Idiot's Guides have been big over the past few years. Goldwater Institute has created one for Republican legislators, a list it calls 100 Ideas for 100 Days: Budget Solutions and Ideas for State Elected Officials.

To be fair, nowhere does G.I. say Dems can't use it as well, but . . . (throw in your own punch line here). Also to be fair, not every idea is awful, though all the ones I've included below are pretty bad. R legislators had best be careful as they pick and choose. If they don't watch out, they're in danger of creating a few bits of decent legislation.

The list is actually 152 ideas long. Once G.I. started, it couldn't stop at 100. Here's a sampling.

"[Convert] state employee health insurance benefits to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible insurance plans."

"[Lower] the corporate income tax rate to the same rate as the individual income tax, 4.54 percent or lower."

"Eliminate the capital gains portion of the state's income tax."

*"Create a personal use tax credit to allow parents to deduct the cost of private school tuition on their taxes."

*"Modify funding for early education into direct education grants for families to use at a preschool of their choice or to offset the cost of homeschooling."

*"Create a school-choice option for children in failing schools."

*"Create a personal-use tax credit to allow parents to deduct the cost of private school tuition on their taxes."

*"Implement savings accounts that offer the same tax incentives for K–12 education savings that are currently available for higher education."

*"Relieve overcrowding and give every Arizona child an equal opportunity in education by creating a universal system of parental choice that includes private options."

"Align tuition at Arizona universities more closely with the actual cost of education."

I stopped reading at 55, the end of the education section. I count 6 ideas, which I starred, advocating vouchers in one form or another. Wanna bet G.I. thinks vouchers are the solution to most of what ails education in the U.S.?

I'm not always encouraged by the ed reform ideas I'm hearing, and that includes what's coming from Duncan's Dept of Ed. But here's where I see promise. The idea seems to be to encourage lots of approaches to improving education. If that's true, we have a decent chance of finding a number of alternatives that can be effective in a variety of situations.

Here's one of those ideas, and a promising one.

Harvard Graduate School of Education is creating a new doctoral degree to be focused on leadership in education. It’s the first new degree offered by the school in 74 years. The three-year course will be tuition-free and conducted in collaboration with faculty members from the Harvard Business School and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. The idea is to develop dynamic new leaders who will offer the creativity, intellectual rigor and professionalism that is needed to help transform public education in the U.S.

The program will emphasize hands on experience as well as theory.

Students will spend the third year of the doctoral leadership program in a “field placement” at some organization or agency — say, a large urban school district or educational advocacy group — to gain practical experience. School officials likened this aspect of the program to a medical residency. Instead of doing a dissertation, the students will lead an education reform project in that third year.

The idea is to turn out people who know education, have managerial skills and have some experience in the real world. Too often, administrators know one or the other, not both. And making the program tuition free increases the chances that students will have differing social and economic backgrounds.

Will the program produce successful educational leaders? Who knows? But if it's done well, we'll learn if this model is a good one.

Assistant Attorney General Vince Rabago filed suit against payday lender Quik Cash Friday. The company is one of the largest publicly traded payday lenders in the country. If anyone harbors illusions about payday lenders acting in a consumer-friendly way, this suit should put those fantasies to rest.

When Quik Cash went after customers from all over the state who couldn't repay their loans, it often sued them in the Pima County Justice Court. There are two big problems with that.

First, from an ethical standpoint, when you sue people hundreds of miles from where they live (some even lived in Nevada and got their loans in Bullhead City, AZ), that makes it almost impossible for them to attend the court date and defend themselves. According to Rabago, there were over 100 default judgments for Quik Cash in 2008 alone, many simply because the people being sued had no way to get to court.

The second problem is -- and this is the one the A.G. is going after -- it's illegal. Quik Cash promised to abide by Arizona law, which requires that lawsuits under $10,000 be filed near where the defendant lives or where the loan was granted. (The term for this violation is "distant forum abuse.")

Arizona has about 38 Quik Cash stores and accounts for about 8% of the company's revenues. The suit could add up to $5 million dollars in penalties for Quik Cash, which doesn't seem to me to be nearly enough to pay for their outrageous, deceptive practices. It would also wipe out the judgments against hundreds of people Quik Cash took to court and shut down its businesses in the state.

Rabago filed a temporary restraining order against Quik Cash to stop it from suing any more defendants far away from their homes until the suit is decided. According to Rabago, a company will often do what it can to stall an order like that from taking effect, but when it saw the witnesses Rabago had, it went along with the restraining order without much of a fuss. The company was trying to fight the restraining order, according to Rabago, but he convinced the company to back down. [Note: I originally reported the events incorrectly and have corrected it. I regret the error.]

Rabago related two interesting side stories to me. One was, in Wisconsin, the company was found to have engaged in "outrageous conduct" when it cashed the check of a debtor when he was in bankruptcy. You can't do that.

The other was, the President of the company was the head of the payday lenders' trade association during 2008 when the "distant forum abuse" problems were happening in Arizona. He was the smiling face of the industry, assuring people that payday loans are a fair and reasonable way for individuals and families to get small loans to carry them through hard times.

By me, we can't get rid of these scoundrels soon enough. Unless the Republicans figure out a way to block the sunset law that is scheduled to shut the state's payday lenders down, we should be rid of all of them sometime in 2010. Meanwhile, if the suit chases one payday lender out early and gets some money back into the hands of people it ripped off, that's icing on the cake.

UPDATE: Howard Fischer has written an article with more details.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As I've said before, nobody does bumper sticker slogan gimmicks better than the Republican Party. They have excelled at this "simple solutions to complex problems" that you can reduce to a bumper sticker for years.

Last week the GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" shop came up with "voluntary taxes" for Arizona Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley. This gimmick was roundly mocked by the state's major newspapers.

This week the GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" shop came up with the "Save Our Jobs: Stop the Tax Hike" committee (note the bumper sticker slogan) for Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker, a Republican candidate for governor.

The committee is to oppose a hypothetical sales tax increase referral to the ballot that has not been able to make it out of the legislature after a regular session and four special sessions this year, but no matter. This is all about gimmicks. Parker files papers to oppose tax hike | eastvalleytribune.com

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Vernon Parker took the first steps Wednesday to start collecting cash to battle a proposal by Gov. Jan Brewer for a temporary tax hike.

Parker filed the paperwork for the "Save Our Jobs: Stop the Tax Hike" committee designed to convince voters to reject higher sales taxes if the issue makes its way to the ballot. That 1-cent hike in the state's 5.6 percent sales tax is a key element of Brewer's plan for economic recovery.

Parker said he believes higher taxes would be the worst thing the state could do to its economy. He said Arizona can find its way out of the current deficit without additional funds, though he refused to provide specifics.

"Parker, who in the last poll came in with the backing of just 6 percent of Republicans, said he did not form the anti-tax committee to raise his profile." Right. I call bullshit. This is a play to appeal to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth for their independent expenditures on his behalf in the GOP primary: "Vern's a knee-jerk reactionary no-new-tax pledge anti-tax zealot - he's our kind of guy!"

Parker also enjoys the benefit of having his name appear on mailings and ads for this gimmick committee as its chairman. "Parker said his name, as chairman, will be on all materials prepared and paid for by the anti-tax committee." Combined messaging with his own gubernatorial campaign and the independent expenditure committees could give this relative unknown the media saturation he needs for name ID in a statewide primary.

"It's about leadership; it truly is," Parker said. But Parker declined to provide any details of how he would deal with the state's short-term deficit. Yep, phony as a $3 dollar bill. It's about the gimmicks. It truly is.

It gets better. Vernon Parker is running as a Clean Elections candidate, using public funds to run for office while railing against a hypothetical temporary sales tax increase. That is sure to lock up the hypocrite vote.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This is what happens when you lie to seniors about Medicare, Johnny. They get riled up and call their Senators. Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts in plan:

Senators voted 58-42 to reject an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would have stripped more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts from the nearly $1 trillion measure. It would have sent the entire 2,074-page bill back to the Senate Finance Committee for a redo.

A competing amendment by Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., underscoring that no benefits in conventional Medicare would be cut by the legislation, was approved 100-0.

* * *

Democrats said seniors would not lose any guaranteed benefits. The cuts — amounting to a 2 percent slowdown in spending — would help keep Medicare solvent by making it more efficient, they contended. And they pointed out that the health-care overhaul bill improves preventive care and prescription coverage.

"My colleagues on the Republican side have resorted to the politics of fear to preserve a broken health-care system," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "What we're hearing are scare tactics designed to mislead seniors."

Furious with opposition from the AARP, Sen. McNasty (see photo) railed on the Senate floor and delivered a message to seniors:

"Take your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They've betrayed you," he said.

Sorry, Johnny. Seniors should tear up your contract come next November. It is you who have betrayed seniors and Arizonans, time and again. Your lying has become pathological, and your antics are an embarrassment to this state.

Francine Shacter alerted readers in comments to an earlier post, "McCain recorded robo-calls in states that are home to key moderate Democrats asking voters to support McCain's amendment stripping the bill's Medicare cuts." So why did Francine receive a robo-call here in Arizona? McCain was the sponsor of this poison pill amendment and Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, was a certain vote for it. Who exactly was the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who paid for the calls, trying to influence? Or was their goal just to scare seniors with lies and distortions and to create a general climate of fear? These people are shameless.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) reportedly will offer McCain's failed motion again today for purpose of delay. Daily Kos: Today in Congress

The Senate also approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms and other preventive tests for women on a vote of 61-39 for a provision sponsored by Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine.

The Mikulski amendment gives the health and human services secretary authority to require health plans to cover additional preventive services for women. The Congressional Budget Office said the amendment would cost $940 million over a decade.

Mikulski said her amendment would guarantee that decisions are left to women and their doctors, not placed in the hands of government bureaucrats or medical statisticians.

Coming up next week is the Senate's attempt to amend the Stupak-Pitts anti-abortion provision in the House bill. Conservadem Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is drafting a nearly identical amendment to restrict abortion funding except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Nelson: Abortion Amendment 'Is Not Ready' | TPMDC Other amendments to be offered include refining the language to maintain the status quo under the Hyde Amendment, in effect since 1976.

And for the "gang of four" conservadem senators threatening to filibuster the public option, you had better take a look at the most recent poll. Your obstruction guarantees you will have a primary opponent. Public Option Still Popular: New Poll Says 60 Percent Want It:

A new Thompson-Reuters survey on healthcare reform shows sustained public support for the public option.

Sixty percent of survey respondents said they believe a public option should be included in final healthcare reform legislation. Only about one in five, however, believes the cost, quality or value of care will improve in the next 12 months. Twenty-three percent said they expect access to care to improve....

Here are the key findings:

• 18 percent of survey respondents said they expect to spend less on healthcare a year from now.
• 21 percent believe the quality of care will improve in the next 12 months.
• 18 percent believe the value of care delivered will be better in a year.
• 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.
• 60 percent of Americans believe a public option should be included in final healthcare legislation. There are sharp divisions, however, along party lines: 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

[A]s far as the American public seems to be concerned the public option isn't a symbol and it isn't just a "liberal" idea. It's a smart, common-sense answer to the stranglehold the insurance companies have had on us for decades. The people want real choice, and they see a public option as a good way to provide it.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Seniors advocacy groups have caught on to Senator John McCain's poison pill motion to kill the health care reform bill in the Senate.

The Hill reports AARP, seniors groups oppose McCain amendment:

The nonpartisan AARP and two left-leaning seniors' groups on Wednesday separately urged Senate lawmakers to reject an amendment that would strip some Medicare changes from the chamber's healthcare bill.

While the amendment's author, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stressed upon introducing his effort this week that it would shield seniors from Democrats' proposed cuts, the three seniors groups on Wednesday independently concluded McCain's proposal would do both Medicare and the entire healthcare reform process more harm than good.

"AARP supports moving forward on healthcare reform, and we remain committed to enacting legislation this year that protects and strengthens Medicare, improves the delivery of health care and provides affordable insurance for all," AARP CEO A. Barry Rand said in a statement.

"The legislation before the Senate properly focuses on provider reimbursement reforms to achieve these important policy objectives," he added, noting AARP believes those savings will ultimately strengthen Medicare. "Most importantly, the legislation does not reduce any guaranteed Medicare benefits."

[AARP Press Release AARP: McCain Amendment Takes Senate Bill in Wrong Direction]

The chiefs of both the Medicare Rights Center and Center for Medicare Advocacy echoed those concerns, noting in their own joint statement that McCain's proposal would "kill the bill," not protect Medicare's beneficiaries.

"Most importantly, by derailing efforts to pass health reform, the McCain amendment would prevent the benefit improvements in the bill for people with Medicare from becoming a reality," they wrote.

[Joint Statement by Medicare Rights Center President Joe Baker and Center for Medicare Advocacy Executive Director Judith Stein on McCain Amendment to Senate Health Reform Bill Medicare Rights Center - Press Release]

McCain faced an uphill battle securing support for his amendment from the start. The effort, which would recommit the entire healthcare bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to remove most of its Medicare changes, garnered only little interest among Democrats in the chamber.

But the reaction from the AARP in particular could set up another interesting showdown between the country's largest seniors' lobby and congressional Republicans, who have long been at odds over healthcare reform.

Not long after the House passed its bill, the chamber's GOPers called on the AARP to retract its endorsement in light of similar, possible Medicare cuts.

The lobby, however, opted not to change its course, and it stressed again on Wednesday it still supported Democrats' work on healthcare reform.

Talking Points Memo adds Leading Seniors Groups Strongly Oppose McCain Medicare Hail Mary | TPMDC:

Similarly a letter from the Alliance for Retired Americans to members of the Senate reads, "The Alliance for Retired Americans, on behalf of its nearly four million members throughout the nation, opposes the motion by Senator John McCain to commit the Patient Protection and Affordable Care America Act, H.R. 3590, to the Finance Committee. We urge its prompt defeat by the Senate."

"The legislation does not cut Medicare benefits," the letter reads. "With the expected rising costs of Medicare, the legislation slows the rate of the program's growth without reducing benefits. The McCain motion would actually undercut fiscally responsible attempts to meet the challenges of providing health care for older Americans."

[Alliance for Retired Americans- Press Releases]

"The McCain motion reduces the help Medicare provides for seniors, while it increases the profits the big insurance companies make on the backs of seniors and all taxpayers.  Seniors would pay more, but get less. Insurance companies would do less, but make more."

Caught red-handed, Republicans have resorted to their fallback position: obstruction and dilatory delay, the only thing at which they really excel. George Stephanopoulos reports Ho, Ho, Ho, Health Reform? - George's Bottom Line:

Republicans wanted to cut nearly half a trillion in cuts to future Medicare costs that Democrats envision as paying for the bill. The Republican proposal would effectively kill the health reform bill by stripping one of its major funding sources.

But there has been no agreement to vote on either amendment yet.

Republicans say they just want more time to discuss their amendment, which was offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

“I might say that we -- we want to vote on the McCain amendment. we certainly have no desire to delay that vote. but do have a number of people who want to speak to it,” said Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, Tuesday night.

Republican leaders said Wednesday they would not be rushed.

* * *

Democrats say the Republicans are just being dilatory.

“How can you have an honest debate about a bill of this seriousness and magnitude if you can't bring a measure to a vote on the floor?” asked Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate’s number two Democrat, in a speech on the floor.

“We've talked about (the McCain amendment). We know what's in it. We should vote on it,” Durbin said, arguing, “But the Republicans don't want to vote on it. They want to drag this out in the hopes that our desire to go home for Christmas means we'll walk away from health care reform. well, if a few of the Republican senators could have just left the Democratic caucus, they would know better. we are determined to bring this bill to a vote. We are determined to bring real health care reform to this country. we know what's at stake.”

The Hill reports Republicans have circulated a strategy memo for obstruction and dilatory delay drafted by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). Republican memo outlines healthcare delay tactics:

Senate Republicans circulated a memo today advising colleagues how to use Senate procedure to slow down debate on healthcare reform.

Written by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) the memo explains that Republicans can regularly object to procedural motions and demand roll call votes on motions that are normally passed by "unanimous consent."

* * *

Republicans, according to the memo, might regularly demand a roll call vote to establish a quorum, even if it's obvious that a quorum is present. Senators can also raise "points of order" objecting Democratic actions. Democrats could defeat those motions, but the memo counsels that "delay is created by the two roll call votes in connection with each tabling motion (motion to table and motion to reconsider that vote)."

Gregg also reminds colleagues that they can demand a full reading of any amendment and can offer as many amendments as they like, "germane or non-germane--on any subject."

Read the whole memo by clicking here.

What's next? Are they going to handcuff themselves to Harry Reid's office furniture? Stage a sit-in in the senate? Geezus what a bunch of A-holes. Americans want action, they want results. You watch, the other side of this GOP obstruction strategy is to claim that Democrats can't get anything done -- well no sh*t, Sherlock! If Republicans really believe Americans are so dumb that they do not realize it is Republicans who are obstructing the nation's business, they are sadly mistaken. Voters will make them pay for insulting their intelligence and behaving like the disloyal opposition.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

To begin with, I was impressed by the sober tone and frank assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan by President Obama. There was none of the jingoistic American cowboy crap for which the Bush-Cheney regime is infamous. He spoke to his audience of cadets and to Americans like intelligent adults. For this he is to be commended.

That said, one does not have to agree with every conclusion drawn by the president in his speech.

One certainly should not be swayed by the "post game show" media villagers and Beltway bloviators promoting their media conventional wisdom after the speech. Where were these newly minted cynics during the eight years they were actively cheerleading for the Bush-Cheney regime? And as if on cue, the right-wing media predictably went ballistic: "he didn't use the word victory," or "evildoers." Jingoism is their stock in trade.

The first part of the president's speech was a recitation of how we got into the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the president began his timeline with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 for dramatic effect. America's role in Afghanistan is far more complex.

American involvement in Afghanistan goes back at least to the support of the Mujahideen against the pro-Soviet Afghan government in the 1970s, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. This became known as the "Reagan Doctrine," under which the U.S. supported anti-Soviet resistance movements. Reagan himself called the Mujahideen "freedom fighters."

The Mujahideen attracted a number of foreign fighters from the Muslim world, including the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian -- Osama bin Laden. He became a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers known as "Afghan Arabs" in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was actually portrayed as an heroic figure in American media at the time. He was supported by the U.S.

The Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 after its puppet regime in Afghanistan was deposed. The Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991 under the financial burden of its military adventurism (a lesson yet to be learned by the U.S.), and Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (reconstruction) and glasnost (transparency in government, individual freedoms).

The Mujahideen turned to fighting each other for control of Afghanistan in a civil war. A new radical organization which became known as the Taliban was backed by Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI). Pakistan sought to expand its sphere of influence in the region to Afghanistan in its never-ending conflict with India.

In 1996, the Taliban backed by Pakistan and Osama bin Laden's Afghan Arabs, now known as al Qaeda, defeated the Mujahideen militias, who later became known as the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

As everyone knows by now, it was the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to fight Iraq in the Gulf War (1991) that Osama bin Laden asserts turned him against the United States. Osama bin Laden's years of support for the eventual leaders of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, backed by Saudi money and Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI), gave him a safe haven base of operations in Afghanistan.

What is important to remember is that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. abandoned the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, setting the stage for the above events. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was largely responsible for the policy of neglect towards Afghanistan. Had the U.S. engaged in "nation building" at that time - so despised by Dick Cheney - the course of recent history may have been dramatically different. In all fairness, the Clinton administration continued Cheney's policy of neglect towards Afghanistan in its first term, only turning its attention to al Qaeda as a terrorist organization during its second term.

For those who believe that the U.S. can simply "declare victory and leave," as it did after the Soviets left Afghanistan, this recent history demonstrates that neglect of this region can prove deadly.

The next portion of President Obama's speech is a recitation of the Bush-Cheney regime's failure in Afghanistan and the distraction of the unnecessary war of choice with Iraq. Remarks by the President:

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

* * *

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

* * *

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. . .

This is a direct criticism of Dick Cheney who was the architect of the war with Iraq, and who is responsible more than any other individual for the failed policy in Afghanistan. President Obama also directly responded to Dick Cheney and his enablers in the right-wing media regarding his "dithering" on the decision regarding Afghanistan:

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This is a big "f#?k you, Dick."

Admiral Mike Mullen backed up President Obama's recitation of the Bush-Cheney regime's failure in Afghanistan and refuted criticism yesterday from that other architect of failure in Afghanistan, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Admiral Mullen said:

"In my view when you under-resource an effort for an extended period of time, when you, in many ways, starve an effort, the impact - and I don't just mean with forces, because we've done it with training, we've done it intellectually, we've done it diplomatically, politically, you name it - we were focused on the other war [in Iraq] and that was the priority." 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Wednesday, December 2

This is a big "f#?k you, Don."

And let's not forget that Donald Rumsfeld was in charge when the Department of Defense made the critical mistake not to send American forces into Tora Bora after al Qaeda and the Taliban were routed, allowing them to escape into Pakistan. Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp':

Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

The report: http://foreign.senate.gov/

An argument can be made that the war in Afghanistan, from the perspective of the Afghan people, was won quickly and decisively -- in 2001. The brutal Taliban regime was overthrown and the Taliban and its al Qaeda supporters were forced to flee into neighboring Pakistan, their patron. The Afghans selected Hamid Karzai as interim president in a Loya Jirga in June 2002, and established a new form of government for Afghanistan. Karzai was elected president in October 2004. From the Afghan perspective, this was "mission accomplished." They were on the road to self-determination. The Afghans could reasonably ask, "why are you still here?"

As a result, Americans have gone from being liberators to occupiers in the eyes of Afghans in a region of the world that is fiercely independent and that has resisted foreign occupation since the days of Alexander the Great. Afghanistan has a well-earned reputation for being the place where empires go to die.

I don't get the sense that our military leaders fully appreciate this well-documented history. They appear to be adherents of "American exceptionalism" and a belief in military might. This is Neoconservative think.

They cannot explain how the military-industrial-congressional complex, whose annual budget exceeds that of every other nation in the world combined, has been unable to defeat a relatively small number of lightly armed insurgents after more than eight years of occupation and war. Americans rightly question how the most powerful military in the world is being stymied by a bunch of guys with AK-47 rifles hiding in caves.

The answer of course is that the Taliban enjoys popular support among the people of Afghanistan who see the ineffective and corrupt government of Hamid Karzai as no better than what they experienced under the brutality of the Taliban. It may not be accurate or reality, but we cannot dismiss the perception of the Afghan people. And the Taliban are their neighbors and fellow tribesmen, not a foreign power occupying their country. This is the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom at work.

When President Obama said "we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency" he is mistaking the relatively small number of armed Taliban insurgents for the broader popular support of the Taliban. The Taliban is doing a better job than the ineffectual and corrupt Karzai government at winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We are losing the battle for hearts and minds. Propping up the ineffectual and corrupt government of Hamid Karzai is a fool's errand. On this one point, it is reminiscent of Vietnam.

The next part of President Obama's speech has attracted the most commentary:

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

Post-speech commentators from the left (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and the right (e.g., Mary Matlin) have cited this passage as evidence that President Obama is continuing the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war -- going to war before threats emerge and pose an imminent threat to the U.S. I believe this reflects the bias of the commentators looking for anything to support their preconceived views.

President Obama directly rejected the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war later in his speech by addressing the Afghan people directly:

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

And in this later passage:

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated President Obama's rejection of the Bush Doctrine in testimony before Congress on Wednesday:

"Well, Senator Graham, I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done-and I think it was an appropriate position for the president to take-is to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan, we are not interested in running their country, building their nation. We are trying to give them the space and time to be able to build up sufficient forces to defend themselves." 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Wednesday, December 2

President Obama's rejection of the Bush Doctrine is what has Neoconservatives like Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain pitching a fit. They believe in a Pax Americana empire and American military dominance through client states. Military superiority and domination are essential elements of the Bush Doctrine. Leaving is never an option. Hence, Sen. John McCain was first out of the box to complain about setting an "arbitrary date" for an exit strategy in Afghanistan. President Obama addressed Neconservatives like Cheney and McCain in his speech:

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

It was the Bush administration which adopted a time table for withdrawal from Iraq, approved by both the governments of Iraq and the U.S. U.S., Iraqi Negotiators Agree on 2011 Withdrawal - washingtonpost.com (U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011.) The chicken little "the sky is falling" predictions from Neoconservatives like Senator John McCain and his BFF Senator Lindsey Graham have proved to be false. John McCain has no credibility on this issue.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice addressed this Bush Doctrine analogy directly as posed to her by Rachel Maddow on Wednesday's program 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, December 2:

MADDOW: In terms of Afghanistan, specifically, if there are only very limited elements of al Qaeda there, if it is to prevent future safe havens for the Taliban and thereby, eventually, for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, is this a Bush doctrine war? Is this a preventative war to stop the threat that doesn't exist today?

RICE: No.

MADDOW: One from emerging in the future?

RICE: Absolutely not because the threat exists. It has manifested itself in the killing of 3,000 people here on 9/11. It's manifesting itself repeatedly in plots that we've recently just disrupted here in the United States. They were hatched in this border area to again.

MADDOW: Border area of Afghanistan?

RICE: Of Afghanistan and Pakistan, along that border. Well, it is a porous border, as you well know, having looked at this. Yes, there are different countries. Yes, we have very different approaches and strategies to them, but there is nothing different about that area. It is completely porous and people and fighters can and do move freely across that border.

And so, as we work to eliminate the safe haven in Pakistan, it's vitally important that the Taliban, which has nurtured and supported al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not gain control and not be able to establish large swaths of authority in the country in which al Qaeda can again have a safe haven.

President Obama is not launching a preemptive war of aggression based upon speculation as Bush did in Iraq. We are well into the ninth year of war in Afghanistan. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, and they are committed to doing so again. The Taliban is the patron of al Qaeda; they are inextricably linked. There is nothing hypothetical or speculative about their desire or capability to attack U.S. interests around the world. They pose a clear and present danger to U.S. interests.

This is particularly true in Pakistan. In a worst case scenario, the Taliban with the assistance of elements within the Pakistan government could overthrow the Pakistan government in a coup d'état and gain access to its nuclear arsenal, despite assurances from the Pakistan government that this is not possible, and despite assurances from the U.S. government that we have special forces units on standby to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is not difficult to imagine in this worst case scenario that it could escalate into a nuclear preemptive first strike by a nervous India, or by the United States. When the telemetry of nuclear missiles are being tracked by Pakistan's neighbors in China and Russia, things could quickly spiral out of control. Given the current state of affairs in Pakistan, this worst case scenario is not all that far-fetched.

Pakistan is our supposed ally. But it was Pakistan that created the Taliban and nurtured it and al Qaeda for its own political ends. And Pakistan, until only recently, was reluctant to move against the safe havens in western Pakistan. Pakistan entered into a series of non-aggression pacts with the Taliban over the years that essentially ceded large swaths of Pakistan to Taliban control. It was the wave of terrorist attacks in recent years against the Pakistan government itself that finally made the government realize it had created a monster that now wanted to destroy its creator. The recent efforts by the Pakistan military may be too little, too late. And there is always the uneasy suspicion that Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) remains a patron of the Taliban and al Qaida.

The U.S. chose not to invoke the doctrine of "hot pursuit" to pursue al Qaeda and the Taliban into western Pakistan after they escaped from Tora Bora. There is no evidence that the U.S. sought permission from our supposed ally Pakistan to insert U.S. forces into western Pakistan to cut off the escape routes into Pakistan. Had the U.S. gone "all in" using the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force in 2001 instead of the minimalist approach of Donald Rumsfeld, there would have been a quick and decisive end to al Qaeda and the armed elements of the Taliban. The war would have been over, and Afghanistan and Pakistan likely would not be threatened today by a resurgent Taliban.

President Obama is left with cleaning up the mess left behind by the gross incompetence of the Bush-Cheney regime. There are no good options, and no action may prove effective in the long term. But this is the plan approved by President Obama after extensive consultation with military and diplomatic leaders:

Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

* * *

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

As I said earlier, propping up the ineffectual and corrupt Karzai government is a fool's errand. Karzai has little popular support. But Karzai will control our fate under this plan.

There is no reason to have any confidence that Karzai will change his ways. If President Obama is serious about holding "ineffective or corrupt" leaders accountable it must begin with Karzai and his brother. Afghanistan needs new leadership, but it must be effected by the Afghans themselves under their constitution.

It is my understanding that CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy of a population-centric approach is to be used. General Petraeus’s “new thinking” emphasizes above all the protection of civilians over and above force projection – a radical turnaround in the way American forces are used. Instead of technology and firepower, the emphasis has been on bottom-up local security. His latest Counter-insurgency Guidance (published 8 July 2008) includes instructions like “Secure and serve the Population,” “Live among the People,” “Promote Reconciliation,” “Walk,” “Build Relationships,” “Employ money as a weapons system,” “Empower subordinates.” American Military Strategy: New Thinking and Complications - La vie des idéesThere are discussions that the U.S. will bypass the Karzai government to deal directly with local tribal leaders who are more influential and effective. This is certain to cause a rift between the U.S. and the Karzai government.

Strengthening Afghanistan's security forces is a tall order. Afghanistan is one of the poorest and least literate countries. Loyalties are to one's tribal clan. I have read reports that up to 25% of security forces already trained have abandoned their positions for various reasons. Building a professional, loyal and competent security force under these circumstances and conditions is unlikely to be achieved in 18 months.

The civilian strategy of rebuilding Afghanistan after more than 30 years of war is even less likely to be achieved in 18 months. The nations of the world are unlikely to invest in a country like Afghanistan. An agricultural policy intrigues me. An agricultural policy based on the U.S. model with direct payments to farmers to grow certain crops, price supports, access to international markets, a commodities exchange market, etc., could go a long way to weaning Afghanistan away from growing opium, the primary source of revenue for the Taliban. This means we would be subsidizing Afghanistan's farmers, but for how long? And President Karzai's brother is the reputed kingpin in the opium trade. The uncertainty of continued subsidies, corruption and traditional practices are likely to overwhelm any effective agricultural policy.

Pakistan is critical. Hopefully Pakistan now understands that we share a common enemy. Pakistan created this monster, now it must destroy its monster. The problem is that Pakistanis resent the U.S. for its incursions into Pakistan using predator drones, often with innocent civilian "collateral damage." Pakistan's suspicion of the U.S. prevents it from permitting U.S. forces into Pakistan. Militarily, a joint U.S./(Allied)-Pakistan offensive into the Taliban controlled western provinces of Pakistan to squeeze the Taliban in the middle and destroy them would seem to be the optimal approach. But despite a wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, the Pakistani people remain opposed to a U.S. presence in Pakistan. Such a move could even topple the Pakistan government.

We are forced to rely on Pakistan to hold up its end of the bargain. Given the history of Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) supporting and nurturing the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the demonstrated poor performance of its military, I have little reason to feel optimistic.

At best this is a short-term plan to buy some time and to stabilize conditions on the ground while waiting to see how things shake out. There will be adjustments and modifications to the plan in response to changing conditions on the ground. Secretary of Defense Gates testified Wednesday that there will be an assessment conducted beginning in December 2010 before going forward with the troop reductions scheduled to begin in July 2011. If there is no demonstrable sign of success, I suspect that Congress will move to cut off funding for the war as it did during the latter years of the Vietnam war.

President Obama said in his speech, "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow." He tied our national security to our economic security and our ability to pay for our military commitments. President Obama may yet have to devise an honorable way to "declare victory and leave" based upon these considerations.

Something a Neoconservative ideologue like President John Sydney McCain would never, ever consider.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Barack Obama has been consistent with his campaign promises and his plan for Afghanistan touched upon in this op/ed from July 2008 Barack Obama - Op-Ed - My Plan for Iraq - NYTimes.com:

Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

President Obama has now done what he said he would do. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Anti-war commentators who assert that the American people voted for Obama in 2008 to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are misrepresenting his positions, and misinterpreting the election results ("It's the economy, stupid.")

I will post the video of President Obama's speech at West Point outlining his Af-Pak war strategy, and post a link to the transcript. I will get around to analyzing the strategy in a later post. (Right now I am fighting an illness.)

Transcript of prepared Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan | The White House

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Congressional Republicans love to cite reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - except, of course, when the CBO report undermines the line of bullshit Republicans ae selling the American public, aided and abetted by a lazy stenographer news media who never fact check what Republicans are saying (you know who you are).

Here are two recent examles from just this week.

Politico reported this CBO Report: At least 600K jobs created:

Between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs were created or saved through September as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to a Congressional Budget Office report (pdf).

The data, released Monday, say the real inflation-adjusted gross domestic product was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher than it would have been had the $787 billion stimulus package not passed in February. Also, the stimulus lowered the unemployment by between 0.3 and 0.9 percentage points, according to the report.

The new figures are slightly higher than CBO’s March estimates that between 600,000 and 1.5 million jobs were saved or created by the third quarter of this year, the report said.

CBO also estimates that the stimulus upped federal spending by $100 billion while cutting tax revenue by $90 billion, according to Bloomberg.

On Monday, the CBO also released its report on the cost of the Senate health care reform bill. No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study - NYTimes.com

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.

* * *

[A]s a result of the [federal] subsidies, [the report] said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.

For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law. [caveat: premiums are projected to continue increasing annually under current law and the Senate bill]

* * *

[For people receiving subsidies, the budget office said, premiums would be 56 percent to 59 percent lower than under current law.]

“The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo.”

Not to be deterred by inconvenient truths like facts, Congressional Republicans cherry-picked the CBO prediction that unsubsidized premiums in the individual insurance market, less than a fifth of those with health insurance, would rise an average of 10 percent to 13 percent. [consistent with current annual increases in premiums]

This of course was the focus of the GOP's media outlet at Faux News. Think Progress » Fox News Distorts CBO Report: Health Care Reform ‘Likely Won’t Bring Private Premiums Down’ "Fox News ran a chyron alleging that the new Congressional Budget Office report on premiums concluded that the Senate health care bill won’t lower health care premiums... The report actually concluded (pdf) the opposite — that, on average, premiums would substantially decrease for the majority of Americans purchasing coverage in the individual market and maintain or lower premiums in the small and large employer markets."

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Senate began debate of the health care reform bill on Moday and John McCain wasted no time in making a complete fool of himself. As Keith Olbermann noted in his intro to McCain's "remarkable performance" that "you'll have to see to believe" 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, November 30

John McCain has just stepped into the health care debate. Well, he stepped in a lot more than just that actually. Senator McCain complains about the lack of specifics about supposed cuts to Medicare, then he lists them specifically. And he warns Americans of, quote, “all kind of provisions” that they‘re either unaware of or many of us have also become unaware of.

So, Mr. McCain, how long has it been since you became unaware of these provisions?

* * *

But it was John McCain, the Republican from Arizona, who stole the spotlight today in a heated debate with Arizona Republican John McCain, including a dramatic back-and-forth over the bill‘s lack of specificity for which he had specifics.

Think Progress has the details. Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill. The so-called ‘motion to commit’ would send the legislation back to the Senate Finance Committee and instruct that committee to remove the $491 billion in proposed reductions from Medicare and Medicaid programs:

Madame President, simply put, this motion to commit would be a requirement that we eliminate the half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that is envisioned by this bill. A half a trillion dollars in cuts that are unspecified as to how, and a half a trillion dollars in cuts that would directly impact the health care of citizens in this country. … All of these are cuts in the obligations that we have assumed and are the rightful benefits that people have earned. … I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country. That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts.

Watch it:

McCain then specified the Medicare cuts "that are unspecified": "Medicare advantage cuts totaling $118 billion. Medicare advisory board that would cost $23 billion. Hospital penalties totaling $7.1 billion. Home health care cuts totaling $42.1 billion. The list goes on and on."

McCain went on to say "I don‘t believe that the American people want this 2,000-and-some-page monstrosity, which is full—which is full of all kinds of provisions that they are either unaware of or even in the study of this legislation many of us have also become unaware of." Huh? 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, November 30

Think Progress continues:

McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid…in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.” Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.

In 1997, McCain (along with many Democrats) voted for a series of Medicare cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act decreased Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years and instituted the kind of payment updates that the Senate bill is now recommending. In 1995, moreover, Republicans sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted, “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”

While Republicans wanted to strip funding from Medicare to ultimately kill the program, Democrats are finding cost savings to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and expand the number of seniors eligible for assistance with premiums and co-pays.

Now, obviously, insurance companies are all for these Medicare over-payments, and Democratic leadership isn't letting McCain off the hook for doing their bidding. Jim Manley, senior spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "the self-described foe of all earmarks is with one single amendment providing a big fat wet kiss for his friends in the insurance industry. All at the expense of millions of senior citizens." Reid Spokesman: McCain Amendment A 'Big Fat Wet Kiss' To The Insurance Industry | TPMDC

The DNC has a longer memory than Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would like. DNC: John McCain's Hypocrisy Highlights Republican Hollowness | TPMDC

"John McCain's hypocrisy highlights the hollowness of Republicans labeling savings in Medicare from eliminating waste, fraud and abuse under the reform bills as 'cuts.' By the same definition, McCain wanted to 'cut' Medicare nearly three times as much from Medicare," reads a statement from DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan. "While Democrats are proposing reforms which will strengthen Medicare for the long haul by eliminating wasteful subsidies to the health insurance industry and eliminating over payments to providers and other waste in the system, Senate Republicans continue to lob erroneous and - in this case - hypocritical attacks on legislation that will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans."

Medicare fraud - estimated now to total about $60 billion a year - has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America. Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime - 60 Minutes - CBS News (episode October 25, 2009). This bill is an attempt to do something about it and Sen. NcNasty pitches a fit about it on the floor of the Senate. Just who is he seeking to benefit and why? It's certainly not you and me.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Nobody does bumper sticker slogan gimmicks better than the Republican Party. They have excelled at this "simple solutions to complex problems" that you can reduce to a bumper sticker for years.

The latest gimmick from the GOP's "Gimmicks-R-Us" shop comes from Arizona Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley. Burges has convinced 33 of her Republican colleagues in the House to sign on as sponsors, and 12 of 30 senators have signed on in support of her gimmick Voluntary tax proposal. You really didn't think Republican legislators are serious people, did you?

So how much are you willing to give, voluntarily, to help the state out of its financial hole?

You may get a chance: Legislation introduced for the upcoming session seeks to create an "I Didn't Pay Enough'' fund where Arizonans, on their income tax forms, would be able to make a donation to the state above and beyond what they owe.

Burges acknowledged that the purpose of the legislation is strictly partisan politics (but of course). She wanted to address the insistence by some - mostly Democrats - that Arizonans are willing to pony up more money to protect vital services.

That being said, Burges said the measure has the potential to help bridge the gap between revenues and expenses, even if just a little bit: If every one of the 3.4 million households that files a state income tax return kicked in an extra $5, that would generate $12 million.

That's a far cry from the estimated $3 billion that will be needed to balance next year's budget. But Burges, in her second two-year term as a legislator, said she views this as far preferable to mandated higher taxes on everyone.

Let's break this down. Rep. Burges is essentially saying that if socially responsible Arizonans want to pay more in taxes to make up the difference for what Grover Norquist anti-tax deadbeats refuse to pay in taxes, they should voluntarily do so. Her own estimate shows this would generate but a drop in the bucket (which is why taxes are compulsory, not voluntary).

Haven't we all had enough of this "Gimmicks-R-Us" crap from Republicans? It's about time we elect serious people with educated thoughtful solutions who are willing to lead by making the hard choices for Arizona's future.

The editors of the state's two major newspapers rightly mocked Rep. Burges' "Gimmicks-R-Us" proposal today. The Arizona Republic said Lawmakers, spare us the tax jokes:

The cutesy idea for the "I didn't pay enough" fund has heavy support from Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform. Yep. The same guy who brought us the simplistic no-new-taxes pledge that gummed up efforts earlier this year to solve Arizona's budget problems.

The "grobots" who follow him are contributing to his agenda: shrinking government to a husk.

This bill is designed to push a philosophy of minimalist government. It has nothing to do with the state's daily business of teaching students, patrolling highways, fighting forest fires and investigating child abuse.

In the tough times ahead, we need creativity, thoughtfulness and courage from our legislators.

I have not checked the list of cosponsors to Burges' "Gimmicks-R-Us" proposal, but I am guessing it is nearly identical to those legislators who signed Grover Norquist's "no new tax" pledge. This should serve as a list of ideological extremists who should not be returned to the Arizona legislature under any circumstances next year.

The Arizona Daily Star said 'I Didn't Pay Enough' bill mere distraction:

In these trying times, our legislators will try just about anything to appear as if they are doing something to meet the state's budget crisis.

Case in point: A proposal by Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, to create an "I Didn't Pay Enough" fund that would allow Arizona taxpayers to voluntarily pay more in taxes than they owe.

Can bake sales and car washes be far behind?

* * *

If Burges and her 45 colleagues truly wanted to test our willingness to do that, they might try backing Brewer's call for a vote on a temporary one-cent hike in the state sales tax.

Better, they might try backing an earlier Democratic plan to put an expansion of a sales-tax base to a vote.

If she and the 45 colleagues who so eagerly signed on to this bill were truly serious about meeting the crisis head-on, they would be busy revamping the mix of taxes that produces state revenue and letting the people vote on that.

Arizona has shifted the tax burden from its historical "three-legged stool" of property, sales and income taxes to one that relies first on sales tax, second on income tax and hardly at all on property tax.

This is a recipe for volatility that makes budgeting difficult even in good times.

* * *

Nobody likes to raise taxes but when the alternative is to shirk our responsibility to educate our children and keep a minimal safety net beneath those suffering the most in this recession, then higher taxes must be considered, along with elimination of tax credits, fee hikes and borrowing.

Our legislators should be busily involved in meeting the current crisis and planning to avoid future ones.

House Bill 2001 is a distraction from that task, crafted to make a point and not to solve a problem.

I've been wrestling with this one lately. A suit has been filed to give charter schools more money to make their allocations "equal" with district schools. That raises the question: do charters get less than district schools, and if so, should the state give them more?

The main issue here is the $7500 vs. $9500 per pupil figure that I've written about ad nauseam. The $9500 figure is ridiculous when you're talking about the amount spent on a student's education. The extra $2000 has to do with the cost of building more schools to deal with our expanding student population. It wouldn't be there if our population had remained stable or was shrinking. No reputable comparative national study from the left or the right includes the extra $2000, nor does Tom Horne. We spend about $7500 per student. End of story.

But when we're comparing schools within the state, it may be a different matter. Why shouldn't all schools, charter and district, have equal access to school building funds when they need to put up a school to house students? It's a compelling argument.

But I think the argument falls apart when you look at it more closely. Here are 3 reasons why charter schools shouldn't have access to extra government funds for building schools. I'll elaborate on them after the jump.

1. Charter schools aren't built to meet the needs of an expanding student population.
2. Charter school buildings are created (or redesigned) at the whim of the directors, not the Department of Education or a school district.
3. Charter schools can fail or have their charters revoked, leaving an empty building.

Here's the best analogy I can think of. I think people would complain mightily if a district wanted money to put up a few new schools it couldn't justify because of population needs. The complaints would grow louder if it left the building design up to the new principal and a group of friends. And they would reach eardrum-piercing levels if the district said, we don't know if we'll still be using the school a few years down the road.

That's a rough approximation of the situation when a new charter school is built.

Let me expand on the reasons why charter schools shouldn't get extra money from the state, or another governmental funding source like bonds, one by one.

1. Charter schools aren't built to meet the needs of an expanding student population.

The main reason we build more district schools is because those we have are bursting at the seams or the population has shifted to geographical areas without schools nearby. In other words, new building is dictated by population expansion. States with stable populations or dwindling populations generally don't build new schools.

Except in rare instances, charters aren't created to respond to a growing student population. They're started because someone wants to start a new school, and they're given state money for that purpose, equal to the amount any school would receive for a given number of students. There's no reason why the state should pay more out of its general fund or float bonds for the purpose of erecting schools which aren't needed to take care of an overflow of students.

2. Charter school buildings are created (or renovated and redesigned) at the whim of the directors, not the Department of Education or a school district.

When the state or school district builds a new school or adds on to an existing school, it makes sure the design is in keeping with what it believes are necessary educational standards. Charter school buildings, on the other hand, are built or redesigned to the specifications of the directors and others involved with the school. Build the school in the shape of a geodesic dome? Fine. Don't want a cafeteria? Also fine. Have a sandbox built into every room? Why not? I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point is, those involved with the charter call the shots.

If government is going to participate in funding a school building, it should also be intimately involved in all aspects of the design and construction. That would be put heavy restrictions on the charter directors that they probably would object to. Their concept of the school might involve a different sort of building design.

In other words, in trade for the freedom to build the school of its choice, a charter forfeits the right to have the state participate in funding the building.

3. Charter schools can fail or have their charters revoked, leaving an empty building.

There is no guarantee a charter school will be successful. It can close its doors in a year or 5 years or 10 years, because it fails to attract students, or because it mismanages its money and goes under or because the State Charter Board revokes its charter. The directors can even just walk away and say, "Enough."

So what happens to the building then? If it has been built with government funding, it can be a gigantic albatross hanging around the neck of the state or a school district. There may be no buyers, and there may be no need for the building, yet a government entity would have to continue paying off the cost of the building for years.

These three reasons lead me to the conclusion that the seeming funding inequity between district and charter schools is part of the nature of charter schools. It might be different if a charter takes over a school that's already running or if the charter is housed in an unused portion of an existing school. You can find situations like that in other states and possibly in Arizona as well. But if people set out to create a new school from the ground up, it's not a governmental responsibility to put up extra money to build the school.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Associated Press writer Gene Johnson has this update at East Valley Tribune:

SEATTLE (AP) -- The man suspected of gunning down four police officers in a suburban coffee shop was shot and killed by a lone patrolman investigating a stolen car early Tuesday. Four people were arrested for allegedly helping the suspect elude authorities during a massive two-day manhunt.

Maurice Clemmons was carrying a handgun he took from one of the dead officers when a Seattle policeman recognized him near a stolen car in a working-class south Seattle neighborhood about 2:45 a.m., Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel said.

The vehicle was running but unoccupied when the officer pulled up, radioed in the license plate number and realized the car was stolen, Pugel said.

The officer saw something moving, got out of his car, saw Clemmons and ordered him to show his hands and stop.

"He wouldn't stop," Pugel said. "The officer fired several rounds."

Clemmons also had sustained a serious gunshot wound from one of the four officers killed in the coffee-shop shooting.

Police planned to arrest more people who helped Clemmons.

"We expect to have maybe six or seven people in custody by the day's end," said Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff. "Some are friends, some are acquaintances, some are partners in crime, some are relatives. Now they're all partners in crime."

* * *

Police said they aren't sure what prompted Clemmons to shoot the four officers, who were in uniform and working on paperwork at the coffee shop just two blocks outside their jurisdiction.

"The only motive that we have is he decided he was going to go kill police officers," Troyer said. He said Clemmons talked the night before the shooting about killing a group of cops and watching the news.

Police believe Clemmons chose the coffee shop because it was frequented by police officers from various agencies.

"We do not believe that the Lakewood officers were actually targeted other than that they were police officers in that location at the time where he knew he could find police officers."

Clemmons was described as increasingly erratic in the past few months and had been arrested earlier this year on charges that he punched a sheriff's deputy in the face.

* * *

Authorities in two states were criticized amid revelations that Clemmons was allowed to walk the streets despite a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. He was released early after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.

Huckabee cited Clemmons' youth in granting the request. But Clemmons quickly reverted to his criminal past, violated his parole and was returned to prison. He was released again in 2004.

"This guy should have never been on the street," said Brian D. Wurts, president of the police union in Lakewood. "Our elected officials need to find out why these people are out."

Huckabee said on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night that Clemmons was allowed back on the street because prosecutors failed to file paperwork in time.

Pulaski County Prosecutor Larry Jegley, whose office opposed Clemmons' parole in 2000 and 2004, said Huckabee's comments were "red herrings."

"My word to Mr. Huckabee is man up and own what you did," Jegley said.

Clemmons was charged in Washington state earlier this year with assaulting a police officer and raping a child, and investigators in the sex case said he was motivated by visions that he was Jesus Christ and that the world was on the verge of the apocalypse.

But he was released from jail after posting bail with the assistance of Jail Sucks Bail Bonds.

Documents related to those charges indicate a volatile personality. In one instance, he is accused of gathering his wife and young relatives and forcing them to undress.

"The whole time Clemmons kept saying things like trust him, the world is going to end soon, and that he was Jesus," a Pierce County sheriff's report said.

Oh yeah, Mike Huckabee has a "Willie Horton" problem. This is not the first Huckabee commutation with a bad ending. The case of Wayne Dumond received a lot of attention in the governor's reelection race and the 2008 GOP presidential primaries. Arkansas Times (September 1, 2005):

New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.

And just as he is doing now, Huckabee tried to shift blame to others (only the governor has the power of pardon and commutation):

In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumond’s release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond.

But the Times’ new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond’s release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).

Suffice it to say that any political ambitions that Mike Huckabee still harbors are officially over. His political career is finished. His political opponents would "Willie Horton" him into political oblivion. The only question left is "does Faux News retain his program or cancel it?"

This is a public service announcement.

The Goldwater Institute's Daily Email has announced what they think we must do to  protect what we gained when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Spread the word about the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, which could stop the federal government from dictating your health care choices under the guise of health reform. Tell the FCC you know "net neutrality" is really the federal government's foray into seizing control over the private Internet. Stand against union bullying by learning more about the Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot Act, which could preserve your right to reject unionization by secret ballot. Use state sovereignty as it was meant to be used-as a double layer of security against the violation of rights secured by the Bill of Rights.

They want to protect us from access to affordable health care, an internet where my BfA posts get to your computer as quickly as the WalMart website and a workplace where workers can choose to join a union without endless delays and employer intimidation.

I've rarely seen the battle lines so clearly drawn.

Here's the answer to the question, "How did the legislature come up with the $144 million figure for cutting soft capital to schools?" It comes from an email sent by LEAN Parents for Education.

In order to receive federal stimulus money, all US states had to agree not to cut education spending below their 2006 state expenditure of education, otherwise known as the Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) requirement.  This latest cut of $144 million sets us back to the 2006 number for this fiscal year.

If our legislature decides to cut anything else from the overall education budget this year, Arizona would be in danger of losing the $1 billion + in State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money that we are scheduled to receive between 2009-2011.

Governor Brewer is reportedly going to ask for an exemption to the federal guidelines so our legislature can continue to cut below 2006 funding levels.

For more information, go to their chock-full-o'-information website, Arizona Education Network.

Where does Brewer stand on payday loans, or repealing the law that would get rid of payday loans in Arizona? She's not sure. Remember the ballot measure that would have kept payday loans here? The one that lost big time?

Brewer said she couldn’t remember how she voted on the ballot measure last year that went down by a 3-2 margin. When asked by reporters if she would look into how she voted, Brewer said, “What am I going to look into… My brain?” 

And as for the concept of payday loans,

Brewer said there are many people who depend on them. “There’s a people out there that do believe there is a need,” she said.

So where does Brewer stand on the idea that payday loans are scheduled to sail off into the sunset this summer? She's not saying. But she has friends.

The industry has hired former attorney general Grant Woods, who is the co-chairman of Brewer’s election campaign, and Chuck Coughlin, a key political advisor to the governor, to repeal a law forcing payday lenders to shut down this summer.

Coughlin headed Brewer's gubernatorial transition team, along with his lobbying firm, HighGround.

Brewer sees no conflict in her close and continuing relationship with the people who will be twisting arms in the legislature and talking with her about her ongoing campaign strategy.

The good news: good charter schools can be very good. For certain parts of the student population, they can be better than public schools.

The bad news: bad charter schools can be just awful. They're run either by incompetents or profiteers -- sometimes by incompetent profiteers -- and the students are the victims.

A review of a recent study of New York charter schools points this out. The study maintains that students at New York charters perform significantly better on standardized tests than equivalent students in district schools. Some of the methodology is being questioned -- the study hasn't been peer reviewed yet -- but here is something which struck me as being very telling, and which I'm sure will stand up.

. . . 14 percent of students in the study attended charter schools that had an overall negative effect on math performance, compared with students who [applied to get into the charter but] did not win the lottery.

Assuming the finding is true, a number of NY charter schools should be closed, using the same standards the study used to applaud overall charter performance. Or they never should have been allowed to set up shop in the first place.

. . . as Joe Nathan, a founder of the [charter school] movement, says, “Some terrific charters are doing great things for kids, but charlatans have entered the field and have ripped off kids and taxpayers.” He says charter school organizations must develop better ways of screening out crooks and incompetents before they get to start schools.

According to a Stanford study, Arizona is among the states where charter school students perform less well than the equivalent district school students. This study too is subject to question, as are all ed studies. But imagine what the charter scores would be like if the bad charters were eliminated.

It's far easier to eliminate a poor charter than a poor district school, since the students from the closed charter flow back into district schools. It's not so easy if a district school closes. We need more oversight, both in authorizing of charters and weeding out the bad ones once they start, something sorely lacking in our charter school system.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Remember how Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater used this fearmongering ad to destroy the Michael Dukakis presidential campaign in 1988? (This was one version of the ad)

George H. W. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." Media consultant Roger Ailes remarked "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Willie Horton - Wikipedia

Well, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who now hosts a program for the very same Roger Ailes' Faux News network may have his very own "Willie Horton" problem.

In tragic news out of Washington state, four police officers were gunned down in a coffee shop on Sunday. 4 Wash. police officers killed at coffee shop Buried in the body of this report was this factoid:

[Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer] told reporters that Maurice Clemmons, 37, was one of several people investigators want to talk to and that he could not be called a suspect at this point.

In a news release, the Sheriff's Office said Clemmons has an extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft. Clemmons also recently was arrested in Pierce County and was charged with third-degree assault on a police officer and second-degree rape of a child.

In 1989, Clemmons, then 17, was convicted in Little Rock for aggravated robbery. He was paroled in 2000 after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted Clemmons' 95-year prison sentence. Huckabee, who was criticized during his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 for the number of clemencies and commutations he granted, cited Clemmons' age at the time of the sentence.

After his release from prison, Clemmons violated his parole and was returned to prison in July 2001. He was released March 18, 2004, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper.

In breaking news this morning, Maurice Clemmons was believed to be holed up in his home where police spent the night trying to negotiate with him to no response. Police believed that he was wounded and may have died from his injuries. Police entered the home this morning and discovered that Clemmons was not there. Police: Suspect in deaths of officers not in house (w/slide show):

Negotiators spent the night trying to communicate with 37-year-old Maurice Clemmons, using loudspeakers, explosions and even a robot to try to prod him from hiding. But when they entered the home, he was not there.

Pierce County sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said the location of Clemmons is not known, and it’s possible he may still be in the neighborhood staked out overnight by Seattle police. Troyer also says people who know Clemmons told investigators that he had been shot in the torso.

He is suspected of killing the officers as they worked at a coffee shop Sunday morning. Clemmons has a long rap sheet, and once had a 95-year prison sentence commuted by the governor of Arkansas [Mike Huckabee].

I want to caution readers that this comes from AP reporting in the Arizona Daily Star and may not yet be verified by the AP reporters. Maurice Clemmons is a suspect and remains at large. It is not confirmed that he is the gunman responsible for shooting the police officers. And it is not yet confirmed that this is the same Maurice Clemmons whom Governor Huckabee is reported to have commuted his sentence in 2000. We will follow this story as more details become available.

UPDATE: The Seattle Times reported today Former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee has controversial record of freeing criminals

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's record of freeing criminals from prison was controversial even before news that the man sought for questioning in the killing of four Lakewood police officers had a lengthy prison sentence commuted by Huckabee.

The one-time Republican presidential contender granted twice as many pardons and commutations as the previous three governors of Arkansas combined, The Associated Press reported in 2007.

In all, he issued 1,033 pardons and commutations during more than 10 years as governor — an average of about one every four days.

Maurice Clemmons, the man police were searching for Sunday night, faced decades in prison for robberies and other charges when his sentence was commuted by Huckabee in 2000. Clemmons later was sent back to prison after violating parole, but was released again five years ago.

Clemmons was released from jail in Pierce County six days ago after posting bond. He'd spent the past several months in jail on a charge of child rape. His release came even though he faced seven additional felony charges in Washington state.

Huckabee issued a written statement Sunday night through his daughter and spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee, saying the "senseless and savage execution" of the police officers "has saddened the nation."

If Clemmons is found to be responsible, Huckabee's statement said, "it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state."

The statement said Clemmons had been recommended for commutation and that his release was approved by the state parole board.

Huckabee noted that Clemmons later was arrested for parole violations but was released after prosecutors failed to press new charges that could have kept him in prison.

"It appears that he has continued to have a string of criminal and psychotic behavior but was not kept incarcerated by either state. This is a horrible and tragic event and if found and convicted the offender should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law," he said.

(click here to read Huckabee's statement in its entirety)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sarah Palin had some nice things to say about America's "Fearmonger-In-Chief", Glenn Beck of Faux News. In an interview with right-wing Newsmax.com, Palin was asked, "Is a "dream ticket" of Palin-Beck ticket completely out of the question? " Palin-Beck Ticket? Sarah Doesn't Rule it Out:

Palin initially chuckled when Newsmax broached the idea. But then she had some serious words of praise for the popular Fox personality.

"I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin tells Newsmax. "But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he's so bold — I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."

Fox and Friends (of course) plugged the idea and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, “I don’t know. We’ll see, we’ll see.” Think Progress » Beck’s Sexist Reason For Ruling Out Palin-Beck Ticket: She’d Always Be ‘Yapping’ Like We’re ‘In The Kitchen’

But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:

BECK: I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word “hoot.” [...]

No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

Listen here:

A woman’s appropriate place on a presidential ticket, according to Beck, is in the number two spot. Otherwise, she should just “yap” away in a kitchen somewhere. Apparently, being a vice presidential running mate behind a woman is a serious challenge to Beck’s manhood.

A Beck-Palin ticket is more in line with what the fearmonger-in-chief has in mind. What a freakin' nightmare.(h/t zaiusnation.blogspot.com)

How do newspapers transition away from paper and still make enough money to survive? Here's one scenario I think might work. Create three levels of reading ease: Clunky with lots of ads (free), reasonably efficient and with fewer ads (moderate subscription cost) and smooth as silk (higher subscription cost).

The free Level One would look something like online newspapers today, except you would have to wade through more advertising clutter -- popups, short mandatory videos, ad pages that show up before you reach the content you clicked to and so on. All the news (or most of the news) would be there, but you would pay the price of time and bother. And the news organization would get more ad revenue.

The moderate subscription, Level Two, would be similar to today's online newspapers. It would have ads, but they wouldn't really interfere with your reading. And maybe some material would be available at this level  you couldn't get on the free version. (I pay a yearly fee for that kind of service at Salon.) A number of online news organizations could join together and have a group subscription rate, kind of like TV cable packages. You could choose, say, 4 newspapers from a list and use them all at Level Two with one moderate subscription cost.

Level Three would charge a higher subscription fee. Since I get the Sunday NY Times delivered, I have access to the Times Reader at no additional cost. It's by far the best online reading experience I've had. It's not part of my web browser. It's a separate piece of software. When I open it, today's entire paper loads, and I move through it without interruption or ads.

This is what an article looks like: three columns of very readable type. If I want to read more of that article, I just hit my Page Down key, and it slides to the next page instantly. If I click on International category on the left, I get a listing of all the International stories to link to. But if I just want to browse the stories -- this is my favorite feature -- I just hit my Page Right key, and it slides from story to story. For someone like me who reads at least the first paragraph or two of most stories in the morning paper, that means I get the full browsing experience. When I have a clickable list of stories on most online news sites, I rarely click on more than one in four. I'm willing to pay to have a smoother, more inclusive, more newspaper-like experience, and lots of others would as well.

A paperless news organization would save huge amounts of money on paper, printing and distribution. From what I've heard, when you buy a paper, you're only covering those items. The money for news staff and profit comes from ads. So a combination of online ads and subscriptions wouldn't have to bring in as much as today's papers to be profitable. If it pays for the news staff and some office space along with some programmers, web designers and server maintenance people, and anything over that is profit.

I haven't figured in the portable media -- iphones, blackberries, etc. -- but similar levels of use could be created there as well.

I think some variation of this system could work.