Sen. Whitehouse: Dem Senators may not end Bush Tax Cuts if Obama not "clearly there with us"

There's a nice piece of original reporting over at Digby's site in which David Atkins and his brother Dante interviewed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on filibuster reform, Social Security, the Bush(-Obama) Tax Cuts and Medicare cuts.

Please do read for all four subjects. It's a great short interview with lots of insight.

Here I want to highlight Sen. Whitehouse on those tax cuts, and then add Atkin's remarks. This is quite revealing; note the president's role.

First Whitehouse (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Dante Atkins: If the Senate remains Democratic, do you expect Senate Democrats to hold the line on refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the upper income earners?

Senator Whitehouse: I very much hope that we do, and I expect that we will. I think there is a relationship between how and whether we do that, and how and whether the crisis does that.

If the President draws a strong line, I think he'll have the backing of enough Democratic Senators that he won't be able to have a veto overridden.

That puts him in a very strong negotiating position. And I think that he should take advantage of that, and call and ask for our support.

I think if it becomes questionable whether or not the President will stick to his guns, then there are a considerable number of my colleagues, including those who might be up in 2014, who may have to take a more practical and defensive position so they're not out on this, and then undercut by a White House move later on.

So I think that the support is there, but I would just have as my caveat that it has to be really clear from the White House that they're there with us, and they're not going to walk back and leave a lot of Senators exposed on a position they're not willing to hold themselves.

"Practical and defensive" means cave.

Now Atkins:

This is incredibly important, and one of the most overlooked problems with the Administration's near obsession with "compromise" and being the "adult in the room."

Fair or not, the President will always be labeled by the opposition as its most partisan heavyweight. ... No matter how far to the middle Obama hews, the Republicans will always accuse him of being a Communist.

That in turn means whenever the Administration caves and waffles, members of Congress who stood alongside the President prior to the compromised retreat are automatically marginalized as "even more liberal than Obama." Uninformed voters in midterm elections will naturally assume that they're extremists when the attack ads start rolling in.

It may be that tax cuts for the wealthy are so unpopular at this point that a Senator threatened in 2014 could stand on their own two feet on it regardless of the President's position, but it certainly makes it much harder.

Has Barack Obama left Congress high and hanging in the past? That's certainly the word on the wire.

Me? I think he wants those cuts to pass — all of them. And it will take united congressional opposition to stop it.

Please do click over. It's a good fast read on each of those subjects. Nice job by the Atkins brothers.

ACTION OPPORTUNITY: What can we do? Take a cellphone camera to every Obama event you can get into and ask him early and often:

Mr. Obama — Will you swear now to veto any legislation that contains a full extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?

Be that point-blank.

This is a fight he can win anytime he wants to. Inaction is a win. He can let them expire in December, put in a January bill to give the cuts back to anyone he wants, and dare the Republicans to say No. Any time he wants it, he can have that win. If he wants it.

But I don't trust him to want it. He caved in 2010, remember, and I think he's going to design a deal that's complicated enough to sneak the Bush-Obama tax cut extension past you with sweeteners, something like "see, no cuts to Social Security" or some such.

So think of this as a negotiation, you voters out there. You have him at a vulnerable moment. If Obama wants something from you, he can give you something first.

I know he can lie and reneg. But make him make it a bold lie; a world-class 180° lie. Make him pay you with weasel-free words before you tell him he has your vote.

Ask him point-blank:

Mr. Obama — Will you swear now to veto any legislation that contains a full extension of the Bush Tax Cuts?

Then ask again the next time he shows up.

In the booth you can do what you want. But in this negotiation, you're free to tell him sorry, not good enough ... yet.

Mes centimes for whatever that ends up being worth,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Bush-era holdover FHFA chief refuses to implement Obama homeowner mortgage forgiveness

This story comes to us via Paul Krugman.

Edward DeMarco, acting director of the FHFA (Federal Housing and Finance Agency) and a Bush-era holdover, has refused a request from the Obama administration to implement a program of debt relief for underwater mortgages.

FHFA is the controlling agency for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, "the government-sponsored lenders that were effectively nationalized in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration."

In other words, a Bush-appointee (and "civil servant" or non-political jobholder) is refusing to implement administration economic policy that offers debt forgiveness (a form of bailout) to someone other than banks.

As Krugman says elsewhere, "Fire Ed DeMarco. Do it now."

There are many angles to this story. Let's unpackage them, starting with why debt matters in the current crisis.

■ Personal debt (economists call it "debt overhang") is one of the main reasons our economy is not recovering. As I noted here:

[W]hen all the women who wanted jobs had gotten them ... our "prosperity" became debt-driven. That period lasted until, oh, yesterday (ok, 2008). By my count, that's 20-plus years of debt intake. Clearing that debt is a job that has to be done. Starting now is a very good thing.

How long will it take to clear 20 years of debt? If it "only" takes ten years, we'll have gotten off lightly — and it will feel like forever.

Also this, from the same piece:

We won't have a real recovery until that debt is either paid off or destroyed (via bankruptcy, forgiveness, or some other form of debt-clearing). ...

Think of household debt as a hole that has to be filled (with money) before big-screen spending can resume. The ratio of "debt relative to income" is a key metric in recovery of the consumer economy. The point at which debt-burdened people "feel" unburdened enough to start spending — that's when their personal economy recovers.

In other words, no recovery without debt reduction in some form. And the slow way — making every banker whole in a depressed jobless economy — can be slow the point of "never gonna happen." Personal debt must be cleared by some faster means.

■ The barriers to clearing personal debt are many. They include:

1. Republican desire to kill the economy in order to recapture the White House.
   
   
2. The desire of both Democratic and Republican elites (office holders and power brokers) to make sure their paymasters (sorry, our bankers) don't lose a dime.
   
   
3. The desire of the rubes (sorry, media-led American voters) to make sure no "undeserving" person gets one federal cent that a rube might otherwise pocket for himself.

About the first, need any more be said?

About the second, Krugman notes this about the Obama administration's debt-relief policy:

Unfortunately, the administration’s initial debt relief efforts were ineffectual: Officials imposed so many restrictions to avoid giving relief to “undeserving” debtors that the program went nowhere.

About the third, as soon as Lyndon Johnson–created welfare programs benefited dark people, white America rebelled. From Nixon's "southern strategy" to Reagan's "welfare queens" to Clinton's "welfare reform" — the War on Poverty quickly became a war on the poor. To thunderous bipartisan applause.

■ The Obama administration has apparently seen the light, or at least some of it. Krugman again:

More recently ... the administration has gotten a lot more serious about the [personal debt] issue. And the obvious place to provide debt relief is on mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ...

The idea of using Fannie and Freddie has bipartisan support. Indeed, Columbia’s Glenn Hubbard, a top Romney adviser, has called on Fannie and Freddie to let homeowners with little or no equity refinance their mortgages, which could sharply cut their interest payments and provide a major boost to the economy.

The Obama administration supports this idea and has also proposed a special program of relief for deeply troubled borrowers.

That administration support involves Tim Geithner and the Treasury Department. Krugman from a different source:

Treasury Department [has requested that FHFA] offer debt relief to troubled homeowners ... backed by an offer by Treasury to pay up to 63 cents to the FHFA for every dollar of debt forgiven.

But DeMarco, acting head of FHFA, has refused the offer. And that's where things stand. For Krugman, this is unacceptable.

[T]here is simply no way that it makes sense for an agency director to use his position to block implementation of the president’s economic policy, not because it would hurt his agency’s operations, but simply because he disagrees with that policy.

■ Who is Ed DeMarco and why is he acting this way?

He’s a civil servant who became acting director of the housing finance agency after the Bush-appointed director resigned in 2009. He is still there, in the fourth year of the Obama administration, because Senate Republicans have blocked attempts to install a permanent director. And he evidently just hates the idea of providing debt relief.

He's a Bush holdover (a kind of embed) who ended up acting director because of Mitch McConnell's obstructionism. If he can't be fired, he can certainly be replaced at the start of Obama's second term via a recess appointment, something Krugman strongly advocates.

As to why this refusal to act, Krugman and I differ. He puts all the blame on the aforementioned Senate Republicans, with some justification.

I put the blame on Obama, for not clearing out the embeds years ago — apparently not even wanting to.

And now that he has finally decided to offer a dollop of non-banker bailout (albeit timed for election season), his four-year indulgence of Ed DeMarco has bit him hard.

■ Will DeMarco get away with it? I'm going to guess Yes, though I could be wrong. Even though he's likely doing R-party bidding (Krugman is right about that), his defense will appeal to point three above — rube-hate of the "undeserving" — a position that Mr. Obama, I strongly suspect, fully shares.

How will we know if I'm right? See if DeMarco gets fired (that may or may not be possible). Then, after the election, see if he gets recess-appointed out. I think the odds may be in my favor.

UDPATE: David Dayen agrees that DeMarco won't be fired. Scroll down for the reason.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

How the Onion scooped George Bush

George W. Bush the other day:

“Eight years was awesome and I was famous and I was powerful,” Bush told the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson.

The Onion's fake story about George W. Bush in 2009:

"I was president," murmured Bush, his mind returning again and again to the thought of "eight years" as he emitted a series of short, guttural laughs that reportedly grew in volume the longer he lingered on his time in office. "That was what I did for a living. Me. George W. Bush. For almost a decade."

"I did that," Bush added. "As my job."

Continued Bush, "I'll be damned if I wasn't the president of the United States of America."

Read the rest of this post...

Five Questions: Frances Causey, director of the documentary "Heist"

One more interview in our series, Five Questions, about American history, progressives, Democrats and the future.

Today's interviewee is Frances Causey, producer–director of the new, highly acclaimed documentary Heist: Who Stole the American Dream?

Heist tells the story of the theft of America, starting with the Powell memo; strong stuff, and a story every progressive should be aware of.

Five questions, Frances Causey with Gaius Publius, recorded at Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:



About the movie: The trailer tag line says: "This is the story of the biggest heist in American history." You can play that trailer here.

The longer version of the trailer is below, and watching it would be an excellent use of time. It tells a well-told tale and provides a valuable look back. Knowing how we got into this mess shows the way out.



The full list of "Five Questions" interviews includes the following. Links to names will take you to previously-published interviews.

• Alan Grayson, former (and perhaps future) U.S. Congressman
• Marcy Wheeler, of emptywheel.net
• Cliff Schecter, who comments regularly with Sam Seder at Majority.fm among many other places
• Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist with DailyKos and This Modern World
• Alex Lawson of StrengthenSocialSecurity.org
• Josh Orton, with Russ Feingold's Progressives United
• Frances Causey, producer–director of Heist, the documentary
• Chris Pearson, a Progressive Party Vermont state legislator
• Susan Smith, Progressive Caucus chair of the Florida Democratic Party
• Sarah Burris, labor activist and progressive youth organizer

These interviews will be concluded this week. Thanks for listening to them.

(If you have trouble with this audio, please let me know in the comments and I'll address it as quickly as I can. Thanks.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Bush isn't going to be happy when he sees these new CIA documents about 9/11

From Jordan Michael Smith at Salon:

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Read the rest of this post...

Four Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

UPDATE: A follow-up, "Goals of an Effective Progressive Coalition," appears here.
________

One of the changes I've decided to make coming out of Netroots Nation is to start writing more generally from time to time — essays and opinion pieces in addition to news and commentary.

The first of these pieces is this one: Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition (in my opinion, of course).

These rules actually apply to any coalition, but I have a specific goal in mind, so forgive me if I don't make this overly general.

By the way, I'm using capitals in the Coalition itself because I really want a proper name here, not just a description. I also want it to exist — anytime before my death would be fine with me.

Managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

An effective progressive coalition must be all three — progressive, effective, and a coalition — or it won't be worth most people's time to support.

• If it's not progressive, it's of no interest, at least to me.
• If it's not a coalition, it has no strength.
• And if it's not effective — if it can't accomplish anything — it's ultimately worse than a sham; it's a failure.

In practice, it seems to me that all of these goals will be more likely accomplished if every member of the Coalition — at the leadership level at least — adheres strictly to just four rules. These are:

Rules for managing an Effective Progressive Coalition

1. No constituency in the Coalition takes a backward step to advance another's cause. (I call this the Cruickshank Rule; see below.)

2. Members of the Coalition have each others' back. No constituency under attack stands alone.

3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

4. The Coalition preferences political action to discussion. (This is the No Dithering Rule.)

Though there one or two tripwires, this really isn't that complicated. You could probably have written these rules yourself, had you put your mind to it (and been forced to write).

Discussion

I'll offer a short gloss on each rule here, then expand my thoughts in the weeks ahead. I'll also respond (and perhaps adapt) to comments and suggestions, so keep those card coming in.

Note through the following the difference between progressive constituencies and progressive groups.

Working people, for example, are a constituency. A particular labor union is a group, an institution. Women are a constituency. An individual anti-abortion, or equal rights, or fair-labor organization is a group.

Sometimes groups represent constituencies, but not always. That said, onward.

Rule 1. No constituency takes a backward step (the Cruickshank Rule).

Here's Robert Cruickshank, of whom I've written before, on this principle. He articulates it this way here. In other places (for example on Sam Seder's show) he uses language like mine.

Cruickshank:

Conservatives simply understand how coalitions work, and progressives don't. Conservative communication discipline is enabled only by the fact that everyone in the coalition knows they will get something for their participation. A right-winger will repeat the same talking points even on an issue he or she doesn't care about or even agree with because he or she knows that their turn will come soon, when the rest of the movement will do the same thing for them.

And:

Progressives do not operate this way. We spend way too much time selling each other out, and way too little time having each other's back.

Does this need discussion? This is true on its face, and speaks squarely to effectiveness. Until the practice of groups trading each other out is ended, we will have no force.

Let me say that differently. Your group can trade us out if it wishes, but it's not in the core of the Coalition if it does. No seat at the table, no decision-making power. You're with us to the extent that you play nice; and no further. We will not be cut from within.

There are two ways to violate this rule:

■ One is the naked way — an immigrant group takes a deal that sells out gays; a labor union takes a deal that sells out veterans; and so on. (No, I won't offer real examples; I will not sell out my brothers and sisters that way.)

■ The second is more insidious: Some progressive constituencies are asked to wait their turn — forever.

This happened in the years after Obama was elected. He had made a set of campaign promises to various progressive constituencies — immigrants were promised the DREAM Act; gays, an end to DADT and DOMA; labor, the enactment of EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act); and so on. There were many of these promises, in exchange for which the national Democrats got much progressive support.

Then came 2009, when Democrats held the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. As an example of much that happened, let's consider just those three constituencies — gays, immigrants and the labor movement.

What did the national Democrats do? Led by Obama, but not solely by him, they told gays, immigrants and groups representing labor: "Get behind us on health care first; after that we'll enact your items."

Despite the whinging and complaining, Obama's healthcare bill passed, as each progressive group in turn fell into line.

Then what happened? No DREAM Act. No end to DADT and DOMA (at first; see below). No EFCA (even now nothing is on the table). The national Democrats got their "hamburger today"; progressives were left waiting for the Tuesday at the end of the world.

(For the positive changes that gays and immigrants did affect, look no further than Rule 3.)

There's a side benefit to strictly applying the Cruickshank Rule (no backward steps). We use the Rachet Effect to our advantage for a change. At some point, we're playing on their end of the field — for a change.

Rule 2. Members have each other's back. This is almost a Cruickshank Corollary, but it speaks to unity, to coalition itself.

If we don't stand together, we don't stand together, us at the core of this group. We're just a bunch of well-meaning entities, getting some stuff done (maybe) and inadvertently (or worse) undoing each other's accomplishments.

Not what most of us had in mind when we joined this parade.

Rule 3. The Coalition serves the Coalition, not the Democratic Party or any other group or goals.

This is both obvious and difficult. Obvious because examples abound where national Democrats and the party as a whole — dominated as it is by Rubinites and NeoLiberals, Blue Dogs (however rebranded) and conservatives — too often betray progressive values and goals.

Following this rule speaks directly to effectiveness, and applies most directly to the core of this Coalition, to its leadership level.

In essence, this rule means, the Coalition can work with Democrats (or any other group), but it can't be led by them. And when it has to fight its enemies on a given issue, it has to recognize those enemies and deal effectively with them.

Not dealing with your enemies is a recipe for disaster. Cruickshank says, in the same piece quoted above:

[T]oday's Democratic Party has two wings to it. One wing is progressive, anti-corporate, and distrusts the free market. The other wing is neoliberal, pro-corporate, and trusts the free market. ... The only reason these two antithetical groups share a political party is because the Republicans won't have either one.

At the time I printed that quote, I added this:

With Democrats, every advance of the DLC-corporate agenda is automatically a loss for progressives; and every progressive victory on taxes, for example, is always a loss for neoliberals. That baby can't be split.

Cruickshank says that Obama has his own coalition, which isn't quite identical with the Democratic "coalition." In the Obama coalition, progressives are considered always expendable by Team Where Else You Gonna Go? (They're also hated and sneered at, I'd add, but why pile on?)

Try this for hated.

The Democrats can be great partners, and the Party has many great progressive members. When they work with us, the result can be powerful.

But when the Party works against us, progressives must separate, go our own way, treat them as opposition if that's how they want to act.

How did gays get their great gains? Not by playing nice. By taking on the Democrats and winning. By challenging Obama in a room where he couldn't run away. Unapologetically.

How did immigrant constituencies get the recent part-way DREAM gain? By exploiting Obama's need for immigrant votes — in an tightening election year — when the word was spreading that Obama was tougher on deportations than Bush. (UPDATE: For more on this, go here.)

Simple, right? Practical, right?

Yet this is one of the tripwires. It's emotionally very difficult for progressives to separate from Dems. In the years I've been working this beat, I've seen it again and again. I saw it at Netroots Nation just this month.

We've supported Dems most of our lives. We've worked to elect them. In many cases they are our best professional friends.

Even progressives who see what the Party has become, treat it like an ex-spouse we still care about. We don't live together any more; but we don't want ill to befall them. We still care.

Yet to be effective, progressives have to choose between progressive goals and Party goals every time the choices conflict. If a person or group can't do that, they can help us out elsewhere, but they cannot lead.

And if they really get in the way, they'll get bit.

It's that simple. When Dems try to mislead progressives, we don't need "progressives" on the inside cheering them on.

There's a second way that "progressives" can be unfaithful to progressive causes, a way that has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. We all have careers and personal goals. This is not in itself bad.

But to use the progressive movement to preference one's own career, one's own goals at the expense of the movement itself — this also violates the rule. It's the same in effect as using the movement to advance the Rubinite Dems. Not good; not allowable behavior at the core of the Coalition.

Again, if career — or list-building, or cocktail-contact-climbing, or whatever — comes first, great. People like that can work with us, but they cannot lead.

I hope you can see why Rule 3 is necessary, at least at the leadership level. We can't be led by divided loyalties; that way lies failure.

Rule 4. The Coalition preferences action over discussion (the No Dithering Rule).

I personally like this one, but also think it's necessary. There's something about us on the left — one of our great virtues — that makes us thoughtful.

But like all god's creatures, we have the defect of our virtues — we are sometimes very thoughtful, grad-student thoughtful, dissertation thoughtful.

If you believe as I do that we're entering a period of simultaneous global deadlines — I'll have another post on that, but my current count is eight — I think not preferencing action is an indulgence, perhaps a fatal one.

I like the FDR approach. Paraphrased:

Do something. If that doesn't work, do something else.

A fine idea.

Bottom line

For once, the bottom line really is at the bottom. I tried to reduce these rules to only those needed. I think I succeeded. There are only four.

If I imagine this wonderful Coalition not strictly following any of these rules, I see failure — something like the current landscape in fact. That's not an outcome any of us wants:

• Backward steps? Loser plan.
• In-fighting? Loser plan.
• Led by Dems or careerism? Loser plan.
• Endlessly debating? Loser plan.

Pretty simple for a long post, right? A definite bottom line.

Did I miss one? Let me know in the comments. And thanks as always for your thoughtful consideration.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi triples down, stands firm for Bush tax cuts for those at $1 million in earnings or less

Straight news, literally she-said (Pelosi) versus he-said (Obama). You decide. My most recent thoughts are here. I'm shifting slightly after doing some digging, but not a ton.

Bottom line — Pelosi doubles down on doubling down. (Is that a triple or a quad?) Either way, this is now the third round of her affirming this position. She wants tax breaks for those between $250,000 and $1,000,000.

Huffington Post on the she-said (my emphasis and paragraphing):

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday defended her push to permanently extend "middle class" tax cuts to people making up to $1 million, saying that drawing the line at $250,000 hasn't worked.

Pelosi has come under fire since she pressed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last week to hold a vote to extend "middle class" Bush tax cuts. ...

During her weekly briefing, Pelosi took aim at her critics and said that her proposal is the best way forward if people want to see any kind of permanent middle class tax cut extension in Congress.

Now the he-said:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged questions Thursday on what Obama thinks about Pelosi's proposal. He reiterated that the president is committed to tax cuts for those making less than $250,000.

Pelosi thinks this is "about getting something done."

So far, the White House and Pelosi appear to be in disagreement, and are taking that appearance of disagreement to the next level.

I'll offer my take on the Bush–Obama Tax Cut deal in a later post. Is this really the "best way forward" as Pelosi asserts? We'll examine that.

Whether you believe or disbelieve the sincerety of either of these positions, the post-election Lame Duck session will tell the tale. If it quacks like an extension of the whole Bush (and Obama) tax cut package, it is an extension of the whole package.

What kind of quackery is this? We'll know for sure in December.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Looks like Pelosi speaks for Obama in moving the Bush-Obama tax cut offer to $1m

When last we left our heroes, the brave Democrats wanted the wicked Republicans to extend the Bush Tax Cuts (and after 2010, the Obama Tax Cuts) for incomes below $250,000 — and only those.

And they wanted the Republicans to do this ahead of the post-election lame duck session — when (obviously) all of them would regrettably cave to the billionaires who just financed their $2,000,000,000 combined ad buy (not including the primaries).

So that was the presumed offer on the table — $250,000 incomes and below get their Bush (and Obama) tax cuts renewed; they still have no jobs, but their taxes won't go up.

Then Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively moved the bar from that measly $250,000 to a full $1,000,000.

What was going on, we asked? Was Pelosi off the Dem reservation, doing a Cory Booker so to speak, and speaking out of turn?

Or was she front-running for Obama? (My bet was front-running, but that's me. I think if you notice what Dems actually accomplish, you have to admit they're good at it.)

Now comes Pelosi again to explain. Writing in USA Today, she renews her offer to Republicans to extend the Bush–Obama tax cuts for incomes below a full $1,000,000. Doubling down, as it were (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Democrats have always opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Since President Obama's election, we have repeatedly called for an end to tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year.

Republicans have rejected this effort, holding tax relief for the middle class and small businesses hostage to permanent tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, and corporations that ship jobs overseas.

Democrats are committed to moving the process forward by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share through the expiration of tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year.

Here's how to read that, in my opinion. By acknowledging Obama's role and former bargaining position, Pelosi seems to be speaking for the whole Dem team ("we"), including Obama himself. Either that or Nancy has some serious 'spaining to do.

Pelosi will walk that back (don't hold your breath) or Obama's on board. Count on it.

Note, for good measure, Pelosi also doubles down on her confirmation of Simpson-Bowles Catfood-for-Gran:

Democrats are committed to using the significant savings to reduce the deficit. And in the future, Democrats are committed to reforming the tax code, closing special interest loopholes. Democrats and President Obama have supported a grand bargain to spur our economy and reduce our deficit[.]

More with the Grand Bargain.

It's coming, folks. Not only do all the elites want to send as much manufacturing overseas as they can (why else would Dems not fight for alternate-energy manufacturing in the U.S.?).

All the elites also want to fix your "broken" safety net. Not enough holes in it, I guess.

It's a two-fer for their billionaire masters — your jobs off to cheap-labor countries (so the billionaires get more money) and your safety net in shreds (so the billionaires get more money).

Tick-tick-tick.

[UPDATE: Some phrases tweaked for clarity.]

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively caves on Bush–Obama tax cuts

Nancy Pelosi is making quite a name for herself. Unfortunately, the name is "ex-progressive" and "former San Francisco–liberal."

The bottom line up top, then the details.

We know that Pelosi wants her gavel back. We know that Obama wants his Grand Bargain; he's been saying so since 2006. This has all the earmarks of a trade.

If so, the Pelosi–Obama bargain goes like this — "I get my gavel, and you get to kill the safety net (sorry, 'reform' Social Security)." My Inner Occam explanation (see link) still makes sense to me.

To execute, she would first have to cave on Simpson-Bowles (Obama says "the deal is still on the table"). That happened late last month.

Now we see her caving on the $250,000 breakpoint in the looming lame duck battle over the "Bush" tax cuts. She's suddenly offering to move the breakpoint to $1,000,000 — up from Obama's stated $250,000 — without being asked (publicly).

Is that also part of the Pelosi–Obama deal? Is she front-running for Obama's "regretful" later concession? Only the fly on the Oval Office wall knows for sure. She's certainly not playing super-chess, because moving the price of collapse doesn't change the game. Hmm.

Next the details. Here's her announcement (my emphasis throughout):

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today called on Speaker Boehner to bring a permanent extension of the middle income tax cuts to the House floor immediately and use the revenues resulting from the expiring tax breaks for those earning more than a million dollars to pay down the deficit.

And by "pay down the deficit" she means "pay down a lot less of the deficit than Obama claims to want". ThinkProgress:

[H]er proposal differs from others offered by Democrats, including President Obama, that call for an extension of the rates for incomes below $250,000. ... Pelosi wants a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $1 million, the statement said. ...

Her plan, however, would cost the government billions in revenue compared to Obama’s plan, and though she has billed it as a tax cut for the middle class, half of its benefits would go to millionaires, according to analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice[.]

According to the Tax Justice link above, there's a 43% loss in revenue between Obama's last-stated proposal and Pelosi's current one. Sounds like money to me.

But maybe you're not supposed to notice that part, just the part where Pelosi forcefully "calls on Speaker Boehner to ... middle-class tax cuts ... immediately."

Shorter Pelosi:

"Here's a plan that looks really good till you look at it. You on the bus, don't look at it. (And before you ask, I'm speaking just for me.)"

Recommendations for Progressives

1. The Bush tax cuts are killing us, killing the nation. We're beyond politics and super-chess. Bush did a dandy on us, and it has to stop. Here's the damage, one more time:

That fat brown stain is the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts.

2. From this flows the only good progressive position, in my opinion:

• In practice, these tax cuts will either all be extended or all be expired. We seen this dance before.
  
  
• If a progressive has to choose between those two, she must choose the latter — let them all expire. Period.

Nothing else is responsible; nothing else puts nation above party when the two interests collide. "Party First" is the other guys, right?

3. This position takes advantage of the only real leverage in the game. For once, not acting is a win. All Dems would have to do to win is — nothing. The Bush–Obama tax cuts expire by default.

It's telling, isn't it, that Obama and the Dems don't use that built-in super-advantage? Makes you consider what they might really be doing.

4. This position is practical for progressives, no matter what Dems do.

We got played last time (lame duck 2010) and we're probably getting played again. It will take an act of god for the billionaires who run both parties not to get their way.

Let's not compromise ourselves by buying into a "sorta OK" deal, then watch it get switched for a deal we mostly hate. Once we're on board, we're on board for the whole ride. This compromises us.

If Dems want to sell themselves and the safety net, let them do it alone, over our explicit and united objections. Strategically, this is our best shot — make them pay for the cave, make them think twice about us for a change.

Speaking of "united" ...

5. Can progressives stand together in this? I sure hope so; it would be a great sign for the future.

What do I mean by "progressives"? Here's my own idea of "entitlement reform" — You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.

By which I mean, when it comes to choosing between principles and party, progressives choose principles. Not a bad definition, don't you think?

Progressively yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Bush to publish a book on economic strategies for growth

Yes, I think that's called "Do the complete opposite of what George W. Bush did from 2000-2008." For those who don't remember, the Bush administration averaged 20,000 new jobs per month during his term in office. According to mathematicians that would be 111,000 fewer jobs per month than during the Obama administration.

Bush's ability to ignore his own failed economic policies ought to be interesting. Not that he didn't ignore a number of realities during his eight years in Washington, but preaching about economics after the mess he left is really too much. Read the rest of this post...

Romney falsely claims Bush had better job growth than Obama

As Paul Krugman notes in the NYT, Romney is promising 500,000 jobs a month by returning us to the economic policies of the "wonderful" Bush years.

While everyone, including president Obama, would like to see the current jobs growth numbers be better, the numbers are still looking good compared to the Bush average numbers.  So how is Romney going to do better than Obama by returning us to Bush?

As Business Insider shows, even excluding the disastrous final year, Bush only generated an average of 65,000 jobs per month - compared to 131,000 per month under Obama. If you count everything, the number was an anemic 20,000.

Let Romney and the GOP talk lovingly about the good old days of jobs growth during the Bush years, and then give them the facts. Immediately after, give them a glass of water so they can swallow it all since the truth might get stuck in their throats. Read the rest of this post...

Obama transition advisor: Obama's advisers feared "revolt" if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes

Looks like the State knows how to stand up for itself, even against an incoming president (my emphasis everywhere):

President-Elect Obama’s advisers feared in 2008 that authorities [sic] would “revolt” and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to [UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr.,] who served as one of Obama’s top transition advisers.

There's a old joke that goes like this:

The new president gives his inauguration speech to wild applause, then retires with his transition team to the Oval Office to begin work. Soon one of the top career CIA officials, a man who has been in office for decades, comes to his side and whispers: "Mr. President, may I have a minute? There's something I'd like to show you."

He leads the president to a small room off the main hallway, where a DVD player and television are set up.

"Have a seat, sir," he says. "This will just take a moment."

The president sits and the CIA official starts the DVD. The president watches as the Kennedy assassination is played — shot from an angle never seen in public. It's over in minutes, and the TV screen goes black.

"Any questions, sir?" asks the CIA man.

The president returns to his office to prepare for his first day of administration.

Of course that's a joke; it's been around since Clinton days. Now back to the real world, and Naked Capitalism.

This story has a lot of angles, since Edley is dean of the faculty which includes John Yoo, Bush II's notorious torture-justifying lawyer. Another angle is — hey, this story is old; the exchange reported occurred in September 2011. Where's the press coverage? So please, go read.

I'll give you just one more snippet, about the aspect covered in the headline. Keep in mind, this information came out only because an activist asked the right question during a Q&A at a 9/11 presentation at which Dean Edley spoke. The article's author says:

The story arose because Susan Harman, a California resident opposed to torture, asked Edley a question Sept. 2 at his forum and mailed his comments to me, among others. ...

Here’s Harman’s account of her actions at the Boalt Hall forum, which focused on such goals as human rights and the rule of law:

I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was single-handedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn’t their job to prosecute him.

Duh.

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants [sic; Harman speaking] would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he “bent over backwards” to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. She recalled, “He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.”

Thus we are where we are today. Rule of Law — We of the 99% have more than our share, and the 0.01% seem to have lost theirs.

It's important to note that this "fear of revolt" is not attributed to Obama himself, but to his transition team:

Edley confirmed to me in an exclusive email interview Harman’s quotations, and provided additional information about the transition team’s concerns. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a revolt.

There you have it. Just the messenger, folks — though it does suggest that the State has its own momentum, doesn't it?

(For longer pieces on the same subject by the same author, go here or here.)

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Maddow: Bush-era torture "probably a war crime," Obama "legally obligated to prosecute"

The good folks at The Political Carnival have brought this to our attention — Rachel Maddow discussing the fact that Bush-era torture was illegal, "probably a war crime," and our government has a responsibility to prosecute it.

Let that sink in. (1) It is a fact. (2) Maddow really said what I attributed to her. On the always O-friendly, forward-leaning MSNBC, no less.

If I'm going to give out an Eleven-Dimensional Chess award, it goes to Maddow. This one is up there with her non-outing outing of Rick Perry.

She cleverly works this information into a segment about the nature of today's Republican party.

▪ She starts with four-minute intro about how these Republicans aren't even in sync with their 2008 incarnation.

▪ Then she talks about the Zelikow memo (a high-level Bush-administration opinion that raised objections to white-washing torture as legal), and how the recent release of that memo places responsibility for prosecuting Bush-torture on the U.S. government (the current executive branch, whoever is running it).

▪ She closes with a question, again about Republicans — now that Obama is vulnerable to the same charge as Bush (not prosecuting torturers), are Republicans too far gone to pass up this golden attack opportunity?

See how clever? I've trimmed off the introduction in order to highlight what she clearly says about Obama and his administration. Watch; I'll add a few comments afterward.



So the Bush administration tried to destroy all copies of Zelikow's memo to "disappear" evidence they were told internally that torture was illegal (2:32 in my clip).

The Obama part of the discussion starts at 3:32. The "war crime" comment comes at 3:50, followed by Obama being "obligated to prosecute." Notice, though — she cleverly says "we" are obligated ... meaning the government ... meaning the sitting president ... meaning Obama (but not by name, exactly). See how that works?

This is not disappearing the facts; this is telling the truth while keeping your high profile job. Maddow is a very clever woman, an Alekhine come to judgement.

For more, go to the Political Carnival post where I saw this clip. They have further information and a great many torture links, including and especially the continuing abuse of Gitmo prisoner Fayiz al-Kandari, an educated charity worker sold by Afghan bounty hunters to the Americans — who paid them. Fayiz is a prisoner to this day, under very harsh conditions.

Why didn't Obama pursue Bush-era torture prosecutions? Perhaps this is the reason (h/t my Twitter friend Les Zuazo). Makes one pause, does it not?

This stuff really does have to stop. Someone really will end up in The Hague. Even Obama could find himself on a No-Fly-Abroad list.

If you wish to follow on Twitter and send links, I'm more than happy to have them. Just click here: @Gaius_Publius. Thanks.

GP Read the rest of this post...

What's at stake if SCOTUS cuts back the Commerce Clause?

Via Sam Seder and the Majority Report, we're pointed to this excellent commentary by Chris Hayes on his new Up With Chris show.

It's short, tight, and puts this momentous decision in good historical context. Watch:



Ah yes, the social contract; something we've been on about as well.

Seder also points us to this comment by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker. Very smart. According to Toobin, there's 70 years of settled law at stake (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Consider, then, this question, posed to Verrilli by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

“Assume for the moment that this”—the mandate—“is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?”

Every premise of that question was a misperception. The involvement of the federal government in the health-care market is not unprecedented; it dates back nearly fifty years, to the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. ...

Kennedy’s last point, about the “heavy burden” on the government to defend the law, was correct—in 1935. That was when the Supreme Court, in deciding Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States—a case involving the regulation of the sale of sick chickens—struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act [which established the NRA], a principal domestic priority of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the ground that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Two years later, however, the Court executed its famous “switch in time that saved the Nine” and began upholding the reforms of the New Deal. The Justices came to recognize that national economic problems require national solutions, and they deferred to Congress, usually unanimously, to provide those solutions, under the Commerce Clause.

This isn't just about the ACA or getting a second crack at the Public Option; it's about settled law and the Commerce Clause. Untimately it's about the New Deal government that we've all been living under and benefiting from — the one we assume is bullet-proof, here forever.

Not so, says Toobin (and Hayes in the clip above). Toobin again:

In the more than seven decades since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has avoided this sort of line-by-line parsing[.] ... Now, instead, the Supreme Court acts as a sort of supra-legislature, dismissing laws that conflict with its own political agenda.

It's own "political agenda"? Would that be one more voice saying this? He continues:

[This] decision is a great deal more important than its immediate political aftermath. It’s about what the government can do, not just who runs it. If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation. ... It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments.

Maybe. On the other hand though, if you totally love power, and totally can't be removed by any agency on earth — why not just use it?

After all, it's not like you haven't had practice swinging some pipe; you totally gave us this guy:

Nearly a century of settled law won't repeal itself, you know, and time's totally wasting.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

SCOTUS loss of legitimacy—"Conservative justices are happy to take radical action for political aims"

The "loss of legitimacy" part of the title is mine. The rest is Rachel Maddow:

"[In Bush v Gore, Conservative justices] were pretty happy to take radical legal action, as long as it achieved a political aim that they wanted." [7:54]

"If you go by what people tell pollsters — we think the majority of the Court is a partisan body that will do anything in their power to help politicians who are on their side, and to hurt politicians who are on the other side." [10:57]

Needless to say, this is another excellent segment from Team Maddow. It's about the mess that the Supreme Court has become (clearly by design).

The segment is in two parts:

■ She begins with the decision in Bush v Gore, which Bruce Ackerman calls "a constitutional coup". (Does that phrase sound familiar?)

Then she pivots to voter suppression, which is why the Florida election was stealable in the first place.

If you listen to just the first half of the segment (seven minutes or so), you might think the take-away is — Voters in Florida don't care that voter registration is a crime, so they deserve what they get.

A perfect half-segment, and she could have stopped there, with the mess in Florida. But there's more.

■ She then pivots back to the Supreme Court (7:30). First, back to Bush v Gore, then to Citizens United, and finally to this week's oral arguments on the ACA (at 9:20).

Watch:



Don't miss the chart at 10:32. And don't miss the comments (at 11:10) connecting the Koch Bros–funded AFP demonstration outside the Court with the MoveCon–"funded" Clarence Thomas & family.

It's a brave new world; glad it's being called out.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Komen update: Morale "in the toilet" and CEO Brinker in "meltdown" — but won't resign

I've said publicly that Komen may have skated, and allowing that was a mistake. The problem wasn't the Georgia GOP hack that the CEO hired; it's (1) the CEO that hired her, and (2) that Komen itself is only half a charity — and half an agent of Movement Conservativism.

Yet, after that week or so of terrible publicity, only the hack had resigned. Nancy Brinker, the CEO and loyal Bushie, remained, as did the organization in its current form. (Note: I don't advocate killing Komen; just cleaning its house, thoroughly, of MoveCon dirt and dustballs. That includes, especially, its CEO.)

Now it seems the organization is still teetering. Some data-bits from the Huffington Post (h/t Kalli Joy Gray; my emphasis and reparagraphing):

Komen has been struggling to repair its reputation since the public backlash over its decision, at the beginning of February, to pull cancer screening grants from Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics perform abortions.

Komen ultimately decided to restore Planned Parenthood's eligibility for grants, but the public had already soured on the charity for focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer.

Susan G. Komen Greater New York City recently decided to postpone its annual fundraising gala because executives "were not certain about our ability to fundraise in the near term," spokesperson Vern Calhoun said in a statement.

And:

A Komen insider told HuffPost that "employee morale is in the toilet" since Komen leadership made the controversial decision to defund Planned Parenthood[.]

And about that CEO:

"[CEO Nancy] Brinker [is] in complete meltdown," the source wrote to HuffPost. "People want her to resign but she won't." Brinker did not respond to a request for comment.

Let me be clear. Inside this organization there are a lot of people pushing Brinker to get out.

Can't we help them?

Seriously. An organized push now — ideally cored by a small cadre of activist women and supported by the rest of us — could restart the campaign and topple the teetering Brinker. She's ripe for a fall, according to this report.

By the way, there's a danger that Limbaugh will skate as well, and for the same reason. As soon as the news cycle chases the next missing blonde (as it were), he thinks we will let up. Just like with Komen.

Wouldn't it be nice to prove these people wrong for a change? It would, at least in my humble opinion.

Humbly yours,

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's power to kill

We recently wrote about the president's new ability to kill Americans by executive order.

(It still shocks me to write that — it's so stark — but that's a fair description. It also shocks me that my concern about this power is surrounded by a cone of silence from my countrymen and women.)

Our earlier article quoted lawyer Jonathan Turley at length on the subject. Here's Salon's Glenn Greenwald discussing the same topic with Sam Seder on Majority.fm.



This is a great walk-through by Glenn. He starts with the beginning of the practice by Obama, the comparison with Bush II legal opinion, and the implications of AG Holder's speech. An extremely clear, focused interview. (Don't miss the comparison to Bush II at about 17:00 — the key point, Obama can get away with stuff that Bush could never do. Guess why.)

More generally, think about "targeted killing" — executive assassination — for a minute.

1. This power-grab has implications for our "reasonable positions" discussion about voting in 2012, but I'll save that for later.

2. If Julian Assange were traveling in a country where the collateral damage, extra dead bodies, would be brown people ("Unpeople" like Afghans for example), would Obama order a drone strike to kill him?

After all, Bradley Manning is being held without trial, and because WikiLeaks is "known bad," it's all good with our freedom-loving fellow citizens. Manning's an invisible man.

3. How long before this power starts being used for political takedowns? (They call that "feature creep" in the tech biz; you start with code that adds two numbers, and end up with code that measures the distance to the sun.)

4. In particular, how long before the next Scott Walker, as president, jumps in with both feet and just uses it to the full? Republicans use every ounce of power they get; always.

This really is a kingly power, you know. But hey, isn't there a game on? (Maybe if Civil Liberties had a basketball team, people would care.)

GP

(To follow on Twitter: @Gaius_Publius) Read the rest of this post...

One in seven Americans pursued by 3rd-party debt collectors, double the percent in 2000

This is a great catch by Matt Stoller writing at Naked Capitalism. I'll keep this short and send you to the original post.

The bottom line is that the percentage of people pursued by third-party debt collectors has doubled in 10 years. Stoller (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

I went through the Federal Reserve’s Quarterly Release on Household Debt and Credit released today, and there were two notable trends.

One is that the amount of consumer debt is declining, but that delinquency rates are stabilizing above what they were before the crisis.

And the second is in this graph, which is that the number of people subject to third party collections has doubled since 2000, from a little less than 7% to a little over 14% of consumers. Ten years ago, one in fourteen American consumers were pursued by debt collectors. Today it’s one in seven.

Here's the graph he mentioned; click to open in a new tab. When you do, note that the big jumps in the blue line — the line showing debtors — occurred during the early and mid Bush II years, well before the banking crisis.

People are simply getting poorer. Stoller calls this the "new social contract," fingers both Bush II and Obama for the change, and says it "suggests we live in a different country than we did just ten years ago." He's right; this is not your daddy's U.S. of A.

There's more at the link, including some information on the re-emergence of debtor's prisons, if you can believe. Be sure to click through on that one. It's not an overstatement.

As for you, Mr. Who Else You Gonna Vote For? — look to your legacy. Word.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s life among the 0.1 percent

Updated: See below.

Not to be outdone, the Newsweek-owned Daily Beast has an interesting background article on Nancy Brinker and Komen for the Cure. In it, there are a number of details that support what we wrote earlier.

[Update: The Daily Beast appears to have incorrectly reported Brinker's salary in an earlier version of their story, and we reported that figure, with some skepticism. The Daily Beast has quietly rewritten their story, correcting the salary figure, so I've deleted the grafs relating to the higher (now incorrect) salary. The correct figure is close to the $500,000 we earlier reported here.]

The article's details reinforce the picture we painted earlier. Brinker is not just a charity maven, she's a hard-core Republican and friend of the mighty:

[T]he commanding, 66-year-old businesswoman, diplomat, and Medal of Freedom recipient, ... established the world's largest breast cancer nonprofit, with its signature pink ribbon, in memory of her older sister, Susan in 1982. (Laura Bush, a close friend, was one of her original supporters and volunteers. After their mastectomies, Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan joined the group.)

When she married Norman Brinker in the early 1980s she was able to launch her twin careers — building Komen into a money-earning powerhouse and helping to finance the Movement Conservative project:

in the early ’80s, she met and married multimillionaire restaurateur Norman Brinker, a major Republican donor. ... When they tied the knot, the union provided Nancy with a network of A-list political connections and friends, plus the funds to lead a luxurious lifestyle and create the Komen Foundation, now the Susan G. Komen for the Cure with affiliates in 170 communities in 50 nations. ...

Several years later the couple divorced and with a hefty settlement, formidable drive, and her chum George W. Bush in the White House, Nancy was ready to step onto the world stage. First the [p]resident appointed her ambassador to Hungary and then U.S. chief of protocol.

That ambassadorship was likely a thank-you gift for her fundraising (nearly $700,000 in political donations between herself and her husband). Most ambassadorships are; it's been an open secret for decades.

How seriously did she take her ambassadorship?

She was lonely, says a friend, and spent most of her time away from her post.

Ah, the life of the 0.1% Can I have a job like that? Small people get lonely too, you know.

So I'll ask again — how much have those twin paths merged? How much of her political fundraising benefits from her Komen work, and vice versa?

Calling Jimmy Olsen; an opportunity awaits. Is Komen a right-wing "fog shop" — an actual charity with a hidden "confuse-the-progressives" Movement Conservative agenda? Said "charity" gives only 24% to Research and a whopping 50% (almost) to "Education."

Education — is that what the kids are calling it these days? Maybe it's time to find out.

GP Read the rest of this post...

"Welcome to Cancerland" — or What does Komen do with all that money?

Credit Rick Perlstein (via Twitter) for this great find.

In Harper's Magazine, November 2001, the great Barbara Ehrenreich writes (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Today [breast cancer is] the biggest disease on the cultural map, bigger than AIDS, cystic fibrosis, or spinal injury, bigger even than those more prolific killers of women -- heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke. There are roughly hundreds of websites devoted to it, not to mention newsletters, support groups, a whole genre of first-person breast-cancer books; even a glossy, upper-middle-brow, monthly magazine, Mamm.

There are four major national breast-cancer organizations, of which the mightiest, in financial terms, is The Susan G. Komen Foundation, headed by breast-cancer veteran and Bush's nominee for ambassador to Hungary Nancy Brinker. Komen organizes the annual Race for the Cure©, which attracts about a million people -- mostly survivors, friends, and family members. Its website provides a microcosm of the new breast-cancer culture, offering news of the races, message boards for accounts of individuals' struggles with the disease, and a "marketplace" of breast-cancer-related products to buy.

Ehrenreich then looks at why breast cancer is different and represents a different "opportunity."

[B]reast cancer has blossomed from wallflower to the most popular girl at the corporate charity prom. While AIDS goes begging and low-rent diseases like tuberculosis have no friends at all, breast cancer has been able to count on Revlon, Avon, Ford, Tiffany, Pier 1, Estee Lauder, Ralph Lauren, Lee Jeans, Saks Fifth Avenue, JC Penney, Boston Market, Wilson athletic gear -- and I apologize to those I've omitted.

You can "shop for the cure" during the week when Saks donates 2 percent of sales to a breast-cancer fund; "wear denim for the cure" during Lee National Denim Day, when for a $5 donation you get to wear blue jeans to work. You can even "invest for the cure," in the Kinetics Assets Management's new no-load Medical Fund, which specializes entirely in businesses involved in cancer research.

If you can't run, bike, or climb a mountain for the cure -- all of which endeavors are routine beneficiaries of corporate sponsorship -- you can always purchase one of the many products with a breast cancer theme.

There are 2.2 million American women in various stages of their breast-cancer careers, who, along with anxious relatives, make up a significant market for all things breast-cancer-related. Bears, for example: I have identified four distinct lines, or species, of these creatures, including "Carol," the Remembrance Bear; "Hope," the Breast Cancer Research Bear, which wears a pink turban as if to conceal chemotherapy-induced baldness; the "Susan Bear," named for Nancy Brinker's deceased sister, Susan; and the new Nick & Nora Wish Upon a Star Bear, available, along with the Susan Bear, at the Komen Foundation website's "marketplace."

And bears are only the tip, so to speak, of the cornucopia of pink-ribbon-themed breast-cancer products. ...

Despite the non-profit status, Komen and its aggressive and jealous trademarking and organizational branding looks a lot like like a major, professional, corporate operation, doesn't it?

And not a very feminist one. (There's a whole essay on that here by itself.) Ehrenreich is careful to note, for example, the infantilizing aspect of the products, not just from Komen, but throughout the breast cancer biz. After listing all the pink-themed geegaws, from Body Crème to journals-with-crayons (yes, crayons), she writes: "Certainly men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not receive gifts of Matchbox cars."

Not that this world of breast cancer sales to victims, survivors and families is one-sidedly bad:

This is not, I should point out, a case of cynical merchants exploiting the sick. Some of the breast-cancer tchotchkes and accessories are made by breast-cancer survivors themselves[.]

But it's not one-sidedly good either.

This piece is, first and foremost, a personal story of the assault on what she calls the "Barbara project" by the aggressive cells she hosts. Yes, Ehrenreich was diagnosed with breast cancer. This is her tale of it, and wonderful writing in its own right.

But the essay is so much more than a personal story, as the quotes above indicate.

Breast cancer really is different from any other health care charity

Breast cancer has a unique place among the country's charity "opportunities." For example, here Ehrenreich considers breast cancer's causes, noting that only 10% of breast cancers are gene-based, and looks at (1) the studies of environmental factors, (2) the issue of feminism, and (3) corp-friendly orgs like Komen:

[E]mphasis on possible ecological factors, which is not shared by groups such as Komen and the American Cancer Society, puts the feminist breast-cancer activists in league with other, frequently rambunctious, social movements -- environmental and anticorporate.

... and ...

as Cindy Pearson, director of the National Women's Health Network, the organizational progeny of the Women's Health Movement, puts it more caustically: "Breast cancer provides a way of doing something for women, without being feminist."

Smart. Can you see the corporate compromises shaping up? No ecology please, if you want our bucks. Some of us have pollution "issues." And feminist-free, thank you very much. Wouldn't want to offend Mr. Limbaugh, whom we may also sponsor.

So let's pause here and tote things up:

1. Komen's founder Nancy Brinker has a cancer story in her immediate family, and founds Komen for the Cure in 1982. She genuinely cares about breast cancer.

2. Brinker is also a right-wing Republican since Reagan and a loyal Bushie. She's a long-time big dollar donor to Republican causes and election campaigns, along with her then-husband Norman Brinker, whom she met in 1983.

Are the Brinkers bundlers as well? Not sure, but the rewards start to look like it. In 1986, President Reagan appointed her to the National Cancer Advisory Board; Bush I bumped her up to chair of the President's Cancer Advisory Panel.

By 2001 she was Bush II's Ambassador to Hungary (these are often thank-you's to bundlers and big donors, in both parties). Her electoral giving by that time had totaled a reported $175,000 to Republicans since 1990; at the same time, her husband's giving totaled nearly half a million.

Bush II liked her so much, he made her Chief of Protocol for the U.S. in 2007. (In that job, she got to greet the Pope first off the plane. Perk city.)

3. Finally, this from Ehrenreich:

Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, which sponsors three-day, sixty-mile walks, spends more than a third of the money raised on overhead and advertising, and Komen may similarly fritter away up to 25 percent of its gross...

Or more (see "Education" below).

The twin paths

Can you see the twin paths, and the way they can easily be merged?

On the political side, she's a big enough player in the scratch me–scratch you game of elections and funding that she gets ambassadorships. On the breast cancer side, she has a compelling story and a great feminist-free cause (unlike uterine cancer, for example, or cervical cancer, which involve the politics of actual reproduction).

As an agent of Movement Conservatism, she takes her political story to corporations and plays quid-pro-quo (no corp gives without getting — it's the law).

As a businesswoman running the largest charity in its "market," she takes her breast cancer story to corporations and plays quid-pro-quo (no corp gives without getting — it's the law).

Are there political quids for breast-cancer quos? There are a lot of ways to play quid-pro-quo as a high-dollar charity with politically active management; only one of them involves things like "pinkwashing." Take, for example, this pink gun (yep, go ahead and click; it's what you think it is).

What's the quo for this NRA-themed quid? Think there wasn't one? This minute, in my neighborhood, there's a real estate deal going on involving the city, a non-profit seller, a non-profit buyer, and a nice big downtown building. The deal is stalled; the city and the neighborhood need to move it along.  In comes a major property developer who's working on the seller and buyer to agree, just trying to help out.

There are hints of a side deal, in which one or both of the non-profits get access to the developer's big-money fundraising list and his go-ahead to use them. Sweet; that's money in the bank. The developer's involvement isn't public; I know about the side deal talk because I'm two "Kevin Bacons" from the developer, and the guy who's one Bacon away got the info direct from the source.

(If there's another side deal with the city, I haven't heard about it. But I wouldn't put it past them; these are pros.)

This is how it's done, folks. So back to the pinkwashed Walther P-22. Who benefits from the gun-dealer's deal with Komen? Just the Seattle seller, or pro-gun groups as well in their battle for gun rights everywhere? If I'm a deal-maker (and donation collector), I smell an opportunity. Did Komen or anyone else make use of it? I have no idea, but it's a fair question.

But if you start to wonder what the NRA (for example) might have given up in side deals to get gun-toting "washed in the pink" — and what may have been handed out by some fourth party as well — I say you're thinking like the pros yourself, walking in the woods with your eyes open, fog free.

Calling Jimmy Olsen

We're in a world of far more questions than answers, and I'd love some real-life Jimmy Olsen, someone looking for a career-making story, to dig deep into the money on this one; to find the side deals, if any.

Here's something to get you started, Mr. or Ms. Olsen — Salaries aside (almost $500,000 for the CEO), the bulk of Komen's outgoing money, almost 50%, is here called Education.

What's "Education"?

Komen's deal-making could be clean as a whistle. It could also be a rat hole — and not just a Republican one. The previous lobbying for Komen, just prior to Georgia-GOP Karen Handel coming on board, was Dem-heavy, and Nancy Pelosi just stepped up to forgive a post-chastened Komen. Quid? Quo? Bidding for the next dollar, or just a pal doing a pal a favor?

See what I mean? This is bigger than Planned Parenthood; that just opened the door. This is about money, a lot of it. We'll never really know what's going on until someone looks into it, and as I wrote earlier, the time to look is now.

(Me, I'm not named Olsen, but I am always open for links. If you send me a good one and I can't use it, I'll be sure to pass it on. And thanks.)

Update: And then there's this (h/t Amanda Marcotte).

GP Read the rest of this post...