TARP Moves Forward With Promises, Not Guarantees, of Improvements

So it's confirmed. Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, will do nothing to ensure that there are oversight and executive compensation provisions in the second half of the TARP rollout. He will not legislate in aid for families in foreclosure, either.

The reason? Larry Summers, writing on behalf of the President-elect, wrote him a letter assuring him that the executive branch could and would police itself. Don't worry, Chris, we got this! As I pointed out before, Dodd is an awfully credulous fellow. Hank Paulson convinced him of the exact same thing. How'd that turn out?

Will Obama and company will do a better job than Paulson? Probably. Should Dodd and the Senate Democrats assume that they can take a hands-off approach to things like TARP because the man in the Oval Office is from their party? Absolutely not.

Wingnuts: Obama Plans to "Completely Decimate and Destroy our Armed Forces!" by Letting Gays Serve Openly

If you ever feel like the Right is getting a little too friendly towards Obama, Human Events' mailing list (which it rents out to other right-wing groups) will quickly dispel that notion. The latest item to come over that wire is an email from ExposeObama.com that claims Obama will destroy the military by letting gays serve openly. "You can STOP this unholy alliance between Barack Hussein Obama, those who hate America and our men and women in uniform, and the radical homosexual movement," ExposeObama claims, if you are willing to send spam faxes to the Republican and Democratic congressional leadership.

Aside from the homophobia, the most pathetic thing about this email is how ineffective it is likely to be. The country has changed a lot since the early 1990's, when Bill Clinton faced a political firestorm over the issue of gays in the military. Today, a policy that costs the US military 4,000 troops a year just isn't that popular. Three-quarters of Americans, including 64 percent of Republicans and a majority of evangelicals, support allowing gays to serve openly. That's one reason, as Kevin noted last week, Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs could say this:

When Inflation Rips Apart a Country

It's kind of amusing that Zimbabwe is printing a $100 trillion note, but the mind-blowing inflation in that country is destroying what vestiges of a civil society remain there. CNN:

Even vegetable vendors prefer the U.S. dollar, South African rand or Botswanan pula, and most workers now demand their salaries in foreign currency. Doctors and nurses have been on strike since last September, demanding salaries in U.S. dollars. The strike coincided with a cholera epidemic that now has claimed more than 2,000 lives.

Last week, the state media reported that most teachers had left their jobs. As a result, the end-of-year examinations taken in November are yet to be graded after the markers demanded their wages in foreign currency. Schools are yet to re-open this year awaiting the examination results.

The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is currently over 230,000,000%. I really have no idea what that looks like in real terms. I once found an anecdote about what 200,000% inflation looks like; you can find it here.

(H/T Boing Boing)

Obama Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan Pushing For New Approach to Iran

CIA veteran John Brennan was an early lightning rod for President-elect Obama after word got out that he was being considered for the agency's top job. (Brennan had advised Obama on intelligence and foreign policy during the campaign.) The primary complaint was Brennan's past statements in defense of the CIA's practice of "rendering" terrorism suspects to other countries for interrogation—places where harsh interrogations go far beyond waterboarding. In 2006, he told a reporter that "we do have to take off the gloves in some areas," but went on to say that it must be done in a way doesn't "forever tarnish the image of the United States abroad."

Since 2005 Brennan has been CEO of the Analysis Corporation, which advises the federal government and private companies on counterterrorism. The firm's parent company, London-based Global Strategies, has come under fire for its activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it hired Third World private security contractors at cut rates and once shut down Baghdad's airport for several days during a contract dispute with the Iraqi government.

Obama has been critical both of the CIA's practice of rendition and the unregulated use of private security contractors in conflict zones, but seems satisfied that Brennan has not been tarnished by his connection to either one. Dropping him from consideration for CIA director (instead picking Leon Panetta), Obama went on to tap Brennan to be his top advisor on counterterrorism—a position that does not require congressional approval.

Republicans Playing Nice, Cont'd.

In my post yesterday about House Republicans trying to answer Obama's call for stimulus ideas, I mentioned that the Big O is getting something of an era of good feeling from his congressional opposition. MSNBC's First Read points out more examples, this time from the Senate.

Here's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, after voting against releasing the $350 billion remaining in TARP:

"Again, I want to express my appreciation to the incoming administration for its responsiveness to Republican concerns. Every time we asked a question it was promptly answered. So far, Republican interactions with the incoming administration have been quite encouraging and appreciated. While I voted on the losing side, I hope the new administration will consider some of my concerns, and we hope their stewardship of these funds is successful in stabilizing the markets according to the original purpose of the TARP."

That attitude probably won't last, but for one day at least, Obama has managed to change the tone in Washington. And here is Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee:

"This was a painful vote for me. I greatly respect President-elect Obama's economic team, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, and I look forward to working with them in any way I can."

Not bad, huh? Not even president, and he's done what George Bush admits he couldn't do in eight years.

Hero Pilot Faces Mandatory Retirement, Reduced Pension

At age 57, Chesley Sullenberger hardly qualifies as a geezer in my book. But as commercial airline pilots go, the man who is being hailed for his flawless emergency landing of a U.S. Airways jet in the Hudson River is certainly getting up there in years.

The San Francisco Examiner summarized their local hero’s extensive background:

If a Hollywood producer called central casting in search of an actor to play a pilot in a disaster movie, he would probably wind up with somebody who looked a lot like “Sully” Sullenberger: the silver hair of experience, the trimmed mustache of precision and the kind of twinkly, fatherly eyes that lend confidence when accompanying a friendly "Welcome aboard."

Sullenberger has decades of experience not only flying planes–first F-4’s for the US Air Force and since 1980 all kinds of aircraft for US Airways–but of studying and teaching how to fly them more safely. His resume shows experience flying everything from a glider to a jumbo jet.

After both engines blew, Sullenberger reportedly told his 150 passengers to “brace for impact because we’re going down” before maneuvering over a bridge and between skyscrapers to land the plane safely on the river. He walked the legnth of the sinking jet twice to verify that noone was aboard before exiting himself. The Wall Street Journal described Sullenberger's handling of what it called "one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation":

What Bush Left Out of His Flat Farewell

George W. Bush gave his final speech to the nation on Thursday night. I skipped it to see my daughter, who has known no other president, perform with her school chorus. But when I later sat before my television to see how the speech was being punditized on the cable news shows, I was surprised. The water-landing of a US Airways flight in New York City dominated the coverage. There was little chatter--almost nothing--about Bush's farewell.

After watching the speech on the White House website, I understood why. It was flat and short. Bush said little of interest. He dwelled mostly on 9/11 and the so-called war on terror, once again (and for the last official time) characterizing the invasion of Iraq as part of his effort to take "the fight to the terrorists." He suggested that although the Iraq war was the subject of "legitimate debate," there "can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."

Was the nation's safety ensured because Bush invaded Iraq and did not finish the fight in Afghanistan? No doubt, he and his ever-dwindling band of defenders will continue to insist that it is so--just as a rooster might insist there is a connection between his crowing and the rising of the sun. And Bush defended himself for having been "willing to make the tough decisions"--as if making hard choices is the same as making wise ones.

House GOP Brainstorms Economic Ideas: All Dressed Up With Nowhere to Go

Maybe Washington is embracing bipartisanship. Or maybe Barack Obama is too popular to be opposed.

At an "economic recovery working group" held Thursday for members of the House Republican Caucus, the top two Republicans in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner and Whip Eric Cantor, both thanked President-elect Obama for reaching out to them for ideas to add to the stimulus. "Much to his credit, the President-elect has made clear he wants input on this effort not just from members of his own party, but from the Republican Party and from all Americans," said Boehner, sitting at the front of a large meeting room in the Cannon office building stuffed with congressmen, staff, guests, and members of the media. Mitt Romney, who delivered a short prepared statement, echoed their goodwill sentiments.

The rhetoric stood in stark contrast to the Republican opposition faced by former President Bill Clinton. Upon taking office in 1992, Clinton faced steadfast and united opposition from Republicans in Congress, one of several reasons why his presidency got off to a rocky start that included defeats on gays in the military and health care.

MoJo Video Contest: Goodbye, George W. Bush

If you had 30 seconds to say goodbye directly to Bush, what would you say?

We asked MoJo readers in December for their YouTube video responses to this question; today we'll start posting our favorites on motherjones.com.

You can still participate: Just put your 30-second (or so), PG-13 video on YouTube labeled "Mother Jones Goodbye Bush Video" and send us the link at:

mojobushvideo@gmail.com

All styles of video are welcome, from simply talking at the camera to fancier stuff. Bring it on, we say. Just don't forget to include your snail mail address when you email us if you want to win MoJo swag.

Below, the first MoJo Video community tribute to Bush's departure:

For Election Law Junkies Only

You'll be happy to know that the Federal Elections Commission appears genuinely committed to improving itself. The FEC is conducting what CREW is calling an "unprecedented self-examination of its operating procedures," holding public hearings on its own performance and asking election lawyers from around the country to submit suggestions on its policies and procedures. Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who has been lending a hand to Al Franken's Senate bid, said, "What they're asking us to do is to comment on how the agency itself functions, and that's pretty unusual.... The commission should be congratulated for doing this." If you want to read about the most significant suggestions to come out of the public hearings, click here.

Don't get too excited, though. (I know, you were getting really excited.) It's admirable that the FEC is willing to do the hard work to improve itself. But it still suffers from a fundamentally flawed structure. The commission is composed of three Republican operatives and three Democratic operatives (all openly partisan and willing to go to bat for their parties and allied interests) who are put into office by the politicians they are tasked to regulated. The result is a perpetually weak enforcement body that will never really ensure clean elections in this country. More on the FEC here.

PS — Did I guarantee myself zero readers with that headline?

Judge to Bush Admin: "You Rolled the Dice...and You Lost"

"You rolled the dice that you'd win, and you lost." That's what Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola told lawyers for the Bush administration at a hearing on Wednesday afternoon in the ongoing case over millions of missing White House emails. By this he meant that if the White House had followed the recommendations [PDF] that the judge had laid out last April—suggesting that the administration search workstations and portable media devices for the missing messages—it might not be in its current predicament. Instead, Bush officials apparently gambled that they would be able to get the case thrown out, an effort that was rebuffed in November. That bet came back to haunt the administration on Wednesday morning when, with days left before Bush officials vacate the White House, it was hit with a last-minute order (issued by Judge Henry Kennedy, who's also presiding over aspects of the case) to search workstations and collect portable memory devices containing saved emails from departing staffers.

During the status hearing before Judge Facciola, government lawyers shed some light on the scope of the missing email problem. In the past, the White House has issued contradictory statements on the subject, once even denying that any emails were missing. "We have absolutely no reason to believe that any emails are missing; there's no evidence of that," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters last January.

Overturning Prop. 8: No Court-Ordered Equality!

In response to California Attorney General Jerry Brown's assertion that the state Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8, both George Will (who is not gay) and Andrew Sullivan (who is) argue that the best move for the gay community is to wait for a legislative or ballot-based solution. Here's Will:

Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 [defining marriage as between a man and a woman] was passed, 61.4 to 38.6 percent. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. If, however, the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument about abortion has been by judicial highhandedness.

And here's Sullivan:

TARP App Update: MoJo Interns Still Waiting for a Bailout

Last week Mother Jones conducted an experiment in which we discovered that it takes a whopping 27 minutes to apply for money under the federal bailout program's astonishingly short application.

Many Mother Jones readers were under the impression that MoJo interns actually submitted our app for TARP funding on Friday afternoon. We did not. We just timed how long it took to fill out the application.

But then we got to thinking, well, why not apply for a bailout? While it's hard to argue that Mother Jones, a nonprofit outfit which employs about 50 people, is too big to fail, the magazine industry in general could certainly use some help. And size hasn't deterred other small institutions from taking advantage of recent federal largess. Plus, if a bank fails, that makes it hard for bank employees to give a small percentage of their income to a nonprofit mag like Mother Jones, right? It takes a village.

Though we were a bit late jumping on the bailout bandwagon, apparently we weren’t alone: Treasury's extended the TARP deadline to January 15th for any dawdling financial institutions.

The guidelines for TARP funding explain that:

The maximum amount of capital eligible for purchase by the Treasury under the CPP is the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 3 percent of the Total Risk-Weighted Assets of the applicant or (ii) $25 billion.

While we redacted the amount of total Risk-Weighted Assets from the application posted here, let us assure you that the Foundation for National Progress falls into the (i) category.

The completed information, which we've provided below, has been submitted to two of the institutions that distribute funds: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. We'll keep you posted.

—Alexis Fitts and Daniel Luzer

Another Way to Lessen the Inauguration Day Crush

White people: Stay home. This blogger's logic is flawless:

Chances Whites have had to go see the inauguration of a White president: 43

Chances Blacks have had to go see the inauguration of a Black president: 1

So, white folks: Do the right thing.

[UPDATE: Read this follow-up post for Sister Toldja's response to Jezebel commenters.]

Palin to be No Show at Obama's Dinner for McCain

On the night before Barack Obama is sworn in as the nation's 44th President, his inaugural committee will host a series of dinners honoring public servants it deems champions of bipartisanship. To be feted are Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Colin Powell, and John McCain, whom Obama vanquished last November. At the McCain dinner, the GOP senator, who managed to suppress his bipartisan tendencies during the hard-fought 2008 campaign, will be introduced by one of his closest Senate confidants: Senator Lindsey Graham. But McCain's No. 1 booster during the last year will not be among those hailing McCain. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, his controversial running-mate, will not attend the dinner, Bill McAllister, a Palin spokesman tells Mother Jones.

Can true tribute be paid to McCain without Palin's presence? Picking her for his party's veep nomination was McCain's most decisive and significant action of his campaign. And she spent weeks praising him as an American hero, a man the country desperately needed as president. True, the Palin and McCain camps have bickered with each other since the election about some of the campaign's miscues. But shouldn't she be part of any celebration of McCain?

According to McAllister, Palin will spend next week in her home state preparing for the legislative session, which begins on Tuesday, and for her State of the State address on Thursday.

Conservative Punditry's Leading Lights

Our new Prez is just too cool for school. He had dinner the other night with the leading lights, such as they are, of the conservative punditry. One doubts how much he was able to eat, or keep down, with George Will, Bill Kristol, and (possibly) Rush Limbaugh at the same table, but I'm quite sure they came away thrilled and at least somewhat likely to tone down the rhetoric.

I know from personal experience that it's much harder to savage someone in print if they're a 'real' person to you, someone you've chatted with, someone with whom you have mutual friends. Certainly the conservatives must find this to be true of the suavest president since JFK.

This guy is the bomb. Now if he'll only give an inauguration interview to the cutest, most persistent reporter on the planet.

What is Private Equity Good For?

From the London Guardian:

More than half the profits generated by private equity firms in recent years have been made by piling debt onto the companies they invest in, according to a report published today.

The findings of the first annual report on the industry, designed to increase transparency and improve the image of private equity, instead provided further ammunition for the industry's critics.

The analysis by accounting firm Ernst & Young claims that just one fifth of returns achieved come from strategic and operational improvements.

Is it reasonable to expect that these ratios would be about the same for U.S. private equity firms?

Bush's Parting Shots to the Old and Sick, Part 2: A Wing and a Prayer for the Dying

We won't have to live with George W. Bush for much longer. But now, it appears, we can't die with him, either--at least, not with any comfort or respect. Included among the many parting shots from the lame-duck Bush administration are two actions that will add to the suffering of the terminally ill.

The first of these actions makes it easier for health care workers to ignore or override the wishes of dying patients. The second threatens the availability of hospice care--the one setting in which such patients can be sure that their choices will be respected and their pain subdued.

On December 19, the administration issued what is being called the “right of conscience” rule for health care workers. As the Washington Post describes it:

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

But women’s health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists and some members of Congress condemned the regulation, saying it will be a major obstacle to providing many health services, including abortion, family planning, infertility treatment, and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.

Such rules are implemented in 30 days, which means this one will go into effect on the eve of the inauguration. As the Post reports: “The ‘right of conscience’ rule could become one of the first contentious tests for the Obama administration, which could seek to reverse the rule either by initiating a lengthy new rulemaking process or by supporting legislation already pending in Congress.”

While opposition to the rule comes primarily from supporters of reproductive rights, the organization Compassion and Choices points out that it also has serious implications for “end-of-life care, especially the palliative care measures that rescue patients from unbearable agony. This ill-conceived rule will surely obstruct and delay good care in many instances, increasing the suffering of dying patients and their loved ones.” On the basis of “conscience,” the group warns, health care workers could refuse to disconnect life support, or could withhold medication for “palliative sedation,” where patients are rendered unconscious if it is the only way to control pain.

One place where the dying might escape such treatment is in hospice care. But another measure, tucked away in Bush’s budget for FY 2009, cuts federal Medicare reimbursement rates to hospices, which are largely (83 percent) financed by Medicare. The online magazine Obit summarized the impact of the cuts, which went into effect on October 1, and could add up to more than $2 billion over five years:

It is estimated that this will result in hospice staffing cuts–doctors, nurses, social workers, bereavement counselors, and eventually hospice services. And these reductions will affect the people least capable of fighting back.

Or, as Don Schumacher, president of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (which is, among other things, the lobbying group for hospices), puts it: “That $2 billion the government wants to save? They’re doing it off the backs of dying people in the United States.”

Bush's Parting Shots to the Old and Sick, Part 1: A Gift to Privatized Medicare

Having spent eight years bypassing the laws of the land via signing statements, executive orders, or just simple denial, the Bush Administration is adding to its grim legacy with a rush of last-minute orders and rule changes. Compiled here by ThinkProgress, these include a number of actions aimed at the elderly, ill, and disabled--including cuts to Medicaid and disabled veterans’ benefits. These last-ditch measures are likely to turn into some of the first political and policy challanges faced the Obama administration.

Some of Bush's parting shots are so low-profile that they might easily escape notice. The latest of these arrived on Friday in the obscure form of a “call letter” to private insurance companies that want to contract with Medicare to provide health and drug coverage in 2010. Such calls are issued annually. But this time the call letter was released two weeks earlier than it was last year, and two months earlier than the previous year--ahead of the changing of the White House guard. Medicare advocacy groups view the early release as “an attempt by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to assure continued leniency in the oversight of private plans for at least another year and as a last-ditch effort to promote private Medicare Advantage plans.”

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans--which offer managed care run through private insurers, paid for by the federal government--are the point of the stake that conservatives have long been trying to drive into the heart of traditional Medicare (which, for all its shortcomings, is the closest thing to a single-payer program that this country has ever seen). Columnist Saul Friedman recently wrote about the history of of this effort, recalling a 1995 press briefing in which Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich’s collaborator on the “Contract With America,” announced their intent to “wean our old people away from Medicare.” The first step was to introduce private Medicare HMOs--what later evolved into Medicare Advantage plans, with a big boost from the Republicans’ 2003 Medicare bill.

Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong with Washington

Eric Holder Jr., by all accounts, is a decent, smart, caring, competent fellow. President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be attorney general had a brilliant career in public service: he graduated from Columbia University law school, worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was a trial attorney at the Justice Department, a Superior Court judge in Washington, DC, a US attorney, and, then deputy attorney general. He has served on various nonprofit boards: George Washington University, the American Constitution Society, Morehouse School of Medicine, Save the Children Foundation, the District of Columbia's Police Foundation, and the Innocence Project. He's been a member of Concerned Black Men for over 25 years. He also, in a way, represents what's wrong with Washington.

That's not because of Holder's infamous role in the Marc Rich pardon. That episode--which Holder will certainly be asked about during confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin Thursday--was a case of Washington pay-to-play. There's little doubt that Rich, a fugitive financier indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy (Iran), was able to win that last-minute pardon from President Clinton (with Holder, as deputy attorney general, leaning slightly in its favor) because he had hired a former Clinton White House counsel to argue his case and because Rich's ex-wife had pledged money to Clinton causes.

Holder's role in the Rich pardon may not have been instrumental, but it was a mistake--a terrible way to cap off decades of public service. But he is a poster child for something perhaps more pernicious and extensive in the nation's capital: selling out. Months after the Clinton administration ended, Holder went to work for the influential law firm and lobbying shop of Covington and Burling. (He also joined the boards of Eastman Kodak and MCI.)

Holder was doing what so many routinely do in Washington: cashing in. He took years of experience he had gathered as a public servant and rented it to corporations accused of serious wrongdoing. He smoothly went from doing good to doing well. In 2008, according to his confirmation questionnaire, he made $2.1 million at Covington and Burling. And he expects in 2009 to bring in over $2.5 million, including his separation payment.