Antitrust attorney Gary Reback represents Consumer Watchdog

You’ve got to give it to Consumer Watchdog. The plucky California group has long been a thorn in the side of health insurance companies, advocating for patients’ rights and successfully opposing Prop 33, the auto insurance industry’s bid to hike rates in the last election.

But they have also been fierce anti-trust crusaders and privacy advocates, which placed them in at odds with Google, probably the biggest government-protected monopoly in existence.

Google response to the group’s critiques was to reach out to a Consumer Watchdog donor and discourage them from donating to the organization.

Undeterred, Consumer Watchdog went on to publish a 32-page report entitled Lost in the Cloud: Google and the US Government (PDF), a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how dangerously monopolistic Google has become, and just how intertwined they are with the government agencies ostensibly regulating them.

And this Friday, CW will get their day in court as they oppose the proposed settlement between Google and the FTC over the Safari browser hack, wherein Google allegedly violated the consent decree they signed with the FTC in the “Google Buzz” case.

The hearing will take place at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, and Consumer Watchdog will be represented by Gary Reback, the Silicon Valley antitrust whose work influenced the U.S. Department of Justice in its decision to sue Microsoft.

The proposed agreement between the FTC and Google must be approved by the court. Consumer Watchdog has filed an amicus curiae brief alleging that Google essentially wrote the settlement themselves and that the FTC rubber-stamped it, allowing Google to pay a $22.5 million fine and retain the use of the data they collected, with no admission of wrongdoing. CW claims that the settlement is not in the “public interest.”

Google, for their part, maintains that the settlement was reached between “sophisticated parties” and that the court has no business prioritizing the “public interest” in considering whether or not to approve the settlement.

I’ve spent a lot of time reading through the filings, and it’s pretty interesting stuff if you like trust-busting drama (sort of a wonky real-time version of “The Men who Built America”). The back-and-forth between CW, the government and Google provides a lot of insight into Google’s business practices (they probably know a lot more about you than you think they do), as well as the company’s relationship with regulators (which is often cozy to an uncomfortable degree).

For those who want to read along, here are the filings I currently have in the case. I’m still missing a few, so I’ll add to the list as I collect more:

Document 9 – 8/21/12 – Consumer Watchdog – Notice of Motion and Motion for Consumer Watchdog for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief (PDF): Consumer Watchdog asks the court for permission to file an amicus curiae brief.

Document 13 – 9/21/12 – Consumer Watchdog – Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Entry of [Proposed] Stipulated Order for Premanent Injunction and Civil Penalty Judgment (PDF)

Consumer Watchdog lays out their case for why they believe the FTC is allowing Google to skate with this agreement. And if you read one thing in the case, it should be the “Statement of Facts” in this document. Which Google will later bitch about as axe grinding irrelevant to the settlement. But it establishes that Google has a distinct pattern of breaking the law, lying about what they’ve done, signing an agreement with government regulators not to do it again … then doing it again.

Grand Bargainers: Simpson, Bowles and Obama (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza))

What I care about as a progressive is the social safety net. We are an extremely rich country and Americans should not want for basic necessities.

While there are some other reasons related to income inequality and marginal utility that I support taxing rich people, I primarily want them to pay taxes to fund a social safety net. Taxing the rich is not a goa it is just how you fund actual goals.

President Obama’s renewed push to get the Republicans to agree to a tax increase so Obama can cut the social safety net is simply terrible. It is the bizarro version of what the Democratic party once stood for.

What makes the entire thing so much worse is that Obama’s justification for this move is pure nonsense. If you really care about the long term budget projections, the real issue is our broken health care system. Even large benefits cuts for seniors will end up as nothing more than a band aid if our out of control health care system is not brought under control.  If we simply adopt one of a dozen other countries’ more cost effective system, our deficit would disappear.

Instead of pushing to seriously address deficits, The grand bargains Obama has so far pursued are ones designed to merely make it look like he is serious in the eyes of the media establishment. Millions of regular Americans are likely going to suffer so a few people in Washington can congratulate each other for looking tough.

President Barack Obama Election Night 2012, to meet with liberal/labor groups (Photo from YouTube)

President Obama meets with labor and progressive leaders today about the fiscal slope. I hardly want to be accused of being cynical, but he’s meeting with the group furthest to the left in the conversation the furthest away from the actual negotiations on the deal; tomorrow, he welcomes business leaders to the White House.

The leaders of SEIU, AFSCME, the NEA and the AFL-CIO will participate in the meeting, as well as representatives from the Center for Community Change, MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the Common Purpose Project (the ultimate veal pen coalition) and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Many of these groups have been organizing since the election against a grand bargain that would cut social safety net programs. But past performance does not guarantee future results. And nobody should expect a harmonious working relationship between these groups and the White House on these matters, nor should they expect a permanent oppositional stance to social insurance cuts from progressive organizations, despite their protests.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told The Huffington Post last week that his group would oppose any deal that cuts the three big entitlement programs.

“Yes. Yes. Yes. The voters yesterday rejected that notion soundly,” Trumka said at a briefing on Nov. 7. “The answer is, if it includes benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, we’ll oppose it.”

Van Jones, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, went further, noting that none of the progressive political institutions have “demobilized” since the election.

“We are still on a complete fighting posture because we knew we had to win the politics in November and then on the economy in December,” Jones said. “For the progressives who threw ourselves on hand grenades for the president over the past 24 months and especially the past six months, we are not going to be happy at all if he turns around and takes a chainsaw to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in pursuit of some misguided so-called grand bargain.”

We have to see what happens if these same groups present whatever deal comes down the pike as less than “taking a chainsaw” to these programs, and therefore acceptable. These are the groups that worked hard and spent lots of money getting Obama re-elected. You can see this as building capital for getting their voices heard in the White House, or blowing leverage they had with a President who now never needs their votes or their help again.

I don’t have any special inside information into how this will all go; I’m merely basing this on past history. Maybe progressive groups have drawn a line in the sand they will not cross, wary of having to deal with their own constituencies. Maybe they won’t have terms dictated from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They can certainly show us from their post-meeting actions.

Polls tracking support for marijuana were mostly correct (photo: El Tekolote via Flickr)

Now that the election is over and almost all of the votes have been counted, it is worth examining how accurate the polling on marijuana legalization was this cycle. Knowing how the polling throughout the campaign compares to the final results is important for determining when and in what states similar initiatives should be tried going forward.

Just as with Proposition 19 in California last cycle, the final set of polls in both Washington State and Colorado proved to be very useful. In Washington State the polls near perfectly predicted the percent of the vote Initiative 502 would get. While in Colorado the final polls slightly understated Amendment 64 support.

Overall the actual yes vote on marijuana legalization initiatives tended to slightly exceed the level of support found in final polls. Going forward the lesson seems to be that as long as a marijuana legalization initiative is polling at just around 50 percent support before the election, it is likely to pass.

The one thing that made the polling in this election different from 2010 is that the polls remained remarkably stable throughout the campaign. In 2010, Prop 19 was ahead in the polling during the summer but support collapsed in the final month. By comparison support for Initiative 502 and Amendment 64 remained almost unchanged with no drop at the end. SurveyUSA’s first poll on I-502 back in July found 55 percent of voters planning to support it, and every poll they conducted consistently found support between 55%-57%. Similarly, all of PPP polling since August consistently had Amendment 64 winning by roughly eight to nine points.

This past election basically proves that the 2010 Prop 19 last minute drop in the polls was due only to issues specifically related to that initiative/campaign; it wasn’t some natural tendency for voters get cold feet about marijuana legalization initiatives at the last minute.

The lesson for potential future efforts seems to be that as long as the polling roughly a year out from the election shows just over 50 percent support for the general idea of legalizing marijuana, a well written initiative backed by a good campaign stands a solid chance of being approved. There are several states that should likely meet this criterion in 2014 or 2016.

General David Petraeus

This David Petraeus sex scandal has, as is usually the case, launched thousands of columns claiming to understand intimate details about the mental states of everyone involved, striking moral tones about who can be blamed and what it means for the moral fabric of family life in America, the military, what have you.

But the really interesting and important aspect of this story is the degree to which the FBI completely abuses the public trust, apparently for no more a reason than a favor to a friend.

Consider the origins of this case. Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ mistress and biographer, sent some vaguely angry emails to Jill Kelley, who is described as an “unpaid social liaison at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.” Broadwell allegedly saw Kelley groping Petraeus under a table, and sent Kelley emails – she hacked into Petraeus’ off-books email account to get the address – that really didn’t say anything threatening.

What did the FBI think it was doing when it began its Petraeus investigation? (FBI Seal via Wikipedia)

But Kelley had a hold card – a friend at the FBI. Specifically, a friend at the FBI who wanted to get into her pants.

Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office, the official also said. That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, he said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation.

But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case, and eventually his superiors “told him to stay the hell away from it, and he was not invited to briefings,” the official said [...]

Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, the official said — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns.

OK, so the FBI has someone on their payroll who likes to sext. But he also likes to cajole his colleagues into investigating a case of unwanted cyberstalking emails, without actual threats attached to them. And from this, they basically commandeer the private communications of multiple people. Today we learn about inappropriate communications between Kelley and John Allen, the NATO commander for Afghanistan, who replaced Petraeus there (it’s on the order of hundreds of emails, not 20-30,000 as first reported). What does this have to do with the Kelley-Broadwell-Petraeus case? Who at the FBI leaked the Allen investigation, which appears to be about at most flirtatious emails only and probably not even a crime?

Because this cybercrime investigation eventually involved high-ranking national security figures, and fundamentally became a security scandal, with Petreaus allowing Broadwell access to secret information, that perhaps justifies the FBI’s interest in the case. But this is all after the fact. At the outset, the FBI had a tip from someone about six harassing emails. Why did they start in on this to begin with? And how much power have we handed over to a domestic agency, which can apparently sequester and geo-locate any email account on the planet? And this was all done without informing members of Congress, unless you count Agent Shirtless thinking that slow-walking in the case represented an Obama plot, leading him to spill his guts to Eric Cantor.

So this is not a scandal about sex, to me. It’s about the power of the surveillance state.

Is Nancy Pelosi planning to relinquish her House Democratic Leadership? (photo: nasa hq photo/flickr)

Former House Speakers don’t typically spend a lot of time in Congress after their ouster. Nancy Pelosi felt she had a chance, aided by the coattails of the President, to win back the House in 2012.

It turns out that the Democrats picked up, if all the current too-close-to-call races hold, eight seats. Key states were gerrymandered so badly, so this was a much better feat than commonly realized (if you believe that redistricting added 11 seats naturally into the Republican column, then on an apples-to-apples comparison Democrats picked up 19 seats, roughly equivalent to their gains in the wave year of 2008).

Still and all, Democrats came up 17 seats short, and they face the prospect of an unfavorable map bedeviling them from returning to the majority, potentially for the next four cycles. So it’s only natural that Pelosi, who after all is 72, would consider stepping down.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will meet with top Democrats on Tuesday night — followed by another leadership-only session early Wednesday as she prepares for a meeting with all House Democrats — but it is still unclear whether she will stay or go after nearly a decade in power [...]

“When I see my caucus, I will discuss it with them in the beginning of this week rather than discuss it with rumor in Washington,” Pelosi told the reporters. “I will make that announcement to my caucus. I know that we’re best friends and all, but I think that I will share that with them first.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who wants to be a future Speaker in her own right, said she would be shocked if Pelosi stepped down, but I suspect she doesn’t mean that. As I said, former Speakers don’t really have fun hanging out in the minority waiting for a return to power. Maybe Pelosi’s different, and her fundraising prowess certainly makes her an asset. But I wouldn’t blame her for wanting to leave.

Talk of succession is premature, but Steny Hoyer has been planted in line for quite a while now. The ideological makeup of the caucus has shifted away from Hoyer – there are now only 14 Blue Dogs left, believe it or not – but Hoyer rose to the top of the caucus leadership on relationships rather than ideology. Chris Van Hollen or Wasserman Schultz could challenge Hoyer, but they’ll more likely bide their time.

A House Democratic caucus with Hoyer in charge rather than Pelosi just necessarily focuses on different things. And while this matters less in the minority, it would definitely represent an ideological move to the center, despite an election that moved the caucus to the left.

No more UPS money packages for the Boy Scouts (photo: achimh, flicker)

The Boy Scouts can count on zero donations from UPS. The corporation’s foundation has publicly underscored that it will not give to the anti-gay youth organization because the shipping giant’s criteria for giving says “No” to homophobia, aligning that criteria with the UPS non-discrimination policy.

The UPS Foundation seeks to support organizations that are in alignment with our focus areas, guidelines, and non-discrimination policy. UPS and The UPS Foundation do not discriminate against any person or organization with regard to categories protected by applicable law, as well as other categories protected by UPS and The UPS Foundation in our own policies. These include, but are not limited to race, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran or military status, pregnancy, age and religion.

And with that, The Boy Scouts of America is no longer eligible for grants from the UPS Foundation because of the BSA’s ban on gay scouts and scout leaders. GLAAD:

UPS confirmed to GLAAD that under these guidelines, which UPS said have been in development for several months, organizations that are unable to attest to having a policy or practices that align with the Foundation’s non-discrimination policy will no longer be considered eligible for funding. Prior to The UPS Foundation’s non-discrimination language, UPS gave $167,000 to various Boy Scouts of America entities in 2010 and said there would not be a change to grant-making at that time according to an American Independent report in September 2012. UPS has consistently received high marks on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, an annual survey that rates U.S. corporations on their non-discrimination policies and practices toward LGBT employees and consumers.

In September 2012, the Intel Foundation said that the company could no longer fund organizations like the Boy Scouts of America, so long as the Scouts stand by their ban. BSA troops and councils around the country that have stated they will not adhere to the ban may still receive support from the Intel Foundation.

GLAAD President Herndon Graddick said:

“More and more corporate leaders are enacting strong non-discrimination policies for practices including grant funding and hiring. Equality is not only good for business, but supported by a vast majority of Americans. The time is now for the BSA to end this outdated and unpopular ban before other corporate funders pull dollars and scouting families drop their support. All of the great work that the BSA does to help young people will continue to be overshadowed by their blatant discrimination until they join other inclusive organizations like the Girl Scouts of the USA and the 4-H Club.

The real cliff: Up to 2 million unemployed face loss of jobless benefits before end of year (photo: FEMA Photo Library)

Liberals are working hard to more accurately name the fiscal cliff. They want to remove the sense of immediacy, the idea that the world would end on January 1 if Congress takes no action on expiring tax and spending policies. Democrats would benefit from a strategic standpoint from “going over the cliff” in many cases, so they want to ensure that people understand that Americans won’t immediately find themselves in a punishing recession on January 2.

However, there is a fiscal cliff intertwined with all the other expiring measures. That would be the extended unemployment insurance which expires at the end of the year. With no action, two million long-term unemployed would lose their benefits for Christmas.

The economy has improved slightly, but not to the point where people without a job can quickly find one. The average duration of unemployment remains over 40 weeks. If federal benefits aren’t extended, current and future unemployed Americans would see their benefits run out at 27 weeks, if that (it depends on the state). Right now, the jobless are eligible for up to 73 weeks of benefits. Republicans already forced a gradual shrinking of this safety net from 99 weeks to 73, as part of the payroll tax deal at the beginning of the year. Only half of the unemployed collect benefits at this point; letting federal benefits expire would cut off another quarter.

Maybe for the purposes of the sequester or the Bush tax cuts, “cliff” serves as a bad metaphor. The spending cuts or tax raises happen gradually. For the unemployed, “cliff” is very apt. Suddenly their benefit check stops arriving. Their visible means of support is gone. The unemployment check in many cases comprises the entirety of the household income. This could lead to mass poverty, foreclosure, homelessness. It won’t lead, as Republicans seem to think, to some newfound self-reliance, as long-term unemployed break free of the dependency state and through sheer will return to the workforce. With 3.6 million job openings and 12.3 million unemployed, the math equation just doesn’t add up to absorbing all these people cut off from their benefits back into the labor force.

What’s more, extended unemployment benefits, which for a year would cost around $39 billion, happens to be among the best forms of economic stimulus. The money goes immediately into the hands of people who will spend it. It has one of the highest economic multipliers – bang for the buck – out there.

Extended federal unemployment benefits have never been cut off before when the topline unemployment rate sits above 7.2%. We’re currently at 7.9%. I suppose you could see a trigger mechanism, where benefits get phased out once unemployment hits some lower number for a series of months.

But it’s likely that this is the first article you’ve read about the imminent expiration of unemployment benefits. With talk of cliff metaphors and the Bush-era tax cuts and the defense sequester dominating the scene, nobody in Washington seems to remember that 2 million Americans are counting on their actions in the next seven weeks. The only people who would see immediate, catastrophic effect from Congress’ failure to act are the desperately vulnerable long-term unemployed.

Married CIA Director General Saint David Howell Petraeus had an affair with a third-string Bond girl named Broadwell who goes all “hands off my adulterous love-machine with the mad oral skillz, bitch” to another woman who also has ladywood for a man in a uniform, prompting lady number two to give the bitchagrams to a friend in the FBI (who has incidentally has a boner on for lady number two) who in turn gives them to his superiors, and then subsequently refuses to butt out because he’s still hoping for some post-chivalry nookie, and then the whole thing blows up right after President Obama steals the election from Mitt Romney with the help of women, browns, blahs, gays, youngs, hip urbanites, Jews, Catholics and Nate Silver who is A Wizard, A True Star.

I think that covers it … except for:

• Conservatives who think this is an elaborate conspiracy dating back several years to keep Petraeus from testifying about the nothing-burger that is Benghazi which will be used to impeach that black guy who keeps stealing white America’s stuff.

• Journalists who never liked Petraeus in the first place get to come out of the woodwork to remind us that “I TOLD YOU GUYS! I TOLD YOU GUYS HE WAS AN ASSHOLE! BUT NOOOOO, YOU WOULDN’T LISTEN, YOU DICKS. YOU ALL SUCK.”

• Journalists who were taken in by Petraeus because he is a gentle and attentive lover with knee-melting bedroom eyes , an aw-shucks disarming grin, and the aforementioned mad oral skillz. Also guns and kevlar.

• Journalists who would rather write about a sexysexysexy spy “scandal” that will eventually add up to nothing, much like Solyndra and Fast & Furious, because it beats writing unread articles trying to explain to Americans who can’t figure out a 15% tip in their heads, the budgetary implications of increasing the marginal tax rate on the top 1% and also: fucking carried interest, how does it work?

Let me know when every one comes to their senses which should be like …. never.

Good morning!

International Developments

❖ Israel is claiming “‘direct hits‘ on Syrian artillery units” in Golan following that one Syrian mortar shell that “fell near an Israeli army post” yesterday. Also, the new National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces has been recognized by “Western nations, Qatar and Turkey” as well as the Gulf Cooperation Council.

❖ Membership in Golden Dawn, the far-right party in Greece, has dramatically increased over the past year. So, too, has violence: “What started as simple fist beatings has now escalated to assaults with metal bars, bats and knives. Another new element: ferocious dogs used to terrorize the victims.”

❖ “Thousands of Kurds [grandparents, women and children] have fled Syrian army attacks on the strategic town of Ras al-Ain on the Turkish border, running for their lives after their homes were shelled and the corpses of fighters left strewn in the streets.”

❖ “West African regional leaders have agreed to deploy 3,300 soldiers to Mali to retake the north from Islamist extremists.” Soldiers will come mainly from Nigeria, Niger and Burkina Faso. Ecowas, the West Africa bloc, is awaiting UN approval of the plan.

❖ The skeleton crew that remains on the Argentine ship in Tema, Ghana pulled guns on Ghanian officials trying to board the ship last week and now the ship’s electricity and water have been shut off. The ship was seized by NML Capital (a subsidiary of Elliott Capital–Romney-related) since Argentina owes it money. Argentina will ask the International Sea Tribunal to intervene.

International Finance

❖ Greece’s Parliament approved their 2013 budget, thus enabling them to get funds but also imposing deeper, more painful austerity on the Greek people. Outside, people chanted “Out, out, out with the IMF” and “Hands off workers’ rights”.

❖ Greece Prime Minister Antonis Samaras announced the government is “taking a hard look at the foreign assets of . . . 2,000 suspected tax dodgers” and about 15,000 Greeks who have sent $5 billion abroad over the past three years.

❖ There’s a draft document being circulated at the meeting of eurozone finance ministers which “suggests that Greece should be given two more years to meet budget goals, but that this will add [$41.4 bn] to its bailout.”

❖ “EU freezes foreign airline carbon charge“. They cite “progress in negotiation towards a global regime to tackle pollution by the aviation industry”, through the united opposition of the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India and several others probably had a lot to do with it.

❖ “Japan’s economy contracted in the July to September quarter, as a global economic slowdown and anti-Japan protests in China hurt its exports, while domestic consumption remained subdued.” GDP contracted 3.5% from last year.

Money Matters USA

❖ Over the past 10 years, the Defense Dept’s budget has doubled to “half a trillion dollars”–and that doesn’t include money spent in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even ex-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) is eyeing the military budget for cuts while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) is open to an additional $10 billion a year in cuts. And some old war-hawks are growing weary of war. [cont'd..]