt. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/watch-the-dollar/

Obama turned up the urgency meter in his press conference on Wednesday, but stuck to generalities in his Thursday talk. Then again, he’s not president. But his reserving 40% of the package for tax cuts is troubling, as it’s basically a political-psychological ploy. As a result there isn’t enough ‘bang’ in the package. With Obama’s and Harry Reid’s desire to make this as bi-partisan as possible, a delay of critical weeks seems inevitable- mid-February- instead of being executed with the vigor with which Congress addressed the Wall Street bail-out.

As Paul Krugman explains, Obama’s “stimulus” will be less than half of what is needed:

The new CBO budget and economic outlook is out. Above is its forecast for the GDP gap — the hole stimulus has to fill. I’d guess that the CBO estimate, which has unemployment averaging 8.3 percent in 2009 and 9 percent in 2010, is actually too optimistic (see 3, below), but even so it puts the Obama plan in perspective: a 3% of GDP plan, with a significant share going to ineffective tax cuts, to fill an 8% or more gap. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

The grim outlook for the next 10 years: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

Everyone but GOP Congressional Leadership seems to be on Obama’s Left, calling for, in general, “boldness,” or with specificity, upwards of 1 trillion.

To a degree that would have been unimaginable two years ago, economists and politicians from across the political spectrum have put aside calls for fiscal restraint and decided that Congress should spend whatever it takes to rescue the economy.

A startling range of name-brand economists -- Martin Feldstein of Harvard and a top adviser to Republican presidents; Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign; and Robert B. Reich, secretary of labor under President Clinton -- urged Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday to think more boldly than ever before."

…Economists and politicians alike admit they are in uncharted territory. They are looking at an economic downturn far worse than any in the past half-century — and nobody knows how deep it will prove to be. “We have never been here before,” Mr. Reich said. “If anybody tells you they know exactly what to do, don’t believe them.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08fiscal.html?pagewanted=print

Even the Democrats are mixed. Chuck Schumer is positive. Others:

Even as President-elect Barack Obama was giving a major address on his economic stimulus plan, it was running into trouble with key members of his own party on Capitol Hill.

Several Senate Democrats emerged from a closed-door meeting of the Senate Finance Committee saying they oppose central tax provisions of the proposal.

In particular, members said they did not think the idea of giving employers a $3,000 tax credit for each employee they hire would work.

“I’m not that excited about that,” Sen. John Kerry told CNN. “Having a tax credit for hiring is not going to change that dynamic — creating a direct job will. So I’d rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion and other kinds of things, much more directly and much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job.”

Sen. Kent Conrad agreed. “I think it’s unlikely to be effective,” the North Dakota senator told CNN. “If you think about it, business people are not going to hire people to produce products that are not selling. Who is going to hire in the auto industry if you give them a $3,000 credit to make cars that people are not buying?”

A second Obama tax proposal several Democrats said they were down on is payroll tax credits — amounting to about $20 per paycheck, and totaling $500 per person and $1,000 for couple earning less that $200,000 a year.

Sen. Ron Wyden said he doubted that proposal to would do much to stimulate the economy. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/08/key-senate-democrats-blast-obama-tax-proposals/

Obama Targeting /Reforming Medicare and Social Security Up to now some of us have registered disappointment about some of Obama’s appointments [- note: John Brennan, who was thwarted in his desire to be CIA director, has been picked as Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor; it doesn’t require senate approval. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010804108.html ]- I found the selective mention of S.S. and Medicare to be the most off-putting move by Obama. Why seize on these two, especially in such a vulnerable era? If wanting to take credit for addressing big issues, why cite them and leave out the most wasteful area- the military/Defense- or Big Agriculture?

Changes in Social Security and Medicare will be central to efforts to bring federal spending in line, President-elect Barack Obama said on Wednesday, as the Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year.

“We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part” of efforts to curb federal spending, Mr. Obama said at a news conference. By February, he said, “we will have more to say about how we’re going to approach entitlement spending.”

Alluding to the projected deficit, which was accompanied by grim unemployment predictions, Mr. Obama said: “And we know that our recovery and reinvestment plan will necessarily add more. My own economic and budget team projects that, unless we take decisive action, even after our economy pulls out of its slide, trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come.”

Mr. Obama did not offer specifics on how he would address Social Security and Medicare, nor was there any hint that he expects to ask Congress to approve draconian cuts in benefits. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Health care: Daschle reassures- ‘It won’t be a Democratic plan!’ Yes, the Republicans win and put their programs in. The Democrats win and look to compromise or neuter themselves. Then again, only a handful- John Conyers being the most notable- are pushing public funded health care. This is about ‘reforming’ health care and saving a bit of money, not putting us on a plain with France, Britain, Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, etc.

Former Senator Tom Daschle pledged on Thursday to work with lawmakers of both parties in a grass roots, ideology-free campaign to revamp the nation’s struggling health care system…

Mr. Daschle, the point man for Mr. Obama’s campaign to revamp the health care system, supports the concept of “a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare.” It would, he says, give consumers, especially the uninsured, an alternative to commercial insurance offered by companies like Aetna, Humana and WellPoint.

But the proposal is anathema to many insurers, employers and Republicans. They say the government plan would have unfair advantages, like the ability to impose lower fees, and could eventually attract so many customers that private insurers would be driven from the market.

“The public plan option is a terrible idea — one of our top concerns in the health reform debate,” said James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

The public plan, as conceived by Mr. Obama, would vie with private insurers to provide better benefits and better customer service at a lower cost. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/politics/09daschle.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Mississippi: #1 in abstinence education, #1 in teen pregnancy: Coincidence, I’m sure:

The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.

While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:

Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]

If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/teen-pregnancy/

Gay Rights: Barney Frank confidently predicts: Jeffrey Toobin profiles:

Frank is uncharacteristically hopeful about the future, including gay rights. “We’re going to do three things in Congress,” he told me. “First, a hate-crimes bill—that shouldn’t be too hard. Next, employment discrimination. We almost got that through before, but now we can win even if we add transgender protections, which we are going to do. And finally, after the troops get home from Iraq, gays in the military. The time has come.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/12/090112fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all

-R