After highlighting reports last week that the House ethics committee was investigating whether former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) had sexually harassed a member of his staff, conservative media pivoted to promote Massa's subsequent claim that the Democratic leadership had orchestrated the investigation in order to force him out of office because he opposes health care reform legislation.

Hannity compares Massa to Foley, then runs with Massa's allegations

Hannity on March 3: "[R]emember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was?" On the March 3 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (transcript from the Nexis database):

HANNITY: All right, remember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was leading into the 2006 elections? "Politico" reported earlier today that this guy, one-term congressman, Eric Massa, also from New York.

I don't know what's in the water in New York these days. But according to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, you know, this guy is married with two kids, who's being accused -- he's denying it -- but being accused of sexually harassing a male staffer.

Now do you remember the outrage then? So how big an issue -- I guess is my question -- how big an issue is corruption now going to be as we head into these midterms? You think it's going to matter?

Hannity on March 8: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." During the March 8 edition of Hannity (from Nexis), Hannity stated that "the White House appears to be resorting to desperate measures to pass a government-run health care takeover. New York Congressman Eric Massa who resigned early this evening says the Democrats are starting to eat their own." After playing audio comments of Massa criticizing the administration and congressional Democrats, Hannity stated that "it looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House."

Limbaugh: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story"

Limbaugh on March 3: "Man, oh man, oh man." On the March 3 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated, "Man, oh man, oh man. New York Congressman Eric Massa, a Democrat, will not seek re-election after only one term in orifice. Literally." After reading allegations reportedly made against Massa, Limbaugh added, "I wonder if he's gonna -- could this be one less vote for Pelosi? I don't know. Doubt it. He'll hang in there."

Limbaugh on March 8: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part" to make his allegations against Dems "a national story." During the March 8 edition of his show, Limbaugh stated, "Massa says that they're coming after him because of his vote on health care." Limbaugh further stated:

LIMBAUGH: He was asked in this appearance: "Well, why don't you rescind your resignation?" He said, "The only way I can do that is if this becomes a national story." So Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story. But he then said, "But you have to understand something, if I don't quit, the ethics investigation continues and they're going to ruin me that way." What would you do if you were him? What would you do, Snerdley, what would you do? They're going to ruin him anyway. He sounds ticked off enough that I would stay. This guy is as fired up as anybody I've ever heard anywhere opposed this, and the process and how they're getting it done. This guy is going to have so much support from people. We'll see. He's got five hours or four hours unless I was missing something here and he's said today that he's going to go ahead and resign and I haven't seen that.

Fox Nation trumpets "Gay Sex Harass Allegations," then asks "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa?"

Fox Nation on March 3: "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations." On March 3, the Fox News website The Fox Nation linked to a Politico story using the headline "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations":

Fox Nation on March 8: "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa? Beck Finds Out Today!" On March 8, the Fox Nation front page promoted Massa's scheduled appearance on Glenn Beck's Fox News show:

The front page linked another Fox Nation page that quoted from a Washington Examiner item on Massa.

New developments in the case of the right-wing's latest hero:

Former Rep. Eric Massa has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the New York Democrat date back at least a year, and involve "a pattern of behavior and physical harassment," according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

Massa had said that the allegations were limited to his use of "salty language" with his staff. He apologized for making some inappropriate comments and argued he was being unfairly villified.

Yikes. It's almost makes you think he won't show up as scheduled for Glenn Beck's program, because even Beck won't be able to ignore these sorts of allegations without damaging his credibility with Fox viewers.

More importantly, it underscores the fact that there is no connection between Eric Massa's health care vote and his resignation. Remember, 39 House Democrats voted no on reform. Massa is the only one of them to resign. It's not because he voted no.

This piece was brought to my attention by John Cochrane.

A wondering from me follows the piece.

*****************

Financial Reform Endgame

by Paul Krugman
New York Times, March 1, 2010

So here’s the situation. We’ve been through the second-worst financial crisis in the history of the world, and we’ve barely begun to recover: 29 million Americans either can’t find jobs or can’t find full-time work. Yet all momentum for serious banking reform has been lost. The question now seems to be whether we’ll get a watered-down bill or no bill at all. And I hate to say this, but the second option is starting to look preferable.

The problem, not too surprisingly, lies in the Senate, and mainly, though not entirely, with Republicans. The House has already passed a fairly strong reform bill, more or less along the lines proposed by the Obama administration, and the Senate could probably do the same if it operated on the principle of majority rule. But it doesn’t - and when you combine near-universal Republican opposition to serious reform with the wavering of some Democrats, prospects look bleak.

How did we get to this point? And should reform advocates accept the compromises that might yet produce some kind of bill?

Many opponents of the House version of banking reform present their position as one of principle. House Republicans, offering their alternative proposal, claimed that they would end banking excesses by introducing “market discipline” - basically, by promising not to rescue banks in the future.

But that’s a fantasy. For one thing, governments always, when push comes to shove, end up rescuing key financial institutions in a crisis. And more broadly, relying on the magic of the market to keep banks safe has always been a path to disaster. Even Adam Smith knew that: he may have been the father of free-market economics, but he argued that bank regulation was as necessary as fire codes on urban buildings, and called for a ban on high-risk, high-interest lending, the 18th-century version of subprime. And the lesson has been confirmed again and again, from the Panic of 1873 to Iceland today.

I suspect that even Republicans, in their hearts, understand the need for real reform. But their strategy of opposing anything the Obama administration proposes, coupled with the lure of financial-industry dollars - back in December top Republican leaders huddled with bank lobbyists to coordinate their campaigns against reform - has trumped all other considerations.

That said, some Republicans might, just possibly, be persuaded to sign on to a much-weakened version of reform - in particular, one that eliminates a key plank of the Obama administration’s proposals, the creation of a strong, independent agency protecting consumers. Should Democrats accept such a watered-down reform?

I say no.

There are times when even a highly imperfect reform is much better than nothing; this is very much the case for health care. But financial reform is different. An imperfect health care bill can be revised in the light of experience, and if Democrats pass the current plan there will be steady pressure to make it better. A weak financial reform, by contrast, wouldn’t be tested until the next big crisis. All it would do is create a false sense of security and a fig leaf for politicians opposed to any serious action - then fail in the clinch.

Better, then, to take a stand, and put the enemies of reform on the spot. And by all means let’s highlight the dispute over a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

There’s no question that consumers need much better protection. The late Edward Gramlich - a Federal Reserve official who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to act against predatory lending - summarized the case perfectly back in 2007: “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? The question answers itself - the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”

Is it important that this protection be provided by an independent agency? It must be, or lobbyists wouldn’t be campaigning so hard to prevent that agency’s creation.

And it’s not hard to see why. Some have argued that the job of protecting consumers can and should be done either by the Fed or - as in one compromise that at this point seems unlikely - by a unit within the Treasury Department. But remember, not that long ago Mr. Greenspan was Fed chairman and John Snow was Treasury secretary. Case closed. The only way consumers will be protected under future antiregulation administrations - and believe me, given the power of the financial lobby, there will be such administrations - is if there’s an agency whose whole reason for being is to police bank abuses.

In summary, then, it’s time to draw a line in the sand. No reform, coupled with a campaign to name and shame the people responsible, is better than a cosmetic reform that just covers up failure to act.

******************

Schmookler wonders: how much does the protection of consumers that Krugman is making a priority here connect with the task of preventing a recurrence of the crisis the world has been in the past couple of years?

• Rove's new book is (obviously) full of lies.
• By fighting hard, progressives were able to significantly strengthen the health care bill. We obviously didn't get everything we wanted, but we pass this, and we have a good foundation to tinker, improve, and expand.

  And losing Rush to Costa Rica is just the cherry on top.  (Although not for Costa Rica, which would suddenly have justifiable grounds to declare war on the United States.)

• Iraqi pullout still on track.

  Iraq's elections went well enough to allow the U.S. military to stick to its plan to withdraw nearly half of the troops this year, the U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday.
  "Unless there's a catastrophic event, we don't see that changing," Gen. Ray Odierno said. "We believe we're right on track."

  Odierno said Sunday's vote was another milestone that will let him meet President Obama's intent to have all but 50,000 non-combat servicemembers out of Iraq by the end of August.

  Odierno said the current level of about 96,000 servicemembers will remain relatively flat until May. He will then gradually pull out troops through August.

• US troops also pulling out of Haiti.
• Dennis Kucinich has always been a little prick, and that hasn't changed.

  He's someone who deserves a real primary.

• World Nut Daily is single-handedly destroying the CPAC conference. And it's ready to kick it up to the next level with a September conference that will be ALL about the birthers. Can't wait!

  That's why today I pronounce CPAC dead.

  It's one of the reasons I am organizing a conference this September called "Taking America Back." This one is about the ultimate issues of God, the Constitution, the tea-party uprising, freedom and justice.

  There will be no two-headed monkeys.

  There will be no same-sex marriage sponsors.

  But there will be free and open discussion of issues like the constitutional eligibility of the man occupying the White House.

  I want to send Hunter.

• Glenn Beck is now telling you which churches to attend.
• Chatting with Hunter yesterday, he came up with a new idea in response to Survival Seeds: Rapture kit in a box.  

  For just 5000 bucks I'll sell you a big wooden box with everything you need to survive the Rapture. But if you open it at any point before the Rapture, you'll break the delicate mechanisms and void your warranty. Then the contents of the box will just turn to sand, a few rocks, and whatever was in my compost bin the day I packed your box.

  All he has to do is advertise on Glenn Beck's show, and he'll be a multi-millionaire by lunchtime.

• I'm actually looking forward to the Tron and Clash of the Titans remakes. They were two of my favorite movies as a kid. Titans looks like it'll be as cheesy as the original, which is a good thing.

In a Washington Times' op-ed, Chris Horner revived a discredited study to conclude that green jobs initiatives in Spain were "economic and employment disasters." Horner also accused the Center of American Progress, the American Wind Energy Association, and the Department of Energy of coordinating "to produce an attack that would serve all their interests," ignoring news reports and the Spanish government itself that are also critical of the study.

Horner cites "Spanish academics and experts" who concluded "Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters"

Horner: Spanish experts "reveal[ed] Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters." From a March 9 Washington Times op-ed by Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Obama told Americans on no fewer than eight occasions to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" to see his model for successful "green jobs" policies, and what we should expect here.

Some Spanish academics and experts on that country's wind- and solar-energy policies and outcomes took Mr. Obama up on his invitation, revealing Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters. The political embarrassment to the administration was obvious, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asked about the Spanish study at a press conference, and the president hurriedly substituted Denmark for Spain in his stump speech.

In a March 3 PajamasMedia blog post, Horner stated, "In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: 'Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.' The paper concludes that Spain's 'green jobs' program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs."

Horner suggests criticism of study is rooted in conspiracy involving Department of Energy and CAP. Citing documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute using the Freedom of Information Act, Horner asserted: "What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."

Study Horner cited roundly criticized for "lack of scientific rigor"

U.S. Department of Energy: "[T]he primary conclusion made by the authors ... is not supported by their work." In an August 2009 White Paper responding to the Spanish study, which was written by Gabriel Calzada, a professor of economics at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain and fellow of the Centre for the New Europe, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory stated that the Spanish study "represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors -- policy support of renewable energy results in net job losses -- is not supported by their work." The paper further concluded:

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

WSJ's Johnson: "Study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed." Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson challenged a key premise of the study, writing on March 30, 2009, that it "doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending." He went on to write: "The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January."

Spanish government criticized study for "non rigorous methodology." In a May 20, 2009, letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate Change, wrote that Calzada's analysis used a "low reliable and non rigorous methodology" and that the data he used are "totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector." Stating that "the Spanish Government would like to express its views," Rodríguez further wrote:

In Spain, according to the last data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade the [renewable energy] sector employs 73.900 direct workers, while other report by ISTAS-CCOO (labour union institute of work, environment and health) estimates 89000 direct jobs plus 99681 indirect jobs, against de 52200 direct and indirect jobs of the Calzada's figures (unknown source). According to data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade and of the wind power business association, the wind power sector employed 37730 people instead of the 15000 jobs considered in the Calzada's paper.

ISTAS: "The lack of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming." In an analysis of the Calzada study, Spain's Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS) stated that the study contained a "lack of scientific rigor." ISTAS also said that the lack "of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming" and that Calzada had written not "a study ... but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts." ISTAS also stated that one of the "real intention[s] behind the document" was to "try and influence the U.S. media."

Study's author reportedly has ties to oil industry

Study reportedly "supported" by oil-funded Institute for Energy Research. Washington Post columnist George Will cited Calzada's study on June 25, 2009, and stated that Calzada's "study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.)" As Media Matters noted, ExxonMobil Corp. has disclosed that it has provided funding for the institute. Moreover, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation -- the president of which is an executive vice president of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" -- donated $85,000 in grants to the institute between 1997 and 2005, according Internal Revenue Service data compiled by mediatransparency.org, a website of the Media Matters Action Network.

Calzada is fellow at Centre for the New Europe, which has also taken oil-industry money. Calzada's biography from a Heartland Institute conference states that he is a "fellow of the Centre for the New Europe (Brussels, Belgium)." The president of the Centre for the New Europe has acknowledged receiving money from ExxonMobil in 2005, according to a December 7, 2006, article in London's Independent.

Needless to say, former Hewlett Packard head Carly Fiorina has found her entrance into the elective political game to be a bit challenging. She opened up this election year with a January rollout of a website which was almost uniformly mocked. Then came the now infamous Demon Sheep, an ad so terrible that some in the political game wondered if it was bad enough to amount to a form of genius. After all, everyone was talking about it the next day.

Things, apparently, aren't getting better for the businesswoman-turned-politico:

Republican Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina touts her business resume, particularly her years as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, as the reason GOP voters should nominate her to face Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

But [Monday] morning, an heir to one of the company’s founders issued a slashing rebuttal, arguing that Fiorina nearly drove the technology firm into the ground.

Arianna Packard, the granddaughter of HP founded David Packard, unloaded on Fiorina in a letter to a right-wing website. Packard was apparently incensed by a letter circulating from a trio of the Senate's most right-wing voices (Jim Inhofe, Jon Kyl, and Tom Coburn) extolling the virtues of Fiorina, who has long been seen as the default "insider's choice" among the three U.S. Senate candidates vying for the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

That letter was being eagerly circulated this weekend by Team Fiorina, who was trying to earn the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly, a key conservative "get" for any California candidate. Apparently, it didn't have the desired effect:

Each delegate at the convention received an e-mailed copy of the senators’ letter last week, print-outs of articles and polls favorable to Fiorina stuffed underneath their hotel room doors Sunday morning and Fiorina-branded pens to mark their ballots. DeVore ended up receiving 194 votes, while Fiorina received 89.

The California primaries will be held on June 8th. Fiorina will have one notable advantage heading into the homestretch--she is the only self-funder in the Senate field (unlike the free-swinging gubernatorial primary). Whether money can trump what is obviously a sizeable reservoir of hostility among her right flank remains to be seen.

Rick Krause

The American Farm Bureau is continuing to lie to farmers about the threat of Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases. The Bureau, the largest lobbying group for American agriculture, denies the threat of global warming of farming, instead fearmongering for years about a mythical “cow tax.” Speaking to members of the Kansas Farm Bureau yesterday, AFB lobbyist Rick Krause claimed the Environmental Protection Agency “will require all farms with more than 25 dairy cows and more than 50 head of beef cattle or 200 head of hogs to get a Clean Air Permit”:

Cap and trade legislation appears to be a dead duck in this year’s Congress, but those tempted to celebrate too early need to be aware of the potential consequences of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, American Farm Bureau specialist Rick Krause said Monday. Speaking to members of the Kansas Farm Bureau attending this week’s annual County Presidents Tour in Washington, D.C., Krause said EPA regulation will require all farms with more than 25 dairy cows and more than 50 head of beef cattle or 200 head of hogs to get a Clean Air Permit. In addition, it could require permits for the construction of any new outbuildings or remodeling of existing structures, he said. “Right now, the best hope is that Congress will pass legislation to nullify this,” he said.

Krause is quite simply lying.

His “cow tax” lie is based on a figure from the Bush-era US Department of Agriculture, which noted that a 100-ton-per-year threshold of greenhouse gas pollution would cover “even very small agricultural operations” — “dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit.”

The Environmental Protection Agency has no intentions of implementing a 100-ton-per-year threshold. Instead, it has proposed implementing a 25,000-ton threshold, and EPA Administration Jackson has announced that the initial threshold will instead be at least 75,000 tons, and only for power plants until 2013. So even for industrial farms with 6,250 dairy cows, 12,500 beef cattle, 50,000 hogs, or 125,000 acres of corn, the EPA has no plans for enforcement of the Clean Air Act any time soon.

Industrial agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas pollution, primarily from fertilizers and soil use, cattle flatulence, and manure ponds, generating 6.2% percent of United States emissions in 2008. The US Department of Agriculture has found that by changing practices farmers could instead make American agriculture a net sink for global warming pollution, letting plants soak up carbon dioxide.

Congress has already passed legislation to prevent the enforcement of the Clean Air Act for any livestock production, even from mega-ranches like Smithfield’s 800,000 head feedlot in Colorado. In the 2010 budget resolution passed last year, Congress forbids the issuance of permits for emissions “resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production”:

PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS
SEC. 424. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may be used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits under title V of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production.

Furthermore, both the House and Senate versions of climate legislation forbid the EPA from issuing permits for agricultural emissions, instead rewarding farmers with the opportunity to make billions of dollars through voluntary reductions.

Given how much of a trainwreck he became in the closing days of the campaign, the entry of this particular high profile Republican candidate might actually be good news for the Democratic incumbent:

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 special election in 2009, has officially announced that he's running again this year against Democratic Rep. Bill Owens, who defeated Hoffman last fall.

Hoffman announced in a press release Monday night that he would be seeking the nominations of the Republican, Conservative and Independence parties, "and unite them, as one team, to defeat the agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Bill Owens."

Hoffman's bluster about uniting those forces as one team might prove to be a bit silly. After all, many Independence Party folks, when confronted with the option of Hoffman or Owens last November, went with Owens. In fact, the chairman of the party lamented that they had not gone with Owens all along.

Aside from that, the idea of Doug Hoffman as "uniter and not a divider" is pretty preposterous on its face.

You might recall that Hoffman, who was on the Conservative line for the 2009 special election to replace former longtime GOP Rep. John McHugh, attacked the GOP nominee, state legislator DeDe Scozzafava, with so much ferocity that many prominent conservatives endorsed his candidacy instead. Her campaign in tatters, with prominent supporters suddenly shifting into neutral, she made the incredibly surprising decision to scuttle her candidacy on the weekend before the election.

Hoffman could have benefitted from a clear shot at the Democrat. Instead, he alienated the remaining Scozzafava voters with his taunting, sneering response to the suspension of her candidacy. This, in turn, led Scozzafava to endorse the Democrat in the race, Bill Owens.

After a bizarre election day in which Hoffman bellowed about ACORN slashing his tires, only to learn that his staffer ran over a broken bottle, Owens emerged victorious by two points.

Incidentally, Hoffman will find another fairly well-known GOP legislator in the field in 2010, as state Assemblyman Will Barclay is already in the race. Hoffman did announce that he would be seeking multiple lines on the ballot: the Republican, Conservative and Independence lines. This, of course, sets up the possibility of a scenario very similar to 2009 should Barclay manage to win the GOP primary. While the Independence line might be a tough get for Hoffman, it is hard to imagine him being denied the Conservative Party line.

According to The Hill, Senate Democrats are likely to pair the health care reform provisions that they are moving through the budget reconciliation process with the student loan reform bill that passed the House last year. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (SAFRA), which would cut federal subsidies to private lenders, has been stuck in the quagmire of the Senate and is the subject of a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign led by Sallie Mae. Including it in the reconciliation package would prevent the measure from being filibustered.

Reconciliation instructions for student loan reform were part of the last budget resolution, so the necessary pieces to take this step have been in place for a while. But of course, Republicans and the lenders are crying foul:

– “Let’s assume the Senate bill does mirror the House bill in eliminating all private lending — that’s a nonstarter for a lot of Republicans,” said Craig Orfield, Republican spokesman on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

– “We don’t like that this is rampaging through the Senate without the benefit of one hearing,” said an industry lobbyist.

It’s quite remarkable how adamant Republicans are about protecting billions of dollars per year in direct government subsidies to a private industry. But let’s look at the crux of the argument against reform, which is that it constitutes a “Washington takeover” of the lending industry and that the bill will cause student lenders to shed jobs.

The first charge is pretty silly, as billions in subsidies and assumption of nearly all the loan risk makes lending practically a government program already. And as the Washington Monthly’s Daniel Luzer pointed out, since private companies will still be servicing the loans, “it looks like direct lending might actually bring more jobs to America.”

Of course, it’s not really fair to pin all of the blame for stalling SAFRA on the Republicans, as there are a bunch of Democrats from states that the lenders call home who have expressed hesitation about the bill. The investment research firm Height Analytics predicts that seven Democrats will oppose the bill, and that they will come from Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and Delaware.

Those wavering Democrats might ultimately prevent SAFRA from being included in the reconciliation package, as the Democratic leadership doesn’t want to risk losing yea votes for health care. But that would mean SAFRA would either face a filibuster, or have to wait until next year’s budget resolution to move forward. And with student debt at a record high of $23,200 per student, and the nation facing budget deficits for the next decade, there’s really no excuse for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on lenders that are the unnecessary middlemen between students and their education.

Now that Eric Massa is claiming his resignation is all part of a plot by Democrats to pass health care reform (not a recurrence of his cancer, as he originally claimed), he's become the newest sweetheart of the right-wing media. Just take a look at this Chyron from Fox earlier today:

Later today, Massa journeys into Glennbeckistan to discuss his allegations of a Democratic conspiracy to provide coverage for all Americans. Beck is already hailing Massa as an American hero for daring to speak the truth.

Of course, as MSNBC’s David Shuster and Luke Russert point out, the reality of Massa's resignation has nothing to do with his Alex Jones-style rants. Unless Democrats somehow implanted a chip into Massa forcing him to behave inappropriately with staffers, his resignation is a result of his own actions -- things like joking about having sex with one of his aides.

As Russert says, Massa's rantings have exposed him as being "a few fries short of a Happy Meal," but conservatives are still drawn to him like Paultards to the gold standard.

If you're going to assign any credibility to Eric Massa's conspiracy theory (and given his original claim of cancer, how can you?), you also have to believe that (a) the only reason a Congressman would ever get called out for sexual harassment is to apply political pressure and that (b) sexual harassment isn't really that big of a deal.

The fact that right-wing media is latching onto such a weak story simply because of his wild allegations against the administration is yet another window into their world in which facts don't matter: it only matters which side you're on. In the process, they are giving voice to lies -- for the sole purpose of scoring political points.

Additional motivation:

CALLER: If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself? And the second part of that is, what would happen to the doctors, do they have to participate in the federal program, or could they opt out of it? [...]

LIMBAUGH: My guess in even in Canada and even in the UK, doctors have opted out. And once they’ve opted, they can’t see anybody Medicare, Medicaid, or what will become the exchanges. They have to have a clientele of private patients that will pay them a retainer and it’ll be a very small practice. I don’t know if that’s been outlawed in the Senate bill. I don’t know. I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica.

Any chance they can move up implementation of most reforms to next year?

Then again, what will happen when Rush realizes that Costa Rica has universal health care?

A primary contributor to Costa Rica’s success has been its focus on the well being of its people.  For Costa Rica, health and education are priorities for the success of their nation.  The World Bank highlights this priority:

“The Government of Costa Rica sees the health sector as an essential determinant of the country’s economic and social development, giving it a priority that is manifested in sustained high levels of spending and active policy attention at the highest levels.”

The attention to health has brought this middle-wealth country’s health indicators in line with those of OECD countries. In 2001 the average life expectancy at birth in Costa Rica was 76.6 years. In 2000, 97% of births were attended by skilled professionals, 89% of the pregnant women were given prenatal care, and 93% of children under 1 had health insurance. From 1990 to 2000 life expectancy increased by 0.8 years, the fertility rate dropped, and the population grew due to an influx of Nicaraguan immigrants. In 2000 there were 16 physicians and 3.2 nurses per 10,000 population. In 1999 there were 12,000 people living with HIV/AIDS, giving an adult prevalence rate of 0.54%. However, Costa is the only Central American country to provide antiretroviral treatment to all patients through its social security system. The leading causes of death were cardiovascular disease and neoplasms, which is comparable to many OECD countries. Spending on health care has increased steadily over recent years, and in 2000 it composed 9% of the national GDP.

These outcomes are the result of one of the world’s most successful “universal” health care systems.  “Universality” in the Costa Rican system means that 100% of the population is given equal comprehensive public health insurance with equal access to services.

Given Costa Rica's successful "cradle to grave" universal health care system is not just for Costa Ricans, but even for foreigners in the country, I'd like to suggest Rush try Somalia instead. I'm pretty sure Somalia doesn't suffer from the evils of socialized medicine.

Insurers have responded to the administration’s campaign against recent rate hikes by blaming increasing health care costs, provider cost increases and adverse selection (healthier Americans are dropping coverage) for their premium increases. To hear them tell it, the insurance industry is a low-profit industry that spends just one cent of every premium dollar on administration and strives to reduce costs by encouraging efficiencies. Insurers “do not deserve to be vilified for political purposes,” Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) told the AP:

For every dollar spent on health care in America, less than one penny goes toward health plan profits. The focus needs to be on the other 99 cents.

But the argument that insurers run a tight ship is misleading, on several counts, not least of which is the fact that insurers are planning to spend “more than $1 million” not on health care claims — as their justification for the premium hikes would suggest — but “to run television ads on cable stations nationwide beginning in the next few days to push back on the attacks on insurers.”

That $1 million ad fund will presumably come from the one penny that goes towards health care profits. But this too is misleading. Zirkelbach is clever enough to compare the private insurance industry’s administrative spending to national health care expenditures — 45 percent of which includes spending in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs. In the context of total spending, insurers administrative costs may look small, but compared to the revenues of private insurers, administrative spending is seen as far more substantial. Insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits which fund TV ad campaigns, Washington lobbyists, lavish company retreats and outlandish CEO salaries.

The top five earning insurance companies averaged profits of $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008. And in 2008 (the last year for which data was available), CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.” Below is a partial list of insurer/CEO profits:

Insurer: Company Profits 2009: CEO Total Compensation 2008 Or Earlier: CEO 5 Year Compensation: UnitedHealth Group $3.8 billion $5 million – WellPoint $4.75 billion $4 million – Atena $1.28 billion $38 million $77 million Humana $1 billion $2 million $56 million Cigna $1.3 billion $10 million $121 million

Insurer profits increased even in the midst of the current recession. Last week, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, WellPoint admitted that it increased premiums to keep up with medical costs and maintain a 2% profit. The company’s 2009 fourth quarter net income “was more than $2.7 billion, a 727 percent increase from the fourth quarter of last year” — even as membership declined by some 4 percent.

Insurer profits are of course just one culprit for increasing premiums, but considering that insurers have been able to increase their returns by purging sicker Americans from the rolls and pulling out of competitive markets, the President’s strong rhetoric is more than justified. The Senate bill will start forcing insurers to earn profit by figuring out ways to deliver quality care more efficiently and they’re not very interested in accepting these changes.

I'm down in DC's Dupont Circle for the start of the "Citizen's Posse" march, ostensibly to make a "citizens' arrest" of health insurance CEOs meeting (appropriately) at the nearby Ritz-Carlton hotel.

I make the crowd out to be 2,000+ and growing, by what I think is a rather conservative estimate. The Circle itself is jammed, and contingets numbering in the hundreds are arriving from staging areas in all directions.

Howard Dean is on hand under the auspices of Americans United for Change, and I've made visual confirmation on that.

CORRECTION: Credit for organizing the event belongs to Health Care for America Now!

Clever use of signage here, with several dozen folks carrying customizable signs that read, "Another ____ for the Public Option," the blank having been filled in with everything from "healthy voter" to "bleeding heart commie". Also on hand, of course, drummers, since no protest would be complete without them.

News coverage is sparse, but I've seen at least one ABC camera crew, and someone -- news, police or otherwise -- has deemed it worthy of a chopper overhead.  

Pics, via iPhone as I can manage:

Howard Dean on hand

Crowd sets off

UPDATE: The networks went bonkers for teabagger protests of maybe a tenth this size, but word is there's almost zero coverage for this rally, which is shoulder to shoulder for a full city block.

Why? I don't know. It ain't for lack of cameras. Here's ABC's Jonathan Karl on the spot, conducting interviews. Was ABC showing footage? You tell me.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely suggested health care reform legislation contained no immediate benefits, and Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney claimed that "nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. In fact, numerous benefits found in the Senate's bill and President Obama's proposal would begin immediately, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that both the Senate and the House's legislation will reduce deficits.

Fox & Friends advances falsehoods that health care reform has no immediate benefits and would not reduce the deficit

Varney: "Nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. On the March 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney said that "even if ... you go to the right decade, and look at the correct numbers from the CBO, there is still a great deal of confusion as to whether or not you do actually save any money or whether it adds hugely to the deficit." Varney then claimed, "Look, nobody believes that you can cover 30 million extra people, maintain quality of care, and cut the deficit by a trillion dollars at the same time. Nobody believes that."

Carlson: "They're going to start taxing all the people" before the "so-called benefits kick in." After Varney cast doubt on the ability of health care reform to cut the deficit, Carlson said: "Here's how they're going to pay for it, here's how they're going to get all that: They're going to start taxing all the people first before any of the benefits -- so-called benefits -- kick in."

CBO: Health care reform will lower the deficit

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6 estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Carlson's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

• The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

• The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

• The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

• The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

• The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits

• The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

• Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

[...]

Patient Protections

• The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

• The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.

Free Prevention Benefits

• The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.

• Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

• The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

• The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.

No one could've predicted that a primary challenge would turn Blanche Lincoln into a better Democrat.

A moderate Democrat who had vowed to oppose any effort by party leaders to push a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote is rethinking her position.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln said Tuesday that she wants to see what is in the companion bill before deciding.

Of course, she is so clueless, she already ran a primary ad bragging about shafting Democrats on the public option and cap and trade. It looks like she's starting to realize that to win a Democratic primary, she might have to start acting like one.

Too late, Blanche.

Contribute to Bill Halter
Bill Halter for Senate
Volunteer

Speaking at the CQ HealthBeat Conference this morning, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) characterized the Republican push to treat the midterm elections as a referendum on health care reform as a “gift” and said he expected voters to embrace the bill once it passes. Harkin also predicted that the House would pass the Senate bill by March 18 and the final legislation would arrive on President Obama’s desk by March 27th.

“I think Mitch McConnell may have given us a big gift the other day,” Harkin said, referring to McConnell’s appearance on ABC’s This Week. “He’s on tape, when he said, ‘they pass this bill and I know what our campaign will be this November, it will be that we’re going to repeal it,’ — on tape. Just think of the dynamics of that. It’s okay to say that now because people don’t know what’s in the bill. Once it’s passed, signed into law, then they know”:

HARKIN: You see politically, before you pass legislation, especially meaningful legislation, there is always this back and forth and people are confused, I understand that…once a bill is passed and signed into law, then the American people have something. They have it. It’s theirs. It’s much harder, I think, for the opposition of that legislation to then come out, and say ‘that was wrong and I’m going to repeal it.’

Watch it:

Republicans are hoping to use the bill’s prolonged implementation period to turn public opinion against the Democrats in the short term. On Sunday, McConnell also stressed that “the benefits don’t kick in for four years.” “Just looking at the politics of it there’s nothing but pain here for the next four years. Why in the world would they conclude that would be popular?” Under the Senate bill, most of the health insurance reforms and the exchanges don’t begin until 2014, but Democrats believe that the bill’s early deliverables will win-over reluctant voters.

“Sometimes I wish I kind of wish I was running for re-election this year, I know that sounds odd” Harkin admitted. “But I would like to hear my opponent come out and say, ‘I want to repeal those lifetime caps.’” “I think once the American people know what they’ve got and they say, we’re going to take it away, that won’t wash,” Harkin said and listed several other provisions that begin in year one. They include:

1) Health insurers cannot exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.

2) Prohibits insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits and tightly restricts insurance companies’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care

3) Will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.

4) $5 million in federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions.

5) $10 million investment in Community Health Centers.

6) Immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees,

7) Will reduce the size of the donut hole in year 1 and close it completely by 2020.

8) Will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

9) Plans in the individual and small group market must spend 80 percent of premium dollars on clinical services and quality activities, and 85 percent for plans in the large group market.

10) Will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26.

11) Coverage of prevention and wellness benefits will be exempt from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage.

12) Insurers will have to justify premium increases and a new federal agency will have the authority to deny significant and unnecessary hikes.

The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent pointed out that Obama stressed the bill’s immediate benefits at his health care rally in Pennsylvania, telling wavering Democrats, “[i]f you vote for health reform, some of your own constituents will — this year — suddenly find themselves with insurance where they had none. Your own consistuents will not be dropped arbitrarily from coverage, even if they get sick. Some of your own constituents will suddenly enjoy free preventive care they didn’t have before. And you will be able to take credit for it.”

Harkin also said that the bill is not perfect and will have to be amended over time. “One of the things that I want to disabuse people of is this idea that somehow once we pass health care reform that’s it. This health care bill is not the 10 Commandments written by the finger of God forever and ever. It’s a bill passed by humans and as such, we’re going to change it. It’s going to be amended.”

Here's the nightmare:

1. The House passes the main Senate bill first, locking in (at least temporarily) the Cornhusker kickback, the Cadillac tax, etc.

2. The House passes the reconciliation fix and sends it to the Senate. But in order to get sufficient votes for it in the House, the leadership has to agree to put the Stupak abortion language in it, even though policy language like that is subject to a Byrd Rule point of order in the Senate, which would kill it. The House leadership sells it to the rank-and-file, telling them they've already voted for it once, anyway, and besides, it'll be killed in the Senate by the Byrd Rule, so don't worry about it.

3. The Senate takes up the reconciliation bill, and Republicans move to waive the Byrd Rule point of order against the Stupak language, which requires 60 votes to pass. But if they don't waive the Byrd Rule, then the reconciliation bill is amended, and will have to go back to the House. Either that, or the Senate will have to move to go to conference, and the motions necessary to do that can be filibustered up at up to three different choke points. So the Senate swallows the Stupak language (after heavy lobbying from the Catholic bishops), and it's done.

4. Unless, of course, the Senate decides to take a turn playing this game, and finds something it wants added to the reconciliation bill that maybe the House doesn't want, and puts that in the bill too, and sends it back to the House.

5. Then the House is faced with the choice of either swallowing the Senate provision in return, killing health care outright, or instead leaving the Cornhusker Kickback and Cadillac tax unchanged.

What do we do?

Looks like the "best" outcome here is passing reconciliation, including a waiver for Stupak. Which will mean that they will have waived the Byrd Rule to pass Stupak, but told the public option people to kiss off because of the Byrd Rule. There won't be much they could have done differently, but the base will, you know, not like that very much.

Who came up with this scenario? Not me. It was everyone's least favorite paper, Politicowho reported it first. Nor am I even the first one to blog about it. I know that coming from Politico makes it suspect for some of you, and others would even go so far as to say the same about Firedoglake, but the procedure is sound, even if the politics surrounding it are open to question.

Still, if the Senate becomes convinced that the only path to passage is to allow the House to have Stupak's language, then who are they to argue? They'll be convinced they're doing the only thing possible, and they may even be right.

Note, however, that this is not something that's necessarily solved by having the reconciliation bill taken care of first. I initially brought it up in that context, but only to hint at the sort of things that can be hidden until the last, most agonizing moment if the reconciliation bill is the last one to pass. Passing reconciliation first does nothing to avert this scenario, but it makes the bargaining plain and open: abortion rights as a trade for health care, or else scrap the reconciliation bill, take the arguably less-damaging Nelson language on abortion, and accept the Nebraska and Louisiana deals plus the Cadillac tax as the trade by passing the Senate bill in the House and calling it a day.

Would you rather have options, or not?

In an attack on Gen. Robert Harding, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that Harding's views on the necessity for diversity hiring in the intelligence community are "controversial." In fact, numerous officials -- including President Bush -- and intelligence experts agree with Harding that diversity hiring in the intelligence community is vital to national security.

WND attacks TSA nominee: Views on diversity "controversial"

WND claims Harding has "controversial views on diversity." In a March 8 article, WorldNetDaily claimed that Harding "long has pushed for 'ethnic diversity' as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies." The article quoted November 2003 written testimony Harding gave to a Senate subcommittee stressing the need for diversity hiring in the intelligence community. From the article:

President Obama's pick to head the Transportation Security Administration long has pushed for "ethnic diversity" as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies, WND has learned.

[...]

WND found that in 2003, Harding submitted written testimony to a Senate subcommittee hearing on intelligence issues pushing for more diversity atsecurity agencies, going so far as to call diversity a "requirement."

[...]

Harding noted how he previously testified in Senate hearings while working at the Defense Department. He then applauded the senatorial committee for remaining "steadfastly clear about the need for diversity in the ranks of the CIA."

He urged the Defense Department to "build systems and incentives to attract, maintain and sustain a diverse group of gifted (human intelligence) operatives."

Harding maintained the military community "still needs senior folks with language and diversity at the top -- folks who feel a responsibility in a particularly focused way."

[...]

Harding, meanwhile, would not be the only Obama administration official with controversial views on diversity.

But Harding's views are not "controversial" or unique; numerous officials and experts have said diversity is vital to national security

Harding: Diversity in intelligence community is "an analytical necessity." In his 2003 testimony, Harding cited a report by Robert Callum, titled, "The Case for Cultural Diversity in the Intelligence Community," in which Callum argued, "While the leaders of the CIA, DIA, NSA and NRO have all acknowledged the lack of diversity and have created focused recruiting efforts, the acceptance of minorities into the IC [intelligence community] has been disappointing to date. The reason, in part, is that diversity has been viewed as a legal and moral imperative, and not as an analytical necessity." In his paper (purchase required), Callum also argued: "Diversity should be sought, not on legal or ethical grounds, but rather because increased diversity will lead to better intelligence analysis." After quoting a portion of Callum's argument, Harding said: "I sincerely hope that, given the current state of our analytical community, that we've collectively overcome that sentiment." Later in his testimony, Harding described the CIA's recent efforts to "ensure diversity of languages, skills and ethnic and cultural understanding" in its recruits as "a matter of survival."

Bush touted "cultural awareness" as "necessary to meet the threats of this new century." In remarks during the February 20, 2007, swearing-in of Mike McConnell as director of national intelligence, President Bush said of McConnell, "I've asked him to ensure that our intelligence agency focus on bringing in more Americans with language skills and cultural awareness necessary to meet the threats of this new century."

McConnell: "We have got to have more diversity." In remarks during a 2007 Border Security Conference, McConnell said, "It is now our policy across this [intelligence] community that we do not screen out first generation Americans. The very people that we need in this community to speak the languages, understand the cultures, are the ones who have come to America from the distant shores." He later said, "[O]ur focus is to get a more diverse culture," and that "[w]e have got to have more diversity."

McConnell stressed need to hire "first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights." In remarks during his swearing-in ceremony as director of national intelligence, McConnell said, "[W]e will revamp security and workforce policies of past. Our nation requires that we have the best and brightest of our citizens in our ranks to fight a very different enemy. The old policies have hampered some common sense reforms, such as hiring first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights, and a keen understanding of the threats we face."

Rep. Reyes: "[I]t's in our best interests ... to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups. On the August 13, 2007, edition CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "[W]hat we're trying to do is point out that there ought to be a greater outreach by the different intelligence agencies to minority communities. One of the lessons we learned after 9/11 was that we didn't understand the cultures, the languages, the customs of many communities throughout the world." Reyes continued, "So I think it's in our best interests to get the agencies to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups."

Army Lt. Gen. Rochelle: "Diversity is a national security issue." A July 25, 2008, American Forces Press Service article reported that "diversity in the force now takes on a national security context and serves as a combat multiplier on the battlefield, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, the service's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said." The article quoted Rochelle as saying, "Diversity is a national security issue and one that every one of us should be concerned about, frankly, because it is a force multiplier for our soldiers."

NSA director: "[D]iversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission." In November 5, 2003, testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- the same hearing at which Harding spoke -- then-National Security Agency (NSA) deputy director William Black said that "NSA has made significant progress in hiring, recruitment, retention, skills mix, and training. Despite successes in these areas, NSA recognizes that its diversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission."

Former CSIS South America Project director: "Pursu[ing] diversity within the intelligence services ... is the smart thing to do." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Miguel Diaz, former director of the Center for Strategic & International Studies' South America Project, said, "[W]e should pursue diversity within the intelligence services because it is the smart thing to do." He further stated: "Minorities have much to offer in the way of language capability, social skills, and cultural sensibilities that have been sorely lacking in the past. Because of the variety of our national origins we look like the rest of the world, an important attribute in the intelligence business."

Former National Commission on Terrorism member: "America needs ... to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Juliette N. Kayyem, a former member of the National Commission on Terrorism, stated that "America needs to begin a strategic recruitment effort to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies" because "our law enforcement and intelligence communities are woefully inadequate in Arabic translation skills, and are often forced to contract out these vital duties."

Supreme Court has noted military officers' views that diversity is a national security issue

Court noted officers' views that "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps" is essential "to provide national security." In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court noted that retired military officers said that a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." From the Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger:

What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "[b]ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27.

This piece was brought to my attention by John Cochrane.

**********************

More Than Words
Liz Cheney says terrorists have no rights. Also, you’re a terrorist.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Slate.com, March 5, 2010

It can be argued that when Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol accused nine lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department of being the “al-Qaida Seven,” working in the “Department of Jihad,” they were simply exercising their First Amendment right to say anything that would get them on a talk show. This is, after all, America. The right to cynically accuse someone of being a terrorist is protected under the Constitution.

You would think, however, that when Cheney and Kristol launched their execrable “Keep America Safe” Web ad, they would have been very, very careful with their words. In the ad they accuse seven Justice Department lawyers and two colleagues—all of whom had represented Guantanamo detainees—of being members of the Department of Jihad. A screen shot of Osama Bin Laden and a creepy voice-over asks of these attorneys, “Whose values do they share?” Thanks to people like Kristol and Cheney, people take accusations of this sort very seriously. The Justice Department reports being swamped with panicked phone calls since the ad started running this week. In 2010, calling someone a Bin Laden-loving jihadist isn’t just meaningless partisan hackery.

Ten years ago, these were just words. Ten years ago, someone accused of being a terrorist had recourse to the same panoply of rights as everyone else. Ten years ago, an accused terrorist still had the right to a trial, for instance. But thanks to people like Liz Cheney and her dad, the Sixth Amendment right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” is gone, once you’ve been branded a terrorist. Just ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. After 9/11, once you’re branded an enemy combatant, you can be held for years without any of your constitutionally protected rights, including the right to be told of the charges against you or to confront the witnesses against you. Thanks to people like Cheney, those alleged to be members of al-Qaida are stripped of their Sixth Amendment right to prove they are not.

But that’s not all. Ten years ago, if you labeled someone a terrorist, he had an Eighth Amendment right to be free from torture, since the very idea of “cruel and unusual punishment” was anathema, even for our enemies. But thanks to people like Liz Cheney and the brave souls at the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, it’s OK to torture terrorists these days. As long as you’re pretty sure they’re terrorists. This is good news for the Cheney way of thinking, because it means that you can abuse a possible terrorist into admitting that he actually is a terrorist without all that fact-finding necessitated by a criminal trial.

But there’s even more. Ten years ago, if some paranoid hysteric accused you of being an al-Qaida sympathizer or a jihadist, you could find a lawyer to help you make the case that you were not. But in the ever-expanding war on the Bill of Rights being waged by Liz Cheney, once you’re designated a terrorist, you lose your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because just by representing you—even if you’re acquitted—your lawyers become terrorists, too!

Given that the Bill of Rights pretty much evaporates once you’ve been deemed a jihadi lover of Bin Laden, you might think Liz Cheney would be super-careful tossing around such words They have very serious legal implications. Not to mention that some of her dad’s favorite people, from Alberto Gonzales to Ted Olson, scolded the then-top Pentagon official for detainees, Charles “Cully” Stimson, for suggesting on a talk radio show in 2007 that American corporations should boycott law firms that provided pro bono assistance to detainees. Stimson was forced to apologize and resign for his comments. Lucky for Cheney, she doesn’t work for the Pentagon, so she doesn’t have to resign. She merely has to be ridiculed by Bill O’Reilly.

Liz Cheney isn’t careful about the words she throws around. She uses terrorist and killer the way normal people use words like salt and pepper. To her, they are just words. That’s probably the scariest part of all.

When the “al-Qaida Seven” and their two DoJ colleagues fought to defend alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, they weren’t fighting to protect jihadist murderers. They were defending the U.S. Constitution—the great whomping chunks of the Bill of Rights that Cheney and her friends are so eager to write out of existence. They did it because that’s what lawyers are ethically obligated to do. They did it because—as Spencer Ackerman points out—the Military Commissions Act of 2006 expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers. And they did it, as Jay Bookman notes, for the same reason John Adams agreed to represent British soldiers charged with killing civilians during the Boston Massacre in 1770. Because long before Liz Cheney was born and long after she’s gone, the Bill of Rights requires serious people to take it seriously.

I should probably disclose at this juncture that I know several members of the nefarious “al-Qaida Nine.” If I ever get to meet the rest of them, I will buy them a beer. Which, through the magic of Liz Cheney’s transitive guilt property, doubtless makes me a jihadist as well.

Liz Cheney will weasel her way out of this week’s hyperbole. She’s already trying to parse her way out of the embarrassing fact that the Bush Department of Justice and Rudy Giuliani’s law firm also housed traitorous Gitmo lawyers. Now, Keep America Safe says its problem is only with pro bono Gitmo lawyers. Yesterday, Cheney told Washington Times radio she “doesn’t question anybody’s loyalty.” She just objects to the criminal justice model of dealing with terror. Those words jihad and al- Qaida? Having helped make them the foulest words in America, she wants you to think they’re mere words.

Too late. Wednesday night, Liz Cheney told Bill O’Reilly that Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr “killed Americans.” His trial doesn’t start until July. So before you call the Justice Department to question the loyalty of the “al-Qaida Nine,” ask yourself whether you really want to take the Bill of Rights out of the hands of the lawyers, courts, and officials sworn to defend it. Having worked for years to ensure that the word jihadist is legally synonymous with guilty, Cheney cannot be allowed to use it casually to describe anyone she simply doesn’t like.

In early February, it became one of those intriguing little political stories that gets 30 seconds at the end of the national evening news. You might recall that it was then that some enterprising Republican business owners erected a billboard along I-35 in Minnesota featuring George W. Bush's grinning visage and three critical words: "Miss Me Yet?"

Well, according to a new poll conducted by John Zogby on behalf of the right-wingers over at Newsmax, the answer to that question is...well...no. (Hat Tip: Taegan Goddard):

In case you were wondering, a new Zogby/Newsmax poll shows President Obama would beat George W. Bush in a hypothetical match up, 48% to 38%.

One has to guess that was not the outcome that Newsmax was hoping for when they contracted Zogby to conduct the survey. The numbers, while not necessarily a landslide, still do an enormous amount of damage to that article of faith among right-wingers that Obama is the least popular president in the history of the republic, and that his presidency will somehow usher in a period of nostalgia for the days of W.

The data, it would appear, indicates otherwise.