Blog entry

Mitt Romney, CPAC Rock Star

Terrance Heath — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:34:54 -0500

I have to admit, for a progressive being at CPAC can feel like being a "stranger in a strange land." For a black, gay progressive it's a bit like being dropped on another planet, with almost no breathable atmosphere; a very lonely, claustrophobic place. It's hard to feel otherwise, when you're surrounded by people extolling a vision of American with no place for you in it. (I never thought I'd say this, but I actually miss GOProud. On the plus side, I got a party invite from gay, Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger.) The lack of oxygen makes you lightheaded. The isolation, in the midst of the crowd, plays tricks with the mind.

Maybe that's why, before I left for lunch, I thought Rick Santorum was CPAC's rock star this year. Obviously I need air. I returned from lunch with a clear head. As I fought my way to the media room, through the capacity-crowd lined up for Romney's speech, past those being directed to the overflow rooms, to watch Romney speak via closed-circuit-television, I realized who the CPAC 2012 rock star really is. The fresh air not only cleared my head, but reminded me of what I already knew about conservatives and the Republican party.

What I forgot was that conservatives excel at something progressives don't: walking in lock step. Their ability to organize their troops and keep them on message is legendary for a reason. If you've been in Washington for very long, you've seen it in action and you've seen it work frighteningly well.

The joke that organizing progressives like herding cats is really only a half-joke. (Don't believe me, try getting a room full of us to reach consensus on so much as pizza toppings. It's probably the one quality of conservatives that progressive envy. Sure, they're marching backwards in lock-step, but they're doing it together.

Sure, they've had the obstreperousness of the tea party to deal with, but they're a lot less trouble lately. (I was a bit surprise and amused, though, when my "Media" caught the eye of a Virginia tea party who slipped me his card, and advised me to give him a call because he "knows where the bodies are buried," and if he doesn't know where all of them are buried, he knows the guys who do — because they're the ones who buried them. I gave him my best "smile-and-nod" until he departed.)

If there were no Mitt Romney signs or stickers visible at CPAC yesterday, they appeared in force before Romney took to the stage. And while I haven't seen many since, their appearance at right moment, along with the overflow crowd for Romney's speech, had me slightly in awe of the organizing effort, and even the ability of the crowd to rouse itself to a kind of "Oh well, if we have to," embrace of Romney.

I'll return to Romney's speech in more detail later, but there are a couple of things that were clear to me by the time he finished.

At CPAC 2012, Mitt Romney and conservatives decided to settle for each other, and tried to look happy about it. I'll give them this much credit: they did a pretty good job of it.

Conservatives up to now have remained unconvinced that Mitt Romney is conservative enough to represent them. That's important, because the far right wing of the Republican party isn't just the far right wing of the Republican party anymore. The far right wing of the Republican party is the Republican party now.

I ignored much of what Ann Coulter had to say when she spoke today, as I do when she says anything. But I was still under the influence of the fresh air from lunch when she said something I found myself actually agreeing with. "We won!" she told CPACers. "Folks, we won. There are no Rockefeller Republicans anymore! Conservatives won that fight." She didn't rattle off the list of reasonable Republicans who have either left or been run out of the party, but she could have.

As the victors, conservatives may be willing to settle for Romney if he's the only alternative to Barack Obama — which says more about how much they' dislike Obama than about any embrace of Romney — but the victories they've handed to Gingrich and Santorum in the GOP primaries so far make it clear that conservatives have set the terms for their resignation to Romney's candidacy. (Coulter's "Let's try square for a while," summed up conservatives enthusiasm for Romney.)

David Brooks may be right (and I may need get some fresh air, again). Mitt Romney is trying his best to be a crowd pleaser, trying to be all things to all conservatives. At CPAC he gave it his best shot yet.

Mitt Romney is going to deflect concerns over his Mormon heritage by going all "culture warrior" on gay people. I'll address the economic aspects of Romney's speech in a later post. The economy seems to be taking a back seat the culture war at CPAC 2012 anyway. Thus Mitt Romney is morphing himself into the ultimate culture warrior.

Since I'm covering CPAC as a member of the media, I've tried to keep myself out the "story." I've observed and listened, without offering my own views or much else about myself. The result is that sometimes I think CPACers mistake me for a member of the tribe.

There were only a couple of times I came close to giving myself away. When Foster Friess, Chairman of Friess Associates, said in his introduction of Rick Santorum that Santorum "never says anything divisive," I stifled a snort. I guess comparing parents like me to felons, and saying that families like min "don't contribute to society" doesn't count as divisive. When Rick Santorum himself said that conservatives truly embrace the idea that "all men are created equal," I couldn't help but snort.

Still, I was surprised I expected to hear a lot of fulminating against marriage equality at CPAC, and I became inured to it in advance. I heard little, compared to the the nearly constant anti-contraception rhetoric. What little I did hear, I let wash over me.

Then Mitt Romney took to the stage. After he finished promising to restore the Mexico City policy, cut off money for the United Nations Population Fund, de-fund Planned Parenthood, and reverse every Obama policy on contraception, Mitt brought it on home.

And in doing so he brought home the reality that nothing wins a candidate right-wing love like queer bashing. Romney delivered the longest, loudest screed against the 9th circuit ruling on California's Proposition 8 that I've heard during my entire time at CPAC. When he finished there, launched in the a recitation of his opposition to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and all he did to stop it. He sounded for all the world like a job applicant reciting his resume.

Romney ended that screed by tell the audience, "I was a severely conservative Republican governor." Point made?

I understand why he did it. See, Romney mentioned again that his father was born in Mexico. When he spoke of his family history he told the audience that his mother's father "came from England" and his father's father "moved to Mexico."

But didn't mention why his grandfather moved to Mexico.

The Romneys can trace the family history to 1555, where they have records of a Mr. Romney, no first name, born in 1555 in the town of Tonbridge, England. The Mexican roots are intertwined with their Mormon faith.

The candidate's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, was born in 1843 in Nauvoo, Ill., where Joseph Smith founded the Mormon church. Miles Park Romney had five wives and 30 children, and fled to Mexico after passage of the 1882 Edmunson Act that barred polygamy. Among the first Mormons to settle in to the rolling Mexican valley bordering Texas, Miles Park Romney married his fifth wife after the church banned the practice in 1890.

Among the 11 children borne by Miles Park Romney's first wife were brothers Gaskell and Miles Archibold Romney.

The family fled back to the U.S. in 1912, when the Mexican Revolution struck Chihuahua and revolutionary forces invaded the English-speaking communities.

Gaskell Romney stayed in the U.S., with his five children, including Mitt's father, George.

As a fellow Mormon pointed out, Romney really should know better.

As a Mormon, gay rights advocate and Californian, my corner of the internet exploded on Tuesday morning when news broke that a federal appeals court ruled Proposition 8, the California proposition that removed the right to marry from gays and lesbians, unconstitutional. My gay friends and their allies rejoiced as we talked about weddings we looked forward to attending, and many of my Latter Day Saint friends and ward members mourned a loss to their cause. The church reacted to the decision with a press release that called for civility, and included the curious statement, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today's decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognised as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view."

Anyone with a bare knowledge of Mormon history would know that's simply not true. This one statement encapsulates the bitter irony surrounding this long battle: that a religious group known for its history of polygamy would be the group bearing the standard for "traditional marriage".

...Mormon pioneers crossed the American plains to escape the religious persecution they faced, in part because of their views on marriage. They were prepared to fight a war to keep the government from restricting their ability to marry as they saw fit. It is far past time we remembered our history and stopped doing to others what we fought so hard against having done to us.

Mitt, of course, can't go there. He may be comfortable around gay people, but his Mormonism makes evangelicals nervous. So, he's trying to please the wingers and appear just conservative enough to get the nomination.

Just in case anyone thinks he's not anti-gay enough, Mitt is working it hard. Overtime. As I was writing this post, another CPACer slipped me this flyer.

The front bears a quote from Maggie Gallagher, of the Institute for Marriage, saying that Romney is "making the single most eloquent defense of our understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." Quotes on the back from conservatives ranging from Robert Bork to Jim DeMint, and Chris Christie say much the same.

After his speech Mitt walked into the crowd and started shaking hands as CPACers reached our for him. I think he almost had them convinced. Maybe they almost had me convinced that he had them convinced.

Maybe I just need to get some fresh air. Again.

Maybe I will. Right after Newt speaks.

Bank Settlement: $25 Billion Down, $675 Billion to Go

Van Jones — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:53:48 -0500

This week a $25 billion settlement was announced in which big banks pay up for a portion of their bad deeds in the home foreclosure crisis. Everyone is trying to determine whether this is a good deal or a bad deal.

Here is how I score it. This deal represents small progress on a small problem. Now it's time to make big progress on the big problem.

Don't count on finding many good points in the deal itself, because there aren't a lot. In fact, the main win can be found in what's NOT in the deal.

A truly horrible deal would have let the banks write a small check and then seal the door on all further investigations and pursuits of accountability. This deal does NOT do that. Because this settlement limits legal immunity for banks, this deal does not automatically let the banks off the hook for all of their wrong-doing. Except for a few issues like robo-signing, state attorneys general can still fight for more compensation and relief for the banks' victims. Government officials can proceed with investigating and prosecuting banks for their role in crashing the economy and the housing market. In other words, the door is still open to solve the much bigger problems we face. Our fight for justice can, and will, continue.

That is small comfort, perhaps, but it was hard won. So we should honor the hard work of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and others, including many grassroots progressive organizations like New Bottom Line. They fought courageously to prevent a total sweetheart deal for the banks. This outcome is the result of determined activism, and without this heroic effort, the deal would have been drastically worse.

That said, there is a reason why many progressives and housing advocates are furious, and why many struggling homeowners are left wondering, "How does this help me?"

Millions of homeowners and families are still suffering under the tremendous weight of a debt blanket that is smothering the economy.

This $25 billion settlement helps only a fraction of those homeowners and addresses only a very limited set of fraudulent behaviors. A number of homeowners will get some cash payments, but the amounts are negligible compared to the pain and injustice they have experienced. The actual total cash paid out by the banks is only $5 billion dollars, to be split among the nation's largest banks -- hardly a stiff penalty considering that the six largest banks in the U.S. paid $144 billion in bonuses last year. And enforcement mechanisms remain murky.

We must not forget the more than 14 million homeowners (one in five) whose homes are underwater, beneath a crushing total $700 billion in negative equity. We must not forget the more than 4 million families who have lost their homes. We must not forget the millions of families who are in some form of foreclosure proceedings on this very day.

These are the Americans who have suffered and continue to suffer. They are worried today, like yesterday, whether they will still have a home to live in tomorrow. They are the ones who must choose every month whether to pay bills or to feed their children.

Here are three things that must happen next:

1) The U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general must investigate and prosecute banks more aggressively than ever, at a much larger scale than anything that has happened to date.

2) We must force banks to make massive principal reduction of hundreds of billions of dollars, to immediately relieve the 14 million homeowners in the country who have underwater mortgages.

3) We must change laws and regulations to prevent this kind of crisis and fraud from ever happening again.

Two weeks ago, I called for hundreds of billions in principal reduction for homeowners. This would free up Americans to start new businesses, spend money on worthwhile products and services, and invest in their children's futures. We still need to address the $700 billion in negative equity, which in turn is only part of the nearly seven trillion dollars in total lost equity created by the banks' irresponsible, and in some cases, illegal practices.

We need a solution at the scale of the problem, so that families can get back on their feet, the economy can get working, and people can reach for their American dreams again instead of watching them drown.

That is why I say: $25 billion down, $675 billion to go.

The Sound of Santorum

Terrance Heath — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:28:26 -0500

Rick Santorum arrived at CPAC today, but he was everywhere at CPAC yesterday. As David Frum noted, there were no Romney stickers to be seen at CPAC yesterday, but Santorum stickers were everywhere. (With Gingrich stickers running a close second.) As he walked onto the stage, it was evident that he has a lot of support here. This is a religious, conservative crowd, and they loved him.

Santorum walked onto the stage with most of his family in tow, and was received with enthusiastic applause. As his family formed a tableau behind him, Santorum joked. "This is not the Von Trapp family," he said. "We are not going to sing," he added a beat later after waiting for the laughter to die down. That was a relief. But then, Rick Santorum started talking.

If Romney walks out on stage with his family arrayed behind him, then I'm going to assume Santorum's started a meme to get under Newt's skin some more. (Let's see you drag your family out on stage, Newt — and all your baggage along with it.)

After introducing his family, Santorum noted that his three-year-old daughter — whose illness cause him to take a short break from the campaign trail during the Florida primaries. Santorum assured the audience that his daughter was recuperating and doing well. That's interesting, because a year ago Santorum said that health care reform would kill his young daughter — who was born with a genetic abnormality.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that health care reform is responsible for his daughter's continued survival. The millions Rick Santorum earned by cashing in on his Washington insider status means that his little girl gets the best healthcare money can buy.

It's also interesting, because Santorum — like a lot of conservatives — wants to repeal health care reform. Never mind that repealing health care reform might kill a lot more people. Never mind that repealing health care reform would strip Americans of a lot of protections that Republicans have no specific plans to replace or provide in some way that reflects their values. (Like prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

It got even more interesting when Santorum moved on to conservative failure. No, not the decade of conservative failure I like to call the "Uh-Ohs". The usual Republican line is "Conservatism never fails. It is only failed." Santorum spun in differently, but basically echoed it. "Conservatism did not fail our country," he said. "Conservatives failed conservatism."

Well, he's not entirely wrong, because for most of the last decade conservative had a lock on government, and the result was tremendous growth in the deficit and the size of government. (But not the economy.) And I suppose Santorum included himself when he said "conservatives failed conservatism," because he was a major player in Washington's inside game during that time.

The most interesting thing about Santorum was how little his speech focused on the economy. Yes, it got a mention, and he made sure to note that the Wall Street Journal called it "supply-side economics for the working man." (Because that's just what working people need, right?) He even got in a lick at Romney, by adding that his plan shows he "cares about the very poor, too." Then he moved to the meat of the speech.

"This is not just about jobs, although it is about jobs," Santorum said. "It's about big things. Really big things. More than just the economy." Those "really big things," are basically everything that right wingers love, and that we've heard from Santorum before — contraception, climate change denialism, etc.

By the end of the speech, it was clear that Santorum's "really big things" was really just one really big thing: the same old culture war that the right keeps fighting and keeps losing in places like California, Washington state, and in debacles like the Komen Foundation mess.

As he brought it on home, Santorum advised the crowd that the 2012 election is really about morality, not money. "We're not going to win this election because the Republican candidate had the most money," he said. "We're going to face lopsided money advantages." he said, apparently assuming president Obama would have more money. (President Obama must not be so sure, if his reluctant embrace of super PACs is any indication.)

But Santorum made it clear that his fight wasn't with President Obama in this speech. The money comment was really a dig at Romney, whose coffers overflow with cash from secret super PAC donors. And Romney was the target of Santorum's parting shot. Republicans, he said, aren't going to win in 2012 with a candidate "who has supported the stepchild of Obamney care."

Santorum and his supporters (and there are a lot of them at CPAC) may be making the mistake of thinking that Americans share their culture war concerns, but that seemed to be far from the minds of conservatives at CPAC, as Santorum left the stage to resounding applause. But the concerns of some pro-choice Republicans are hardly enough to sway the CPAC crowd.

Seeing Santorum's reception at CPAC, it's easy to think that maybe he really is their guy for 2012. After Santorum's speech, I decided to visit the CPAC exhibit hall before grabbing lunch. When I walked in to the hall, I encountered a crowd of CPACers all trying to catch glimpse of someone, and some with smartphones raised to snap pictures over the heads of the crowd. It was the kind of crowd you might see orbiting around a celebrity — a C-List celebrity at best, judging from the size — but a celebrity nonetheless.

I gave up trying to see who had drawn this crowd and settled for taking a shot of the crowd.

Then the mini-throng parted just enough form me to see who is was all for. There, in the middle of it all, was Rick Santorum.

I went to lunch thinking Rick Santorum was the "rock star" at this year's CPAC. After finishing lunch, I returned to find that Santorum was just the opening act.

Here Is A Budget That Works

Dave Johnson — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:23:52 -0500

President Obama is preparing to roll out his 2013 budget. If he wants a budget that gets rid of the deficit, meets human needs and does the things that polls show the public overwhelmingly wants done, The People's Budget Is The Template! This is the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The following is directly from the post, The People's Budget Is The Template:

The People's Budget

The Progressive Caucus -- a group of progressives in the Congress -- have put together a budget that fixes the deficit and grows the economy, providing jobs. It is called The PEOPLE'S Budget Plan.

Read the plan at: Congressional Progressive Caucus : FY2012 Progressive Budget,

The CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

Rep. Mike Honda and Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva explain, in The Only Real Democratic Budget: Why Progressives Have the Answer to What the American Public Wants,

Budgets are more than collections of numbers. They are a statement of our values. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget is a reflection of the values and priorities of America's working families. The "People's Budget" charts a path that keeps America exceptional in the 21st century, while addressing the most pressing problems facing the nation today. Our Budget eliminates the deficit, stabilizes the debt, puts Americans back to work, and restores our economic competiveness.

[. . .]

Our Budget listens to what the American people are telling us. It does all of the above in a fiscally responsible way that dramatically reduces our borrowing from banks and foreign governments and ensures our long-term economic competitiveness.
...
Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit by 2021: The CPC budget eliminates the deficit in a way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved, specifically, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. ...

Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America's Competitiveness: The CPC budget rebuilds America and makes it competitive again. We put America back to work. We rebuild our roads and bridges, ensuring that those who use it help pay for it. ...

Our Budget's Fair Tax System: The CPC budget implements a fair tax system, based on the American notion that fairness and equality are integral to our society. ...

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home: The CPC budget responsibly ends our wars, currently paid for by American taxpayer dollars we do not have. ...

Our Budget's Bottom Line (Over 10 year Window)

• Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion
• Primary spending cuts of $869 billion
• Net interest savings of $856 billion
• Total spending cuts: $1.7 trillion
• Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion
• Public investment of $1.7 trillion
• Budget surplus of $30.7 billion in 2021, debt at 64.1% of GDP.

See research and analysis on how The People's Budget affects middle-class households at TheMiddleClass.org.

Also see the CAF series, The Progressive Path To Deficit Reduction

Newt's CPAC Schedule

Terrance Heath — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:06:44 -0500

OK. I'll admit it. Newt Gingrich got me on this one. I walked into the CPAC 2012 conference this morning with my guard down (first mistake), and picked up what I thought was up updated schedule of events for the main ballroom.

Then I read it.

Ouch. "Rick Santorum (PA) 'In Defense of Big Labor'"? "Ann Coulter, 'Three Cheers for Romneycare?" "Mitt Romney, Author of Obamneycare?"

Newt is a bitter, bitter man. And if he saw the welcome Santorum got when he stepped out on stage, or saw the number of Santorum stickers on the lapels of CPACers, he's may be beyond bitter.

If this has all gotten under Newt's notoriously thin skin (think Air Force One, 1995), then Newt's speech this afternoon is really going to be fun. After all, there's nothing more entertaining than a ticked-off Newt Gingrich. He doesn't just go off-script. He rips up the script and starts making spitballs.

I'll be sure get a good seat. Just not in the first few rows

Progressive Breakfast

Bill Scher — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:52:20 -0500

Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to effect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.

MORNING MESSAGE: Romney, Lead Your Party. Fight For Payroll Tax Cut.

OurFuture.org's Robert Borosage: "Instead of simply renewing the vital payroll tax cut – and extending unemployment insurance – they are piling on irrelevant demands, arguing with each other, and forcing yet another unnecessary crisis. Extending the payroll tax cut for the full year will give the average American an additional $1,000, a $40 boost in each paycheck. This will help sustain the demand vital to creating jobs. Republican antics make no sense. The sabotage must stop. The question for Mitt Romney is: You claim to lead this party, are you willing to stand up for common sense?"

GOP Threatening Tax Cut Extension

House GOP threatens termination of payroll tax cut by insisting on jobless aid cuts. NYT: "...Republicans are seeking numerous policy changes connected to unemployment benefits — like a mandatory high school equivalency program and possible drug testing for beneficiaries — that Democrats have rejected out of hand. They would also reduce the benefits to 59 weeks, far less than the 79 weeks sought by President Obama ... Democrats presented a one-page counterproposal to the House offer on unemployment insurance benefits that would cap the length of time that unemployment benefits are paid out at 93 weeks for the remainder of the year. Republicans all but laughed."

Conservatives overlook the obvious reason why working-class families are struggling, argues NYT's Paul Krugman: "Suddenly, conservatives are telling us that it’s not really about money; it’s about morals. Never mind wage stagnation and all that, the real problem is the collapse of working-class family values, which is somehow the fault of liberals ... it is, frankly, amazing how quickly and blithely conservatives dismiss the seemingly obvious answer: A drastic reduction in the work opportunities available to less-educated men."

Inequality extending to education. NYT: "...researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period ... the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s ... lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources."

Mixed Reaction To Foreclosure Fraud Settlement

Settlement will have "limited" impact on the housing market, says McClatchy: "'Realistically, this is a settlement that at the end of the day will make nobody really happy,' said Rick Sharga, a foreclosure expert and executive vice president at Carrington Mortgage Holdings in San Diego. ... 'People watching the housing market won't think it is a cure-all to what ails the market. And from the financial side of things, banks will quickly realize this doesn't remove liability on a host of other issues.' In fact, Obama stressed that the settlement dealt only with problems in the servicing of mortgages and that his administration continues to investigated alleged fraud in the origination of mortgages and in the packaging of them into the complex instruments known as mortgage-backed securities."

But banks have not escaped all legal trouble either. LAT: "The settlement releases the banks from claims involving foreclosures, mortgage customer servicing and loan originations. However, authorities can still investigate various fraud claims, including those involving the mortgage bonds whose meltdown triggered a global financial crisis. What's more, there is no criminal immunity or release from private claims by individuals or class-action lawsuits."

"Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Costs Big Banks Half Of Last Year’s Profits" notes ThinkProgress.

Reuters' Felix Salmon is upbeat: "Other big-money lawsuits over securitization can and almost certainly will still be brought — which means that the big banks all still have significant litigation risk hanging over their heads ... [But] what’s happening here is that the mortgage settlement is at heart largely just encouraging banks to bring their balance sheets closer to reality ... [And] insofar as principal reductions can increase the value of a mortgage, this deal is actually making banks money ... really is a win for all sides."

"Mortgage Settlement Fight Not Over, Say Organizers" reports Truthout: "...Gordon Whitman, policy director at the Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (PICO) National Network and organizer with The Bottom Line, it will only help a handful of homeowners ... 'The way forward is much more pressure and investigation and pressure on the big banks,' he continued, which 'opens the pathway to get upwards of $300 billion in debt relief for American taxpayers. Wall Street wants to make this problem go away, but it won't go away.'"

Fannie and Freddie resisting the "principal reduction" accepted by banks in the settlement. ProPublica: "The two companies aren't directly part of the settlement ... But Fannie and Freddie do guarantee or own roughly half of the mortgages in the U.S. ... Principal reduction is being pushed heavily by the Obama administration as a way to lower the rate of foreclosures. The administration recently tried to encourage Fannie and Freddie by offering to triple incentives for principal reduction. So far, the companies and their federal overseer, DeMarco, have declined to do so."

Pressure on Freddie Mac and FHFA regarding past bets against homeowners. ProPublica: "'I don't understand why you make a bet that you can largely control the outcome of, and want your bet to lose,' [Sen. Robert] Menendez said ... 10 senators sent a letter to Edward DeMarco, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator that oversees Freddie Mac, calling the report 'deeply troubling.' ... the inspector general for the FHFA confirmed Wednesday that it is looking into Freddie Mac's investments."

WH Reportedly Will Adjust Contraception Rule

ABC reports that WH plans contraception compromise: "The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance ... Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications."

Sen. Maj. Leader Reid blocks GOP anti-contraception amendment to transportation bill. Politico: "...Reid blocked the move, telling Republicans to 'calm down' until a final rule comes out. 'This is a rule that hasn’t even been made final yet. There’s no final rule ... Let’s wait until there is at least a rule that we can talk about.'"

House, Senate Diverge On Transportation Bill

Six House GOPers break ranks on tying Arctic oil drilling to transportation bill. NYT: "Six House Republicans on Thursday sent a letter to their leadership opposing the opening of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling to help pay for a pending transportation bill ... With tough re-election campaigns coming, House Republicans of all stripes may be looking for ways big and small to assert their independence from an unpopular Republican leadership."

Bipartisan transportation jobs bill in the Senate nears passage. Reuters: "A bipartisan proposal for the federal government to spend $109 billion over two years to upgrade roads, bridges and transit systems and create jobs easily cleared a crucial hurdle on Thursday when the Senate voted 85 to 11 to allow it to proceed to debate."

Breakfast Sides

WH to release review of clean energy loan guarantee program today. The Hill: "The much-anticipated review comes as House Republicans are pummeling the administration for greenlighting a $535 million loan guarantee in 2009 to the solar firm Solyndra ... Herb Allison, a former Treasury Department official who oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), conducted the review and delivered his report to the White House late last month."

Republican chair of House Financial Services Cmte investigated for insider trading. W. Post: "The Office of Congressional Ethics ... investigators have notified Bachus that he is under investigation and that they have found probable cause to believe insider-trading violations have occurred ... OCE investigators are examining whether Bachus violated Securities and Exchange Commission laws that prohibit individuals from trading stocks and options based on 'material, non-public' inside information..."

Romney, Lead Your Party. Fight For Payroll Tax Cut.

Robert Borosage — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:03:01 -0500

They’re at it again. The same congressional Republicans who find any excuse to cut taxes for multimillionaires are blocking renewal of tax cuts to help the middle class stay afloat in this struggling economy.

Just when the economy seems to be gaining momentum, congressional Republicans seem intent on sabotaging it.

Instead of simply renewing the vital payroll tax cut – and extending unemployment insurance – they are piling on irrelevant demands, arguing with each other, and forcing yet another unnecessary crisis.

Extending the payroll tax cut for the full year will give the average American an additional $1,000, a $40 boost in each paycheck. This will help sustain the demand vital to creating jobs.

Republican antics make no sense. The sabotage must stop.

The question for Mitt Romney is: You claim to lead this party, are you willing to stand up for common sense?

Click here to tell Mitt Romney: Speak out for the payroll tax cut. Demand your fellow Republicans in Congress stop obstructing it.

Mitt Romney says he’s for helping the middle class (though he never mentions the working poor.)

Mitt Romney says he’s for an extension of the payroll tax cut (though in October he derided it as a “temporary little Band-Aid.”)

But he’s never fought for it. He’s never challenged those in his own party who obstruct, delay, distract, drag their feet and create unnecessary anxiety for the 99%.

If he means what he says, if he knows how to lead, he’ll speak truth to his party.

Click here to tell Mitt Romney: Call on your party to stop obstructing the payroll tax cut.

Does Mitt Romney want to help Americans in need? Or does he too want to sabotage the economy to serve his political ends?

Mitt Romney claims to be a leader. Let him know: it is time to lead.

Rubio's Not Everybody's "Darling" at CPAC

Terrance Heath — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:13:40 -0500

I caught most of Sen. Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC this morning, and it was very well received. Based on that alone, I'd be tempted to agree with his categorization as a "CPAC darling." He's rumored to be on the short list for VP, though he says he's not interested. Of course, it probably didn't hurt that Rubio appeared at CPAC the same day he introduced legislation that could cut off contraceptive coverage for millions. That seemed to the issue that roused conservatives the most at CPAC. (I actually, I heard more about contraception from speakers than I did about gay marriage — or job creation.)

But apparently Rubio's contraceptive bill wasn't enough to endear him to everyone at CPAC.

As I was tossing out the remains of my lunch, I noticed a stack of flyers sitting on an end table. Covering a conference like CPAC includes picking up literature, since one never knows what might yield content. I read it, and quickly realized it wasn't like the other literature available at CPAC.

There's logo and no organization's name or individual's name on it. So who it came from is anybody's guess.

My guess is that someone who was still miffed with Rubio for his speech at the Hispanic Leadership Network conference, where he took the GOP to task for the tone of the immigration debate, opened up a laptop, copied and pasted the quotes into a Word document, created this flyer, printed it up at the hotel business center, and spread it around.

Bachmann & Bin Laden at CPAC

Terrance Heath — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:16:42 -0500

Michele Bachmann's speech at CPAC 2012 wasn't quite the start turn that her appearance in 2011 — when Americas Bachmannia infection started spreading. I guess that's the difference between being a newly-announced presidential candidate and being a newly-dropped-out presidential candidate. (She was asked to leave. Twice. So, did she drop out or was she dismissed? A little from Column A, and a little from Column B?)

Bachman scored some laughs about the three things she learned as a presidential candidate

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), free from the constraints of running for president, opened her speech at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference with a joke.

"Running for President of the United States is really one series of humiliations after another, but it's also a very educational experience," she said.

"I know where John Wayne was born."

"I know the day Elvis Presley was born."

"Thirdly, I learned never forget the three things that you learn," she said.

Then she launched into a foreign policy speech that revealed how much she has yet to learn.

Of course, what Michelle Bachmann doesn't know could fill several libraries.

So, I'm going to keep this short. Bachmann spent most of her speech attempting to turn President Obama's foreign policy successes into failures. (Though she seemed to be settling for predicting that they will turn into failures at some later date.) Then she did something interesting.

She may have mentioned that the U.S. took down Osama bin Laden on Barack Obama's watch. If she did, I missed it. Maybe I blinked. It's no secret that President Obama giving the nod to the mission that bagged bin Laden sticks in many a conservative craw. Not only did it deprives them of a convenient bogey man to drag out when needed to frighten Americans into pouring more money into Iraq and Afghanistan, but it gave rise an annoying question: Why didn't we do it that way in the first place?

It's a fair question, but Bachmann breezed right by it and instead dwelled upon the conservative notion that Bill Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden and took a pass. It's understandable. Even FactCheck.Org initially thought Clinton had passed up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden, but upon further investigation changed it's answer to "probably not."

I can understand Bachmann's problem. She can't praise one Democratic president (Obama) for killing bin Laden, so she wrongly accuses another Democratic president (Clinton) of "letting him go." In her ~~pumps~~ shoes, I'd be tempted to do the same.

But I'm not. So, I can go ahead and point out that there's a eight-year gap in Bachmann's timeline. That would be George "Dubya" Bush's watch, during which the Bush administration had a chance to get bin Laden in Afghanistan, but let him slip away.

Bin Laden had written his will, apparently sensing he was trapped, but the lack of sufficient forces to close in for the kill allowed him to escape to tribal areas in Pakistan, according to the report.

It said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top U.S. commander Gen. Tommy Franks held back the necessary forces for a "classic sweep-and-block maneuver" that could have prevented bin Laden's escape.

"It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, 'light footprint' model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks," the report said.

When criticized later for not zeroing in on bin Laden, administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, responded that the al Qaeda leader's location was uncertain.

"But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora," the report said.

Bachmann, at least, admitted the world was a better place without Osama bin Laden in it, even if she didn't give any credit to the president who ordered the mission that killed bin Laden. That's because conservatives don't so much lament that bin Laden was killed. It's just that when he went, with him went most American's reasons for supporting the wars conservatives used his terrorism to justify in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The end of the war in Iraq, and the approaching end of the war in Afghanistan, is something that I have heard conservatives like Bachmann and Sen. Mark Rubio lamenting at CPAC today, if not the thousands of lives and billions of dollars both have cost.

Producers vs. Moochers, Freeloaders And Losers -- The Cruel Pro-Rich Propaganda Of The Right

Dave Johnson — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:24:43 -0500

"Producers" and "parasites." Cruel language justifying extreme greed seems to be mainstream now. Even Presidential candidates feel free to disparage 99% of us! In today's right-wing folklore government by We, the People is an evil thing that takes from "producers" and gives to "moochers," "freeloaders," and "losers." Government and taxes "take money out of the economy." Decision-making by We, the People is "collectivism" and "mob rule." And those of us who think the insanely wealthy should pay fair taxes suffer from "envy."

In today's discourse wealthy elites receiving $20 million a year in “capital gains” while paying almost no taxes are “producers,” while janitors or nursing home workers, working two jobs and not making enough to pay rent and feed themselves, are “moochers” and “freeloaders.” Right.

This email came in to CAF yesterday, (see also Richard Eskow's take on it, John Galt Is A Crybaby And So Are You)

I am really curios to know what motivates the mind of a socialist. Why do you think its fair to penalize those of us who produce while rewarding those who do not? If healthcare should be a right then where does it stop?

Could one not use the same argument that everyone has a right to free housing? A free car? Perhaps free air travel? Who will pay for all this?

What happens when the government has exhausted the money acquired from the producers? I have a feeling producers will stop producing if the government is just going to take it. Again, I ask why should the people who produced be punished to reward free loaders?

Actually, a right to housing, health care and decent transportation sound like the kind of things that proud citizens in a democracy ought to demand, if you ask me.

The Ayn Rand Poison

This email and others like it echo the language of the novels of Ayn Rand, which so many Republican politicians today embrace. The people writing them are disciples of Ayn Rand. They used to be teenagers who resented being told to clean their rooms; now they are grownups who don’t want to be told to pay their taxes. Republicans have enthusiastically embraced the poison of Ayn Rand, its justification of psychopathic greed and selfishness, along with her belief that altruism and democracy are "evil."

This Ayn-Randian idea that there are two kinds of people, "producers" and "parasites," is reflected across the language of the right today. The wealthy "producers" are "job creators" Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, for example, regularly echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

Who Is The Real Freeloader?

With the release of his (but for some reason only the most recent) tax returns we learned that Mitt Romney collects over $20 million a year, while doing nothing, from the many millions he was able to get control of by stripping companies and laying people off or making them take huge pay cuts and loss of benefits. According to the Christian Science Monitor titled, What kind of society does America want?, this is the story of what happened to the workers in one company when the Romney/Bain machine "came to town":

The new owner, American Pad & Paper, owned in turn by [Mitt Romney's] Bain Capital, told all 258 union workers they were fired, in a cost-cutting move. Security guards hustled them out of the building. They would be able to reapply for their jobs, at lesser wages and benefits, but not all would be rehired.

According to the cruel language of the right, those workers are "losers." If they need to get unemployment or food stamps they are "parasites" and "freeloaders" who are "asking for handouts." When old, they will need the Social Security and Medicare they paid into all their lives, more "handouts." People like Romney says these "entitlements" -- the things we are entitled to as citizens in a democracy -- are "draining the economy."

Mitt Romney says government is the culprit, not people like him who show up and strip our jobs, factories, companies, industries and economy. Romney, who pays very little in taxes on the $20-plus million he receives in "capital gains" every year, wrote in a December USA Today op-ed titled, What kind of society does America want? that the very existence of government itself costs the economy jobs, writing, "With the growth of government has come an inevitable contraction of the private sphere." Romney writes that programs like Social Security and Medicare are examples of "government dependency." And, finally, he writes, "Government dependency can only foster passivity and sloth."

Right. Mitt Romney, producer -- who receives $20-plus million a year for not working -- as contrasted with the "losers" who work two jobs at minimum wage, making so little they need food stamps just to get by. (They used to make more, but Mitt Romney came to town, buying the company they worked for, chopping it up and sending the parts they don't sell to China, laying them off or cutting their wages in half, and taking their health care and pension.)

The Dependency Index

The conservative Heritage Foundation has published an "Index of Dependence on Government," saying we have "unsustainable increases in dependent populations." Heritage writes that, "Americans are haunted by the specter of enormously growing mountains of debt that suck the economic and social vitality out of this country."

Heritage fails to mention that we were paying off the nation's debt before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, at the rate we were paying off the debt when Clinton was President the entire US debt would have been paid off by now. Except for those tax cuts for the wealthy. But according to Heritage, the problem is not wealthy people paying very low taxes, it is humans who have human needs who are a "a potentially ruinous drain on federal finances."

Please take a look at Heritage's "dependency index." Social Security is "government dependence." Medicare is "government dependence." And on and on. Heritage says nothing about the huge, bloated, corrupt, enormous, massive, ginormous military budget -- that doubled under Bush. Heritage says nothing about the incredible subsidies government provides to oil and coal companies. Heritage says nothing about the cost of all of the tax cuts handed out to the wealthiest since the Reagan era. Nothing at all.

Heritage says that We, the People doing things for each other "encourages dependence." They talk about people as if they are squirrels. Like building the interstate highway system encourages dependence or having good public schools encourages dependence or a pension after a life of hard work encourages dependence or public health programs that keep epidemics from spreading encourages dependence or giving vaccines to children encourages dependence or, I guess, in the old days helping a neighbor put up a barn encouraged dependence.

It is the Romneys, getting their $20-million-plus checks for doing nothing -- the "gains" from stripping our economy and sending our jobs to China -- who are dependent. Not the people that the Romneys threw out of work or cut their pay in half. Not the people working two jobs yet not making enough to pay rent and get enough to eat. The real "producers" in our economy are the 99%, the people who work, not the1%er "parasites" who use their wealth and power and connections to game the system and reap vast "gains."