You Should Intentionally Default: President Obama

Well, ok, maybe not quite that explicit, but....

Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration may expand efforts to ease the housing crisis by banning all foreclosures on home loans unless they have been screened and rejected by the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program. [emphasis in original]

The proposal, reviewed by lenders last week on a White House conference call, “prohibits referral to foreclosure until borrower is evaluated and found ineligible for HAMP or reasonable contact efforts have failed,” according to a Treasury Department document outlining the plan.

Contract rights don't matter, law doesn't matter, we'll just ignore all of that pesky stuff when we don't like it.

Can Obama even do this? Wouldn't it take an act of Congress? How will you spend your mortgage payments each month? Maybe buy a mobile home or a big comfy tent?

Eventually the axe will fall.

As stated in the original story, be sure to consult an attorney before doing something as fucking drastic as defaulting on your home loan.

...
Note: Headline links to source. Clicking on image will enlarge it (usually).

Democrats, Republicans try to agree on summit seat assignments

It's obviously not as important as the Cuban missile crisis, but a serious issue nonetheless. What shape table will be used?

No wonder nothing is getting done in Washington because Congress and the President are still arguing over the furniture. This isn't a fucking marriage. Just choose a table, now.

The one above belongs to Apple©, but it is completely unsuitable because it obviously is expensive enough (custom built) for Steve Job's people, but not US elected officials.

An intense argument has been raging ahead of Thursday's health-care summit: Will President Obama and members of Congress sit around a U-shaped table or a round one?

How about they sit around the room in those ubiquitous white plastic chairs with a coffee table in the center. That might work. If uncomfortable enough they might just speed the process along before their asses go numb.

I've another suggestion. Each party assign one person to the 'table choice' committee and then grab the first person found out on the street as a tie-breaker if needed. Give the 'table choice' committee a single day to choose, locate and and have it installed. If the committee can't handle the job, fire the two on the government payroll.

I used to run meetings and often would literally disallow any sitting. Just stand around a table, do what we came for and leave. No one ever fell asleep either.

...
Note: Headline links to source. Clicking on image will enlarge it (usually).

Do not get sick and avoid accidents

NHS = National Health Service (UK)

Universal health care is so important in England its a campaign issue worth stressing. It used to be one in the US too.

Yeah I know the heading is the fucking Repugs idea of health care but its the best option out there right now. Don't require medical attention.

I'm for pushing the single payer plan. It won't be easy and will leave scars, but its what Americans need and want. It's something Americans will realize they couldn't live without. People are dying out there.

Go to an emergency room and look around for a while (I have). Talk to someone in a grocery store who's buying food with food stamps and ask them how they like their health care plan and they'll tell you they have none (I've done this too).

I have medicare, but its a useless plastic card which covers hospital costs only and isn't valid at all where I live. True US universal health care won't affect me, but it will affect millions of Americans. Is it socialism? It sure as hell is, but its good socialism; the kind that cares for people.

Obama is poised to becoming a one term President. His legacy should be to provide universal health care no matter what it takes. He should play ruthless hardball and force Congress to send him a bill he promised and the American public has been waiting for. He doesn't need big pharma and insurance companys' money for re-election because, at this point, re-election isn't a viable possibility.

Will the Senate filibuster? They will. Let 'em. Let them completely shut down Congress. Can they do it for 3 years? I doubt it and no new laws may be a God damn blessing anyway.

Congress close on bill to ban genetic discrimination

Its good to see such a law put into affect. But come on, do you really think your appearance, education, experience won't be sited as why you weren't hired even when your DNA did you in? Just asking.

There are age discrimination laws on the books and older employees are weeded out of organizations on a daily basis. They are passed up for promotions too.

An employer can always find some other legitimate reason for their actions.

Lawmakers have agreed to make it illegal for employers and insurance companies to deny applicants jobs and health care coverage because DNA tests show they are genetically disposed to a disease.

Via Boston Globe.

Republicans block pay discrimination bill

Including McCain.

U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation to reverse a Supreme Court ruling that makes it tougher for workers to sue for pay discrimination.

No need to actually follow link below. Whole story is here.

Via Capitol Hill Blue.

Antiwar leaders stymied, frustrated

There really is nothing new of note here except it just takes on what all of know from a different angle.

A well-known antiwar leader has gone public with the transcript of a private conference call that shows peace activists are exasperated with the Democratic congressional leadership and at a loss for a long-term strategy.

The Aug. 29 call highlights divisions in the Democratic Party that Republicans are gearing up to try to exploit as Congress debates its response to the report on Iraq this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

On Monday, the pair begins two days of testimony on Capitol Hill.

Republicans say the call reflects the degree to which war opponents have failed to gain the advantage that many in both parties thought would build over the summer.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, posted the transcript Friday on the Web site of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, of which he is a co-chair.

The transcript reveals that opponents of the war in Iraq have decided to first try to enlist conservative Democrats, before moving on moderate Republicans. The call shows they are having little success because of fears about the impact on next year’s elections if the party is seen as defeatist.

The call, which Lerner titled “Strategizing with leaders of the Anti-War Movement,” included two sympathetic members of Congress and representatives of groups ranging from Code Pink to the Progressive Democrats of America.

Lerner -- who is based in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leader of what he calls “the religious left” -- told Politico in a phone interview on Sunday that he concluded from the call that the antiwar movement does not have a long-term strategy, even though the war “is going to continue through the end of President Bush’s administration” and perhaps into the term of the next president.

Lerner said he posted the transcript in an effort to persuade war opponents that they need “some fundamentally new thinking.”

“Right now, we could write the story of this Congress as ‘Profiles in Cowardice,’” Lerner said. “There’s a great deal of frustration with the Democrats in the Congress – a sense almost of betrayal. The Democrats don’t have – and even the people in the antiwar movement don’t have – a coherent alternative worldview from which to base a strategy. That’s why they end up debating everything on the same terms that the Republicans do.”

Via Politio.

Exploring the 'inherent contempt' option

This a story about a very bizarre legislative power. Its one that won't be used, but it has been used in the past.

But what I found interesting is the areas I've emphasized. Congress is not gonna get what it wants and, even if they did, bush has already burned the bridges Congress has to cross.

Congressional Democrats searching for legal ways to force President Bush’s senior advisers to testify before their committees have few good options and one really odd one.

“The sergeant at arms could stick [former White House counsel] Harriet Miers in the basement, lock her up and wait until she’s ready to talk," said University of Missouri—Columbia law professor Frank Bowman, describing the little-known legislative power called “inherent contempt.”

The scenario, while unlikely, is technically legal, according to law professors. Until about 70 years ago, imprisonment was one way Congress compelled testimony from a reticent witness. But don’t expect to see Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove or any other former Bush aides locked up in the Capitol jail anytime soon. The jail was razed in 1929, so they’d have to use a makeshift slammer. No one — not even the most vocal administration critic — is likely to volunteer an office for a prison.

...

The Bush administration has instructed Justice Department attorneys to refuse to prosecute any congressional contempt charges.

...

The Senate Judiciary Committee is threatening its own citation. “Time is up,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said at an August press conference. “Right now there’s no question they’re in contempt of a valid order of the Congress.”

Criminal contempt of Congress carries a punishment of up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines.

Under federal law, once a contempt citation is passed by the House or Senate, it’s submitted to the District of Columbia U.S. attorney for prosecution before a grand jury.

That’s where it would likely end. In July, the White House barred D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor from pursuing the case. As a presidential appointee, Taylor cannot undermine the White House’s assertion of executive privilege, administration lawyers argue.

Bush can't control Congress, but his people can sure find dirty little ways to thwart it.

Via Politico.

Congress looks for change in Iraq

We'll just have to wait and see. Personally I think they're giving ol' George too much credit. He's not reading any writing on the walls unless its in the men's room.

Expectations are mounting in Congress, including among the White House's Republican backers, that President George W. Bush will later this year have little option but to change course in Iraq.

Despite Bush's victory over anti-war Democrats in securing a new US$100 billion budget to fund the war through September, attention on Capitol Hill is already shifting to the bitter political fights to come.

Lawmakers left Washington for a week-long recess as a report said huge cuts in the current 147,000-strong US garrison in Iraq could be in the offing.

"I feel a direction change in the air," Democratic congressman John Murtha, a gruff former Marine and Vietnam veteran said last week, as he intensified his emotional quest to end the war.

Significantly, the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who has largely kept his party in step with the president, despite deep scepticism among some Senators, is also predicting a sea-change in Iraq policy.

"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president himself to lead it," McConnell said on Friday.

Yes, Congress can change the direction in Iraq, but seem reluctant to do so. Bush will never admit he's been wrong. Its not in his nature. He only understands force and force is exactly what Congress will have to use on him.

(read more)

Bush against expanded child health insurance

Maybe Bush is all for No Child Left Behind unless its left behind to wither and die. Or at the very least go without the medical treatment allowing them to live a decent life.

The Bush administration says it will strenuously resist Democratic plans for a threefold expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, ensuring a clash with Congress over the most important health care legislation being considered this year.

Administration officials said that much of the new government coverage proposed by Democrats would simply replace private insurance, and they expressed concern about a sharp increase in the proportion of children covered by public programs in the last decade.

Dennis G. Smith, the federal official in charge of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, said 45 percent of all children were now covered by the two programs, up from 28 percent in 1998.

I'm not sure if Smith is bragging about that 45%, but I sure as hell wouldn't. It means the government of the world's richest country doesn't care about most of its children.

The Dems want to spend $75 billion over the next five years. Of course Bush wants to spend that $75 billion on 7 more months of delivering death in the Mid-East. In either case, death is involved and I would prefer it not be our children, our troops nor innocent Iraqis.

Bush aides ordered to testify

I'm no expert on such things, but just how does Bush oppose subpoenas? He can't just veto them, right?

A US congressional panel has authorised legal orders for several White House aides to testify under oath about the firing of eight prosecutors.

A House of Representatives judiciary sub-committee agreed to authorise subpoenas if Karl Rove, a senior political adviser to the US president, and others refuse to testify voluntarily under oath.

The action came a day after George Bush vowed to oppose any subpoenas. He offered instead to allow aides to answer questions from investigators, but only behind closed doors, not under oath and with no transcript taken of their exchanges.

Democrats called the offer unacceptable. [duh!]

(read more)

Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike

File under: This can't be good. Especially coupled with my last post. Its all coming together. Wake up Congress and stop this...NOW!

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

Oh yeah, about Iraq's being a sovereign nation? Israel needs the Pentagon's permission? Why not the Iraqi government? Sure, it makes sense to warn the Pentagon before racing across Iraqi sky because you don't wanna get blown out of the air, but permission?

(read more)

A very simple question

Why in fucking hell don't the Democrats initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney? They're waiting for a stained blue dress?

Congress has the power and responsibility to protect the American people, if not the world, from a psychotic petulant child who could soon ensure millions of deaths.

Most Americans may be unaware of how close to disaster they are, but Congress critters should not be. They know what's happening and the ramifications.

So get off your asses and act!!!1!!

States may/can divert conservation funds

As always, the devil's in the damn details. And typical of the GOP, what you hear them say ain't necessarily so until you see it down in black and white. And fairly typical of all Congress critters, they often don't really read bills they vote for.

Four lucky states were slated to share billions in potential royalties courtesy of an offshore drilling expansion signed into law last year, money that could help reverse decades of environmental damage from coastal industry. But as budget planning gets under way, the states are beginning to realize that Congress gave them far more freedom in spending the windfall than the political rhetoric in Washington suggested.

Particularly, one little-noticed sentence in the legislation allows the states to use their money on "onshore infrastructure projects" to mitigate outer continental shelf activities. Translation: They can use it to pave roads, erect bridges, lay water lines or finish just about any other public works projects they can link to the coast.

"It is very tempting," said Bill Walker, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. "I would not be surprised as these funds begin to come in and get larger and larger that there will be people at the state level saying, 'We need to do this or that or the other thing.' We'll try to keep them focused on doing environmental and conservation things, but they make the rules."

Louisiana lawmakers moved last year to bar the state from using the drilling revenues for anything but wetlands and coastal preservation. Voters passed a referendum cementing the arrangement.

But the other three states — Alabama, Mississippi and Texas — have no such restrictions.

The new funding, which could pay for projects such as wetlands restoration and the purchase of sensitive coastal property for conservation, was a strong environmental sweetener that helped push the measure through Congress

...

For environmentalists, whose criticism of the drilling expansion was somewhat muted, in part because of the new money for goals they support, the uncertainty surrounding the revenues is a bitter pill.

"Call me cynical, but I think if you give these states the opportunity to spend this money on building roads, they'll spend it on building roads," said Aaron Viles, campaign director for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network.

.
(read more)

Poll: Most Doubt Iraq Peace, Iran Threat

In the following, I took the liberty to make a slight editorial modification

Two-thirds of Americans say the fighting in Iraq may be beyond the U.S. military's ability to control, according to the latest CBS News poll. Just 25 percent say the military can be effective in lessening the violence between Iraqis.

The war continues to take a toll on opinions about President Bush – his approval rating for handling Iraq is just 27 percent, and his overall job approval is just 32 percent – but the public is divided when it comes to what Congress should do about the war.

While 63 percent disapprove of the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq, there's a nearly even split on whether Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the troop buildup: 44 percent favor passage of the measure and 45 percent are opposed maroons¹.

¹ For those who don't know. This is a US cartoon reference. Bugs Bunny says, "What a maroon" instead of "What a moron". K?

(read more)

What's wrong with AMERICAblog?

I'm posting this because I can't comment at AMERICAblog right now for some reason.

AJ in DC says.

I believe it is unlikely we will attack Iran. Various reports in recent years have predicted attacks on Iran and been wrong, and I think there would literally be a near-mutiny from senior military officials were they ordered to attack Iran.

Now to be fair, the next sentence basically says "ya never know with dim son".

My take is Bush will order an attack and the military brass will. They should refuse. Its the moral thing to do, but they won't. They won't jeopardize their careers over it. And you must remember, these aren't usually people who fear war.

I'll bet my ass Bush will attack unless someone stops him. It could be Congress or another country by threatening retaliation. I don't know what it will take. It is his plan and he will do it.

(read more)

Veterans Group Speaks Out on War

Maybe Soltz should be blogging. Hell, we can say anything we want, and frequently do, about the government in a world-wide forum.

When Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of "aiding the enemy," the Democratic senators gathered around him yesterday did not wince. Nor did Democrats object when Soltz, the chairman of a group called VoteVets.org, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney "draft dodgers."

In the United States Congress, where decorum usually holds sway, Soltz and his small band of veterans are saying things many Democrats would like to express but can't. And as the politics heat up over the Iraq war, Democratic leaders increasingly are being drawn to Soltz and his angry soldiers.

(read more)

Must Read IMHO

You might want to save if for a lazy Sunday brunch because it is teh long article by David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz. Those two authors' names should give you a clue.

To whet your appetite:

A recent ABC/Washington Post poll showed that the public (despite very little help from ABC News or the Washington Post) has it right. A majority picked the "should" option in response to both of these questions:

"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration handled pre-war intelligence, war planning, and related issues in the war in Iraq?"

"Do you think Congress should or should not hold hearings on how the Bush administration has handled surveillance, treatment of prisoners and related issues in the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congress is gearing up to investigate whether Halliburton might have cheated on its contracts a little. Hello?

Of course we need to investigate the war profiteers. But our top priority has to be the fraud that launched the war to begin with. Most readers of this article know it was fraud, but a third of the country still doesn't and won't until it's on their televisions for several days in a row. And unless there is accountability for it, the next president may feel free to lie us into a war of his or her choosing. In fact, unless there is enough exposure and accountability, the current war may never end.

(read more)

US Senate votes first hike in minimum wage in a decade

I'm gonna beat this dead horse one more time until I'm sure it can't get up.

The US Senate has voted overwhelmingly to raise the federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, a major promise of new Democratic congressional leaders.

Lawmakers voted 94 to three Thursday to raise the wages rate by 2.10 dollars per hour -- from 5.15 dollars an hour to 7.25 dollars.

That means the annual salary for a full-time minimum-wage worker would rise from about 11,000 dollars a year to about 15,000.

The House approved a similar measure on January 10, and the two bills will now have to be reconciled before going to the desk of
President George W. Bush, to be signed into law.

"We haven't resolved anything," cautioned Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

One major difference to iron out is that the Senate's version provides 8.3 billion dollars in Republican-backed tax breaks to help small businesses compensate for the impact of the wage hikes.

Senate's new majority leader Harry Reid said after the vote that the bill's passage was a long-deferred victory for the common worker.

"Democrats in both the House and Senate have kept yet another one of their promises to move America in a new direction, and we will continue to do so," Reid said.

"For the first time in 10 years, Congress voted in a bipartisan fashion to increase the minimum wage. In the time since the last minimum wage increase, household costs have risen -- including the price of gas, the price of food and the price of health care," the Democratic lawmaker said.

"This increase is long over-due and with today's vote, we have given hard working Americans, struggling to get by, the raise they deserve," he said.

Wow! Fifteen thousand fucking dollars! That's gonna put huge spikes in new car, housing and appliance sales.

With all due respect, Senator Reid, what you should have said is "We should double or even triple the existing minimum, but don't have the cojones because businesses who contribute to our campaigns need their serfs."

(read more)

US Congress debates proposed bill rebuking Bush's Iraq strategy

This is a waste of lawmakers' time. How many days has this been going on? It feels like weeks.

Bush's decision to "surge" 21,500 additional troops into Iraq has met with fierce opposition from the Democratic-led Congress and increasingly from members of his own Republican party.

Critics of the president's plan received more ammunition on Thursday with a congressional report that suggested the troop hike would involve as many as 48,000 soldiers if non-combat support troops were taken into account.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office also said that the additional increase in troops could cost between 20 billion to 27 billion dollars over the first year of deployment.

In Congress, lawmakers had yet to forge a consensus on the precise wording of a non-binding resolution that would express opposition to the president's troop deployment. [emphasis mine]

Ya got that? Non-binding. The whole point is to make a hollow statement and get it into the Congressional Record.

(read more)

Out of Iraq ASAP

It isn't like Congress isn't trying, but they need your support.

Senator Feingold held a hearing on the topic yesterday and plans to introduce a bill today to end the war by denying the President the money to continue it. Congress Members Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, and Jerrold Nadler have bills in the House to do the same. But the bills are not all the same.

(read more)