Obama Taps New Off-Shore Oil Fields

On a scale of 10, I would award President Obama an 8 for opening new off-shore oil and gas exploration off the Atlantic, eastern Gulf and northern Alaska in a speech on energy security today.

He missed a Bo Derek 10 because by the time any of this might happen.the president, 48, will be drawing Social Security.

As outlined, Obama's plan is the best common-sense approach towards energy independence from foreign oil cartels in generations while at the same time preserving environmental safeguards. It provides a bridge until our country is released from relying so strongly on fossil fuels from the Organization of  Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

It falls short of the chants heard at the 2008 Republican National Convention of "Drill, Baby, Drill," plays into Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner's call for "all of the above" national resources of energy to tap and slaps down the wing-nuts on the left who oppose all off-shore drilling.

Studies will be conducted by the Interior Department for the oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic seaboard from Delaware to Florida, the rich basin within 125 miles off shore in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic. Off limits will remain from New Jersey north in the Atlantic, California to Washington in the Pacific and Alaska's Bristol Bay. The earliest lease sales by Interior could be held no earlier than 2012.

However, exploration by oil companies set on drilling these waters will depend whether it is economically worth their trouble. Decisions will be judged on the anticipated price of crude oil and natural gas which for the past year have been driven higher by Wall Street oil commodities speculators.

In his speech at the Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility Washington, formerly Andrews Air Force Base, the Washington Post reported:

Obama pledged that new technologies would be employed to reduce the impact of oil exploration.
"We'll protect areas vital to tourism, the environment and our national security," he said. "And we'll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence. That's why my administration will consider potential new areas for development in the mid- and south-Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That's why we'll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska's Bristol Bay."
He said his announcement "is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy."
Obama called on the nation to "move beyond the tired debates between right and left, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place."
He lamented that "while our politics has remained entrenched along worn divides, the ground has shifted beneath our feet," with other nations investing heavily in new ways of producing and saving energy.

Reaction from environmental groups was mixed.

Marilyn Heiman, the Pew Environment Group's U.S. Arctic program director, lauded the administration's decision to ban drilling in Bristol Bay. The bay is "the home of the world's largest wild sockeye salmon run and the nursery for Bering Sea fisheries that provide 40 percent of our nation's seafood," she said.

The Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, said last week that his group remained opposed to offshore oil drilling, even in the context of an overall climate bill that places a price on carbon.

"It is not a mechanism that actually fights climate change," Brune said in an interview. "You don't make the problem worse in order to solve it."

Jacqueline Savitz of the environmental group Oceana said:  “We’re appalled that the president is unleashing a wholesale assault on the oceans. Expanding offshore drilling is the wrong move if the Obama administration is serious about improving energy security, creating lasting jobs and averting climate change.” 

Last week senators from 10 coastal states said the were "very concerned" that new drilling would provide a threat to their beaches and the tourist industry.

Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank, noted that a federal analysis last year suggested that converting unexplored areas on the Outer Continental Shelf to productive sites "will require considerable time, in addition to financial investment." He said drilling under Obama's new policy "may not be as economically attractive as available resources in the Gulf."


The fact that the average field off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts is smaller than those in the Gulf of Mexico, the report added, suggests that some of the areas subject to drilling under Obama's new policy "may not be as economically attractive as available resources in the Gulf."

Not if oil speculators have the final say. In a report by msnbc.com, U.S. demand for oil has dropped but the price has increased about a $1 per gallon in the past year.

The answer, according to oil analyst Peter Beutel at Cameron Hanover, is that investors are driving the price of oil — not the people who use it. 

“The sovereign wealth funds, college foundations, union pension plans — all this big vested money has been sold on the idea that your investment portfolio is not complete without 10 percent in commodities,” Beutel said.

The trade experts believe Obama's announcement today will only drive the price higher in an expected stampede from more investors. That's not good for motorists and people heating their homes, but it would make it more profitable for oil companies to buy the leases and start drilling.

Readers comments are welcome as long as they remain civil. We reserve the right to delete any comments that are vulgar, libelous and totally irrelevant to this posting. -- Jer 

From Paradise To Gated Ghettos

Where I live in semi-rural Riverside County in Southern California, what once were upscale housing tracts where homeowners associations enforced beautification codes are now crime-infested gated ghettos.

My son, whose job takes him throughout the county, described the malaise six months ago and I thought he was exaggerating. Not, in the least, it turns out.

My area has been clobbered by the housing market collapse beginning in 2007 and the rate of foreclosures of first-ownership new homes ranges as high as 50% in some subdivisions.

Many of the abandoned homes are broken into by squatters -- prostitutes, drug runners, illegal aliens, gangs and other dredges of life. Some are rented but the once manicured lawns have gone unmowed and unirrigated.

The situation is so quirky that people qualifying for Section 8 rental assistance vouchers are living in homes with marble kitchen counter tops and vaulted ceilings.

The county and cities, equally financially strapped, have no funds to enforce building code violations or although a few are tracking down lenders and owners for fines ranging up to $1,000 per day.

And the new first-time owners who remain have seen the $440,000 they paid for their new homes now worth $170,000.

The situation may never improve. One expert believes as many as 25 million suburban multi bedroom and bathroom homes of 5,000 square feet or more embellished by baby boomers will be forsaken by their children and grandchildren whom he predicts will prefer living in smaller quarters in cities closer to their jobs.

For a more detailed account of what originally was considered a homeowners' paradise and now transformed into a gated ghetto in my neighboring city of Hemet, click on this story in today's Los Angeles Times.

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

Readers comments are welcome as long as they remain civil. We reserve the right to delete any comments that are vulgar, libelous and totally irrelevant to this posting. -- Jer

I'll Miss You Guys, But You Know Where To Find Me

When I quit the newspaper racket in 1985, the information highway was a pipe dream. The only way we received feedback from our readers was an occasional letter and a handful of telephone calls. Most were negative. Considering the paper's circulation was about 180,000, the interaction was barely a blip on the radar screen.

When I created The Remmers Report, my Google-driven blogsite in September 2007, I was not only a virgin in cyberspace but a fossil still clinging to the only means of communications I knew about -- writing stories for a family newspaper.

The only difference of what I write now and what I would have written 25 years ago is an occasional damn or hell and the advancement of an opinion that may have gotten me fired by my old publisher.

In the beginning, writing political stories and explaining complex government gobbledegook was as shooting an airball. The silence of all those sweated out words making scintillating prose was deafening. Oh, a brother or two would feel guilty and write a comment to an occasional post.

As the months went by, a reader from out of no where stumbled on my blog and actually took the time to comment and stroke my vanity. What an ego trip. You see, unlike a few writers I know, I enjoy the give and take of a good debate as long as it remains civil. Writers are the same as little children, they love to be flattered and have developed a thick enough skin to accept the arrows.

The only time I promoted my blog to anyone was Joe Gandelman and only because I knew of him as a former reporter on the San Diego Union-Tribune where I worked for 18 of my 24+ years in the newspaper business.

Joe invited me to co-blog on The Moderate Voice and six months later at my request handed me the title of columnist. I've tried to live up to that self-imposed honor with every column I post.

In the beginning writing for TMV  was nirvana. I had died and gone to heaven. Some columns sparked 30 comments. Unheard of from my newspaper experience before Al Gore invented the Internet.

Little did I know that Dr. Clarrisa Pinkola Estes, who over the past year has become a trusted pen pal, was moderating the comments as much as we all have learned the past 24 hours.

My first reaction, now that I am a seasoned veteran in this we're-in-it-only-for-the-love trade, was winning the lottery and finding out I cannot spend a dime of it. As a loyal contributor, I support the ban on comments for a three-month trial.

But, I am too new at this game to understand if the loss of interaction between we authors and you commenters is a death sentence for what has become a respected, civil, political Web site that I am proud to have played a part. I have read the more than 100 comments to Pete Abel's announcement and appreciate the opinions and valid points in each and every one.

What will happen will happen.

I have made friends I never would have met otherwise, particularly Joe and Dr.E,  the most compassionate person on the face of the earth in my book. I have communicated with the always helpful Joe Windish and learned to appreciate the candor of such regular commenters as DSL, JS Spencer, Dorian (the great) and scores more.

As a writer, I have endeavored to find a style niche comfortable to me that sometimes defies the purpose of these Web sites. For instance, I don't give a damn what other bloggers say and that is why you seldom see a cut and paste column under my byline unless lifted from actual news stories. It's my column and not the opinions of others that's important.

Meanwhile, if the TMV people still want me, I plan to write as often as my health permits. While the self-publishing ban is in effect, I will end my TMV posts with a reefer to my blogsite for comments. At the end of each of my posts on The Remmers Report you will find this attachment:

Readers comments are welcome as long as they remain civil. We reserve the right to delete any comments that are vulgar, libelous and totally irrelevant to this posting. -- Jer

I could be wrong, but I don't think comments on Google's blogsite can be internally edited which means the entire comment will be deleted if it violates my simple rules. I will reply to the comments if asked or consider it appropriate.

For those who appreciate my offerings -- even to those who miss my efforts at humor and witticisms -- I hope you will continue visiting TMV.

Feds Indict Group Plotting Against U.S.

In reading the news report today that nine members of a Michigan-based Christian militia group have been indicted on sedition and weapons charges in an alleged plot to ignite an anti-government uprising, I could only hope prosecutors played it straight.

Any faith I have in a fair Justice Department prosecution was tainted after watching Scott Pelly's interview with Nada Prouty, aka Jihad Jane, last night on CBS's "60 Minutes."

This is sensitive stuff so let me address it one point at a time.

I have always been skeptical of federal prosecutions because the weight of their authority occasionally is tilted towards individual personal political ambitions by members of the U.S. Attorney's staff. Let me illustrate that by example. Casper Weinberger, one of President Reagan's top aids, was cleared after his name was dragged to the bottom of the barrel in a government witch hunt. Former Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted on kickback charges in which the prosecutors were later reprimanded for unprofessional conduct.

These come from personal recall. A Google search could find hundreds more.

I put Jihad Jane in that same category whether she was telling the truth in her 60 Minutes interview that she never committed espionage as an FBI or CIA agent. Prouty, unquestionably one of the most skilled interrogators in the CIA, was accused as an illegal immigrant committing espionage in a FBI press release but not in court. You can judge for yourself by watching the video link.

The nine charged in today's indictments spring from the same Detroit office of the FBI that tarnished and ended Prouty's career either right or shamefully wrong. I must confess I have a built-in intolerance for people who hide between the cloak of religion to disparage, maim or murder others.

According to the New York Times:


. The defendants were identified as members of Hutaree, described by federal prosecutors as an anti-government extremist organization based in Lenawee County, Michigan, and which advocates violence against local, state and federal law enforcement. The group saw local and state police as “foot soldiers” for the federal government, which it viewed as its enemy, along with participants in what they deemed to be a “New World Order,” according to the indictment. “This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society,” Andrew Arena, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge in Detroit, said in a statement. “The F.B.I. takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States.” 

The Times then quotes from the group's Web site:

The Web site, which describes the group as “preparing for the end times,” featured video clips of people running through woods in camouflage gear and firing assault rifles, along with links to gun stores and far-right media. It also features an elaborate system of military ranks for its members. The site says it coined the term Hutaree, intended to mean Christian warrior.
“Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment,” the Web site says, adding, “The Hutaree will one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield if so God wills it.”

And from the indictment:



The indictment charged that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants — led by David Brian Stone, 45, who also used the name “Captain Hutaree” — developed a conspiracy that they hoped would result in a war against the United States government. They allegedly decided they would kill a local law enforcement officer, and then bomb the funeral caravan. The killings “would intimidate and demoralize law enforcement diminishing their ranks and rendering them ineffective,” it said.
Afterward, the indictment said, Hutaree members would retreat to several “rally points” and wage war against the government, using prepared fighting positions as well as “trip-wired and command-detonated” bombs.
“It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more wide-spread uprising against the government,” the indictment said. 

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

EPILOGUE

A major flaw in our justice system is the ability of defendants to afford the best lawyers available even by pro bono. Jihad Jane did not and chose to take her lumps.Whether the Huraree group can afford high-profile and expensive defense counsel remains to be seen. Even the best legal counsel fails to get their clients off the hook. Weinberger did and his reputation was never restored in the public mind. Stevens did and all it got him was a slap on the prosecutors' wrists. Timothy James McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, got the best defense lawyer in the country pro bono and still was convicted and executed. There is a reason for this. The feds usually have air-tight cases before going to court if they can't intimidate a defendant to plead guilty to initial or reduced charges.


(Readers comments are welcome as long as they remain civil. We reserve the right to delete any comments that are vulgar, libelous and totally irrelevant to this posting. )

Blog Reefer

For comments, access my blog site at http://remmersreport.blogsite.com/

Comment Policy

Readers comments are welcome as long as they remain civil. We reserve the right to delete any comments that are vulgar, libelous and totally irrelevant to this posting. -- Jer

GOP Governor Candidates Stay The Course on Immigration Reform In California

 California, being a border state, is in the forefront of a battlefield on immigration reform where political corpses are buried. Just ask Pete Wilson, a former Republican governor exiled to oblivion, who turned the state into a Democratic stronghold for his 1994 support of anti-illegal-immigrant blowback in Proposition 187.

After an immediate injunction, the meat and potatoes of Prop.187 was struck down as unconstitutional two years later that would have denied illegal immigrants social service, health care and education benefits.

Come 2010, the two major Republican candidates for governor have taken up the immigration reform issue as a major plank in their platforms. Their message is essentially the same as Wilson's but tweaked to the times and a rising tide of public support casting aspersions on illegal immigrants sucking the public treasury trough dry at a time of high state unemployment and economic tailspin.

It comes at a time President Obama is reluctantly sending signals to fulfill a campaign pledge to Latinos he wants to tackle the issue. Democrat Sen. Charles Shumer of New York and Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina were close on an immigration reform package until it was politically detonated by an IED in the form of a Democratic victory for overhauling the health care system.

In California, the Republican hopefuls are Meg Whitman, former president and executive officer of EBay, and Steve Poizner, California's insurance commissioner. Both stated their immigration positions in op-ed columns in today's editions of the Los Angeles Times.

Whitman said she opposes amnesty, wants e-verification for employers to hire only legal immigrants and seeks state laws to prohibit charities and cities such as San Francisco for harboring illegal immigrants.She also wants Congress to pay states for incarcerating illegal immigrants. She opposes cutting off education funds for children of illegal immigrants for the "sins of their parents" and insists English be required as part of the curriculum.

Her op-ed message:

Taken together, these steps would make a significant difference in reducing the burdens of illegal immigration without casting unneeded and discourteous aspersions on Latino American citizens and driving them away from the Republican Party.

Poizner minces no words:

With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."

Poizner stops short of advocating elimination of all taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants as offered in Prop. 187 but wants severe cuts and policy changes that now "reward illegal aliens and act like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities."

He opposes amnesty, wants to revoke business licenses for employers who hire illegal immigrants and seek legislation banning those who offer sanctuary for the undocumented workers.

The Republican winner in the June primary will face former (1975-1983) Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in November. Filing at the last minute, Brown has yet to update his position on immigration reform.

The Times, meanwhile, editoralized in favor of the politically unpopular comprehensive immigration reform but challenged its 100,000 supporters who recently marched on Washington to concentrate on grass-roots support for their cause to explain the positive effects will have on their lives, labor, economy and communities.

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

EPILOGUE

As an observer of California politics for more than a half century, I suspect the platforms of the two Republicans on immigration reform will be a wash and won't decide the outcome in the June Primary. But it remains a hot-button issue to California voters prone to scapegoating illegal Mexican immigrants contributing to the dismal economic conditions in the state. The Republican winner could use it as a major plank against Brown who is a proven dodger of bullets in the political theater. After opposing Proposition 13, which put the brakes on skyrocketing property taxes, Brown flip flopped and supported it just days before the election when polls indicated the 1976 measure would pass. Either way, immigration reform is a divisive issue in a state with a Latino population around 30%.

Eat Food Produced Locally, If You Can Find Any

 As the son of a farmer, I am all too familiar with the laws of supply and demand involving perishable food products. Even the most urbane of city dwellers know the freshest foods are purchased at their neighborhood  farmers market or food co-op or, with luck, one of the remaining mom and pop butcher shops.

In a half century of growing vegetables, my dad was lucky enough to corner the produce markets only four times where, in his words, he made a "killing." He, again in his own words, "lost his shirt" hundreds of times when the market was glutted and the rest of the time felt "fortunate" he broke even.

With that as a backdrop, I read with vested interest a yawner some people mistakenly may consider in the New York Times today. It was the plight of livestock farmers unable to sell their herds and flocks because of a lack of slaughter houses.

What struck me as a high fastball directed at my head was a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the number of slaughterhouses nationwide declined from 1,211 to 809 between 1992 and 2008 while the number of small farmers of livestock increased by 108,000 in the last five years.

At first blush, I considered this uptick in farmers naive and committing economic suicide if they can't get their product processed in a timely fashion to sell at their markets starving for locally produced meats. It is akin to crates of lettuce rotting on my dad's packing platform because the truck transporting the goods to the produce market broke down.

That is precisely the scene described by the Times for many livestock farmers in Vermont and upstate New York. By the time they travel long distances or wait for an opening at a slaughterhouse, the animals are stressed and unfit for butchering. Some farmers make reservations for the slaughterhouses before their cows, pigs or sheep are even born.

The decline of slaughterhouses is both economical and environmental. Animal rights activists such as People For The Preservation of Animals (PETA) play a small role. Even in farming communities, no one wants them in their back yards.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a Times interview “It’s pretty clear there needs to be attention paid to this. Particularly in the Northeast, where there is indeed a backlog and lengthy wait for slaughter facilities.”


The increase of small, independent livestock farmers is part of a movement for America’s local-food movement, championed by so-called locavores. But, it is what my dad would say was "putting the cart before the horse" if the supply chain is interrupted.

“There are a lot of people out there who raise great animals for us to use, and they don’t have the opportunity to get them to us because the slaughterhouses are going away,” said Bill Telepan, chef and owner of Telepan, a high-end restaurant in New York.

The newspaper quotes Randy Quenneville, program chief for the Vermont meat inspection service,. that small, family-owned slaughterhouses started closing when strict federal rules regarding health control went into effect in 1999.

The result was large corporations such as Cargill began to take over much of the nation’s meat market.


“We recognize that the buy-local food movement is a significant economic driver in rural communities,”

Ag Secretary Vilsack said.

As for slaughterhouse economics, the Times quotes one operator:

“You need skilled management and work force, a cooperative town, a good supply of water, a good way of getting rid of waste,” said Ed Maltby, a spokesman for Adams Farm, a slaughterhouse in Athol, Mass., that reopened in 2008 after a fire. “It’s not a problem that can be easily solved.”

As I suspected, one solution offered by a livestock farmer suggested softening health and food safety regulations of slaughterhouses. The Times quotes Erica Zimmerman of East Montpelier, Vermont, whose nearest slaughter facility is 1 1/2 hours away:

“We have a product that people really wanted; we should have a system that would allow us to produce it as efficiently as possible,” Zimmerman said. “There’s not enough room for all the people like me.”

Political Law Suits: States vs. U.S.

 I don't doubt the political sincerity of 14 states suing the feds challenging the constitutionality of the insurance mandate provision in the new health reform law. It is the legal premise I find wanting and deliciously ironic.

Let me describe it in this framework. These state attorneys general are betting on a 100-1 horse gambling that years of precedent will be overlooked and the 5-4 conservative political makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of limiting the powers of Congress.

What is ironic is that Justice Antonin Scalia, the brightest and most outspoken conservative on the bench, ruled as recently as 2005 Congress has the authority "to regulate commerce," including "noneconomic local activity" as "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce."


Where it gets really delicious is the case involved federal powers over growing marijuana for personal use.

The states contend the feds do not have the power to force an individual to buy a product offered by a private company. They cite Article I of the constitution which includes the commerce clause. Under the new law, mandates will go into effect in 2014 and non-complying individuals will be fined $750.


David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who is representing 13 states, said  "Ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers. And there has to be a limit." He also argues health insurance is regulated by the individual states.

"In my view, there is a less than 1% chance that the courts will invalidate the individual mandate," said George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.


Adam Winkler, who teaches constitutional law at UCLA, takes a more pragmatic political view.
"When it comes to the hot-button, partisan issues that divide Americans, precedent rarely dictates how the court will rule," he said. The "court has already shown itself to be willing to break from long-standing precedent in major cases, and it won't likely be deterred by such case law in a challenge to healthcare reform." 

On the flip side, Winkler pooh poohed the premise Congress cannot penalize someone for "doing nothing," such as not buying health insurance.

"If you don't believe me, just 'do nothing' this April 15 when your tax bill is due," he said.


(Note -- Quotes in this column courtesy of the Los Angeles Times.

Earth To Planet Obama -- Rescuing Drowning Homeowners A Hoax

The Obama administration can't get it through its fat heads that helping homeowners from losing their homes does not work. But it keeps trying and praying something might. As they say in New Jersey, forgetaboutit.

Every time the government offers help to the homeowner or his lender, the people who President Obama is wont to say -- those playing by the rules -- get screwed.

What we have here folks is a situation where the government bugs out and let market forces runs its natural course. The housing market might not right itself to pre-housing-market-collapse prices until 2015. Yes, that means millions will lose their homes. But, the option of renting is by no means a death sentence as was the case of health reform legislation where doing nothing was not a viable option.

Today the White House announced more plans to ostensibly help struggling homeowners from drowning in underwater loans in which they owe more than their house is worth. Go figure that the lenders -- the banks -- are the real beneficiaries and not the borrowers.

And get this: They have the audacity to claim it won't cost taxpayers which is a crock of dog feces. Among the gimmicks is the Federal Housing Administration guaranteeing certain loans, an agency, by the way, quickly going bankrupt with an avalanche of new foreclosures in the pipeline.

And, another: Banks which took over failed banks are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. up to 85% of the original loan value from the original bank. That means it is more profitable for the new bank to foreclose on the devalued property than modifying terms of the loans to lower monthly payments, reduce interest rates or as now being proposed reduce principle.

Home ownership is the American dream strongly encouraged by the government by providing tax write-offs on mortgage interest rates and works swimmingly as long as market prices appreciate over the years. The housing market collapse in 2007-2008 popped that dream. For how long is anyone's guess.

That's my rant and I'm sticking with it.

Meanwhile, here is some crumbs the government is throwing at the problem because of political pressure from Congress and drowning homeowners.

-- $14 billion to FHA from the $75 billion borrowed funds in Obama's foreclosure-prevention program passed last year to high risk underwater borrowers who have not defaulted on their monthly payments.

-- Reduce monthly payments for unemployed homeowners for up to six months.

-- Would enable the borrowers' existing mortgage companies to receive incentives to lower their principal on underwater customers.

"There's no intention here of tackling what may be 10 to 12 million foreclosures over the course of the next three years," said Diana Farrell, a White House economic adviser.

The new steps by the administration amount to an acknowledgment that the year-old Home Affordable Modification Program. hasn't done enough. By the end of December, it had permanently lowered monthly payments for only about 170,000 borrowers out of the expected 3 million to 4 million it was aimed at covering through 2012.

This was reflected during Congressional hearings yesterday as reported by The Los Angeles Times.

At a House hearing Thursday, frustrated Democrats and Republicans labeled the program a bust so far, echoing a stinging report this week by a government watchdog.

"This program is a failure and a waste of taxpayer dollars," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-North Carolina.).

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-New York), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, warned the administration it needed to act quickly to fix the program. "I really do believe we can do a whole lot better than what we're doing to keep people in their homes," he said.

Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert M. Allison admitted that modifying mortgages has been more difficult than officials had anticipated. "Certainly we've seen a lot of frustration with this program since its inception," he told lawmakers. "We did not fully envision the challenges we would encounter."


At least someone in the administration got it right.

Many analysts believe the problem of negative equity -- about a quarter of U.S. homeowners with mortgages owe more than their homes are worth -- will make it difficult for modifications to succeed because even a slight economic setback could cause those borrowers to abandon their loans and homes.

"This is a 'kick the can down the road' action at best," Chief Executive Officer Dennis Santiago of Risk International of Torrance, Calif., told the Times.. "Yes, it will keep people in their homes longer. However, there remain no provisions for relief of the debt."



For homeowners caught in this Catch 22 vice, the Washington Post offers some questions and answers that I found of value. Here are a few:

 I have a second mortgage. Will that complicate my chances of refinancing into an FHA loan under this program?

The FHA will allow the refinancing of the first mortgage only. If there is a second mortgage, the two loans combined cannot exceed the current value of the home by more than 15 percent once the first loan is refinanced.


Will refinancing into an FHA loan this way hurt my credit score?
Probably. It is likely to hurt your credit score because the total balance of the loan was not paid off.


I am underwater on a mortgage but have become delinquent on the payments. Will there be any help for me?
Maybe. The government effort also includes paying lenders if they lower underwater borrowers' loan balances under the Making Home Affordable loan-modification program. Lenders will have some flexibility on whether to grant principal forgiveness, so it is not likely to be done across the board. Also, borrowers must owe at least 15 percent more than their home is worth to qualify.

I have already been given a modification under the government program. Is it too late for me to get a principal reduction?

No. If you are still current on payments when this new program kicks in, lenders will be required to retroactively consider reducing the mortgage balance by the same amount that would have been forgiven under the new approach.




Will this plan require new taxpayer funding?
No. The initiatives will be funded out of the $50 billion in bailout money that was set aside to deal with foreclosure prevention, administration officials said.

 

How Obamacare Helps The Wonks

Only because I mentioned in an earlier column this week that conservative David Frum had spoken out lambasting Republicans for screwing up the health reform opposition did I find it curious he has been fired.

My reaction was the universally accepted “Big bad conservative think tank axes writer for criticizing GOP intransigence” as Greg Sargent is quoted in today's First Read political notes. Sargent runs the political blog "The Plum Line" and Frum, a former Republican presidential speech writer, was a featured commentator for the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

Sargent, who said he talked to Frum, claimed such conspiratorial assumptions are false.

Frum, on his blog, said he had lunch with AEI president Arthur Brooks when he was told he was terminated just days after Frum's column. Sargent said Brooks praised Frum for drawing attention to the think tank, but, alas, times were tough and he had to go.

Yeah, right.

The Frum firing raised a question I rarely think about and that is who are these relatively well-known authors who represent these think tanks and hammer home their special interests for their particular political and economic agendas. Frankly, I always believed they were given far too much credence than they deserved for their purposes are so often applying lipstick to a pig.

In fact, I actually learned something today and that is think tank voices are moonlighters. They receive modest pay but the biggest perk is they are provided affordable health insurance coverage they may not receive at their day jobs.
 
Matt Miller, a self-styled moderate columnist for the Washington Post, said Frum was fired because his critical column of Republicans unleashed a backlash of think tank sponsors threatening to withdraw financial support.

"But in ousting him after a mad overnight revolt among its donors, the American Enterprise Institute has put Frum’s family into precisely the health care hell that Obamacare seeks to remedy," Miller writes. He explains:

What many people don’t realize about the think tank world is that the policy types who serve as modestly paid fellows do so in large part for the health coverage. In our antiquated employer-based system, middle-aged wonks simply have to be attached to a group to be insurable. If you and your spouse have reached your 40s and have had even modest health bumps along the way, you'll never be able to get coverage in the pre-Obamacare individual market...

Yucks Miller:

Talk about a two-fer. In one stroke, David Frum has become not only the poster boy for the Republican party’s incoherent tantrums, but for the need for Obamacare itself! It doesn’t get more delicious than this.

I'm not worried that Mr. Frum will find a new gig to supplement his income even though Obamacare's insurance exchanges Miller talks about don't kick in for three years.

The spin on political issues never seems to stop.

Republicans Are Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

Two days ago I wrote a headline on my column reporting President Obama signing the new health overhaul legislation into law and now let the games begin.

Boy, did they.

My award for the most clever amendment introduced in the Senate reconciliation process to embarrass Democrats goes to Tom Coburn, the doctor from Oklahoma. Among the amendments he offered was to ban Viagra prescriptions for sex offenders.

You see, the game being played by Republican senators was to force the House approved reconciliation bill back to the House despite an agreement of understanding from Democratic leaders in both chambers that wouldn't happen.

The purpose of Senate Republicans is political only. In Coburn's case, it poses the burden of Democrats explaining to voters they first voted for the health reform legislation and then against it. After all, what physician in his right mind would write a script for erectile dysfunction to a sex offender.

As I write this, the Senate Democrats shot down nearly every Republican amendment but because of a ruling from the independent parliamentarian, the GOP won the "gotcha" game and forced the reconciliation bill back to the House. More on that in a minute.

I don't usually write about the inner sanctums of Congressional legislative process and arcane rules because most people are too busy to pay attention and only interested in the final results just as they read the final box scores in the sports sections. Yeah, the process is a real snoozer.

But in this case the dynamics are real and the Republicans appear to be obstructionists. As a matter of scheduling Senate business, it routinely allows a unanimous consent to allow committee hearings before the full Senate is in session and in some cases two hours after that.

Not this week. Any one Senator can object to the unanimous consent privilege. They did and all other business came to a screeching halt. The rule also allows the objecting Senator to remain anonymous. In one case, Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina took the floor and announced:

I have no personal objection to continuing. There is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object.

Now, I am only guessing but the dots I connect lead to Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) who earlier this week pledged non cooperation with the Democrats the remainder of the year. McCain is a member of the Armed Services Committee chaired by Carl Levin, (D-Michigan) holding critical hearings on policies involving Japan, Korea and China. The top two military commanders and diplomatic honchos in the Far East had been summoned to testify at the committee hearings only to sit on their butts and waste time.

Other committee stagnation included a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee session on Contracts for Afghan National Police Training.” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), chair of the subcommittee, went on the Senate floor and called out the GOP tactics:

This is a hearing that is getting to the heart of the matter that we have a real problem with the mission part in Afghanistan on police training because of problems with these contracts, problems with oversight of the State Department...

I don't get it. 


Key witnesses from Defense and State also had to sit on their butts doing nothing but wait.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was forced to cancel a hearing considering the nominations of judicial appointments. "Senate Republicans' tactics of obstruction and delay know no limit," bitched judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy.

Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) was forced to suspend his hearing in progress on Veterans and Environment and Public Works that were considering ways to help homeless veterans. A hearing on helping small business owners also was postponed.


A defiant McCaskill returned to the Senate floor to gripe:

"I don't get what the purpose of saying 'no' is. I don't get what we accomplish. We're sent here to work. We're paid by the people of this country to work."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House is scheduled to meet Thursday night and predicted passage of the reconciliation bill in which the Senate rules negated a small section dealing with college loans and any other last-minute but unexpected amendments that may have won over Democratic votes.


Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin struck two minor provisions from the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act that violated Senate rules for reconciliation, a process which avoids a filibuster. The House  passed the reconciliation measure Sunday night with a 220-211 margin.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) said one of the deleted provisions was a technical item that he considered "as close to a 'nothing' as you can come around here." The second, more substantive provision would have set a formula for establishing maximum Pell Grant awards. But Conrad said the formula would not have taken effect for two years, giving Congress time to restore it in another bill. 

Not all the amendments offered by Republicans were frivolous, depending on one's political prism. For example, one Republican amendment would have rescinded about $500 billion in Medicare cuts to help subsidize an estimated 32 million people buy health insurance over the next decade.

Another ironically would have honored Obama's campaign pledge of no new taxes on middle income earners by stripping the new law's tax increases that will affect individuals who make less than $200,000 a year.

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

EPILOGUE

The Republicans in both houses of Congress are laying the groundwork for a voter tsunami in November that return the GOP to power but it seems built on a sand foundation and that their constituents are fools, idiots and gullible lambs incapable of seeing through so many lies, distortions and political gamesmanship. I would prefer to frame the November midterms as a referendum on the economy and jobs, both areas where the Democratic administration is vulnerable despite isolated sectors of encouraging success.

Reload: Pistol Packing Palin's Perverted Pretext

I come here today to defend Sarah Palin, not set her in the cross hairs of my 30 caliber Luger semiautomatic pistol poised to pull the trigger.

The former Alaska governor, best known for coining cult popular phrases as "palling around with terrorists" and "death panels," has concocted a new hip jargon in opposition to the health overhaul legislation. It is "Commonsense Conservatives And Lovers of America Don't Retreat -- Instead Reload" on her Facebook page.

Under the names of 20 Democrats who voted for the health bill she posted a map of the United States and used gun cross hairs to identify where the Democratic districts are located.

 Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she's a marketing genius. "Don't Retreat -- Reload" is catchy and describes perfectly the essence of her mission.

As long as Sarah Barracuda, a nickname she earned as a high school basketball point guard, doesn't run for public office, I envy her for pursuing the American dream by marketing herself and making obscene amounts of money on public speaking tours, publishing ghost-written books and pitching a reality show.

I think her real niche in life is forming a business writing ad copy. She does it better than anyone in the business now and to think, she's just a hockey mom.

Because she is so high profile, so charming, so photogenic, so sound-bite-ish,. so universally common, she sometimes is careless and irresponsible in the exalted position she is now milking for all its worth.

The "Don't Retreat, Reload" launch into the public mindset couldn't have come at a worse time. Our nation is divided from the passions the health overhaul law stirred the past year.

Even before the House vote Sunday, unruly protesters waving "Kill the Bill" placards spit and hurled verbal epithets at black and gay Congressmen. After the vote, bricks and other physical forms of violence were thrown at congressional district offices in at least a dozen locations around the nation.

In Sarah Palin's shallow roots in wild, rural frontier Alaska, guns are a natural way of life and used for intended purposes such as shooting wild game. The same holds true for rural America and now even our national parks.

I am a firm defender of the Second Amendment and agree with the National Rifle Association's mantra that guns don't kill, people do. I'm no fan of gun restrictions because if some cretin wants a gun, he can always find one.

Just as Palin, I was raised in a rural area. It was on a farm 2 1/2 miles south of San Juan Capistrano in Southern California. My father and oldest brother had a cabinet full of rifles and pistols which we used for target practice and shooting rabbits that preyed on my dad's vegetable crops.

My brother Lee instructed me meticulously on the use and care of these weapons with the admonition of using my father's horse whip if I violated that trust and used any of the guns on my own.

I did. At age 11, bored yet adventurous on a sunny summer day, I began play acting to amuse myself. I took the key to unlock the cabinet drawer and removed the Luger. Outside, I played an imaginary cowboy shooting the bad guys. I may have pulled the Luger trigger three times.

Then I played a captured spy refusing to be taken alive after being cornered in a dark alley. I pulled the Luger trigger two more times, one at my head and one at my crotch. Game over, I was about to set the Luger in the drawer when it dawned on me to check the clip. A hallow-point .38-caliber shell was lodged in the top rung just two trigger pulls away from firing.

I have never touched a gun since that day.

I don't think Mrs. Palin really appreciates the dangers of guns in the hands of the wrong people. Someone out there is bound to take her literally.

What comes to mind is the snide remarks we made about Josef Stalin during his brutal reign of the Soviet empire where dissidents expressing criticism of the totalitarian government were deemed as "crazies" and dispatched to the gulags.

In America, we consider assassins and mass murderers also as "crazy" even though those killers who survive may not use "insanity" as a defense.

The only attempted assassin I recall who used the insanity defense successfully was John Hinkley Jr. who shot President Reagan.

But, what about this cast of characters -- Mark David Chapman who shot and killed John Lennon, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Erik David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold of the Columbine High School killings, James Huberty who killed 23 persons in the McDonald's San Ysidro massacre, Scott Roeder who killed abortion Dr. George Tiller and Leon Czolgosz who assassinated President McKinley. In each case the demons in their minds pushed them over the cliff and the public's opinion of them was guilty as a bunch of crazies.

Guns are prevalent in America. According to msnbc.com, thanks to gun "right to carry" advocacy groups, the number of concealed weapon permits alone since the 1980s has increased from about 1 million to 6 million.

Msnbc.com's analysis claims 37 states allow these "shall issue" permits. Alaska and Vermont are two states which allow anyone to carry concealed weapons without permits, according to the report. It said Illinois and Wisconsin ban concealed weapons under any circumstances.

According to the “Concealed Carry Killer” Web site, 130 civilians and nine police officers have been killed and 13 mass shootings have been carried out by people with concealed-weapons permits since May 2007.

Also:

The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.

Msnbc.com  reports gun-rights activists point to studies they say prove that having more guns in civilian hands, whether being carried by permit holders or not, has reduced crime rates.

I'm not advocating either side of this debate. Rather, pointing out the availability of guns obtained lawfully or otherwise in the hands of Americans  It takes only one demented soul to pull the trigger at the wrong person at the right time.

Mrs. Palin ought to know words are powerful messengers. So are bullets.

She must take responsibility for the corpses that could fall on the doorsteps of her metaphors.

It's Law -- Let The Games Begin

As President Barack Obama signed the health reform bill into law today, I couldn't help remembering Robert Redford after winning a U.S. Senate seat in the movie "The Candidate," asking his political adviser "what do we do now?"

For Democrats: Don't gloat and overestimate your success for the fight has just begun.

For Republicans: Your gamble of pushing all your chips into the pot lost. A continued path of obstruction is not a recipe for victory and Americans hate losers.

I earned my chops as a Republican foot soldier in my first full-time job as a reporter for a newspaper published by a closet member of the John Birch Society in Tustin,. the heart of the rocked-ribbed GOP bastion in Orange County, Calif. 

Believe me, when I say the Republican Party of today is not the party of Barry Goldwater in the early 1960s.
Barry Baby, as we youths were prone to say, worked within the system as a U.S. Senator.

Contrast that to John McCain, a Goldwater protege, telling an Arizona radio station, he planned to play surrogate whip of fellow Republican senators to block all Democratic-led legislation the remainder of this year. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year.... They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.” 

Had it not been for the ascendancy of Barack Obama, I would have voted for McCain for president in 2008. I don't care McCain was likely pandering to voters even to his right because of a formidable challenge from an ultraright J.D. Hayworth in the primary. It is something Goldwater would never do. Or, at least, in your heart you (always) knew he's right.

If leadership of the Republican Party continues on its course as the Party of No, its base lacks the numerical strength to win as many seats in the House and Senate as one historically would presume. In political years, the November midterms are eons away and how many independents swing their way remains to be seen. The reason is those confounding complexities within the new law.

Moderates such as myself were relieved to hear a conservative voice speak out. David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Republicans were double losers in the health legislation -- both politically to undermine Obama and by policy imperative.

It dilutes the sound-bite drivel offered by Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, who bloviated: "There is no downside for Republicans -- only for Americans."

While Frum talks politics, conservative New York Times columnist talks economic freedom:

The Democratic Party has, at its best, come to embody the cause of fairness and family security. Over the past century, they have built a welfare system, brick by brick, to guard against the injuries of fate. ...The essence of (conservative) America is energy — the vibrancy of the market, the mobility of the people and the disruptive creativity of the entrepreneurs. ...This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that at the last moment announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity. You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it. 

The selling of the new health legislation will be a monumental task with the president taking the lead and stalking the hinterlands as a door-to-door salesman. The Democratic authors of the bills were sneaky smart by front-loading the most palatable measures.

Restrictions on insurance companies denying coverage for preexisting conditions, or the expansion of prescription drug coverage or establishing new market exchanges for buying insurance go into effect this year and are all popular. “When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,” Frum said. Mandates, the most controversial issue, take effect next to last in about three years.

Unlike some of my moderate and more liberal friends, I welcome the challenge by attorney generals in at least 15 states who promise to sue the government that mandates to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

It would pressure the current 5-4 conservative court to uphold a law library of  precedents upholding the Commerce clause which gives Congress the right to tax which is the way the mandate penalty provision is written, according to legal scholars quoted in the New York Times. Even if struck down, they said, it would not have any effect on other provisions in the act.

You think I'm kidding? In a 1942 case, the Supreme Court upheld the government's Commerce clause to force Roscoe Filburn, a small farmer in Ohio, to destroy his wheat crop because it exceeded production quotas even though he was growing the wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

Not so plausible is pending legislation from ultra-conservatives Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota in the House and Jim DeMint in the Senate to repeal the new health care act.

“There’s no fixing the government health care takeover Democrats forced through on Sunday,”. DeMint said. “Unless this trillion-dollar assault on our freedoms is repealed, it will force Americans to purchase Washington-approved health plans or face stiff penalties.”

Can't those folks count? If by some miracle their bills pass both houses, do they have two-thirds of the members in both chambers to override the president's guaranteed veto? I don't think so and I was Mr. Burr's dumbest math student in my junior year of high school.


So many Republicans in Congress have lost so much credibility it is shameful more than their zealots pay any attention to them.

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

EPILOGUE

The Republicans are committing cannibalism amongst themselves. On her Facebook page yesterday, Sarah Palin wrote: "I don't know about you, but I tired long ago of Republicans who claim to speak with certainty and authority on what the American people think." She continued: "When it comes to speaking for the American people, Vice President Biden got it right (even if a bit clunky) at the healthcare summit last month. 'I'm always reluctant after being here 37 years to tell people what the American people think,' he said. "I think it requires a little bit of humility to be able to know what the American people think." Humility, retorted conservative columnist Jonathon Capehart in the Washington Post today, "Palin has never showed much of that" as she hawks a $1 million+/per-episode reality TV show. 

Health Legislation Can Be Funny Business

In my continual quest to lighten things up when Murphy's Law strikes -- i.e. the cantankerous new health legislation -- I download U-Tube versions of the late night comics.

Well,. folks, I can't wait nor plan to stay up tonight hours past my bedtime so I stole what's available from the Huffington Post. From Lea Lane:

She offers 10 bonuses from the health legislation you might not have thought of which I felt these were worth repeating:

• You can watch Fox Noise and see Beck, O'Reilly, Malkin, Morris and the blonde bimbo gang squirm, cry, snarl and threaten about the end of America - and you can jump up and down and do a little hokey-pokey.
• You'll be able to use your copy of the health care reform bill as a doorstop or a 10-pound weight.
•  You can email a heartfelt bon voyage message to Rush Limbaugh, who vowed he'd leave the country if health care reform passed.
• You might start a Facebook group "Na-na-na- na- na- you selfish twits, we got it done." Or join a fan group for ABBA's "Waterloo."
• The Republicans will officially be known the "Know Nothing, No, Nothing" anti-health party, led by titular head, Michelle Bachmann.
• You don't have to feel so embarrassed about America's policy that health care is a privilege decided by insurance companies. 

Yeah, I also thought they were rather lame.

One of the funniest question and answer jokes came from Johnny Carson. "What does Michael Jackson and the Dodgers infield have in common? They all were gloves on their left hand for no apparent reason."

Perhaps Omri Marcus on how to write one-liners. You know, those from vaudeville days such as Myron Cohen: "Take my wife...  Please". Here's a random selection from his HuffPost treatise on how to write one-liners.

I once shot an elephant in my pajamas; how he got in my pajamas I'll never know. (Graucho Marx)

Congratulations to Dolly Parton. She received an honorary degree from the University of Tennessee. It's a Ph.-Double-D. (Jay Leno) 

A mysterious man was knocking all night long on Paris Hilton's door. Come morning, she was fed up with it, so she let him out. (David Letterman)

A new survey claims that in 67% of households - the woman is in charge of the cleaning. The rest of the houses are dirty. (Avi Ettinger & Asaf Beiser) 

You know 'that look' women get when they want sex? Me neither (Steve Martin)


A hotel will be opened in UK's largest shopping mall. The main target audience - people who failed to find their car in the parking lot. (Omri Marcus)

I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather... Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car  (Bob Monkhouse)

If the events of Sept. 11th have proven anything, it's that the terrorists can attack us, but they can't take away what makes us American - our freedom, our liberty, our civil rights. No, only Attorney General John Ashcroft can do that. (Jon Stewart)


Marcus's closing sentence:

Don't forget: humor is the best medicine, though if you have cancer, you'd better go for chemotherapy.

On second thought, maybe I will stay up and watch "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" tonight, after all.

A Major Victory For The Have Nots

 In the end, it was a battle of the haves against the have nots. The nots won 219-212 as if it was a high scoring basketball game that extended into 10 overtimes.

President Obama is set to sign the new health legislation bill into law within the next 24 hours. Some critical repairs to the law is now in the Senate's court.

 For 10 hours Sunday I watched C-Span coverage of the House debate. What I saw was a microcosm of America crammed into a large room where passions were on display for the world to see. It was difficult to discern whether some of these men and women were preening for the cameras or expressing core beliefs.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Republicans' wicked witch of the West, said the legislation was historic in that health care was now "a right, not a privilege" by extending insurance coverage to an additional 32 million Americans.

In a televised statement after the votes, President Obama said the pending legislation is right and just and proves "this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people."


During the debate, I lost count how many times Republicans complained the bill was flawed and unaffordable, passing a $1 trillion annual cost onto the backs of taxpayers for generations to come. Democrats, whose backs were covered by a Congressional Budget Office report, countered the legislation would reduce health costs by a billion dollars the first 10 years and a trillion the next decade.

This is ouija board economics. It is true there will be redistribution of wealth under this legislation. But, I can't dispel this recognition of reality expressed by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, one of the more astute observers of the health game.

Klein argues federal subsidies for seniors on Medicare and the poor on Medicaid are well known. But the haves in this scenario fail to acknowledge the more costly $250 billion subsidy in terms of tax credits for people with good jobs that offer healthcare benefits in the work place.

"When (opponents) hear stories of people left bankrupt or sick because of uninsurance, they are more likely to see a lack of personal responsibility and virtue than a lack of good fortune," Klen writes.

That is evident in why protesters spit and hurled verbal epithets at black Congressman John Lewis on Saturday and "baby killer" from an unknown Republican at Rep. Bart Stupak last night.

The much maligned Democratic Congressman from Michigan wrangled a promised executive order from the president earlier on Sunday and switched his opposition because of abortion wording to supporting the legislation. It was a face saving decision for Stupak since most observers doubt an executive order could override existing law of the Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding for abortions.

There has been considerable hand-wringing among health reform proponents that the opposition is playing unfair for saying nasty things such as tyranny, socialism and corruption.

On Sunday, some Republicans fanned the flames by yelling support when two protesters in the gallery yelled "Kill The Bill" and were 86'd from the room. But that's not all. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote the following exploits:

Thousands of conservative "tea party" activists had massed on the south side of the Capitol, pushing to within about 50 feet of the building. Some Democrats worried aloud about the risk of violence, and police tried to keep the crowd away from the building. But rather than calm the demonstrators, Republican congressmen whipped the masses into a frenzy. There on the House balcony, the GOP lawmakers' legislative dissent and the tea-party protest merged into one. Some lawmakers waved handwritten signs and led the crowd in chants of "Kill the bill." A few waved the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag of the tea-party movement. Still others fired up the demonstrators with campaign-style signs mocking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Milbank identified the Republicans as Buck McKeon, (Palmdale, Calif.) Rob Bishop (Ogden, Utah) and Mike Turner (Dayton, Ohio)  waving "Kill the Bill" placards, Mary Fallin (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Georff Davis (Fort Mitchell, Kent.) and Bill Posey (Melbourne, Fla.) waving "Don't Tread On Me" flags and Pete Sessions (Dallas, Tex.)  and Jeff Miller (Fort Walton Beach, Fla.) dangling the U.S. flag. "That's kind of fun," Fallin said cheerfully.

In sports jargon, the crowd went wild.

I am not going to look into the crystal ball and guess what happens next. I do know that Sunday's vote took on added historical significance because it was the first time in U.S. history that Congress passed major legislation without a single vote from the minority party.

It is a political calculation the Republicans will sink or swim.

Here are some of the advantages gained by the have nots.

An estimated 24 million people who lack access to affordable coverage through the workplace will be eligible for tax credits to buy insurance on new state-based exchanges.

Another 16 million will become eligible for Medicaid.

Children may remain on their parents insurance policies until age 26.

Businesses with fewer than 25 employees whose wages are less than $50,000 will receive tax credits to offset the cost of buying insurance for their workers.

The so-called donut hole gap in drug coverage for seniors will be filled.

For the haves:

Mandatory insurance will be required with 10,000 additional IRS agents hired to track those who fail to comply.

Insurance carriers will be prohibited from refusing clients for preexisting conditions or dropping those who suffer catastrophic illnesses in which caps on coverage will be removed.

An excise tax in reconciliation will be attached to the highest employer-provided policies, high-income earners in Medicare and a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income for those higher income groups. This tax is the last to be implemented in the entire legislation scheduled for 2018.

How long the rancor will last is anyone's guess. Minority Leader John Boehner ended his final plea before the House of Representatives by shouting "Shame on each and every one of you."

He called the Democrats a "disgrace" to the values of the founding fathers, the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rights of all "freedom" loving Americans.

"Hell, no, you can't!" Boehner shouted.

Need I point out Mr. Boehner is one of the haves.

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

EPILOGUE

For just one day, the winners in this debate were President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the have nots among the American people and the "quiet" ones so eloquently described by TMV deputy managing editor Dr. Clarrisa Pinkola Estes. What becomes of this legislation depends on the fickle winds within our political time capsule. The law is structured so that many features are not triggered for as long as eight years from today. Because of that, the American people will be hard pressed to distinguish its impact, not as a sudden jolt, but a work in progress. It will require patience which we don't have and tweaking which is always unpredictable inside the halls of Congress. One thing we learn from history is that the American people love their entitlements and will fight to the death to preserve them.

Time Out, My Children

Chill America. This healthcare reform debate has normal people acting as all the rest of us crazies. Passions are running so high the antis are emptying their arsenals and threatening to huff and puff and blow down the doors to the Supreme Court. The fors act as the sun won't rise if Congress votes down the legislation.

It's time to act as good, responsible parents when their child misbehaves. Time Out, Kid!

I searched to find a story that would bring a smile to all our faces. The cupboard was bare. I was tempted to download the hilarious Jon Stewart spoof of Glenn Beck but deemed (no pun intended) that too political.

Plan B was to draw on personal experience of similar situations where I drained all my powers in anticipation of a Christmas morning, watching a highly-touted movie or viewing the San Diego Chargers in their first and only Super Bowl game. Nope. I went 0-3 in all cases where the hype was greater than the show.

No matter which way the vote turns, what we won't hear is a national collective sigh of relief that it is over.

Dan Rather, the grizzled old veteran of television news, appeared on the Rachael Maddow show Friday night and said he has never seen the American people so divided and Congress so polarized since the Vietnam war.

He recalled the fight for Medicare and Medicaid pushed through Congress in the 1960s was rather sedate, comparatively, because of bipartisan support as a guilt-trip reminder to honor the memory of the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy. The lead opponent in that debate was the American Medical Association.

Other than Vietnam, amateur historians such as myself, might stick this debate as divisive of that which led us into the Civil War.

Allow me to temper that judgment somewhat. The passions essentially are culled from the loudest voices we hear daily from the blogs and politicians and their vociferous camp followers. The healthy employed people with company insurance plans are relatively mute and more concerned with job security.

Some readers took me to task for referring to Sunday's expected House vote on health reform as "monumental" and "historic," the same language expressed by President Obama referring to the 1964 vote on civil rights legislation.

It seems William Kristol, the conservative columnist for the Washington Post, chided the president, defining "historic" as broad bipartisan support in which health care bills have none in terms of votes..

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally passed in the House by 290-130. Cloture was achieved in the Senate by a vote of 71-29, and the Senate then passed its version of the legislation 73-27. The House took up the Senate bill and passed it 289-126. Substantial majorities of both parties supported the legislation at every stage," Kristol writes with pinpoint accuracy.

Excuse me, Bill. There are at least 100 Republican amendments written into both House and Senate bills and the entire package has an indelible GOP footprint throughout, arriving their during the sausage making process the Republicans demanded.

The fact that no Republican will vote for either is pure politics. I don't hear a call by Republicans to remove their amendments.

Until that happens, by my definition the bills are bipartisan.

We can parse and spin this debate to death and in 10 years no matter what turns out the name calling and process all will be forgotten.

Meanwhile, cool down. Take a deep breath. Hear the birds chirp. The owls screech. Watch March Madness. Get a life. By tomorrow afternoon, the sun will set in the West.

When "Security" Obfuscates Transparency

Here's what happens when governments are not transparent, even for routine stuff as travel destinations billed taxpayers by members of the California Assembly and Senate.

The excuse given by the Legislature's record-keeping officers were for "security" reasons even though the trips were already taken.

The Associated Press, which has been on a crusade lately with a multi-pronged Freedom Of Information campaign, said the California elected officers ran up a $2 million travel tab in the last two years and one-half years which is peanuts compared to the $20 billion budget deficit they face this July.

The North County Times, based in Escondido, ran the entire story Friday.

The report said $1.5 million was for travel from members home districts to the state capital in Sacramento, $400,000 for other in-state travel and $55,000 for out of state travel.

The news agency said the Legislature would not provide original documentation of lawmakers' air travel, meaning there is no way to independently determine where they flew or for what purpose. According to the report:

 "Providing past schedules for air travel related to legislative business that occurs even just once a year can reveal a pattern regarding future events that would continue to pose a potential threat to the security of each Assembly Member," Jon Waldie, chief executive of the Assembly Rules Committee, wrote in response to a letter seeking the information.
His counterpart, Senate Secretary Gregory Schmidt, provided a letter that contained nearly identical wording.
The California Legislature is not subject to the same public records law as most other state agencies. The California Legislative Open Records Act provides the Legislature with broad discretion about the types of information about its own activities it can keep from the public.

"Why would it be a security problem for travel that's already completed? That doesn't make any sense to me at all," said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and a former general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's watchdog agency. "We're talking about taxpayers' money. It seems to me we should know more rather than less."


State Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, defended keeping specific travel information out of the public realm. "I think the concern is legitimate. People don't want to establish patterns," she said. "Having your lives be as public as ours are is awkward enough."

The California Highway Patrol, which is responsible for the security of state lawmakers, said legislators receive threats but would not say how frequently.

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

EPILOGUE

In some respects, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, simply complying with the complete information after the fact eliminates the conspiracy theorists who believe all politicians are crooks. Who knows? Perhaps AP was looking for dirt as was learned in South Carolina in which Gov. Mark Sanford was caught abusing the airfare rules. If Sen. Ducheny thinks public life is "awkward enough," then don't seek public office. Meanwhile, with an assassin lurking behind every corner and a conspiracy junkie ready to spring, little wonder the quality of our politicians are far from the best and the brightest.

The Time Has Come The Survivor Said

 This will be the most historically and monumental weekend that will answer the question of whether health care is a right or a personal responsibility since Congress passed similar safety net legislation on Social Security, Medicare, MediCaid and prescription drug subsidies for seniors.

I'll defer the prestidigitation of the politics to MSNBC.com First Read whose contributors know a helluva lot more than me.

Likewise, I'll delegate the major cost features also for explanation to First Read.

And, finally, I will refer you to this provocative question and answer session for further details between a family and the Los Angeles Times editorial board.

Now, my take which can best be described as ambivalent.

This is lousy legislation. But it is a start. I must be wearing the same shoes as Dennis Kucinich whose basic complaint for voting no on the first House health reform bill was that it didn't go far enough. He turned after some hardball arm-twisting by President Obama. I turned after considering the alternatives of doing nothing.

It is having a baby only to discover it needs some surgical repairs. That and some tweaking as the years go by could transform it into a productive human being. Whether that means a robust public option or single-payer system as in Medicare for all, I don't know.

I don't believe for a New York second what the Congressional Budget Office calculates as a billion dollar savings in the first decade and a trillion or so by the end of the second decade. As for most economic projections, I won't believe it until I see it.

I don't subscribe to the concept of opening up 32 million new customers for private carriers to insure without more assurances they won't continue increasing premiums, copays and axing benefits. The new commission under Health and Human Services controlling rate increases is toothless and a joke.

The way the new law would be structured allows those mandated to buy insurance or employers offering it makes me inclined to believe the penalties would be cheaper to go without. If those agnostics of the system is larger than expected, the fines and penalties won't come close to covering the anticipated costs of those being subsidized to enroll in the programs.

Another worry I have is whether the economics of the newly structured system will force more doctors, both primary and specialists, and  pharmacies to bail out of the Medicare and MediCaid programs. We have seen that happen in Washington state where Walgreens has pulled the plug on those on MediCaid.

The pharmacy I use in Southern California is a mom and pop operation. The wife told me the state's MediCal system pays only pennies on the dollar and is as much as six moths to a year late even making those reimbursements. She said the business, which serves primarily seniors and the poor on MediCare and MediCal patients, is teetering on bankruptcy.

The question continually arises that the United States is the world's only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. The closest comparison of what Congress is now addressing is South Korea which enacted a system predominately serviced by private carriers in the late 1980s. As stated in the Times Q&A, by 2000 "the 139 regional insurers were combined into a single national one, with the government regulating the rates it paid to providers."

 For a year now as the debate in Congress and the media raged passionately, the only solid argument I have heard against the health reform package is that it is too expensive and too large of an undertaking to overhaul because of unemployment and the financial climate. Yes, the legislation includes some responsible amendments offered by the Republicans in both houses of Congress.

Little wonder the public is only on board by at best a 48% margin in most polls, depending on how the question is framed. Forgive them for they are bombarded with mixed messages especially if they receive the brunt of their learning exercises from either Fox or MSNBC and TV ad wars.

The taking "personal responsibility" doctrine is a legitimate argument we hear from conservatives. It's easy to say when you are a Congressman earning $170,000 a year, excluding perks. It does not address the element of fate for the millions who are losing their homes because of unexpected medical bills the insurance carriers say exceed their costs of coverage.

It is those people who as Obama is wont to say play by the rules and still crushed by the fickle fate dilemma.

I, for one, speak as a survivor who enlisted the social netting help of the landmark Oregon Health Plan, Medicare and MediCal. Without it, I would have been one of those 43,000 people who die annually for lack of health insurance coverage in one form or another.

Without it you could have read my obituary 15 years ago. As Mark Twain said, news of my death was premature.

That is why I support the legislation now before Congress. It's sausage now but could transform itself into my favorite food -- rib eye steak -- which I no longer chew for good, common sense health reasons.

Banks And Regulators = Dumb And Dumber

Confessions of a banker in this scuttlebutt of the blame game for the financial meltdown. It goes like this:

Banks were pressured by bank regulators to loan, loan, loan despite the credit worthiness of the borrower. After the 2008 market collapse, these same regulators employed by three governmental agencies, told banks no, no, no to even low-risk borrowers.

Today a spotlight is shed on these regulators employed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Not only were they derelict in their duties leading up to the crises, the government rewarded them with $19 million in rewards and bonuses for "superior work."

The business networks are abuzz with the analysis revealed by an investigative report by the Associated Press. For the purposes of this column, I will link to the Canadian Television network in which reporter Matt Apuzzo writes:

The payments ... are the latest evidence of the government's false sense of security during the go-go days of the financial boom. Just as bank executives got bonuses despite taking on dangerous amounts of risk, regulators got taxpayer-funded bonuses despite missing or ignoring signs that the system was on the verge of a meltdown.

The bonuses were part of a little-known incentive rewards program and ranged from a few hundred dollars to as high as 25% of a regulators' salary. About $8.4 million were rewards for financial examiners and the remainder dispersed to analysts, auditors, economists and criminal investigators.

The Treasury Inspector General's scathing report after the meltdown used terms scolding the regulators as

• "Did not react in a timely and forceful manner to certain repeated indications of problems"
•  "Did not issue a formal enforcement action in a timely manner and was not aggressive enough in the supervision"
• “In retrospect, a stronger supervisory response at earlier examinations may have been prudent”
• "Examiners did not identify or sufficiently address the core weaknesses that ultimately caused the thrift to fail until it was too late... “They believed their supervision was adequate. We disagree.”

Regulators complain the criticism is based on hindsight and unfair to suggest the bonuses were improper.

“These (rewards) are meant to motivate employees, have them work hard,” thrift office spokesman William Ruberry said. “The economy has taken a downturn in recent years. I'm not sure that negates the hard work or good ideas of our employees.”

And, where have we heard this before?

“In making compensation decisions, the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) is mindful of the need to recruit and retain the very best people, and our merit system is aimed at accomplishing that,”said spokesman Kevin Mukri.

From this:

“Bonuses (for financial employees) were determined based upon the performance and the retention of the people,” said John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, the troubled brokerage firm that paid out $3.6-billion in bonuses just before selling itself to Bank of America. “And there is nothing that happened in the world or the economy that would make you say that those were not the right thing to do for the retention and the reward of the people who were performing.”



The news agency reporting the AP findings:
One person in the OCC's financial examining division got a $41,000 recruitment bonus on top of a $179,000 salary in 2005. In 2006, the last boom year for banks buying risky mortgages, the FDIC gave out more than 2,000 bonuses to financial examiners. In 2008, the year the market collapsed, OTS gave 96 financial examiners bonuses of up to $3,000 for exceptional work.

Concludes the Canadian reporter Apuzzo:

To be sure, Washington policy makers eased regulations and encouraged banks to write risky loans. Families bought homes they couldn't afford. Brokers found them mortgages. Bankers quickly snatched them up, never asking whether they could be repaid. And rating agencies certified it all as safe. But regulators were part of the problem, and the bonuses were a symptom, said Ellen Seidman, a research fellow at the New America Foundation think tank and the former head of OTS from 1997 to 2001.
“Is it probably the case that the standards for evaluating how well people in the regulatory system were doing were not as high as they should have been? Probably,” Seidman said.
But the bigger question, she said, is why government regulators thought they were doing so well: “Why did the system fool itself?”

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

EPILOGUE

It gives me little solace that the sweeping new financial regulations pending in Congress will do any good in terms of protecting the consumer and investor.

A Year After $213 Million In Earmarks, He's Against Them

Earmarks -- those endearing Congressional plums that brought us "The Bridge To No Where" -- sort of slipped under the radar of the recent news cycles out of Washington this past week.

Democratic House members have pledged to not submit earmarks for for-profit projects. Republicans have one-upped that by pledging a ban on all earmarks for a year.

Earmarks are the fast track for a Congressman to return favors to his district under the euphemism of returning back home tax dollars paid to the feds. It avoids the scrutiny, cumbersome and painful process required for federal spending through the House Appropriations Committee.

Except for the abuses we all remember John McCain citing during his 2008 presidential run, I must confess I'm rather ambivalent on the subject. It strikes at the heart of representative (lower case) republicanism that works well in our government. It's an uneven playing field, however, because some congressmen are more aggressive playing the game than others.

It just so happens one of the leading Republicans considering earmarks a dirty word and emblematic of a broken system is Darrell Issa, my congressmen in the 49th Congressional with home offices in Vista, Calif.

In 2006, Issa was one of the first House member to publicly post all his earmarks on his Web site. In 2008, he said he would restrict his earmark requests to only public projects. This week as a ranking minority leader of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he joined nine other Republican leaders in the never-again pledge, or until the next session, or until Congress controls spending, or all of the above.

I am here to report that my rep in Congress is a man of his word. No earmarks for 2010. I then decided to look at his earmark requests for 2009

Tee hee. Tee hee. He submitted 21 projects for $213,767,000.

The 49th covers all of northern San Diego County and parts of southern Riverside County. It is a classic gerrymandered district guaranteeing a Republican victory unless he pulls off something dumb as did Rep. Duke Cunningham several years ago in the 50th and as a result is still serving time in the pokey.

I reviewed all 21 earmark projects Issa submitted for 2009 and found two that made me feel queasy. Since Issa is a straight-shooter I can't for the life of me understand why his requests were not funneled through the regular channels. His office did not return my calls asking whether all the projects were approved so I am only assuming they were since he posted them. Another caveat: Some of these listed items are continuing projects requiring annual appropriations.

• $110.3 million for a new federal courthouse in downtown San Diego. 
• $6M for an integrated communications system for 15 fire districts.
• $3.5M for upgrading the communications system of all county law enforcement agencies.
• $500K for a gang suppression unit for the city of Oceanside.
• $250K to equip a new emergency operations center in Lake Elsinore.
• $13M for a 100-year flood control channel for the cities of Murietta and Temecula.
• $7.2M for the first phase of the San Luis Rey Valley flood control channel.
• $2M for potable water and desalter for a water district in the city of Perris.
• $2M for a water reclamation project for Rancho California, a seniors community.
• $1M to complete final design of a water system for Camp Pendleton Marine Base.
• $355K to supplement an open space, land-use study in Riverside County.
• $45M reforestation of areas prone to wildfires. 
• $1.6M to prepare exiting  military doctors and nurses for the private sector.
• $1M to build a new community health center in Vista.
• $1M to build and replace a health clinic in Oceanside.
• $8M to improve a bottleneck between the I-15 and I-215 freeways.
• $5M widen a section of State 76 in Oceanside.
• $3.1M for a transit center serving new private development in Oceanside.
• $2M to widen a street in Vista.
• $1M to study expanding a  small airstrip in Temecula.
•  $500K to renovate and expand the Fallbrook Boys and Girls Club.

It is only the last two items that might be considered shaky, especially from a congressman who prides himself on pinching pennies.

I find it hypercritical earmarks for health clinics were included in his 2009 requests yet he plans to vote against the health reform package which includes money for identical  projects.


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


EPILOGUE


I applaud Mr. Issa for his transparency and only wish all Congressmen and Senators do the same. In his case, earmarks lose the sting and bad rap they probably don't deserve.  Of course, it also begs the question why he continued requesting earmarks as recently as four years ago when he was publicly speaking against them as part of our broken government.  The remaining thorn in my side remains the most fundamental dilemma facing federal appropriations. That is, why should a taxpayer in the 1st Congressional District of New York pay part of a $1 million tab to study the merits of an airstrip in Temecula, Cailf.?