Wednesday Mashup (4/7/10)

1) I don’t know if anyone else has noticed besides yours truly, but Dana (“Mouthpiece Theater”) Milbank of the WaPo has been on a roll (including here, on what you could call a taxing matter – maybe I should have saved this for April 15th, but I thought it couldn’t wait – Milbank is a bit tasteful with his snark here also)…

You thought only conservatives got mad about taxes?

Tea partiers, eat your hearts out: A group of liberals got together Tuesday and proved that they, too, can have a tax rebellion. But theirs is a little bit different: They want to pay more taxes.

“I’m in favor of higher taxes on people like me,” declared Eric Schoenberg, who is sitting on an investment banking fortune. He complained about “my absurdly low tax rates.”

“We’re calling on other wealthy taxpayers to join us,” said paper-mill heir Mike Lapham, “to send the message to Congress and President Obama that it’s time to roll back the tax cuts on upper-income taxpayers.”

“I would with pleasure sacrifice the income,” agreed millionaire entrepreneur Jeffrey Hollender.

The rich are different.

In another era, the millionaires on Tuesday’s conference call might have been called “limousine liberals.” But that label no longer applies. Now any wealthy liberal worth his certified-organic sea salt is driving a Prius.

…

Among families earning more than $250,000, fully 64 percent favor raising taxes on themselves. This part was surprising — but possibly suspect. Only 65 of the 1,907 people polled were in that income group, too small a sample for solid conclusions.

Still, the millionaires on the call get credit for putting (some of) their money where their mouths are. They are among 50 families with net assets of more than $1 million to take a “tax fairness” pledge — donating the amount they saved from Bush tax cuts to organizations fighting for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. According to a study by Spectrem Group, 7.8 million households in the United States have assets of more than $1 million — so that leaves 7,799,950 millionaire households yet to take the pledge.

Well, a journey of a thousand miles, as they say…

And on the matter of tax rates versus economic prosperity, Matt Yglesias (via Steve Benen and John Cole) tells us here about how those oh-so-horrible “soak the rich” rates during the years of the Clinton Administration led to economic prosperity, while “three periods of ultra-low taxes were followed by a budget crisis (Reagan) and catastrophic global economic collapse (Coolidge-Hoover, Bush).”

Also, let’s not forget the myriad tax loopholes available to the “pay no price, bear no burden” investor class, some of which are noted here.

Update 7/21/10: A little late with this I know, but this is another good column by Milbank on Arizona governor Jan Brewer and her “illegal to be brown” law (cringing when I think of the wankery to come to make up for this).

2) This tells us that, apparently, the new Obama-sponsored “boogeyman” for the wingnuts (tiring of Craig Becker, Kevin Jennings and Dawn Johnsen, apparently) is Goodwin Liu, a University of California at Berkeley law professor nominated by President Obama for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District….

On Tuesday, Liu sent 117 items to the (Senate Judiciary Committee), a “supplement” to an earlier questionnaire he filled out on his record, including articles he wrote and events in which he participated but neglected to include in his original submission. The committee’s seven Republicans — led by ranking member Jeff Sessions (Ala.) — responded with a scathing letter to panel Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

“At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee,” they wrote. “Professor Liu’s unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to complete these basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his nomination in jeopardy.”

As Mark Hamill (I believe) voiced once as The Joker in a “Batman” cartoon, this would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic (hey, have to work in my pop culture references where I can, you know?).

I have a question for Jeff Sessions; do you member Miguel Estrada?

As noted here in this “News Hour With Jim Lehrer” segment, Estrada was submitted by the prior ruling cabal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. However, as noted by Charles Schumer in the interview, “the White House told him not to answer questions, not to give up certain documents that would show his views on key issues that affect millions of Americans, workers’ rights, and the right to privacy, and the First Amendment, and environmental rights.”

Sessions of course disagreed with that, saying “Miguel Estrada did answer questions, and he did not turn over the internal memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice Solicitor General’s Office, for which he worked, because they were not his documents.” Still, though, that leaves the question unanswered; how the hell is the Senate supposed to evaluate the fitness of a judge if there’s no paper trail? Strictly on his or her say-so? Do you seriously mean to tell me that the DoJ couldn’t have allowed the documents in question to be reviewed by the Judiciary Committee?

So, as far as Sessions is concerned, Estrada is fine even though, when pressed about the typical hot-button issues as a right to privacy, he said “I can’t answer these questions because it might violate Canon Five of the legal ethics, which says you can’t talk about a pending case” (interesting dodge). But Liu showed “incompetence” when he sent 117 items to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a “supplement” to an earlier questionnaire he filled out on his record?

Give me a break.

Update: More from Media Matters here…

3) Finally, I have an update on the Repug gubernatorial primary in PA and DA Tom Corbett’s boneheaded decision to join other attorneys general in this country in a lawsuit to try and overturn recently-signed-into-law health care reform (seems the stupidity is contagious…as noted here, PA State House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans threatened to cut off funds to Corbett’s office in response).

I will give Evans the benefit of the doubt that he’s trying to watch over taxpayer funds here, but despite the idiocy of what Corbett is trying to do, the best thing to do in response is to let the lawsuit die the natural death for which it is destined.

However, because Evans “took the bait,” Corbett has – you guessed it! – turned the whole idiotic dustup into a campaign fundraising pitch (here).

So the Repugs and Corbett played a bit of “rope-a-dope,” and Evans went for it (I believe Evans is a good man and a good public official, though he doesn’t have much in the way of political instincts if this ultra-dumb episode is any indication).

Update 4/8/10: Corbett sure keeps interesting company (here).

Thursday Mashup (10/1/09)

The New York Times reported the following today (here)…

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying they would gut meaningful judicial review.

On balance, I agree with Specter and Schumer on this. I think the White House is kind of torn between honoring what Candidate Obama said about ensuring reporting safeguards, though President Obama is now loathe to give back some of the privileges it inherited from the Bushco regime in the matter of executive rights versus the judiciary (and Congress).

However, as I read this, I wondered where Specter’s concern for judicial review was during the FISA mess last year. And to be fair, I should note that Specter introduced an amendment that would have ensured judicial review (here), though the amendment was defeated.

In spite of that, however, Specter voted for the sham FISA bill anyway, stating as follows from his web site here (showing some typical brass, I have to admit)…

In offering an amendment for judicial review, I am mindful of the importance of what the telephone companies have been doing on the war against terrorism from my classified briefings. It is a difficult decision to vote for retroactive immunity if my amendment fails, but I will do so, just as I voted for it when my substitution amendment failed because I conclude that the threat of terrorism and the other important provisions in the House bill outweigh the invasion of privacy.

In other words, “civil liberties don’t mean much when you’re dead,” huh Arlen?

And I’m sure THIS wasn’t a factor in any way (and by the way, Admiral Joe Sestak, the legitimate Dem running against Specter for his Senate seat, earns no bragging rights here either based on this).

As noted here from last week’s Inquirer…

Federal authorities have opened a civil-rights investigation into the Valley Club’s alleged discrimination against swimmers from a northeast Philadelphia day camp last summer.

In a letter made public today, U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King wrote that the Department of Justice was looking into whether the private club’s treatment of black and Hispanic children from the Creative Steps Summer Day Camp amounted to prohibited discrimination.

And here’s Snarlin’ Arlen again…

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.), who wrote to the Department of Justice in July seeking an investigation, said today the federal involvement would “give the public greater assurance” about the handling of the high publicity matter.

And as Phillyburbs columnist Phil Gianficaro noted here last Sunday (don’t know much about this guy)…

The Valley Club has long cited overcrowding/safety issues as the reason it pulled the plug on the Creative Steps campers, as well as on another day camp’s plans to swim this summer.

On Tuesday it was learned the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission didn’t agree. The commission made public the findings of its investigation that concluded the Creative Steps campers were denied swimming privileges due to race, and advised the swim club provide sensitivity training to its board members and club members and pay a civil penalty of $50,000.

However, Creative Steps attorney Gabriel Levin interprets the $50,000 figure as being for each individual child, which, if true, would raise the total amount owed by The Valley Club to more than $3 million.

On Wednesday (9/23) it was learned that the US Department of Justice is also investigating allegations of discrimination by the swim club. If the swim club and day camp cannot settle the dispute on their own, the state Human Relations Commission board will conduct a public hearing and vote on the case. That outcome could be appealed to Commonwealth Court.

And in case anyone has any doubts about the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission, I can assure you that they took this matter very seriously and conducted thorough interviews with many individuals at the pool on the day of the incident.

That being said, I can’t think of a word to describe the absurdity of awarding each of the Creative Steps kids $50 grand each because of the ignorant insensitivity of the Valley Swim Club members.

With all of this in mind, I’d like to put forward an idea.

To lessen any punitive costs incurred by the swim club, how about if they agree to some kind of an “exchange” program next summer, whereby some of the Creative Steps kids will be able to attend the Valley Swim Club free of charge, while some of the Valley Swim Club members will be granted free pool admission to a facility in Northeast Philadelphia near where Creative Steps is located. I’m sure it will be an enlightening experience for all concerned.

(Also, I believe the Bucks County Courier Times editorial board opined on this subject recently, but as far as I’m concerned, any alleged editorial board that publishes an opinion column with a headline of “loony liberals” doesn’t even deserve a link.)

And in other news pertaining to Phillyburbs columnists, I should note that J.D. (Keeping It Local) Mullane waxed philosophic today here about the fact that, as a consequence of his attendance at the 9/12 rally in Washington, he ended up getting stuck with the bar tab for a couple of drunken teabaggers.

Heh, heh, heh…

This CNN Ticker post tells us the following…

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Republican Sen. Bob Corker suggested Wednesday that when it comes to health care, Canada and France have a “parasitic relationship” towards the United States.

During a hearing of the Special Committee on Aging, the Tennessee Republican told Canada’s former Public Health Minister, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, that her country is “living off of us” because they set lower prices for health care and “all the innovation, all the technology breakthroughs just about take place in our country and we have to pay for it.”

You truly can cut the stoo-pid with a knife, people; this tells us the following (concerning a study comparing U.S. treatment outcomes and other quality indicators with that of at least 30 developed countries, including Australia, France and the United Kingdom). …

(The study) examined health care system research conducted during the past 10 to 15 years and found there was “no hard evidence” that U.S. health care quality stands out across the board. They did find that the U.S. had high scores in some specific treatment areas, such as cancer care. However, it didn’t do as well when compared to other nations at handling preventive care or treatment for acute conditions, including heart disease and hip fractures.

Perhaps one of the study’s most unexpected findings—depending on your political point of view —is that the quality of health care in Canada tends to be higher than in the U.S. The researchers looked at 10 statistically adjusted studies of broad populations and found that five favored care in Canada. The U.S. came out better in two. Three were inconclusive. Docteur points out the universal coverage in Canada helps to ensure that Canadians receive the care they need throughout their lives. “I think the main point is that our study showed quite clearly that it is not the case that the U.S. is dominating Canada … in terms of quality of care,” she said.

And as far as France is concerned, this tells us the following…

French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.

…

In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund – a foundation which financed my own research abroad – 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.

The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation – or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too – without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms.

The article notes that it took longer on average to see a specialist in France and the Netherlands than in this country, though I would take that trade if it meant better access to everyday and preventative care.

Oh, and when it comes to “parasites,” let’s not forget that Corker owes his Senate seat in part to former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was responsible for the infamous ad against Corker’s Senate opponent Dem Harold Ford in 2006 in a which a white woman claimed to have met Ford at a “Playboy party” and said “Call me” to him (here).

Tennessee must be so proud (more here).

Some (Shocking) Shield Law Sense From Pence

Anyone who has any familiarity with this site knows that I loathe most Republicans and some Democrats, but every one in awhile, some development causes me rethink that, and we have an example of that here from Indiana Repug U.S. House Rep Mike Pence…

This week we celebrate “Sunshine Week” in America, and we take time out to recognize the importance of a free and independent press in our nation. But, we must be ever vigilant about maintaining and protecting the freedoms and independence our press enjoy.

Four years ago, I originally authored the Free Flow of Information Act with Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia. The bill, also known as a federal media shield bill, provides a qualified privilege of confidentiality to journalists, which enables them to bring forward information to the public that might otherwise never see the light of day. The bill is not about protecting journalists, it’s about protecting the public’s right to know.

A prior related post is here about another unlikely ally in this fight (strange to be complimenting Pence since he was also responsible for this; sorry if I overdid it with the wordplay about his name).

And this tells us that a Senate version of the Pence/Boucher House bill was introduced last month by Sens. Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Richard Lugar, and Lindsay Graham.

The story also tells us that…

At the state level, 49 states and the District of Columbia provide some legal protection for journalists and their sources.

However…

In June 2008, the Attorneys General from 42 states warned that the lack of federal standards was “producing inconsistency and uncertainty for reporters and the confidential sources” and undermining state shield laws.

Aggressive prosecutors have learned how to sometimes do an “end run” around the existing state shield laws by bringing a case to bar in federal courts. One such example was the case against online journalist and blogger (Josh) Wolf in 2007, NPPA’s general legal counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said.

“A freelance photographer in California, Wolf spent 226 days in prison for his refusal to turn over his raw video of an incident involving the San Francisco police. He would have normally been protected by California’s strong shield law until prosecutors did an end run around the state’s protections by bringing the case in federal court where there was no such protection,” Osterreicher said.

The story also tells us that Bushco threatened to veto the federal shield law in 2007, and “last year the Senate measure was stalled by Republicans (when) a 51-43 vote failed to move the legislation forward. The bill needed at least 60 votes to proceed, and it got stuck when Senate Republicans refused to debate the law until the body addressed a bill that provided more domestic oil and gas production.”

Well, now with the price of oil way under $100 a barrel, I would say that there is no longer any excuse not to get a federal shield law bill passed and sent to Obama’s desk (and kudos to Schumer and the other congressional Repugs for keeping up the fight).

Update 3/21/09: Serves me right for giving credit to Olson for anything (he’s mentioned in a linked prior post) – all Bossie and his playmates have to do here is identify who’s funding this Hillary hit piece, and we can all go home…BUT NOOOOOO!!!