Dean Heller’s Shiny New Endorsement

Appointed Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is pleased to accept the endorsement of the Western Representation PAC, which describes its rationale as follows:

“I founded Western Representation PAC at the height of the mortgage crisis and the bank and auto bailouts,” said the group’s co-founder and Chairman Dustin Stockton. “We back candidates who oppose government intrusion in the free market and we support those who provide leadership based on personal responsibility. Few leaders today embody our philosophy of helping those hit hardest by the Obama Economy without adding to government’s debt burden. I am proud to back Senator Heller’s re-election effort as we work towards building a conservative majority in the Senate.”

One might wonder if this, is indeed, the self same Dustin Stockton, who was at pains to denounce charges that the Tea Party harbored racism last April. [Video] [YouTube]  Stockton calls Tea Party Express commentary from Mark Williams “unfortunate,” but dismisses racism charges as nothing more than “campaign strategy.”   The announcement continues:

“Based in Reno, NV, Western Representation PAC is eager to help win a crucial victory in its home state. Its independent fundraising and expenditure campaign in support of Heller is already underway, and it hopes to make a donation directly to Heller’s campaign shortly. Heller joins a list of strong conservative candidates backed by Western Representation PAC, including Rep. Allen West, Martha Zoller, and Richard Mourdock.”

This would be the same Rep. Allen West whose collection of infamous quotations expands by the day.  Martha Zoller is an ultra-conservative radio talk show host based in Georgia, now running for that state’s 9th Congressional District.   Zoller urged her followers to continue the fight against Planned Parenthood in the Human Events magazine, including the following:

“So, as we have done since the passage of Roe v. Wade, we will continue to fight to protect life.  Some say social conservatives need to take a backseat to the fiscal issues in this county.  I say they are linked.  There will be days where we lose the battle, as we did on Friday.  And there will be days when we will have to take the battle to the hearts and minds of the American people.  Because we’ve suffered a setback in the debate on Planned Parenthood, do not step away from opportunities to talk about the sanctity of life, adoption, and other “planned parenthood” options with those you meet.  In the end, we will win this battle, whether it is in the halls of Congress or in the hearts of Americans.”

Zoller also employed an interesting rhetorical trick in her article, note how she repeats false information while appearing to question it:

“If it is true Planned Parenthood makes most of its money on abortion procedures, and in fact it is the largest abortion provider in America and probably in the world, then let it rework its profits from abortion to provide the other health care services for women that are so important.”

No, Planned Parenthood does NOT make most of its money on abortion procedures, and in fact only 3% of the services provided by PP are abortion related, but Zoller gets the talking points in while treading carefully away from downright lies.

Richard Mourdock is the Tea Party challenger for Senator Richard Lugar’s Indiana seat.  Mourdock is getting support from Tea Party advocates but remains far behind Lugar in fundraising.

“The Tea Party Express, a national group, recently endorsed Mourdock shortly after a group of Indiana tea partyers officially approved his campaign. The conservative FreedomWorks is also set to endorse Mourdock on Oct. 21, said a Republican aide familiar with the group’s upcoming endorsement; that aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide was not allowed to speak publicly for the group.”  [HuffPo]

For a candidate who wishes his constituents to see him as “moderate” this is certainly interesting company for Heller’s candidacy.

Adult Supervision Still Essential: The Bankers Are Back With Structured CDs

There are some individuals who need supervision, most of them are small, some are illiterate, some don’t know their telephone numbers, and some have difficulty with simple tasks like tying their shoe laces — they are generally under the age of 6. However, some older models appear to need adult supervision as well — they are generally bankers. A quick review:

The Big Lie. Initially, we could see this when they adopted the juvenile tactic most commonly associated with messes left on kitchen floors, the “Nobody Did It” stratagem.  The bankers lobby has pressed for “self regulation” since the enactment of financial regulation reforms using the pretext that those “onerous regulations” are unnecessary because the banks weren’t responsible for the mess left on the everyone’s kitchen table.  IT must have been “irresponsible borrowers,” but no, the borrowers had nothing to do with (1) the bankers relaxation of lending standards — they did that all by themselves, or (2) no borrower ever transformed a home mortgage into a synthetic CD — the bankers did that all by themselves.  IT must have been the SEC’s (or fill in the blank with another agency of choice) — Why? Because they didn’t regulate us properly. OK, by this reasoning the mess on the kitchen floor is there because the adult in the house failed to notice?  And, if we follow this argument then what of the current cry that regulation is a bad thing?

As if we couldn’t see through the puerile attempt at logic in the Big Lie, the bankers have more ways to protect their bottoms (lines).

Recidivist Behavior:   Just when we might have believed that we are beginning to get a handle on the derivative creations from the little Wizards on Wall Street, they’ve come up with yet another dubious product.

HSBC is now marketing a derivative CD, which they hold to be guaranteed by the FDIC. HSBC “explains U.S. investors have the potential to earn “enhanced returns” over as long as seven years. A separate disclosure states that they also may earn zero, getting just their original principal back after the CD matures, while brokers may collect fees of 6 percent or more. Investors that need to get their money earlier must find a buyer for the CD, risking a loss. ” [Bloomberg](emphasis added)

Gee, what could possibly go wrong here? The bankers would like for retail investors to tie up their money from, say, 4 to 20 years, in a CD indexed to perhaps the S&P 500, or perhaps the NASDAQ, or maybe the DJIA, or possibly  Libor, or whatever “market based” index seems most profitable.

Finra has a question: “Given the increasing complexity and lengthening maturities of the investments, Finra wants to make sure they’re properly understood by investors, Maria Rabinovich, a lawyer in the watchdog’s risk division, said in a Feb. 6…” [Bloomberg]

Goldman Sachs offers a 4 year CD tied to the DJIA, and here’s how it works:

To reach the maximum yield, the Dow would have to steadily gain by at least 2 percent each month over the life of the CD, according to disclosures in an offering statement. Gains higher than 2 percent aren’t passed on to the CD investor.

The odds of making more than the minimum 0.5 percent may be as low as 22 percent and the chance of earning more than the current rate on a four-year, fixed-rate CD may be as low as 13 percent, according to more than 100 years of monthly Dow returns analyzed by Bloomberg. [Bloomberg]

So, no gains above 2% are passed on to the investor, and the odds of making more than the investor might have made on a regular fixed rate certificate of deposit could be an underwhelming 13%.

How much money is involved here? We don’t know, because the “structured” CDs aren’t registered with the Security and Exchange Commission, and the brokers who sell them aren’t required to be licensed by FINRA.*  In other words, the kids are back in the kitchen unsupervised.

*For a good outline of varying kinds of investment risks see the FINRA site.

Coffee and the Papers

There will be a very clear choice in the Nevada State Senate race in District 15 (Reno).  Sheila Leslie (Democrat) versus Greg Brower (Republican).  [LVSun]

Leslie, a Human Services consultant, and former Planning Administrator, who has a consistent record supporting programs for Nevada families, will take on Brower, an attorney, with an equally consistent ultra-conservative record.  The consistency of Brower’s anti-government message is highlighted by his accolades from the Nevada Policy Research Institute, which placed him 2nd in their “scoring” of candidates according to anti-taxation and anti-public education advocacy.  If Leslie doesn’t take on Brower, then there is a possibility of a challenge by state legislator Debbie Smith.  [RGJ]

Statistics on voter registration in the district are not yet available from the Secretary of State’s office, but the area has been known in previous elections as evenly divided.

This sums it up nicely.  There are two kinds of conservatives.

“I’ve always observed that there were two basic kinds of conservatives: those who disagreed with me, and perhaps thought I was a misguided, or a fool, or even in the grip of deeply destructive impulses and opinions and beliefs, but still thought I might be worth arguing with; and those who’d be perfectly happy living in a one-party state where people like me would be silenced or jailed. Review Santorum’s rhetoric in his Boise speech, and it’s pretty clear on which side of the line he falls. ”  Ed Kilgore [WashMon]

If you haven’t read this yet — it ought to be required reading for the week.  Historian Garry Wills takes on the Not-So-Great-Contraception-Debate. Short version: It’s not a religious freedom argument; It’s not a contraception argument; It’s not a Church Teaching argument; and it’s not an “underlying principles” argument either.

Making this element of the Politics of Distraction even more interesting is the fact that Republican candidate Mitt Romney presided over the same policy proposed by the President as Governor of Massachusetts. “The scene illustrates the awkwardness of the GOP going guns-blazing against Obama’s birth control requirement when their likely nominee for President this year codified the same mandate — arguably a broader one — in his Massachusetts health care plan.”  [TPM]

House Republicans decided to hold a hearing on contraception.  Look at the picture here — do you see any women offering testimony?  That’s why Democratic women boycotted the hearing.

We need conference committee work done on the STOCK Act, and Jon Stewart explains why.   The GOP controlled House removed the “political intelligence” portion of the bill — which would prevent members of Congress and staff members from holding ‘seminars’ on upcoming legislation of interest to hedge funds for those self-same hedge funds — and, it needs to be reinserted in the final bill.  The “industry” is “concerned:”

“In establishing that legal duty, however, the legislation also could put lawmakers and aides in legal jeopardy if they divulge that same information to individuals who then trade on the information. “Now that Congress is covered by the insider-trading law, if a member of Congress gives a tip to a hedge fund manager, that is going to be illegal,” says Stephen Bainbridge, a securities-law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.”

But, that doesn’t mean that “political intelligence” operatives shouldn’t have to register just like lobbyists.

Still Bubbling.  Citigroup will be paying $158 million to settle U.S. civil claims it defrauded the government into insuring faulty mortgages.

“The government accused Citigroup of falsely certifying that many of its loans qualified for insurance from the Federal Housing Agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Investigators said 9,636, or more than 30 percent, of nearly 30,000 HUD-insured mortgage loans that CitiMortgage made or underwrote since 2004 have defaulted, costing the agency nearly $200 million in insurance claims.”  [Reuters]

Things denser than Iridium.*  (1)  Chuck Woolery on why African Americans don’t need “civil rights.” (2)  Microsoft’s assertion that its donations to the ultra-right wing Heartland Institute are just “free software licenses.”  (3) Gretchen Carlson saying Dept. of Labor makes up numbers, and Sarah Palin saying President’s approval rating increases are the result of “misinformation to the American people.” [MMFA]

*Iridium: “the calculated density of iridium is 22.65 g/cm³, though the density of iridium has not been experimentally measured to exceed that of osmium.”

Charts of the Day: An internal enthusiasm gap?

First, there’s the GOP spaghetti bowl of leading candidates for their presidential nomination:

Click here for full sized  interactive poll.

And, perhaps by way of explanation, there’s this homemade little graph of NYT/CBS polling asking if people were satisfied with the field of candidates, or would like more choices?

The Blunt Amendment: Be careful what you wish for, with charts

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says there will be a vote on Senator Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) anti-contraception amendment — to, of all things, the transportation bill. [LVSun]  The vaguely worded amendment isn’t a good idea, but that won’t stop Senate Republicans from trying to get Senate Democrats on record in favor of The Pill.  Oh, Please, with a nod to the otherwise unknown American Breed:  “Bend me, shape me, any way you want to, as long as you love me it’s all right.”

The trick to these ceremonial votes, of course, is that BOTH sides go on record, and from a Democratic perspective what’s not to love about having the Republican Party on the roll call record against requiring the coverage of contraceptive prescriptions as a part of basic health insurance plans?  Especially when 66% of Americans believe that private health insurance plans should provide full coverage for birth control.  And to Question 75 (And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university – do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?) 61% responded in the affirmative. [NYT CBS pdf]

In addition to being off target in terms of popular opinion in the U.S., the GOP is also opening itself up to the charge that the current flap over contraception is a way to further the interests of the health insurance corporations who would very much like to put severe limits on what can be called “basic coverage.”  Every premium dollar these corporations expend on actual health care is one less buck for their bottom line. Hence, if employers can opt out of contraceptives, vaccines for children, transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, psychiatric care for Scientologists, or all chemical based treatments for Christian Scientists… (we get the picture, and so did Jon Stewart in his “Vagina Ideologues” moment.) Mother Jones puts it this way:

“If Republican leaders get their way and Blunt’s bill becomes law, a boss who regarded overweight people and smokers with moral disgust could exclude coverage of obesity and tobacco screening from his employees’ health plans. A Scientologist employer could deny its employees depression screening because Scientologists believe psychiatry is morally objectionable. A management team that thought HIV victims brought the disease upon themselves could excise HIV screening from its employees’ insurance coverage. Your boss’ personal prejudices, not science or medical expertise, would determine which procedures your insurance would cover for you and your kids.” [Mother Jones]

The Tea Party attachment to the interests of the health insurance corporations may be a tenuous hand hold, the NYT/CBS polling shows one trend not all that conducive to election success. The YES responses to the following question:

There’s another home made chart to which the members of the Congress probably ought to be paying more attention:

Ouch.

The “lack of approval rating” may be a function of Congress’s inclination to pander to right wing activists while NOT engaging in serious efforts to address issues of far greater importance to the American public.  There’s a homemade chart for that too:

Meanwhile back in the U.S. Senate, Senator Blunt’s tip of the hat to the insurance corporations and the radical right will get an “upper’down” vote, and the objections to it from the National Women’s Law Center will remain unaddressed.  Nor will the radical right necessarily respond to the question in regard to why allowing an employer to determine the coverage included in an employee’s health care plan protects anyone? [Mother Jones]

And, just a reminder — the religious organizations in their capacity as employers are NOT required to include contraception services in their plans, but if they don’t then THE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS would have to offer individual employees contraception prescription coverage. So, NO, this isn’t “just like making a Muslim or Jew eat pork.”  A more apt analogy would be to say that if an institution doesn’t approve of pork or beef consumption, then the employees are perfectly free to go the supermarket and get their own.

Life will go on in the U.S. Senate today, but Senator Reid’s comment on Senatorial matters may have some traction with a populace already disposed to complain about government and the politicians who run it:

“We have wasted weeks in this Congress, months in this Congress on dilatory tactics,” said Reid. “[W]e have wasted valuable time sitting around doing nothing … it’s really unfortunate.”  [The Hill]  Indeed, the Blunt Amendment is a waste of time and effort when there are far more important topics to be debated — like JOBS.

Chart of the Day: Consumer Confidence – A Double Take

Not to sound too cynical, but a person might be excused for thinking that the latest bright shiny object flap over wedge issues may be a diversion from good economic news?

Now let’s take another look at the same chart with some additional information inserted.

Coffee and the Papers

Nevada:  The Las Vegas Sun looks at 11 specific ways the Administration’s budget might affect the Silver State.  Nevada Progressive looks at reasons why Nevada may well remain a Blue State in 2012.   Why is Sheldon Adelson sorry he wore an American uniform, and how might the Romney campaign respond? See The Gleaner.

The federal deficit:  Jared Bernstein sums it up – “The key for any real deficit hawk to understand is that right now, Republicans won’t support anything that raises taxes on the rich — which is to say they’re not supporting a meaningful path to lower long term deficits. They didn’t last year, and they won’t this year. No matter what their initial rhetoric claims.”

There’s more on the political side of the subject at TPM; once burned, twice shy, the GOP would rather increase the deficit than fight over the extension of the payroll tax holiday paid for with any tax increase on millionaires and billionaires.

But, OH, the Beltway Villagers are inclined to wail that the current budget doesn’t do what the President promised in 2009.  This would be an appropriate time to remember that the GOP is the party that won’t take “yes” for an answer.  The President’s call for the Grand Bargain was dismissed by Republicans even though it reduced the deficit, and made cuts with which they said they agreed.  The Villagers have very short memories.

So, it should come as no surprise that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already announced that the President’s budget is DOA in the Congress. [The Hill]  The GOP seems beyond even pretending to participate in legislative discourse.

The Democratic lady the GOP loves to hate, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had this to say about the budget:

“President Obama has laid out an innovative blueprint for restoring opportunity for all Americans and for constructing an economy that is built to last.  The budget is balanced, fair, and responsible and is an investment in our economic growth, in job creation, and in a stronger, thriving middle class.  It is a fiscally responsible plan, reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years.”

Department of Shiny Objects:  If you missed Jon Stewart’s takedown of the opponents of contraception insurance coverage, here’s a link.   And, there’s Sebelius’s insightful dissection of Representative Joe Heck’s perspective on women’s health, including the following:

“When I asked Heck directly during the 2007 Legislature why he, a physician, would vote against a vaccine that prevents an infection that can lead to cancer, he told me simply, “because it’s a mandate.” And when I replied by saying, “So what?” Heck (after a second or two; apparently he’d never been asked that before) told me that mandates drive up costs of insurance for everybody.

I wonder, which costs more: The HPV vaccine, or treatment for cervical cancer? And what drives up costs more, a vaccine given to prevent a disease, or the expensive treatment for those who get the disease?”

Local Interest: The Seeno vs. Whittemore battle continues, with implications for Nevada political life, as explained in the Reno Gazette Journal.  And, the BEST invitation ever:

The Holy Order-Sin Sity Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence invite you to “Project Red Dress” on February 25, 2012. The event will be held at The World Market Center (495 S. Grand Central Parkway) on the 16th floor. The VIP Party ($50), which includes admission to the Main Event, will start at 8pm and the Main Event ($30) will start at 10pm. This is a non-smoking and 21+ event.The money raised through this event will be used for The Sisters AIDS Drug Assistance Program.

GOP: Hey Little Lady, Go Home, Sit Down, and Shut Up

What might be so controversial about reauthorizing the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that not a single Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was willing to support the bill? [NYT] The problem areas? Patently obvious:

“The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence — a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward.”  [NYT]

It’s all about the usual anti-gay, anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Republican Party.   The GOP did have a substitute, but it cut out the improvements in the bill, called for a huge reduction in spending, and sought the elimination of the Department of Justice office which administers the enforcement of the law.

Last week we were treated to the spectacle of rules published by the Department of Health and Human Services for basic health insurance coverage, to include contraception, and the Conference of Bishops tossing a hissy about insurance corporations being made to pay for employee health benefits — which some Catholic institutions like DePaul University already provide.  The latest incarnation of the GOP attack on women comes on the heels of this Poutrage in the form of an amendment from Senator Blunt (R-MO). Unfortunately, he isn’t alone. The National Women’s Law Center explains:

What would happen if some of these bills became law?

• Any employer could offer a plan that does not cover maternity care for unmarried women in its plan, claiming that such coverage violates its belief that sex and procreation are permissible only within the marital relationship. (Amendment No. 1520 sponsored by Senator Blunt, R-MO, also known as the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)

• Any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. (S. 2092, also known as “The Manchin-Rubio Bill” and the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)

• Any employer who objects to coverage of vaccines for children could deny this coverage to all employees. (The “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)

In the winners column we have “The Health Insurance Corporations” which would no longer be required to cover maternity expenses, contraception medication, and children’s vaccinations. In the losers column insert women and their families from one coast to the other.

The Republican controlled House of Representatives has had time to consider 27 bills dealing directly or indirectly with abortions (but no time to take up any jobs bills), even though the subject is of intense interest to only 3% of the U.S. population. [PRpt]   In 2011, H.R. 3 pulled some slick drafting tricks to narrow the definition of rape such that victims of rape had to prove they were impregnated by force. [ReidRpt]

Why make Planned Parenthood a special target? Because 3% of its services are abortion related. [PP]  Republicans seem to have no trouble advocating birth control for wild horses, but stop cold when it comes to women who aren’t resident feral equines on public lands. [BFC]

There have always been voices from the extreme right advocating against the access women have to the courts in cases of domestic abuse, the vestiges of the Rule of Thumb Crowd (don’t hit your wife with any stick greater in diameter than your thumb), and there have been some marginal calls for removing access to contraceptive prescriptions.  The problem for women (and their husbands) in 2012 is that these formerly extreme positions have now become part of the Republican mainstream.

All the more reason for women NOT to sit down, shut up and stay home in 2012.

Chart of the Day: The GOP Spaghetti Bowl

Amazing what large chunks of unregulated campaign money can do for a primary season?

Budget Day: The Perfectly Predictable Reaction

If I’d placed a bet on the Republican reaction to the Obama Administration’s budget yesterday I’d be a winner. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee was on MSNBC this morning with the standard complaints.  (1) There aren’t enough spending cuts. (2) The budget doesn’t sufficiently cut the debt.  (3) The budget doesn’t change the debt trend. (4) The budget doesn’t “reform” Social Security and Medicare.

Asked directly if the budget shouldn’t increase taxes for the wealthy in order to reduce the debt, Senator Sessions reverted to GOP dogma — we wouldn’t have to increase taxes if we made more spending cuts. As to the main program thrusts in the President’s spending plan (increased support for manufacturing, transportation and infrastructure investment) Senator Sessions replied that we just don’t have the money for those programs.  Translation:  Evidently, we must cut government programs in order to maintain the tax benefits for millionaires and billionaires in the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003.

It is also apparent that no budget proposal will ever be acceptable to Republicans which doesn’t “reform” Social Security and Medicare.  Translation: Privatize. There is a way to quickly pump more revenue into the Social Security Trust Funds, simply raise the earnings cap above the current $106,800.  However, that would be an “unacceptable tax increase” for the GOP.  Again, it is obviously more important for the Republican members of Congress to protect the incomes of those in the upper reaches of American income brackets than it is to support manufacturing, infrastructure, Social Security, and Medicare.

The intransigence of the GOP on matters concerning the now sanctified Bush Tax Cuts has become repetitious to the point of tedium.