Fair and Unbalanced

Hypocrisy in the Hall of Fame

2013-01-03T16:09:00.000-08:00

A rare exception to my abdication from Fair and Unbalanced.
-- Lovechilde

“Voting shall be based on the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, their contributions to the team on which the player played.” -- BWAA's Hall of Fame Rules

Spitballer Gaylord Perry

Racists and segregationists who conspired to keep African Americans out of baseball are in the Hall of Fame. So are players who regularly used amphetamines to "enhance" their performance on the field and others who took illegal drugs off the field. Cheaters are in the Hall, from spitballers to sign stealers. The Hall includes adulterers, sexual assaulters, drunks and batterers. But some of the greatest players of the past couple of decades, including some of the greatest in the game's history, will likely be denied induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame next week because they allegedly used steroids, probably used steroids or simply looked like they used steroids.

Such arbitrary application of the so-called "integrity clause" is seriously misplaced. It is unquestionable that steroids were used by a large group of players -- hitters and pitchers -- from about 1995 until 2005, when the baseball establishment, under pressure, finally began to crack down on the use of performance enhancing drugs. During this time, when offensive numbers (and players’ heads) were suspiciously inflated, the fans cheered and the owners gleefully looked the other way. For better or worse, steroids were part of the game and unless we are going to disqualify everyone who played during these years, we simply have to accept it. Moreover, with the exception of the few players who have admitted steroid use or where the evidence appears overwhelming, we have no way of knowing with any hope of accuracy who juiced and who didn’t.

The best and most dominant players of every era should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, and steroid use or other alleged character flaws should not be insurmountable barriers to entry. Without Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Mike Piazza -- who is apparently now suspect based on nothing more than hearsay and weak anecdotal information (as is Jeff Bagwell, perhaps a more borderline candidate)-- the Hall of Fame's avowed goals of "preserving history and honoring excellence" will be greatly diminished.

And don't get me started on Pete Rose.

Post Mortem

2012-09-04T07:52:00.001-07:00

Almost two years ago I created this blog in order to use the parts of my brain that weren't consumed by my day job as a death penalty lawyer and to interact with the larger community on what I deeply care about, particularly, as the subhead says, "politics, law, social justice, music and baseball."

Fair and Unbalanced became a daily ritual for me, almost a spiritual practice. I read the paper (i.e., the New York Times) and the essential blogs, which would either inspire me to write something or to cross-post from the impressive group of bloggers who generously allowed me to share their work. I found myself deeply engaged in the issues of the day and was gratified to discover that there were friends out there -- old, new and cyber -- who seemed to care what I had to offer. (The stats show I've posted over 1500 pieces with close to 200,000 hits.)

Careful readers will have noticed I took my first extended break from blogging in July, when I went on a family vacation overseas. What started as a brief hiatus, as it turns out, will be a more protracted one.

After 23-plus years of doing death penalty work, I have become so frustrated with the dysfunctional, broken process that, to paraphrase Justice Blackmun, I decided to no longer "tinker with the machinery of death." (Hopefully, I am just slightly ahead of the curve.) I will be taking my legal career in a different direction about which I am very excited. What this means, however, is that I will need those parts of my brain previously occupied with blogging for this new endeavor.

So, thank you all for the staunch support, insightful comments and constructive feedback. This has been an incredibly rewarding experience for me, and hopefully an enjoyable one for you. But, as the inimitable Groucho Marx put it, "I must be going . . . ."
,

Gone Fishin'

2012-07-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

Fair and Unbalanced will be on hiatus for a bit. As long as you're here, why don't you scroll down and read some of the posts you might have missed or click on some of the links on the right -- the list of jazz greats, the indie radio playlists, popular posts, and the excellent stuff from the blog roll. See you soon.

Fair And Unbalanced Radio 9

2012-07-07T10:37:00.000-07:00

Here is the ninth edition of Fair and Unbalanced Radio, consisting of ten previously posted songs:

1.   Neil Young and Crazy Horse: Oh Susannah
2.   Wilco, Nick Lowe and Mavis Staples: The Weight
3.   Jack White: Love Interruption
4.   Real Estate: Easy
5.   Cloud Nothings: Stay Useless
6.   The Walkmen: Heaven
7.   Alabama Shakes: Hold On
8.   The Shins: September
9.   The Kills: Baby Says
10. Bettye Lavette: I'm Not The One

You can always click the radio icon on the right of the blog for the latest playlist.

[Here are the previous playlists: Fair and Unbalanced Radio, Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3; Volume 4; Volume 5; Volume 6; Volume 7; Volume 8]

The Lackluster Jobs Report And GOP Sabotage

2012-07-06T11:26:00.000-07:00

In the wake of a dismal jobs report, in which "employers created almost enough jobs to keep up with population growth in June, but not nearly enough to reduce the backlog of nearly 13 million unemployed workers," Republicans are doing two things: Blaming Obama and trying to repeal health care. As Steve Benen puts it: "Eliminating health care benefits, as a practical matter, is the GOP jobs plan."

While the tepid job numbers are generally accepted as "absolute, concrete, incontrovertible proof that the president's jobs agenda isn't working," Benen points out, "we aren't trying Obama's jobs agenda."

Perhaps now would be a good time for a reality check. Last fall, Obama said the job market wasn't nearly strong enough, and he proposed an ambitious jobs plan called the American Jobs Act. Independent estimates showed that the policy, if implemented, would create as many as 1.9 million U.S. jobs in 2012 alone. Congressional Republicans, however, killed it.

ThinkProgress has a helpful list of the five key ways Republicans have sabotaged the economic recovery:

1. Filibustering the American Jobs Act. Last October, Senate Republicans killed a jobs bill proposed by President Obama that would have pumped $447 billion into the economy. Multiple economic analysts predicted the bill would add around two million jobs and hailed it as defense against a double-dip recession. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years, and the American public supported the bill.

2. Stonewalling monetary stimulus. The Federal Reserve can do enormous good for a depressed economy through more aggressive monetary stimulus, and by tolerating a temporarily higher level of inflation. But with everything from Ron Paul’s anti-inflationary crusade to Rick Perry threatening to lynch Chairman Ben Bernanke, Republicans have browbeaten the Fed into not going down this path. Most damagingly, the GOP repeatedly held up President Obama’s nominations to the Federal Reserve Board during the critical months of the recession, leaving the board without the institutional clout it needed to help the economy.

3. Threatening a debt default. Even though the country didn’t actually hit its debt ceiling last summer, the Republican threat to default on the United States’ outstanding obligations was sufficient to spook financial markets and do real damage to the economy.

4. Cutting discretionary spending in the debt ceiling deal. The deal the GOP extracted as the price for avoiding default imposed around $900 billion in cuts over ten years. It included $30.5 billion in discretionary cuts in 2012 alone, costing the country 0.3 percent in economic growth and 323,000 jobs, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute. Starting in 2013, the deal will trigger another $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.

5. Cutting discretionary spending in the budget deal. While not as cataclysmic as the debt ceiling brinksmanship, Republicans also threatened a shutdown of the government in early 2011 if cuts were not made to that year’s budget. The deal they struck with the White House cut $38 billion from food stamps, health, education, law enforcement, and low-income programs among others, while sparing defense almost entirely.

ACA Is A Law Of Social Change: Cue The Outrage

2012-07-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

By Tina Dupuy, cross-posted from her website

We can all stop pretending continued Republican anger about the Affordable Care Act is news. Some figured a Supreme Court ruling would settle things. And since the GOP said it was unconstitutional with the same fervor as people who’ve read the Constitution—it was easy to assume a decision from the nine justices in the highest court in the land—regardless of the outcome—would chill them out.

They would say things like “We are a nation of laws.” Things they say when they agree with the law—however unjust it may be (i.e. immigration).

No instead there are calls for revolt. The perennially reasonable Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said in a written statement: “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.” And then added, “The whole thing remains unconstitutional.” Which is akin to saying just because something is a law doesn’t make it legal. Or just because they have hair on their face doesn’t make them mammals. The court, not some junior senator from a small state, ultimately decides what is or what is not constitutional. But unconstitutional is the word conservatives use for illegitimate. In chess this move is called flipping the board over and stomping away.

But it also feeds into the right-wing narrative that they are history’s most frequent victims. To them, the more egalitarian the country becomes the more persecuted conservatives are. The sentiment can be traced back to 1845 and the founding of the Know Nothings a nativist group concerned the country was being overrun with German and Irish immigrants. The current tea party finds its sympathies much more inline with the Know Nothings than anyone who ever threw tea in the Boston Harbor. They’re each backlash movements sparked by “change.”

The Know Nothings became split on the issue of slavery and in the southern states morphed into what we identify as the Confederacy. Here you have a region of the country that quite literally fired the first shots of what was to be the bloodiest war in American history and to hear them tell it, it was the “war of Northern aggression.”

The Civil War for many didn’t settle things so why would we assume a 5-4 decision could?

Conservatives are still mad about the New Deal, even though it worked to pull the country out of the Great Depression. They’re still miffed about women suffrage, the Civil Rights bill and Roe v. Wade. In fact any movement forward giving more people more rights and greater acceptance is a point of contention with conservatives. Gay rights is framed as Christians losing their rights to vilify whomever they want. Women not being forced to pay for birth control out-of-pocket is the government restricting the freedom of religion institutions to dictate policy to the government.

Conservatives in the current incarnation of the Republican Party think rights are a zero sum game. If one group gains acceptance, it means another falls out of favor. The cornerstone of trickle down economics is that a rising tide raises all boats—but not when it comes to social change in the right-wing mindset. Then there are winners and there are losers. And conservatives on some level have to lose to prove their preexisting condition: They’re not bullies but martyrs—always hanged in the public square for their belief that only they should benefit from the Bill of Rights.

The Affordable Care Act is a law of social change. It insists on greater equality for women in health care. It stands up for the sick over the bottom line. It’s a step forward for human rights (finally) in our medical system. And it mandates personal responsibility (as with most laws). It’s far from perfect, and as with anything it can stand improvement—but does that make it an affront to Republicans?

In a word: Yes.

It’s health care reform policy, Republicans, going all the way back to Nixon, have touted as a way to avoid socialized medicine in America. So naturally its implementation is a major loss for their team.

Now more Americans can get private medical insurance and insurance companies have to spend a higher percentage of premiums on actual health care—but most importantly conservatives get to be the victims of “a communist plot to kill our freedom.”

Scalia Watch

2012-07-06T09:27:00.001-07:00

DonkeyHotey

There has long been a consensus in mainstream circles, if not necessarily in the legal community, that whether you agreed with him or not, Justice Scalia possesses a great legal mind. Indeed, the conventional wisdom for decades, as Jeremy Leaming writes, "has held that Justice Antonin Scalia is the high court’s most brilliant, disciplined, albeit ideological, member."

It may be that exposure through the internet "has altered the narrative by giving forums to an array of writers who have been quick to poke holes in an increasingly tiresome and shoddy line of reporting" or simply that Scalia's over-the-top rants and overt partisanship have finally reached a critical mass.

But as the country becomes more politically polarized, Scalia, as Dana Milbank wrote a while back, has had more difficulty containing his rabid partisanship. He noted that “Scalia’s tart tongue has been a fixture on the bench for years, but as the justices venture this year into highly political areas such as health-care reform and immigration, the divisive and pugilistic style of the senior associate justice is very much defining the public image of the Roberts Court.”

Leaming is absolutely correct that "with each passing high court term, Scalia seems to be coming wackier, more out-of-touch, increasingly shrill. And he’s being called out for his nuttiness with growing frequency."

"The Madness of Justice Scalia," Leaming's piece, cites various legal scholars and reporters, including law professor Paul Campos, who observed that Scalia “has in his old age become an increasingly intolerant and intolerable blowhard: a pompous celebrant of his own virtue and rectitude, a purveyor of intemperate jeremiads against the degeneracy of the age, and now an author of hysterical diatribes against foreign invaders, who threaten all that is holy.”

Perhaps Scalia has finally gone too far. In a column last Wednesday (before the ACA decision), E.J. Dionne called for Scalia to resign:

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

Dionne takes Scalia to task for being a "blatantly political actor" and justice at the same time: "Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring."

Recall, as Dionne reminds us, 2004, when "three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president."

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees: "I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

Dionne does not even mention how Scalia (as well as his fellow conservative justices Thomas and Alito) regularly attend right-wing events and political fundraisers. (Indeed, Clarence Thomas, in particular, is far quieter, but similarly nakedly partisan and ethically challenged. See, e.g., here and here.)

Scalia is 76 years old but despite the urging of E.J. Dionne does not appear to be leaving the bench any time soon. What is of far greater concern is that Justice Ginsburg turns 80 next year and Justice Breyer turns 75. When you throw in Justice Kennedy (75), you have what the New York Times points out is "among the oldest courts since the New Deal era." As a result, "the winner of the race for president will inherit a group of justices who frequently split 5 to 4 along ideological lines," suggesting "the next president could have a powerful impact if he gets to replace a justice of the opposing side."

And while it is true that Chief Justice Roberts showed some modicum of sanity in voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act, he has not been magically transformed into the new swing justice. It should be noted that while the outcome was welcome, his legal reasoning was, as Justice Ginsburg put it, "stunningly retrogressive." (See 10 Ways John Roberts Is Still A Conservative's Best Friend.)

What shouldn't be lost in all the hoopla over the validation of Obamacare is that the Scalia and the other three dissenters (Thomas, Alito and Kennedy), as Paul Krugman points out, "did so in extreme terms, proclaiming not just the much-disputed individual mandate but the whole act unconstitutional. Given prevailing legal opinion, it’s hard to see that position as anything but naked partisanship."

As I have previously written, Romney's choice of Robert Bork as co-chair of his Justice Advisory Committee is a disturbing sign of the kind of radical jurists Romney would nominate. (See Romney Gets Borked.) In the wake of Roberts' "defection," there will be even more pressure on Romney to choose right wing extremists in the Scalia-Thomas mold, a fact he is essentially admitting on the campaign trail. Dionne is right that Scalia should resign but that isn't going to happen. But there remains an even more disturbing prospect than Scalia staying put. It is that a President Romney will add more right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court (and throughout the federal judiciary), forming a solid block of partisan operatives.

Drew Brees, Union Power And The Big Payback

2012-07-05T14:14:00.000-07:00

By Dave Zirin, cross-posted from Edge of Sports

Quarterback/demigod Drew Brees is the reigning NFL Offensive Player of the Year. He also, for some curious reason, can’t get a solid contract offer from his team, the New Orleans Saints. The sports radio talking heads are yipping about whether the 33-year-old Brees is asking for too much. But this story is not about the pay. It’s the payback.

In fall 2010, it was Brees who led a procession onto the field in full view of the Sunday Night Football cameras with one finger in the air, a symbol that both teams—the Saints and Vikings—were actually one team united against ownership. The voice of the NFL establishment, Al Michaels, a proud political conservative, condemned it from the NBC booth, saying—with an eye roll, “There’s nothing like a labor statement to start the season.” As for the NFL owners, like the elephant who symbolizes their political affection, they don’t forget. But Brees proceeded without concern for any kind of payback. After all, he brought a Super Bowl victory to New Orleans. He was untouchable. As the team’s union representative and member of the NFLPA executive board, Brees remained outspoken and was one of the lead plaintiffs in the lockout lawsuits against the NFL. His former teammate Scott Fujita said to me, “In recent years Drew has taken some strong positions against league management. He doesn’t have to do this, but he chooses to because he knows it’s the right thing to do, and because he’s a natural leader who all players look to and respect. That’s quite rare for someone of his stature. He has great conviction.”

But conviction comes with a price, even for—as one union official described him to me—“the Captain America of quarterbacks.” The NFLPA has now formally requested the league to investigate whether the Saints are openly trying to punish Brees for his trade unionism. The union is citing CBA provision, Article 49, Section 1 which reads, “ No Discrimination: There shall be no discrimination in any form against any player by the NFL, the Management Council, any Club or by the NFLPA because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA.”

Brees’s other apostasy has been to defend current and former teammates Will Smith, Anthony Hargrove, Jonathan Vilma and Fujita on charges that they were part of a pay-to-injure program, otherwise known as “bountygate.” Brees is leveraging his fame to argue that he and his team are being targeted for the crime of being loud and proud union leaders during last year’s NFL lockout.

Last week, Brees tweeted, “If NFL fans were told there were ’weapons of mass destruction‘ enough times, they’d believe it. But what happens when you don’t find any????”

There was a media backlash against Brees for invoking the war in Iraq (or the lies that brought us into the war in Iraq, to be more exact). Brees apologized for this tweet, but this mini-backlash didn’t slow him down and actually seemed to embolden him.

On The Late Show With David Letterman, Brees said, “I mean, just the whole process itself and the investigation I feel like has been extremely unfair. Unfortunately, it seems like it’s been more of a media campaign than it is actually finding the truth to the matter. Put forth the facts, the truth, and if indeed there was a pay-to-injure scheme, then people will get punished, and if there’s not, then let’s exonerate these men because, at this point, it seems like it’s a smear campaign. We’re dragging them through the mud. We’re ruining their reputations and careers with no true evidence.”

There are those who will scoff about Brees, the millionaire quarterback, being any kind of trade union martyr. They are already saying that the NFLPA has no place in this “negotiation.” The scoffers will have television programs, radio shows and nationally read columns. They are the creators of conventional wisdom. They are also wrong.

There is no higher cultural platform in the country than the National Football League. NBC’s Sunday Night Football is the highest-rated program of the fall season. The Super Bowl is the most watched program in the history of this country. Drew Brees has been one of the faces of this league since the Saints won the Super Bowl in 2010. If he can be spanked like an unruly child for the crime of standing with his union, what does that portend for the public sector worker in Ohio, the Chicago teacher who just voted to go on strike or the Starbucks barista trying to start a union? I’m not saying that Drew Brees is some kind of Joe Hill with a tight spiral, but this is about ensuring that anyone who wants a union or is in a union can speak out in defense of their livelihood.

The AFL-CIO, of which the NFLPA is a member, should put out a statement in support of Brees. They should hold his case up as an example of what NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith means when he says, “The minute that any sports player believes for whatever reason that they are outside the management-labor paradigm, you lose ground.” This country’s trade union movement has been in free fall for decades, from a high of 35 percent in the mid 1950s, to a seventy-year low in 2010 of fewer than 12 percent. If the message from the NFL is that being an active unionist is grounds for intimidation and punishment, then the AFL-CIO needs to make it plain: an injury to one is an injury to all. Even quarterbacks.

-------------------------------------------------------

Here is a post-script that I received after publishing this article, courtesy of the organization, American Rights at Work. I think it speaks cleary to why it's important to support Brees, as his case is a high profile expression of what is happening in workplaces around the country.

An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

    63% of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
    54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
    57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
    47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
    34% of employers fire workers.

The employer resistance to workers exercising their legal right to form unions does not stop after the union election process:
One year after a successful election, 52% of newly formed unions had no collective bargaining agreement.
Two years after an election, 37% of newly formed unions still had no labor agreement.

(Link to summary and full report: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/no-holds-barred-the-intensification-of-employer-opposition-to-organizing-20090520-758-93-93.html)

Dave Zirin writes about the politics of sports for the Nation Magazine. Zirin is also the host of Sirius XM Radio’s popular weekly show, Edge of Sports Radio. He has been called “the best sportswriter in the United States,” by Robert Lipsyte. Dave Zirin is, in addition, a columnist for SLAM Magazine and the Progressive. His most recent book, in collaboration with Dr. John Carlos, is The John Carlos Story, published by Haymarket Books in September 2011.

Romney's Quiet Rooms: Where All The Money's Hidden?

2012-07-05T08:05:00.000-07:00

By Mike Lux, cross-posted from Crooks and Liars

DonkeyHotey

The incredible new Vanity Fair piece on Romney’s secretive off shore tax accounts and business practices at Bain immediately made me think of one of my favorite video clips of 2012, this one where Romney is talking about how issues related to the concentration of wealth should only be discussed in “quiet rooms”:

Mitt Romney undeniably likes his secrets, especially when it comes to money, and I have to admit that the revelations in Vanity Fair gave me a different take on the Quiet Rooms quote. I had always assumed it was just Mitt being Mitt, doing his classic Thurston Howell III imitation, another in a long line of Mitticisms (I like being able to fire people, I know a couple of Nascar team owners, did I tell you the funny story about how my dad laid off a bunch of people, etc) reminding us how cluelessly out of touch Mitt was. It was also the ultimate in big money Republicanism: we don’t talk about these issues in public because we don’t want people to get mad and start a class war. But now it occurs to me what Mitt was really trying to guard in his quiet rooms: all the millions he has secretly stashed away.

What Mitt, with his offshore accounts and his secretive business practices and his endorsement of the Ryan budget which gives even more advantages to Wall Street tycoons like himself, is trying to preserve is the ability to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. He wants a world where the wealthy have all these advantages and loopholes and secret deals and lower tax rates, precisely because that was his entire business model at Bain Capital. He wants a world where he doesn’t have to pay taxes on his accounts in Bermuda and the Caymans and Luxembourg and Switzerland. He wants a world where he can recruit any sleazebag overseas investor to invest in Bain. As Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon.com puts it: “This pattern of elusiveness is hardly confined to Romney’s finances, but rather defines his public life.”

Mitt’s entire career is defined by the secrets he has, and the fact that he didn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else except for a few other well-connected Wall Street guys. The way Mitt made his money is exactly the kind of thing we should be talking about in this Presidential campaign- and not only because it relates directly to Romney’s character, experience, and values. We should be talking about this because we should be debating as a country whether we want a country whose economic system is structured primarily to benefit a small number of wealthy, well-connected insiders operating behind closed doors, manipulating the tax code and financial markets to become more and more wealthy; or whether we want a country where businesses make money the old-fashioned way, by manufacturing and selling quality products, and playing by the same rules everyone else has to play by. By and large, with only occasional exceptions where Bain actually created real new jobs, the way Romney became wealthy was to make other people poorer- manipulating the financial markets and tax code, off-shoring jobs, cutting wages and benefits, laying off people, driving companies into bankruptcy while still getting huge fees from them. He also ripped off the rest of us taxpayers through the outrageous carried interest loophole, though writing off the debt he loaded companies up with and then writing it off, and through taking advantage of the taxpayer-backed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation’s obligation to pay off pensions when Bain’s companies went bankrupt. I guess it is not surprising that having made most of his money that way, he decided to keep so much of that money invested in secret overseas accounts.

No wonder Mitt Romney wants to keep this discussion confined strictly to “quiet rooms”. I would too if I had stashed so many of the millions I made from off-shoring jobs and all these other revolting business practices into secret off-shore accounts. But it is time for America to have this discussion- and not just in quiet rooms.

Questions For Opponents Of Health Care Reform: Where Are Your Facts?

2012-07-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

By Amanda Marcotte, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on Thursday has caused a rush of panic from the opponents of universal health care. Lots and lots of claims about what the law does are being tossed around, and many of these claims are what you might call puzzling to those of us who actually know what’s in the ACA. Now, I don’t want to accuse anyone of intentionally lying without gathering more evidence, but without a deeper understanding of what various conservatives mean by their claims, it’s hard to suppress the sense that they may perhaps just be lying. So, I’ve made a list of questions I want opponents of health care reform to answer so I can better understand how their seemingly outrageous claims about the ACA make sense outside of the most obvious “lying” angle.

How does one “go on” Obamacare? Paul Ryan, denouncing the bill: “Millions of people who are otherwise going to go on Medicaid, are now going to go on Obamacare which costs a whole lot more money.” What is this “Obamacare” that people can go onto? I looked around to see if I could get an insurance plan through the “Obamacare” that Ryan and other conservatives are talking about Americans going on to and all I can find are the same old private insurance companies that existed before. The way Ryan & Co. talk about “Obamacare,” it sounds an awful lot like they think there’s a public option people can buy if they don’t want private insurance and aren’t eligible for Medicaid. But those of us who recall the big political fight over the ACA can tell you that there was originally a public option in the bill, but it was removed in order to get more votes from conservative Democrats. So what is this “Obamacare” conservatives keep insisting you can buy into and where do I find it?

How does the ACA remove your choice or get between you and your doctor? Various claims are being tossed around about health care reform “getting between you and your doctor” or taking away people’s choices in what medical treatments to pursue. In his remarks after the ACA ruling, Romney repeated this claim by saying the government is getting “more and more intrusive in your life” and “separating you and your doctor.”

So my question is: How? What medical decisions will the government now be making for you under the ACA? (Obviously, under conservative-supported legislation, the government has a lot of power to make decisions for women seeking abortion or contraception, but those laws aren’t part of ACA.) If you’re referring to the fact that insurance companies will retain the right to deny coverage for certain procedures they deem unnecessary, well, insurance companies already do that. If anything, the ACA has limited the ability of insurance companies to deny you the ability to pursue medical treatments you and your doctor choose, because the ACA has removed spending limits and banned insurance companies from denying you coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

How is the ACA going to force you to pay for abortion? A typical example of this claim from CNS News, saying the ACA requires that “Americans buy health insurance plans that pay for contraceptives and abortion.” The problem is that the executive order Obama tied to the ACA actually does the opposite on abortion, and requires that every state exchange have insurance options that don’t cover abortion, for those who actually consider that a priority, aka almost no one. If people making this claim are referring to the insurance plans they already have through their employers which often cover abortion, again, that’s a pre-ACA reality that didn’t seem to bother conservatives until they could use it to raise the public’s ire over health care reform.

Where are the parts of the bill requiring “rationing”? There’s no such requirement in the ACA. If people making this claim are referring to the insurance company practice of denying certain coverage they deem too expensive or medically unnecessary, I refer you to the above passage that points out that this was the policy before the ACA, and the ACA has restricted the right of insurance companies to deny coverage.

How is everyone in the country going to pay more in taxes? Paul Ryan and the folks at Fox News were making this claim, that this is a tax that will “hit everyone.” How will “everyone” be hit with this tax penalty? The bill couldn’t be more clear that you don’t pay this penalty if you have insurance. The majority of Americans actually have insurance, and more will buy it under this plan, with the hope being that eventually all Americans will have it. So if the majority are already not in a position of having to pay this and even more people will not be paying this, how does this hit “everyone?” Are conservatives stretching the definition of “paying” a tax to include taxes that you don’t pay, but maybe could have in an alternate reality where no one has health insurance?

What’s the game plan for the “replace” part of “repeal and replace”? In his remarks about the ruling, Romney claimed he wanted to “repeal and replace” the ACA with a bunch of provisions Jon Stewart pointed out are, uh, actually in the ACA. I have no problem believing that Romney, if he were President with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, would be able to repeal the ACA. But replace it with what amounts to a nearly-identical bill? The first bill was barely able to pass with Democratic majorities in both houses. How would he get a nearly-identical bill past congressmen who have been clear from the get-go that they hate the very idea of health care reform? Why does he think that “repeal and replace” makes more sense than simply passing bills modifying the original legislation to take out the parts he doesn’t like as much, but leaving the parts---i.e., most of the bill---he claims to like intact?

These are but a few of many important questions I need opponents of the ACA to answer in depth to believe that they’re arguing in good faith. Because right now, it seems instead what’s going on is that opponents just hate health care reform, period, and are coming up with a lot of dishonest rhetorical dodges because they know the public at large wants a better health care system than we have now.

Ray Charles: "America The Beautiful"

2012-07-04T09:17:00.001-07:00

(More on Ray Charles here.)

Robert Reich: Patriotism July 4, 2012

2012-07-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

By Robert Reich, cross-posted from his website

In the last two weeks, the Supreme Court has allowed police in Arizona to demand proof of citizenship from people they stop on other grounds (while throwing out the rest of Arizona’s immigration law), and has allowed the federal government to require everyone buy health insurance — even younger and healthier people — or pay a penalty.

What do these decisions — and the national conversations they’ve engendered — have to do with patriotism? A great deal. Because underlying them are two different versions of American patriotism.

The Arizona law is aimed at securing the nation from outsiders. The purpose of the health care law is to join together to provide affordable health care for all.

The first version of patriotism is protecting America from people beyond our borders who might otherwise overrun us — whether immigrants coming here illegally or foreign powers threatening us with aggression.

The second version of patriotism is joining together for the common good. That might mean contributing to a bake sale to raise money for a local school or volunteering in a homeless shelter. It also means paying our fair share of taxes so our community or nation has enough resources to meet all our needs, and preserving and protecting our system of government.

This second meaning of patriotism recognizes our responsibilities to one another as citizens of the same society. It requires collaboration, teamwork, tolerance, and selflessness.

The Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect, but in requiring younger and healthier people to buy insurance that will help pay for the healthcare needs of older and sicker people, it summons the second version of patriotism.

Too often these days we don’t recognize and don’t practice this second version. We’re shouting at each other rather than coming together — conservative versus liberal, Democrat versus Republican, native-born versus foreign born, non-unionized versus unionized, religious versus secular.

Our politics has grown nastier and meaner. Negative advertising is filling the airwaves this election year. We’re learning more about why we shouldn’t vote for someone than why we should.

As I’ve said before, some elected officials have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America. Just after the 2010 election, the Senate minority leader was asked about his party’s highest priority for the next two years. You might have expected him to say it was to get the economy going and reduce unemployment, or control the budge deficit, or achieve peace and stability in the Middle East. But he said the highest priority would be to make sure the President did not get a second term of office.

Our system of government is America’s most precious and fragile possession, the means we have of joining together as a nation for the common good. It requires not only our loyalty but ongoing vigilance to keep it working well. Yet some of our elected representatives act as if they don’t care what happens to it as long as they achieve their partisan aims.

The filibuster used to be rarely used. But over the last decade the threat of a filibuster has become standard operating procedure, virtually shutting down the Senate for periods of time.

Meanwhile, some members of the House have been willing to shut down the entire government in order to get their way. Last summer they were even willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States in order to achieve their goals.

In 2010 the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited money from billionaires and corporations overwhelming our democracy, on the bizarre theory that corporations are people under the First Amendment. Congress won’t even pass legislation requiring their names be disclosed.

Some members of Congress have signed a pledge — not of allegiance to the United States but of allegiance to a man named Grover Norquist, who has never been elected by anyone. Norquist’s “no-tax” pledge is interpreted only by Norquist, who says closing a tax loophole is tantamount to raising taxes and therefore violates the pledge.

True patriots don’t hate the government of the United States. They’re proud of it. Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve and protect it. They may not like everything it does, and they justifiably worry then special interests gain too much power over it. But true patriots work to improve the U.S. government, not destroy it.

But these days some Americans loathe the government, and are doing everything they can to paralyze it, starve it, and make the public so cynical about it that it’s no longer capable of doing much of anything. Norquist says he wants to shrink it down to a size it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”

When arguing against paying their fair share of taxes, some wealthy Americans claim “it’s my money.” They forget it’s their nation, too. And unless they pay their fair share of taxes, American can’t meet the basic needs of our people. True patriotism means paying for America.

So when you hear people talk about patriotism, be warned. They may mean securing the nation’s borders, not securing our society. Within those borders, each of us is on our own. These people don’t want a government that actively works for all our citizens.

Yet true patriotism isn’t mainly about excluding outsiders seen as our common adversaries. It’s about coming together for the common good.

Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He writes a blog at www.robertreich.org. His most recent book is Beyond Outrage

All Star Outrage

2012-07-03T13:29:00.002-07:00

I have always revered the All Star game. When I was growing up, it meant seeing Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente in the same outfield. It also meant getting to see how some of my favorite Met players measured up to the greats. True, the Mets did not usually populate the team, but at least Tom Seaver could be counted on to dominate American League hitters, and occasionally Bud Harrelson at short, Jerry Grote behind the plate, Jerry Koosman or Jon Matlack on the mound were worthy additions.

Beginning in 1969, fans have been given the privilege of voting for All Star starters. I used to fill out two ballots as a kid. I would diligently scour statistics and choose players based purely on merit. Then I did a second one which included Met players, regardless of the season they were having. On this second ballot I admit, I voted for Wayne Garrett over Ron Santo, Felix Millan over Joe Morgan, Tommie Agee over Cesar Cedeno, Jerry Grote over Johnny Bench, and even Ed Kranepool over Willie McCovey.

Over the years, the fans generally got it right. The popularity contest and bias towards one's home team was, for the most part, outweighed by votes for the players having the best years. What helped making this system relatively fair was the rule that each team received the same number of ballots to hand out. But with the advent of internet voting and organized campaigns by the teams themselves, the process has gotten out of balance.

The San Francisco Giants' marketing department was particularly relentless and creative this year in urging their fans to vote for Giants players early and often. As a result, the Giants can boast three starters in this year's game: Pablo Sandoval, Buster Posey and Melky Cabrera. Sandoval, who spent a good deal of time on the disabled list, is having a season that pales in comparison to David Wright, who is having an MVP-type year. Wright leads all third basemen in every offensive category. (Padres' third baseman Chase Headley is also having a far better year than Sandoval.)

Giants' catcher Buster Posey is having an excellent season, coming back from last year's injury, but he should not be the All Star starter -- despite receiving more votes than any other player in history. Phillies catcher Carlos Ruiz, who is having a remarkable year, is far more deserving. So is Yadier Molina of the Cardinals.

Melky Cabrera is arguably worthy of a start in the NL outfield, but the outsized votes for Sandoval and Posey, and for other Giants such as 1B Brandon Belt and SS Brandon Crawford -- who just missed starting nods (and 2B Freddie Sanchez came in fourth despite being sidelined all year) -- demonstrate that the system is broken.

Fans have been disenfranchised before. In 1957, an organized campaign in Cincinnati resulted in seven Reds players being elected as starters: Johnny Temple (2B), Roy McMillan (SS), Don Hoak (3B), Ed Bailey (C), Frank Robinson (LF), Gus Bell (CF), and Wally Post (RF). (The only non-Red elected was Cardinal first baseman Stan "the Man" Musial.) The Cincinnati Enquirer apparently printed up pre-marked ballots to allow fans to vote early and often. After an investigaton, Commissioner Ford Frick substituted Willie Mays and Hank Aaron for Gus Bell and Wally Post as NL starters, and changed the system so that managers, coaches and players voted instead of fans.

It is time to take the vote away from the fans again.

Andy Griffith (1926-2012)

2012-07-03T11:44:00.002-07:00

"When a man carries a gun all the time, the respect he thinks he's getting might really be fear. So I don't carry a gun because I don't want the people of Mayberry to fear a gun. I'd rather they respect me." -- Sheriff Andy Taylor (from the Andy Griffith Show)

At Least Those Supreme Court Conservatives Aren't Influenced By The New York Times

2012-07-03T08:12:00.000-07:00

Clarence and Virginia Thomas

After the theory that Chief Justice Roberts' vote to uphold ACA was caused by his epilepsy medication didn't fly, the latest conservative narrative making the rounds (thanks to a "scoop" by CBS's Jan Crawford) is that Roberts switched his vote, buckling to external political pressure, and then withstood a ferocious month-long campaign by Justice Kennedy to bring him back around.

Who knows what truth there is to this story (or who inside the Court leaked it), but I was particularly struck by a remarkable nugget in Crawford's article which describes the conservative wing of the Court, in contrast to Chief Justice Roberts, as impervious to outside influences -- or at least liberal ones. Thus, while Roberts "pays attention to media coverage," the conservatives, "such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal."

What the article left out are the right-wing influences on Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito. As I've previously written, these three justices have attended, headlined and spoken at political fund-raising events for right wing organizations. In another piece, Activist Judges, I pointed out that Justice Alito attended a major fundraising event for the notorious right wing magazine American Spectator (notorious for smearing President Clinton with false stories as part of the "Arkansas Project," an effort to get Clinton impeached), and that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have also attended secret political fundraisers.

And as stated here, Scalia and Thomas were featured guests at a retreat of wealthy Republicans and conservative leaders organized by Charles and David Koch, the brothers who finance right wing causes from the money they made from their energy conglomerate. One of the Koch brothers pet causes had long been ending financial regulations on elections. Indeed, according to Common Cause, they funded many of the groups who filed amicus briefs in the Citizens United case. What is so unseemly about the appearances of Thomas and Scalia at the Koch Industries-sponsored event is that it occurred while Citizens United was pending before the Court.

And then, of course, there is the influence of Justice Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, a right-wing activist and powerful lobbyist, who worked to repeal the health care law. Thomas was employed by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank, between 2003 and 2007, and then set up a political consulting business, Liberty Central, which is described as an advocate for “liberty-loving citizens" fighting against the left wing "tyranny" of President Obama and the Democrats.

Well, at least the conservative members of the Court are not influenced by the New York Times and other dreaded liberal media.

If Pre-Existing Conditions Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Pre-Existing Conditions

2012-07-02T11:53:00.001-07:00

Tom Tomorrow's latest: Health Care Glossary Updated

Click here (or on the Read Tom Tomorrow link on the right panel) for the full comic.

10 Ways John Roberts Is Still A Conservative's Best Friend

2012-07-02T07:54:00.000-07:00

By Ian Millhiser, cross-posted from ThinkProgress

Last week, Chief Justice Roberts embraced a ludicrous, Tea Party reading of the two key provisions of the Constitution, tossing out nearly two centuries of established law in the process. Yet, after he also refused to join a deeply partisan decision tossing out President Obama’s signature accomplishment — agreeing with several leading conservative judges in the process — the right-wing did not waste any time drawing its knives upon him. In just 24 hours, he was accused of everything from caving to non-existent “bullying” to being mentally unfit for duty.

It’s tough to imagine a more flagrant display of ungratefulness than the pushback Roberts is now receiving from his fellow conservatives. The reality is that Roberts consistently advanced the right’s agenda from the moment he joined the Court:

1) Corporate Money In Elections: Roberts jonied the majority in Citizens United, holding that wealthy corporations should have a nearly unlimited power to buy and sell American elections. Roberts also voted to undermine public financing laws in a way that severely undermines candidates without well-moneyed backers’ ability to compete in elections.

2) Judges For Sale: Roberts wrote a dissent in Caperton v. Massey that would have allowed a wealthy coal CEO to pay $3 million to put a sympathetic supreme court justice on that court. The same justice would then go on to $50 million verdict against the big spender’s company.

3) Corporate-Owned Courts: Roberts consistently votes to give corporations a nearly unlimited power to force workers and consumers into a privatized, corporate-run arbitration system that overwhelming favors corporations.

4) Dividing And Conquering Ordinary Americans: Roberts voted in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion to allow corporations to strip their workers and consumers of their ability to bring class action lawsuits. Because of this decision, corporations now have a nearly unlimited power to cheat the people who do business with them — so long as they only do it a few dollars at a time.

5) Corporate Immunity To The Law: Roberts voted to give generic drug makers immunity to key state laws after one of their drugs caused a condition called tardive dyskinesia in many of the people who took it. Tardive dyskinesia is an horrific neurological condition that causes sometimes crippling, uncontrollable bodily movements, often in the face:

6) Abortion: Roberts also joined the Court’s decision restricting reproductive freedom in Gonzales v. Carhart, which reasoned that a woman’s right to choose must be cut back because “it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”

7) Race: Roberts has also consistently resisted attempts to eradicate the legacy of racism in America. Most notably, in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, he claimed that a plan to desegregate public schools violates Brown v. Board of Education.

8) Gitimo: Roberts twice sided with President George W. Bush on questions of detainee treatment — as a lower court judge in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and as Chief Justice in Boumediene v. Bush.

9) Unequal Pay For Women: Roberts joined the Court’s discredited decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire rolling back women’s right to receive equal pay for equal work.

10) Older Workers: Roberts also joined the Court’s 5-4 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services limiting older workers’ ability to be free from age discrimination in the workplace.

Mets Hit Parade

2012-07-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

A player with the most hits in a team's history usually possesses two qualities: greatness and longevity. Several legendary stars lead their teams with 3000 or more hits, including Willie Mays (Giants), Ty Cobb (Tigers), Pete Rose (Reds), Carl Yastrzemski (Red Sox), Hank Aaron (Braves), Cal Ripken (Orioles), Stan Musial (Cardinals), Roberto Clemente (Pirates), and most recently, Derek Jeter (Yankees).

Even some of the 1960s expansion teams can claim players with 3000 or more hits: George Brett (Royals), Robin Yount (Brewers), Craig Biggio (Astros) and Tony Gwynn (Padres).

Hall of Famers such as Mike Schmidt (Phillies), Cap Anson (Cubs), Sam Rice (Senators/Twins), Zack Wheat (Dodgers) and Luke Appling (White Sox), while not reaching the hallowed 3000, have the most hits on their long-time teams.

And then there are teams like the Mets, celebrating their 50th Anniversary this year, whose all-time hit leader can boast longevity but not greatness. Except for the Marlins, Rays and Diamondbacks, who all came into existence in the 1990s, no team other than the Mets have a career hit leader with less that 1500 hits.

Ed Kranepool, who played for the Mets in their inaugural season of 1962, all the way through 1979, is their all-time hit leader with 1418. For better or worse Kranepool played in far more games than any other Met and, as a result, is in the top 10 in most offensive categories. But pretty soon we won't have Kranepool to kick around anymore.

29-year old David Wright, is in his ninth year with the Mets and having his greatest season. After starting off his career in spectacular fashion, the five-time All Star has had an uneven last few years, which included a beaning and a concussion in 2009, and missing more than two months from another injury last year. But he is putting it all together in 2012, with an MVP-type year.

David Wright is the Met all-time leader in runs scored, RBIs, and doubles. He is about 75 hits behind Kranepool, and is sure to pass him sometime this year. Hopefully, he will be a Met for many years to come, and if so, he will fit right in there with the great hit leaders of the other Major League clubs.

The Good, The Bad And The Blue Dogs

2012-06-30T09:21:00.001-07:00

As Andrew Rosenthal writes in the Times: "Whatever you think about the House Republicans, you have to admit they stay focused. Yesterday, while the rest of the country was distracted by the Supreme Court decision on the most important piece of social legislation in generations, the House Republicans were concentrating on the big picture – the personal and political destruction of President Obama." (See more here.) Unfortunately, the response from the Democrats was typically muddled -- some were inspired, others less so, and then there were the 17 craven Blue Dogs who crossed over to the other side. -- Lovechilde

Jerk Democrats And Face-Palm Democrats Undermine Principled Democrats In Contempt Resolution Vote

By Meteor Blades, cross-posted from Daily Kos

There were three sets of Democrats in Thursday's contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder in the House of Representatives.

First—huzzah!—there were the 100+ inspired by the Congressional Black Caucus to walk out of the chambers rather than give the resolution any respect whatsoever. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Whip Steny Hoyer were among those who left rather than cast their votes. It's a rare, rare day that such a move is justified. But today was one of those. Because, what the Republicans did was unprecedented, unconscionable, unpardonable and unhinged. The Democrats filing out the doors were precisely the rebuke deserved by the representatives who plunked that outrageous resolution into the hopper.

Then there were the 65 Democrats who voted against the resolution. That, of course, under normal circumstances, would have been the appropriate choice. Shoot down the resolution or, at least, stand unified against whatever nonsense or worse that the GOP had cooked up to impose on us.

But it was clear when the Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved the contempt resolution last week which direction the wind would blow. No way would this not pass. And no way would its passage get any traction when sent to the federal prosecutor. Such matters expire with the end of the Congress that okays them and this one is going to be on a slow six-month track to nowhere. Which the Republicans knew full well from the get-go.

In other words, it was all theater. Even more than usual. The walkout, though a principled move, was counter-theater. Treating the vote seriously, respectfully, by participating, even with a "nay," was useless and stupid. Especially given that the House leadership not only gave Democrats the stamp of approval for joining the walkout, they themselves boycotted the vote. Think of the imagery, the headlines, if those Democrats who stayed at their desks to push the "nay" button had added their numbers to the power of solidarity. Since their votes could not change the outcome anyway, what was their rationale for sticking it out? What statement were they making? Was it simple laziness? Did they decide to show solidarity with the two Republicans who broke from the jackal pack to oppose the resolution? Whatever the case, they went astray.

Finally, there were the 17 Democratic "aye" votes. What a fine crew that is. Our plague. Yes, yes, they are mostly in reddish districts and more liberal candidates could never get elected there, so we have to put up with them because better they than a Republican, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Even if one agrees that Blue Dogs and their ilk are the price of a Big Tent party, what good are they when they can't be counted upon to have the backs of fellow Democrats under a rancid assault whose only foundation is raw partisanship?

What good are they if they won't stand up against even the most extreme efforts of the National Rifle Association? That organization's grip on gun policy in Arizona and elsewhere lubricates the trafficking of tens of thousands of firearms into Mexico and makes the job of interdicting this lethal flow next to impossible. An organization whose string-pulling and budget-obstructing has frustrated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives so much that it led to experiments like "Fast and Furious" in the first place.

These 17 Democrats didn't just suck up to the NRA. They didn't just turn their backs on colleagues. They provided the GOP the okay to say that even-some-Democrats agree Eric Holder is involved in a cover-up of a program that led to the death of a brave U.S. Border Patrol agent. By unspoken implication, of course, Obama is also involved. Providing Republicans with that kind of campaign ammo goes waaaay beyond any apologies that can be made for trying to make oneself a viable incumbent Democrat in a reddish district. Being that kind of turncoat screws other Democrats by helping to mobilize the nut-jobs to turn out in greater numbers at the polls.

Despicable, pathetic, myopic.

Every Democratic Rep. who voted for the contempt resolution should be a target for replacement in the coming years until they've all been retired. If they cannot be counted on to stand with fellow Democrats on a matter of principle so fundamental, how exactly is it that they fit in the Big Tent?
•••
The roster of 17 (asterisk indicates a Blue Dog):
Jason Altmire (PA-04, lost primary in PA-12) *
John Barrow (GA-12) *
Dan Boren (OK-02, retiring) *
Leonard Boswell (IA-03) *
Ben Chandler (KY-06) *
Mark Critz (PA-12)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02, running for IN-Sen) *
Kathy Hochul (NY-26)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Larry Kissell (NC-08) *
Jim Matheson (UT-02, running in UT-04) *
Mike McIntyre (NC-07) *
Bill Owens (NY-23, running in NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07) *
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Mike Ross (AR-04, retiring) *
Tim Walz (MN-01)

California's Cruel And Unusual Death Penalty 40 Years And $4 Billion After Furman v. Georgia

2012-06-29T14:38:00.003-07:00

San Quentin State Prison

40 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia, which struck down existing death penalty laws as unconstitutional in violation of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual clause. California's death penalty was quickly reinstated.

Attempting to comply with Furman, the new statute made the death penalty mandatory for certain first degree murders and other crimes. But in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down death penalty laws that provided for mandatory death sentences. The California Supreme Court, relying on the high court's ruling, once again found the state's statute to be unconstitutional.

Undeterred, the California legislature passed a new death penalty law in 1977. This was followed in 1978 by a ballot proposition, known as the Briggs Amendment, which was similar but more expansive version that sought to encompass more -- virtually all -- categories of murder (including unintentional murders committed during certain felonies). Briggs passed and it is the law we are living with, so to speak, today.

Forty years after Furman: $4 billion dollars, over a thousand death sentences, over 720 currently on death row, and 13 executions, none since January 2006.

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, after one year as the Chief Justice of the State of California, has concluded that the state's capital punishment system is "not effective" and requires "structural changes" that the State cannot afford. Her predecessor, Ron George, who was Chief Justice for 15 years, came to the same conclusion, describing California's death penalty scheme as "dysfunctional."

An extensive study by Arthur Alarcon, long-time judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, who, together with law professor Paula Mitchell, determined that California's death penalty system is currently costing the state about $184 million per year. They concluded that "since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."

Justice Byron White observed in Furman that:

When imposition of the penalty reaches a certain degree of infrequency, it would be very doubtful that any existing general need for retribution would be measurably satisfied. Nor could it be said with confidence that society’s need for specific deterrence justifies death for so few when for so many in like circumstances life imprisonment or shorter prison terms are judged sufficient, or that community values are measurably reinforced by authorizing a penalty so rarely invoked.”

The infrequency of executions and the randomness with regard to which condemned inmates actually will be executed have made a mockery of the supposedly rational justifications for the death penalty. In addition, given the current backlog and the serious problems identified by the California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ) -- problems that would require an enormous influx of state funds to fix -- it simply is not possible that defendants who are only now being sentenced to death will have their death sentences carried out. Because it is “so wantonly and so freakishly” used, California’s death penalty has become a wholly arbitrary punishment in the same sense as the death penalty laws that were struck down in Furman.

Justice Potter Stewart famously characterized the Texas and Georgia statutes at issue in Furman as being “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” What he meant was that of all those who committed death eligible crimes, the petitioners were “among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed . . . [and] the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed.”

Application of Furman’s benchmark for determining arbitrariness demonstrates that only a “capriciously selected random handful” of death-sentenced inmates in California will actually be executed. A new death row prisoner would have to get in line behind 720 condemned inmates. He or she would then have to wait years for appointment of appellate counsel (currently a 5 year wait) and even longer for the appointment of state habeas counsel (8-10 years). Even after these lawyers are appointed and appellate briefs and habeas petitions are filed, the case will not be heard and decided before the several hundreds of cases that have preceded it. And then, after all this time and expense, the California Supreme Court, in virtually every case regardless of the merits, will uphold the death sentence. Then the case moves on to federal court, which has its own backlog, and often requires new counsel, with proceedings currently averaging over six years in district court followed by over four years of appellate review.

Justice White noted in Furman that where the “penalty is so infrequently imposed that the threat of execution is too attenuated to be of substantial service to criminal justice” it is unconstitutional. As he stated, when the death penalty “ceases realistically to further [the social ends it was deemed to serve] . . . its imposition would then be the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.”

We have far surpassed this point in California.

The SAFE California Act is on the November ballot. If it passes it would replace California's multi‑billion dollar death penalty with life imprisonment without parole and require those convicted of murder to work and pay restitution to victim families through the victim compensation fund. It would also set aside $100 million in budget saving for local law enforcement for the investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases.

Please join the effort to replace the death penalty by clicking here: SAFE California.

Women's, Health Care Groups Applaud ACA Decision While Bishops Attack

2012-06-29T09:45:00.000-07:00

By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check

Reaction by women's groups and promoters of health reform to this morning's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was swift and laudatory, though numerous leaders also pointed the gaps that remain to be filled.

In a statement, Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said:

Today’s Supreme Court decision allows the nation to reap the very substantial benefits of the Affordable Care Act: health insurance coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, important consumer protections for millions of insured Americans whose coverage has serious gaps, and the promise of progress in slowing the growth of health care costs.

Still, Greenstein noted, "for both states and the federal government, much work lies ahead to establish health insurance exchanges, set up enrollment processes that work smoothly both for the exchanges and Medicaid, and complete other critical tasks by the 2014 deadline. The timeframe is short, particularly in states that have made little progress since the law’s passage."

Women's groups were particularly relieved at the positive outcome of the SCOTUS decision, because, on the whole, the ACA has been considered a huge advancement in coverage of preventive and other forms of care often out of reach of women, who make less than men overall throughout their lives, and who, as they enter retirement, are more likely to be poor.

The decision will have a “profound and concrete impact” on millions of people’s lives, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) said today in a statement. Calling the Affordable Care Act “the greatest advance in women’s health in a generation,” PPFA said the law will:

"provide access to birth control and cancer screenings without co-pays, guaranteed direct access to OB/GYN providers without referrals, and an end to discriminatory practices against women, such as charging women higher premiums and denying coverage for “pre-existing conditions.”

In addition, noted the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) millions of women and their families can rest assured they will no longer be denied health coverage for having survived domestic violence or rape, or having had a Caesarean section, that maternity care will be included in all health care plans, and that tens of millions of women will gain financial access to coverage, whether through Medicaid or through help with insurance premiums.

Key benefits of the law that have already been realized, according to PPFA, include the following:

More than 45 million women have already received coverage for preventive health screenings at no cost since August 2010 – including mammograms and Pap tests – and millions more will be able to get free screenings in the coming years.

More than 3 million young adults have been able to stay on their parents’ insurance plan under the ACA to date, and in the next year, millions more who would have otherwise lost coverage will continue to be insured under their parents’ plan.

Women are guaranteed direct access to OB/GYN providers without a referral, as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

Starting in August, birth control will be treated like any other preventive prescription under the Affordable Care Act, and will be available without co-pays or deductibles.

As a result of the Affordable Care Act, notes PPFA, 17 million women will become newly insured.

Health care providers that focus on family planning increasingly contract with private insurance companies. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 33 percent of all family planning providers now contract with private insurers – and 49 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers have contracts with private insurance companies.

With this decision, "we are closer than ever to realizing the promise of health care for all," said Cecile Richards, president of PPFA.

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) likewise applauded the decision as "a significant victory for Latinas, who are more likely than other groups to face structural barriers that prevent them from accessing health care and preventive services."

“Latinas have historically faced a disproportionate number of barriers to basic health care, and we can now envision a future where those barriers begin to crumble,” said NLIRH executive director Jessica González-Rojas. “Everyone has a fundamental right to quality, affordable health care. Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward making that right a reality.”

Gonzales noted that, since it took effect, the ACA has already helped more than 736,000 young Latino/as retain health care coverage under their parents’ plans until they reach the age of 26, and has eliminated discrimination by health insurers against children with pre-existing conditions. In the coming months and years, she continued:

"ACA provisions will expand access to life-saving cervical cancer screenings and other preventive health services, increase support for community health centers and increase Medicaid coverage. Beginning in August, the ACA also provides access to contraception without expensive co-pays, ensuring that every woman can plan the timing and spacing of her children."

“The Affordable Care Act is a breakthrough in access to health care for Latinas,” said González-Rojas. “Today’s Supreme Court decision ensures that Latinas can make the healthiest decisions for themselves and their families.”

But, while the gains achieved in the ACA are a step in the right direction, Gonzales notes, much work remains to be done.

The law leaves many immigrants without access to essential care. In addition, opponents of expanded health care access continue to launch attacks on numerous benefits included in the law, particularly on the provision for contraception without co-pays. The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health will continue to advocate for solutions that close these gaps in health care.

However, at least one group, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, made clear it would continue to fight to prevent women from accessing affordable reproductive health care under the ACA, using the same specious arguments it has made all along.

In short, today's decision was a huge step forward, but in reality just that... a step forward in an ongoing effort toward ensuring access to affordable health care for all.

GOP: Boldly Offering Solutions To Our Nation's Symptoms

2012-06-29T09:12:00.000-07:00

By Tina Dupuy, cross-posted from her website

Nothing says leadership more than bravely standing up against a concern that’s not actually a problem. We’ve had a one-sided battle with Sharia Law in the U.S. No one is fighting for replacing U.S. law with an Islamic moral code, but nonetheless Republicans are heroically fighting against it. Same with aborted fetuses in commercial food stuffs: Not something that’s ever happened but earlier this year Republican freshman Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey had the temerity to introduce a bill to outlaw it.

Republicans love what they call “simple solutions” but it’s really just the easiest possible answer to a trumped up crisis. In short: busy work. America needs to streamline for the challenges of the future so we can remain competitive (blah blah blah). Yet Republican offers are akin to organizing all the paperclips in the office by color and size.

Republicans and bureaucracy are, after all, frenemies. Sure they tell the media they despise bureaucracy but secretly love it when it makes them appear to be doing something. Even better if it keeps them from doing anything difficult.

For example: We’re in the middle of an obesity epidemic. It’s the number two leading cause of preventable death in this country. The Center for Disease Control estimates 112,000 American deaths a year due to obesity, this is down from their previous estimate of 365,000 deaths from poor nutrition and physical inactivity. The CDC reports in 2008 Americans forked over $147 billion in medical costs on obesity. We’re dying and going broke from being too fat.

But what are Republicans trying to warn us against? Terrorism. China. Russia. Obamacare. ACORN. The New Black Panthers. The Fed. All of which cumulatively killed no Americans last year.
It’s (ironically) lazy to try to and scare Americans about some elusive menace in order to avoid the reality that we’ve become the proverbial elephants in our own living rooms.

Illegal immigration? Republicans say to secure the border—build a fence—arrest anyone who even looks illegal. Mitt Romney said Arizona’s infamous SB 1070 should be a model for the nation. Which would be something if Mexicans were still coming into the U.S. They’re not. Immigration from Mexico is now net zero. That is actually a way bigger problem than undocumented workers (whom we love in boom times for a way to circumvent the minimum wage and exploit a non-litigious underclass). It’s the fact we are no longer an attractive enough country to motivate Mexicans to come here.

But as we saw last week with the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s law, governor Jan Brewer’s just doubled down on a non-problem, “We cannot forget that we are here today because the federal government has failed the American people regarding immigration policy, has failed to protect its citizens, has failed to preserve the rule of law and has failed to secure our borders.”

For a party that likes to peddle free market and common sense they sure get a lot of traction ginning up irrational fears.

Our energy plan is stuck firmly in the last century, but that’s not the point the presumptive Republican nominee decided to make. In March Mitt Romney told Fox News President Obama “has done everything in his power to make it harder for us to get oil and natural gas in this country, driving up the price of those commodities in the case of gasoline.” Gas prices were the thing Republicans were going to fix by paying attention to them! With little fanfare, gas prices are down now by the way. Production has increased overall under the Obama administration. Republicans managed to sound the alarm and assign blame for a symptom while steadfastly avoiding the cause entirely.

Think I’m way off here? Remember this is the party that in the wake of September 11^th—an attack by citizens of Saudi Arabia, organized in Afghanistan by a leader hanging out in Lebanon—decided to invade (wait for it) Iraq.

Because things indirectly involved with real problems hate us for our freedoms.

Sign Krugman's "Manifesto For Economic Sense"

2012-06-29T08:39:00.000-07:00

By Isaiah J. Poole, cross-posted from Campaign for America's Future

Tom Tomorrow

Economists Paul Krugman and Richard Layard, the latter of the London School of Economics, today posted a "Manifesto for Economic Sense" that lays out a sound framework for reviving the global economy.

"I’ve been arguing for a long time that policy makers have misunderstood the nature of our economic crisis, mistaking symptoms for causes, and responding in ways that make the situation worse," Krugman wrote yesterday on his blog at The New York Times. The goal of the manifesto is, in the words of the manifesto itself, to "offer the public a more evidence-based analysis of our problems" and change the direction of the economic debate away from austerity and toward using government as a kindle for rebuilding the middle class.

"A key priority now is to reduce unemployment, before it becomes endemic, making recovery and future deficit reduction even more difficult," the manifesto says.

Many of the signatures on the manifesto are those of economists and policy experts, but you are encouraged to sign the manifesto as well to show your agreement with its basic principles.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times, Krugman and Layard explained the thinking behind the manifesto. "More than four years after the financial crisis began, the world’s major advanced economies remain deeply depressed, in a scene all too reminiscent of the 1930s," the piece begins, because their economic leaders, and conservatives in the United States, insist on replicating the failed economic strategies of the 1930s before the New Deal.

Instead, the manifesto calls for economic experts and policy makers to speak up more loudly against the arguments that "austerity will increase confidence and encourage recovery"—there is no evidence that austerity policies are having that effect anywhere in the world—and that a key causes of our weak economic recovery are structural, rather than a general lack of spending and demand.

The statement echoes the same themes of our own 2010 "Don't Kill Jobs" economic manifesto, signed by more than 300 economic experts. That statement urged the president and Congress to "redouble efforts to create jobs and send aid to the states whose budget crises threaten recovery by forcing them to lay off school teachers, public safety workers, and other essential workers. It also makes sense to invest in public service jobs—and in infrastructure projects for transportation, water, and energy conservation that will make our economy more productive for years to come."

If our political leadership had taken that message to heart in 2010, it would not have been necessary for Krugman and Layard to post their own manifesto with the same message. But Washington conservatives still refuse to admit the failures of their policies and end their wrong-headed obstruction in Congress. It's exasperating to have to repeat the message over and over, but as the Krugman-Layard manifesto concludes, "The whole world suffers when men and women are silent about what they know is wrong."

R.I.P. Samuel Lopez

2012-06-28T23:32:00.000-07:00

On June 27, 2012, Arizona executed Samuel Lopez for the rape and murder of 59-year-old Estefana "Essie" Holmes.

Lopez's attorneys argued that his trial lawyers provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to present any evidence of Lopez's horrific childhood, which would have been critical to the jury's determination of whether he should be sentenced to life or death. The jury never learned, for example, that Lopez's childhood was filled with poverty, neglect, abuse and periods of homelessness during which he often had to sleep in cemeteries. Lopez dropped out of school in the ninth grade and became addicted to sniffing paint.

Lopez was originally scheduled to be executed on May 16, 2012, but received a temporary stay of execution because of serious issues with regard to the fairness of the clemency process. On May 7, 2012, defense attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Kelley Henry, walked out of the clemency hearing claiming the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency did not have the authority to hear the case. Henry contended that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer violated several state statues when she appointed three new members to the five member clemency board. Violations included that the new members had not completed training required by state statute, that their interviews violated open meeting laws by taking place behind closed doors, and that one new member is a lobbyist for a police association that advocates the death penalty.

The Arizona Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay so that the board members could complete a mandatory four-week training course but then another stay was sought on the grounds that Governor Brewer had appointed "political cronies" to the board, making a fair hearing impossible. That stay was rejected. Clemency was denied on June 22nd.

This is the 23rd execution in the United States in 2012, the fourth in Arizona.

Hail To The Chief Justice?

2012-06-28T12:10:00.001-07:00

DonkeyHotey

Let's not get carried away by the fact that Chief Justice Roberts voted with the so-called liberal-moderate block to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Let's not forget, as Ethan Bronner of the New York Times writes, that "in the past, especially on campaign finance law but also on other socially sensitive issues like abortion and affirmative action, Chief Justice Roberts has not shied away from leading a conservative redraft of previously established law, causing some to accuse him of judicial activism."

But with the reputation, perhaps legitimacy, of the Supreme Court at stake, Roberts decided to find a way to validate the Act.

As Steven Teles predicted, Roberts did not want "a direct confrontation with the entire Democratic Party. Striking down the substance of the ACA would have created such a confrontation, and put the Supreme Court at the center of the next election. I don’t think Roberts had a stomach for that."

Teles uses a baseball metaphor to demonstrate the difference between Roberts' approach and that of his fellow conservatives on the bench:

The best way to understand the difference between Roberts and the dissenters is to think of two pitchers who are throwing to a batter who is crowding the plate. The first pitcher throws at the batter’s head, while the second brushes him back. At least in this decision, Roberts decided to be that second kind of pitcher. Roberts wanted to send a signal to the other branches that there are limits on government, and the ACA was really crowding the plate. But he didn’t want to hit the pitcher and invalidate the whole law. So declaring that the mandate violates the Congress’ power under the commerce clause but upholding it as a tax does what Roberts wanted to do: get Congress to pay closer attention to constitutional norms while not precipitating a bench clearing brawl.

I'm not sure I buy Teles' overarching point (and that of others, such as Laurence Tribe) in the wake of this ruling that Roberts is not really a radical ideologue. As Ed Kilgore observes, "Roberts exercised 'judicial restraint;' at the same time, however, he managed to deliver not only his 'brush-back pitch' but a nice, easy talking point about ACA relying on a 'tax.'"

And it is unrealistic to think that Roberts has magically undergone some kind of transformation. As law professor Adam Winkler points out, the Roberts Court has hardly been known before today for its judicial restraint:

Since John Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has issued one landmark ruling after another. The Roberts Court gave us Citizens United, which struck down longstanding limits on corporate political spending. This Court also allowed new restrictions on women's right to choose; became the first Supreme Court in American history to strike down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment; effectively outlawed voluntary efforts by public schools to racially integrate; and curtailed the reach of environmental protections.

In many of these decisions, the Roberts Court overturned or ignored precedent, including Rehnquist Court decisions less than a decade old. Prior to Citizens United, the Supreme Court had explicitly held in two cases that corporate political expenditures could be limited -- the most recent of which was handed down in 2003. Six years before the Roberts Court upheld the federal ban on "partial birth" abortion, the Rehnquist Court, which wasn't known for its liberal leanings, had overturned a nearly identical law.

Significantly, although Roberts agreed with the four conservative justices that the individual mandate was not a regulation of interstate commerce, he ultimately voted to uphold the constitutionality of the mandate by characterizing it as a tax. While his vote saved the Act, Justice Ginsburg cautioned that Roberts' view comprised a "novel constraint on Congress’ commerce power."

In the Social Security Act, Congress installed a federal system to provide monthly benefits to retired wage earners and, eventually, to their survivors. Beyond question, Congress could have adopted a similar scheme for health care. Congress chose, instead, to preserve a central role for private insurers and state governments. According to The Chief Justice, the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive.

As Amy Davidson notes, “stunningly retrogressive” is not the phrase most people are using this morning to describe Roberts’s opinion; he is being celebrated as a moderate, called a disappointment to conservatives. But Ginsburg’s caution is worth watching. (See Professor Tobias Wolff's comments on the extraordinarily disruptive potential of Roberts' reasoning.)

But, as Winkler notes, "with this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president's signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn't want to go there."

Chief Justice Roberts undoubtedly had the Court's institutional legitimacy and his own reputation in mind when he voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act. And, more disturbingly, as Winkler predicts:

Roberts may have voted to save healthcare because he wants to preserve the Court's capital to take on other big issues heading toward the Court. Legal experts predict the Roberts Court will invalidate a key provision of one of the most important laws in American history, the Voting Rights Act, next term. And the Court is set to end affirmative action in public education. Both policies have been centerpieces of America's commitment to civil rights for over 40 years.

It is therefore ridiculous to analyze Roberts' legacy based on this one ruling. As Winkler concludes, "The Roberts Court has only just begun."