Thursday, March 04, 2010
Financial Reform: Consumer Protection Agency: Neutered? Barney Frank has expressed alarm; Elizabeth Warren is concerned:
While members of the Senate Banking Committee debate proposals to fix the nation's broken financial system and ineffective approach to protecting consumers, Elizabeth Warren has one message: Pass a strong bill or nothing at all.
"My first choice is a strong consumer agency," the Harvard Law professor and federal bailout watchdog said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor."
There's been a steady leak of Senate proposals to fix the dysfunctional way federal regulators protect consumers from abusive lenders. One was an independent unit housed within the Treasury Department; another was a new entity, housed in the Federal Reserve, with little independence or power.
The Senate shouldn't waste its time, asserts Warren, explaining that current proposals fail to address some of her key priorities such as arming the proposed agency with independent rule-making authority, without interference by bank regulators.
"My 99th choice is some mouthful of mush that doesn't get the job done," Warren said.
The Fed proposal, attributed to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), was leaked earlier this week. Corker is working with Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) on Dodd's update to his November bill to reform the nation's financial system.
Warren spent Tuesday on the phone with reform groups, members of Congress and administration officials, rallying support for a new independent agency tasked solely with protecting consumers. Many of them were skeptical that Corker is willing to agree to let the entity have real independence, an aide to Warren said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/fight-for-the-cfpa-is-a-d_n_483707.html
Repealing NAFTA effort A long shot, but…
The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.
"At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work," Taylor said.
He argued NAFTA has cost the United States millions of manufacturing jobs and hurt national security by encouraging companies to move production to Mexico.
The high unemployment rate makes it the "perfect" time to push for repeal even though past efforts have failed, he said.
"You'll see the American people rally behind this, in my humble opinion," said Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who is one of about 28 co-sponsors of the bill.
Business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly support NAFTA, which they say has spurred U.S. economic growth by tearing down trade barriers between the three countries. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233MS20100304?type=politicsNews
RNC and Blackwater: A Perfect Marriage A RNC fundraiser, hosted by Blackwater
The Republican National Committee plans to hold an April fundraiser at a Moyock, N.C. compound owned by the military contracting firm formerly known as Blackwater, Politico reports.
According to an RNC fundraising document uncovered on Wednesday, RNC "Young Eagles" -- party major donors under 40 -- will meet at the facility in the spring.
Also on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has written a letter to the Justice Department asking for an investigation of Raytheon's alleged use of the Blackwater subsidiary, Paravant, for a contract in Afghanistan.
Levin has also suggested that the Pentagon should no longer consider granting a $1 billion contract to Xe Services LLC (formely, Blackwater) due to "serious questions" about the contractor's conduct.
It was recently reported that Blackwater employees took hundreds of firearms from both the U.S. Military and Afghan police forces using the South Park alias "Eric Cartman." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/blackwater-rnc-fundraiser_n_485687.html
Health Care: E.J. Dionne on Republican hypocrisy and recent lies:
Republicans… don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.
It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.
In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."
No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?
Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package,” which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097_pf.html
Republicans Dump on their Own An embarrassment or worse for the Republican National Committee, as a document detailing their fundraising plan for their small and major donors is found and dispatched to the media. Their fundraising pitch to their own pushes the fear of Obama and Socialism, focusing on the “Evil Empire” of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. The only surprising aspect is the tone this document demonstrated toward their own donors, referring to them as “ego driven” or “reactionary.”
The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on "fear" of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and "tchochkes."
The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.
… The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html
Addressing Global Warming: The need for Fuel Taxes: Making the case, which would have us pay prices that approach what Europeans have long paid.
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/
Scott Brown: Still on his Honeymoon Following his predicted initial “independent” vote, Brown now shows us his core values: First, he supports Jim Bunning in his filibuster that temporarily shut down highway projects, threatened unemployment checks; Now, he proposes a tax cut- another $500 for taxpayers supposedly to be the best use of “unused stimulus funds,” i.e. more deficit spending. Have we already forgotten how wasteful those previous checks were?
Almost one month to the day of entering the U.S. Senate after a race that rocked the political world, Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA, has come out with his first piece of legislation --- a tax cut.
It targets mostly working class Americans, those employees making up to about $200,000, with a temporary tax cut that would, according to data released from Brown's office, save the average worker "about $100 a month for a total of at least $500 for individuals and $1,000 for working couples."
Brown will win few, if any, Democratic supporters, however, as he seeks to pay for the entire amendment with "all unallocated stimulus funds," of which Brown estimates there is "over $80 billion."
There has not yet been a full analysis of the bill, which offers the tax cut for a six month period, which determines its price tag, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Brown's office, in a statement, said, "Families could immediately use their returned tax dollars to provide for their families and put back into the struggling economy to spur job creation." http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/03/scott-brown-wants-to-give-you-a-tax-cut/
Reagan and the $50 bill: The Reagan Legacy Project has already named a federal office building for him in every state, plus roadways, Washington National airport, etc. Now, they want to replace U.S. Grant on the $50 bill. You’d think this guy and his tax cuts for the rich and ‘we can survive a limited nuclear war’ was someone to honor!
A U.S. congressman from North Carolina wants the $50 bill redrawn to feature the face of former President Ronald Reagan.
Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry wants Congress to tell the U.S Treasury to replace former President Ulysses S. Grant on the bill. McHenry announced his bill Tuesday. He has 13 Republican co-sponsors.
Grant was a Union general during the Civil War who led the North to victory and later became the nation’s 18th president.
McHenry said Reagan transformed the nation’s political and economic thinking and argued that "every generation needs its own heroes."
One of McHenry’s Republican primary opponents, Scott Keadle, said he admires Reagan, too. But he accused McHenry of pandering to voters with the bill instead of focusing his work on the bad economy. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100303nc_congressman_wants_ronald_reagan_put_on_50_bill/
Mid-East Peace: Delays accompanied by Growing Radicalism Hamas is no longer The Extremist.
The recent calm on the Israel-Gaza border could be deceiving. Hamas is not firing rockets into Israel and is also preventing more radical groups from launching rockets. At the same time, Hamas is coping with the domestic threat posed by radical groups that identify with Al-Qaida. Recent reports from Gaza indicate that these groups are getting stronger, at the expense of Hamas.
At this point these groups do not pose much of a threat to Hamas' authority, but Gaza authorities believe that they could pose a concrete threat in the distant future.
Last week, operatives from one of the fundamentalist groups set off three explosive charges in the Shati refugee camp, not far from the home of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Two weeks ago, the car of a Hamas police officer was blown up in Khan Younis and three cars of Hamas officials exploded in Gaza City. Three similar explosions occurred in January. Also, there have been attempts to blow up Red Cross vehicles and pharmacies that sell condoms.
Last week, Hamas arrested dozens of suspected supporters of the "Army of Islam", identified with Gaza's Salafi branch, and is also moving against the Darmush clan. According to various assessments, these arrests were connected to the explosions that targeted Hamas. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153940.html
-R
