Media Continue Bank Bailout Advocacy

Originally published at Extra!, the magazine for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Michael Corcoran and Stephen Maher

For corporate media, the verdict is already in: The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the unpopular program that redistributed some $700 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds upwards, to the very financial institutions that contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, is an unabashed success.

It is hardly stunning that corporate media would react favorably to one of the biggest boons for big corporations in U.S. history. When the bailout initially failed to make it through Congress in 2008 due to House opposition, journalists quickly accepted and reinforced the narrative that the unpopular legislation--which gave unprecedented power to the Treasury Department with virtually no mechanism for oversight or review--needed to be passed so urgently that a serious national debate was not even possible (Extra!, 1/09).

"In the Congress of the United States, the insane are now running the asylum," wrote Dana Milbank in the Washington Post (9/30/08). The Post editorial page produced three editorials in three days (9/30/08=10/2/08) in support of the policy. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (10/1/08) claimed, "We have House members, many of whom I suspect can't balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don't understand, swamped them with phone calls."

As Dean Baker and Kris Warner of the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted (Extra!, 1/09), despite claims echoed throughout the media that the bill was too urgent to even be subject to reasonable scrutiny, the Treasury Department "took no action for 10 days after the bill had been passed."

Now that the program is coming to an end, media--with a few notable exceptions like Gretchen Morgenson at the New York Times (4/18/10)--are claiming the corporate bailout they so fervently supported has been a monumental success. Two primary claims have been pervasive: that TARP was a good idea that’s “working,” and that it was a “great deal for taxpayers” (Washington Post, 4/1/10). Progressive critiques challenging the official narrative have been almost entirely ignored by the corporate press, despite the fact that such challenges have appeared throughout alternative media (Pew Research Center, 4/28/10; FireDogLake, 7/15/10).

In the words of the Post editorial board (7/5/10), even though "pretty much everyone hated" the "$700 billion bailout fund," it has "arguably saved the U.S. economy.... Any member of Congress who supported TARP, Republican or Democrat, took a sensible risk that has been vindicated by the program's result."

Similarly, Reuters (8/19/10) reported that TARP's success would "dilute the previously potent political attack that lawmakers who voted for the bailout were rewarding Wall Street greed while putting taxpayers at risk." Former George W. Bush administration official James K. Glassman declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (8/26/10), "It has to be said that the TARP and the other financial rescues were necessary and efficient."

Prominent progressive critics contend TARP is a program that is doomed to failure. Even if it succeeds in temporarily rescuing the financial sector, the failure to enact broad systemic changes only increases the risk of future, more expensive bailouts. Dean Baker, for instance, suggested (CEPR, 7/5/10) that the "financial Armageddon" averted by TARP

>>>would have meant the demise of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and most of the other Wall Street titans, but probably would not have led to a qualitatively worse economic situation for the rest of us than what we actually saw. In fact, there would have been a great benefit from this financial Armageddon in that it would let the market wipe out the fast-dealing, high-flying Wall Street gang in a single blow.

This would eliminate the culture of synthetic CDOs and naked credit default swaps that provide ever more sophisticated and expensive ways to gamble. It would also eliminate many of the huge multi-million dollar paychecks that the Wall Street boys take home every year (or week). In other words, this is not obviously a bad story.<<<

Financial blogger Yves Smith (Naked Capitalism, 6/23/10) likewise criticized the Obama administration’s choice to “patch the system up with duct tape and baling wire, and if it looks even remotely operational, tout it as tremendous success,” rather than enacting serious reform. The choice, she continued, reflects the administration’s "decision to reconstitute, as much as possible, the banking industry that had just driven itself and the global economy off the cliff” and “to cast its lot with an unreformed banking industry."

Yet these important ideas were rarely presented to the American people by the corporate-owned press, thus limiting their impact and damaging citizens’ ability to come to informed conclusions. "I have almost never had my criticisms of the TARP in the media," said Baker in an e-mail to Extra!.

Indeed, media adhered to their time-honored practice of framing the debate between centrist Democrats and far-right conservatives (Extra!, 9=10/04)--in this case, restricting the “debate” to pro-TARP voices on one side and militant free-market absolutists on the other, who oppose the program as a violation of laissez-faire principles. That was the form the debate took on Fox Business Channel (12/22/09), TARP supporter Lawrence Ausubel, economics professor at University of Maryland, faced off against Cody Willard, a right-wing libertarian critic.

A New York Times article (7/1/10) looking back on TARP included critiques of the plan from conservatives like Sen. Richard Shelby (“blatant accounting fraud”) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (“a ridiculous scheme”), but ignored progressive critics in Congress, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The claim that the taxpayers are being fully reimbursed by beneficiaries of TARP is likewise being vigorously advanced by the corporate press. The New York Times has been ebullient regarding the program's outcome for some time now (8/30/09): "Nearly a year after the federal rescue of the nation’s biggest banks, taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.... So far, that experiment [TARP] is more than paying off."

More recently, the Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin asked (4/12/10), "What if, after all that panting over Washington’s bailout of the financial system, we learned that it actually worked?" He continued:

>>>Some officials [are] suggesting that if the economic recovery continues apace, the bailout program could eventually turn from red to black. That may seem far-fetched to anyone who remembers the dire predictions about banks like Citigroup, but the numbers tell a different story. The government’s $45 billion investment in Citigroup alone is on track to make a profit of nearly $11 billion, plus $8 billion or so in interest and other fees. People inside the administration no longer refer to Citigroup as the "Death Star"; now it is a "profit center.”<<<

Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 7/5/10) wondered whether the assertion that TARP did not cost the taxpayers anything is “based on ungodly stupidity or is just plain dishonest”:

>>>The TARP money was a form of insurance. The vast majority of insurance policies are never paid off, but that does not mean they have no value. The point here is that the banks were on the edge of going bankrupt. The government, through the TARP and the Fed, gave the banks the loans and the guarantees that assured the markets that the banks would survive.... This is all a gift from the taxpayers to some of the richest people in the country.<<<

In a rare instance where a progressive critic was quoted by the mainstream press on the issue--albeit buried in an otherwise upbeat TARP story by Sorkin (New York Times, 4/13/10)--Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz said widespread efforts to glorify TARP's success are "disingenuous and a real attempt to distract people," as they don't factor in lost interest on the money spent. "Did we get back anything commensurate with the risk?... Clearly the answer is no," he said. Sorkin dismissively reminded readers that Stiglitz "has made a career of seeing every glass as half-empty."

Even Elizabeth Warren, who has been featured in the news as a potential leader for the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, has been largely ignored by the press when she reported on TARP’s flaws. As the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the use of TARP funds, she issued a strong critique of TARP's impact on small banks in the panel's July report (Congressional Oversight Panel, 7/14/10), saying TARP "served Wall Street much better than anyone else." Neither the Post nor the Times published a single article citing Warren's findings. The panel’s May report (Congressional Oversight Panel, 5/12/10), also quite critical of aspects of TARP, was mostly ignored as well, getting only two small mentions in the Post (5/19/10, 8/4/10).

When TARP was pushed through with no sizable programs attached to help the average American (Economic Policy Institute, 9/29/08), the priority for policy makers became clear. As Baker observed in CounterPunch (6/2/10), the same people who praise TARP are now saying we must “act aggressively now to reduce the budget deficit” and “accept large cuts in Social Security and other important programs.”

"Why on earth," Baker asks, "should anyone trust what the bankers' economist accomplices are telling us?"

New Bankruptcy Legislation Could Provide Relief For Those Buried in Student Debt

Originally published in Campus Progress

New Bankruptcy Legislation Could Provide Relief For Those Buried in Student Debt

Legislation that would allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, could provide distressed borrowers with a fresh start and bring a major victory to those dedicated to student loan justice.

By Michael Corcoran
July 30, 2010

Valisha Cooks graduated from the University of Phoenix with loan payments that amounted to $1,150 a month, much of it in private loans. Her debt burden amounted to more than half of her take-home pay. “When I took out private student loans, I had no idea that I was condemning myself to a lifetime of ruined credit, harassment by collection agencies, and the hopelessness of endless debt,” she says at a recent hearing before Congress [PDF].

Cooks is one of an approximate 17 million who have private student loan, many of whom are trapped in mounds of student debt with little hope of repayment. The default rate for private student loans is officially 7.3 percent, although the reality is actually grimmer, since these numbers do not account for people who are in deferment or forbearance and are likely to default in the future. Normally, people who suffer under such massive debt can declare bankruptcy and discharge much of their debt burden, but in 2005 Congress passed bankruptcy legislation eliminating a student loan borrower’s option of last resort, discharging student loan debt in bankruptcy.

“Now, even though I have a good job, I can’t afford to pay all my bills in any one month, I go to food banks to feed my son, and I will never be able to afford a house,” she says. “I live in constant fear that the hammer will one day drop and ruin my life and the hope for my son’s future. It is a scary, hopeless feeling.”

It is to President Barack Obama’s credit that he has made student loan justice a priority so far in his presidency. The reforms he made as part of the reconciliation bill that passed healthcare reform in March—an expanded direct lending program, more relaxed methods of repayment, and increased Pell Grants—are some of most significant changes to help students fund higher education in decades.

But the new reforms, some of which do not go into effect until 2014, do not impact any of the millions of people who have already borrowed private loans to go to college. This leaves generations of former students struggling to keep their head above water as they deal with massive student loan debt in an era where college tuition has dramatically outpaced the rate of inflation for nearly 20 years and unemployment, especially for recent college grads, is at frightening levels. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that 20 percent of student loans taken out since 1995 are in default (and some argue the number is higher). Private loans in particular, which are much less flexible than federal loans with repayment schedules and deferments, are often a major reason for the high default numbers. This is why both houses of Congress have introduced legislation that would once again allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy (S. 3219 and H.R. 5043).

Read the rest here.

Single-payer health care: dead in Washington, but alive in the states

Originally published in the Christian Science Monitor.

By Michael Corcoran

Boston - President Obama delivered a stirring address to Congress last night, but the federal government's inability to truly overhaul our broken healthcare system – which now leaves more than 46 million uninsured – is becoming all the more apparent.

Speaking before a joint session of Congress, Obama declared that a public option to compete with private insurers, considered vital by many liberals, was merely a "means to an end," and not essential to healthcare reform. Earlier this summer, a New York Times/CBS poll showed that 72 percent of Americans support a government-run healthcare plan. But Obama's speech last night indicates that while a bill will probably pass, prospects for comprehensive reform – the kind millions of Americans voted for – have dimmed rapidly. Insurance companies, which have given large donations to both political parties, are winning the fight in Washington.

The inability of a popular president with substantial majorities in Congress to pass a progressive health bill is immensely frustrating to healthcare activists, and to all who gave Obama a mandate for change.

But their cause is not lost – they just need a new strategy.

Read the rest here:

Why Vermont Marriage Equality Matters

This was originally published at the Nation.

(Republished at CBS NEWS)

Montpelier, Vermont

Vermont may not be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. In fact, it's not even the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in the past week--that designation belongs to Iowa, where the State Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage last Friday.

But nonetheless, when the Vermont Legislature overturned a veto from Republican Gov. Jim Douglas and legalized same-sex marriage, it was indeed a historic moment. Vermont is the first state to permit gay marriage rights through a democratically elected legislature, as opposed to Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa, where courts ruled it unconstitutional to ban the practice. And many feel that this victory is a sign of things to come in the battle for marriage equality.

"The fact that Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation is very significant," said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union. "Eventually, there will be marriage rights for everyone in the country, but it will take years of work and lots of education."

The legislation is significant, but it was not easy to pass. Despite Vermont's largely liberal citizenry, the passing of S.115 was far from certain. While there was no doubt the Vermont State Senate would be able to overturn Gov. Douglas's veto--it supported the legislation 26-4 last week--the vote was much closer in the House.

House Speaker Shap Smith needed 100 votes to overturn Douglas's veto, despite only securing 95 yea votes in the original passing of the bill. But Vermont Democrats played hardball with the opposition in their own party.

Shay Totten, a columnist for Seven Days, Vermont's alternative weekly newspaper, reported that "Democrats who oppose the bill could also face primary challenges next year--it's that important an issue for some leaders."

And in the end, the leadership was able to whip several nay voters into the yea column, and finished with the 100 votes they needed, compared with forty-nine opposed. Rep. Albert "Sonny" Audette, a Democrat who opposed the bill due to his Catholic upbringing (and actually apologized to his colleagues on the floor for doing so), simply stayed home for Tuesday's override vote.

The passing of the bill marks another chapter in what is now a decade-long debate over same-sex marriage in the state. Vermont is only nine years removed from a contentious and emotional battle over civil unions, which saw Vermont become the first state to pass equal rights--if not equal recognition--for gay couples.

Advocates at the time celebrated the passing of the civil union legislation, but not without trepidation. "So many people felt that civil unions were not enough," Gilbert said. "There was always the implication that, at some point, Vermont would move on and that there was a promise of sorts to gays, that finally got fulfilled today."

Of course, much like in 2000 when civil unions prompted a "Take Back Vermont" movement that helped oust legislators who supported civil union legislation, there was intense opposition this time around. Hundreds of same-sex marriage opponents gathered outside the State House with "Thank you, Jim" signs, praising the governor for his controversial veto.

Much of the opposition came from outside the state. Several legislators got reports of "robocalls," deceiving constituents by wrongly telling them their representatives had changed their minds on the subject. Some calls were traced back to the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey based nonprofit dedicated to "protect[ing] marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."

"In they end, they were a waste of money," said Rep. Tom Stevens, a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the marriage legislation. "I received more calls that were generated by the robocalls urging me to vote for marriage equality than to oppose it. There was no onslaught, because we all recognized the ham-handedness that went into them. They caused a bit of a misunderstanding for some folks who didn't listen all the way through, but in the end I'd say they backfired."

Despite the tenacious efforts by same-sex marriage opponents, in the end marriage equality proponents simply proved to be too organized to lose this time around. Further, according to local polling, the majority of Vermonters favor same-sex marriage, and the debate reflected this reality.

During a key House debate on Thursday, supporters of the bill arrived as early as 7:30 am, to secure seats for a vote that would not occur until after 9 pm. Much of the organizing was done by the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, which bused in supporters to the State House and even fed them granola bars as they sat through dry budget discussions, waiting for the bill to reach the floor.

Several of the four openly gay legislators in Vermont gave passionate-- at times teary-eyed--speeches asking for equal rights. Rep. Jason Lorber, a Democrat from Burlington, told his colleagues on the floor that he "shouldn't have to ask my coworkers for the right to marry the person that I love."

And liberal bloggers were as passionate as ever, according to John Odum, founder of Green Mountain Daily, a popular liberal political blog in the state. "The energy around this issue has been like nothing I've seen on the blog to date. The only thing comparable was a few years back when there was a push...for an impeachment resolution against George W. Bush," Odum said.

Even local businesses organized on behalf of the bill, arguing in a letter to legislators that their "vote[s] will move Vermont forward economically," referencing a study by the Williams Institute, that projected gay marriage would "boost Vermont's economy by over $30.6 million over three years...and create approximately 700 new jobs," as a result of gays coming to the Green Mountain State to marry.

This effort repudiated the governor's repeated statements that same-sex marriage debate was " distracting" the state from its significant fiscal problems.

But now that the exhausting battle in Vermont has come to an end, marriage equality proponents are enjoying their role in an important civil rights struggle.

"If there's one thing I keep hearing over and over today," Odum observed, "it is people--both online and off--telling me how proud they are to be Vermonters today."

The Democrats and Civil Liberties

From A1 of the NY Times:

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

Care to issue another statement explaining your support of this bill, Sen. Webb? The Republicans have learned how to play the Democrats like a fiddle. Just claim that if they don't support a bill -- no matter how intrusive, unconstitutional or insane -- that we will get attacked and they will be blamed.

The Post Editorial Page gets it right?

It is not often I agree with the Washington Post's editorial page (see here) -- but this editorial about the Democrats weak-kneed capitulation on warrantless wiretaps is on point.

Meanwhile Jim Webb gives a lame explanation. Indeed the 110th Congress has been beyond disappointing.

How to end the War

Nicholas Von Hoffman writes an essay in defense of the "fringe candidates" regarding the presidential debates and in doing so rightly pokes a big hole in the Democrats excuses of giving Bush $100 billion for the war.

The mainstreamers were rattling on to the effect that, of course, they are against the war; they just do not have enough votes to pass a law ending it.Then Kucinich was given the microphone for a moment and said that Congress can stop the war whenever it wants, not by passing a law the President will veto but by not passing any war appropriations bill at all. Just do nothing and Mr. Bush will have no money for the war and the troops come home.

This may sound obvious, but the major candidates and most of the media, almost always let the Democrats "we-don't-have-the-votes" excuse go unchallenged.

There is historical precedent for this type of media charade. By in large, the media has a done better job of distorting the truth during and leading up to war, than telling it. Media critic Norman Solomon's book chronicling such behavior, War Made Easy, has recently been adapted into a film, and is worth checking out. He makes the point that by the time the bulk of the media does turn on a war it is almost always years after the public does,--and even when they do, they still perpetuate the empty platitudes and deceitful logic that keeps us in combat.

Olberman blasts Dems over War Funding

I was worried that with the Democrats grabbing control of Congress, Keith Olberman may become a bit too easy on Democrats. His January interview with Hillary Clinton did little to change that.

But a recent "Special Comment" -- easily his most powerful one yet -- is a pretty harsh condemnation of the Democratic leadership, and rightly so.

The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans; The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

[...]

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

What "the enemy" wants

The other day Pat suggested to me that Lieberman was right to say that if the US were to leave Iraq it would satisfy "the enemy." (For clarification purposes, though Pat originally supported the war and the occupation that has followed, he now wants the US to withdraw its troops.)

Nothing infuriates the left more than when those in favor of the war suggest that to leave would bolster the enemy. But it's nearly impossible to argue that this isn't the case. Of course our defeat plays into the hands of our enemy, that's what defeat in war means.

I took issue with this assessment arguing that al Qaeda (who is often cited as America's main enemy in Iraq) benefits from the US presence.

It is certainly not impossible to argue that leaving would not bolster "the enemy." (Of course, you fail to say who the enemy is, and no, its not obvious. Is it Iran, al Qaeda, who? The distinction matters, different groups will have different reactions to a US withdrawal)

In fact, it is almost impossible to argue that our continued presence isn't bolstering the enemy ... if the enemy is, al Qaeda, leaving Iraq could hurt them considerably. The US occupation of Iraq has empowered al Qaeda to new levels.

In the latest edition of Foreign Affairs (the publication for the Council for Foreign Relations -- hardly a a group of left-wing pacifists) Bruce Riedel makes a similar argument.

(Bin Laden) seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The demoralized "far enemy" would then go home, allowing al Qaeda to focus on destroying its "near enemies," Israel and the "corrupt" regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.....

"[I]t is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq....

"Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

I am not sure I agree with him that Iran wants the States to stay there for much longer. I think Iran feels adequately empowered by the US failures at this stage. They know the coming realignment of the region will benefit them, but I think at this point they view the US as a destabilizing force in the region who will only contribute to further problems along their border if they remain in Iraq.

Nonetheless, I think he is right to say that al-Qaeda would prefer the US to stay in Iraq. The US presence "emboldens" them more than a withdrawal would.

Lieberman sinks lower

In today's Washington Post, Sen. Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed so egregious that it prompted Garance Franke-Ruta to ask: "Did Joe Lieberman just call the Democratic leadership pawns of al-Qaeda?"

First Lieberman goes all John McCain on us and tries to paint Iraq in an absurdly optimistic light.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

Of course this conflicts with virtually all other accounts, including that of former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, who is saying that the "surge" may be a waste of time.

Later in Lieberman's op-ed, he goes all Joe McCarthy (or is it Dick Cheney) on us.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Chaos in Iraq

This is the video of the bombing of the Iraqi parliament, which is a scary indicator of the security situation in Iraq. This comes in the same week that the Red Cross has reported that Iraqi's face a "'disastrous' situation that is getting worse"; the bombing of the historic Sarafiya bridge; and Bush's latest announcement that the troop tours will be extended from 12 months to 15 months.

A Times articles today has the troops reacting to the news.

The soldiers wondered if their relationships back home could weather an extension and predicted that divorce rates in the military would spike. They muttered about three additional months of forced celibacy and fretted half jokingly about impatient wives and girlfriends. “Now a lot of cheating be going on,” said Sgt. Jonathan Wilson, 29. “I’m serious.”

Specialist Lawson had planned to take a vacation with his former wife, with whom he has two daughters, after he got back to the division’s home base in Schweinfurt, Germany. They were going to give the relationship another try.

“This has totally wrecked everything I had planned,” he said as he slumped on an empty explosives crate.

“Now I’m never going to get together with my ex-wife,” he said. “I’m scared that the longer it takes, more things could happen.”

That troop deployments were going to be extended makes Bush's previous accusations that the Democrats legislative fight to add a timeline for a partial withdrawal of forces in the supplemental seems even more hollow.

Here is what Bush was saying just a week ago, from the Washington Times.

The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people," he said.

This should give the Democrats more wiggle room to call Bush out for being so sinister and out-of-touch on this issue. And, according to TPM, the House Democrats (unlike Barack Obama) appear to be up for a fight. They have the text of a memo written by Rahm Emanuel urging the Democrats not to cede anything to Bush. Here is a portion:

We find ourselves in a strong position because the American people support our policy objectives and our plan for Iraq, especially as they measure up against the failures of the administration’s policies. As we continue through the process of sending an Iraq spending bill to the President for his approval, we need to go beyond the debate about the funding for the war, and remind the American people of the policies we are recommending -- benchmarks for the Iraqis, support for our troops through training and equipment, and a plan for a responsible and strategic redeployment of our troops. It is also important that we remind the country of the policy position of Congressional Republicans on Iraq – their rubberstamping of the President’s Iraq policies, and their refusal to conduct responsible oversight.

Speaking of Obama, Jerome Armstrong has the following analysis of his position on Iraq, how it may effect him in the primary and how, according to a recent report by Raw Story, John Edwards is trying to capitalize from it.

Obama's statements on the war are going to start to hurt his popularity among Democrats. As the article on Raw Story shows, Obama is clearly getting heat now from the Edwards camp for statements about funding of the Iraq war that Obama has been making, and the Republicans are using them against Democrats. Obama is in a bit of a branding dilemma over the Iraq war. His original effort seemed to be pointed toward Clinton-- vote the same as her for continual funding of the war, but continue pointing out that he was right at the beginning. And that probably works against Clinton, but it doesn't really work when he's getting top-tier pressure from a position more in line with the base of the Democratic Party.

Obama's been getting it from the netroots, and is now getting from the Edwards camp.

Looking at this from a political analysis, it's beginning to be the frame that Obama's got the movements position on not voting to begin the war, but the establishment's position (or rhetoric) on continuing the war. He's just not staked out the right ground on the war that would be in sync with a movement from within the Democratic Party.

When Obama says that "the vast majority of Democrats" are not interested in cutting funding of the war, he's just plain wrong.

Edwards to Congress: Send the Bill back to Bush

John Edward's gets it right on how to handle a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental.

[Edwards] said that if Bush carries through on his threat to veto legislation that funds U.S. troops in Iraq while also calling for withdrawal next year, Congress should “send the bill back to him” as many times as necessary.

As I have already noted, Obama has gotten it wrong.

Bush and the Media

Ezra Klein notes that The Washington Post is no longer buying what Bush is selling, and argues that this shows how the press has turned on Bush.

It's worth reading this Washington Post article to get a feel for how fully the press corps. is turning against Bush. The first graf is an explanation of Bush's "only talking point," that Democrats won't appropriate his desired funds. That alone is remarkable: Mere months ago, the talking point would simply be presented as a point, not identified as spin, and attributed to Bush's "strategists [who] hope to demonstrate strength and turn the tables on a Democratic Congress that may be overreaching." Hell, remember when the press was willing to believe that Bush didn't use polling?

Klein's analysis of the Post article is sharp indeed, but the press seems to be far more sympathetic to Bush's GOP allies in Congress. In today's New York Times a front page commentary compares the latest showdown between the President and his GOP allies in Congress, to the 1995 showdown between the Republican Congress and the Clinton White House. The article suggests that 1) the Democrats will look like they are abandoning the troops if they challenge Bush and 2) that they are doomed to fail just as the Republican Congress did in 1995.

“There were no Americans risking their lives at the Washington monument in 1995,” said Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker at the time whom critics accused of badly overplaying his hand.

“There were no Americans being shot at the Interior Department in 1995,” he said. “We were engaged in a domestic political debate over being serious over a balanced budget. The Democrats risk sending signals to our enemies that kidnapping British sailors and killing young Americans is acceptable.”

It gets worse.

Today, the administration is making the case that the military will be denied resources, and some tours in Iraq might have to be extended if no bill is approved. But the Pentagon appears to have the flexibility to pay for operations at least through May and possibly longer with substantial juggling. Nevertheless, any event detrimental to the troops that could be tied to the impasse could cause a backlash for Democrats.

[...]

It is difficult to predict who will prevail. After all, no one foresaw in the fall of 1995 that a simple legislative dispute would end up stalling the momentum of a determined new majority and enhancing the standing of an embattled president.

Some Points for Chris Dodd

The Senator from Connecticut is the first presidential candidate currently serving in the Senate to back Reid/Feingold.

From Dodd's statement:

"The Feingold-Reid Bill helps Congress finally put the brakes on the Administration's failed Iraq strategy, and serves notice to the President in terms he can't ignore.

Can't wait for this to come up for a vote so we can see if Obama and Clinton want to end, or otherwise enable, this war.

Feingold and Reid Propose a Response to Bush

Contrary to what appears to be Obama's reaction to a Bush veto, Feingold (with the help of the Senate Majority Leader) have decided to take a more aggresive approach and fight back.

From the press release:

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S.troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

Obama gives in to Bush

There is a part of me that wishes I could support Obama, there really is. But he is making it close to impossible.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

So Obama, who Sam Graham-Felsen recently called "the major anti-war"candidate, caves to Bush and loses any grip he may have had on such a title. Kos, rightly goes on the attack here, saying that he wished it were an April Fool's Joke.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.

Let me repeat that -- Obama just surrendered to Bush.

MyDD, a site which has shown real enthusiasm for Obama, has yet to post something on the front page, but I will be interested to see how they react, especially given Matt Stoller's recent statements about Hillary Clinton and the war.

That does seem to be where we actually have leverage. Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country.

What is going on with us Democrats? Are we really that stupid?

If John Edwards is smart he will go on the attack here. The party is desperate for one of the major candidates (with all due to respect to Dennis Kucinich, who is absolutely right about this war and has been since the start) to take an actual anti-war position, and Obama and Clinton have failed the smell test.

UPDATE: The guys at MYDD respond.

There is no reason to cave in this fight. Even if you expect it to happen, if you a prominent progressive public figure, there is no reason to publicly predict Democrats will cave. This compromise was just too difficult to forge in the first place--let's not predict its doom just yet.

More on Democrats and Iraq

The debate over the Democrats approach to the war rages on amongst the left.

One hand you have William Greider, who in The Nation, hails the legislation as historic.

Take a deep breath. The nation has arrived at an extraordinary political moment. The Congress is about to instruct the President he should withdraw from the ongoing war. Yes, I know the fine print in the House and Senate versions has lots of wiggle room. But the congressional action is still breathtaking when you think about it, possibly without historic precedent.

I assumed it would take many months and numerous failed efforts for the new Democratic majority to reach this juncture. When House leaders kept softening their terms, I even thought it might be a good thing for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lose the first time around. She would then be assailed by outraged Americans and get the message: stiffen up, this is not business as usual. I was mistaken. Many of the final details are disappointing, but the message has been delivered and received--get out of Iraq. It will rule politics until the American exit actually occurs.

But what Greider calls "wiggle room" others call outright capitulation -- "a complete farce."

From Joshua Frank's latest essay:

Having been one of the unfortunate geeks who actually read the bill, I can tell you only one thing -- it’s a complete farce.

In order for troops to come home the Bushies would have to confirm whether or not “progress” had been made in Iraq, not Congress. So with more money in hand and sole authority on deciding whether or not the war in going as planned, the White House, even if Bush signed the bill, would never have to end the thing. The proposal wasn’t a compromise as many have claimed, but a dagger in the heart of all those of us who want to bring this war to a screeching halt.

As I noted several days ago, reasonable people can be conflicted on how to approach the legislative end of this issue. But it is quite clear that the Iraq supplemental bill, even if it were to survive as it stands, does not and will not serve to end the war. Knowing this, those of us who oppose the continuation of this criminally misguided occupation would be wise to continue to pressure our representatives.

What Democrats conceded with the Iraq Bill

If one is deciding whether or not to celebrate or bemoan the latest budget for Iraq, passed narrowly in the House, consider the following from Kucinich (Emphasis is mine):

$120 billion for an escalation of the war, the privatization of Iraqi oil assets and a possible extension of the war into Iran. And the President said he will veto this because it's not enough. By showing such a weak position against the Administration and the war, the Democrats have thoroughly undermined whatever bargaining position they could have had.

A valid point, even pragmatically speaking. Knowing that the bill serves zero chance of passing the Bush veto, and will presumably be drastically weakened from the sausage making fest that is the lawmaking process in the US Senate, it is troubling to know what the Democrats have already conceded

1.) The Iran language which wold have forced Bush to go to Congress in he wanted to use force against Iran, was stripped from the bill -- no small matter. To Pelosi's credit she insured progressive congresspeople who were upset about this that she would force a vote on the issue. Still, it is an unfortunate sign that the Blue Dogs are successfully playing this card.

2.) Allowing Bush to use word acrobatics, or outright dishonesty to avoid the benchmark provisions. Pelosi has even said that for this to work it requires the President to be honest about the progress, which is a scary proposition indeed.

3.) $120 billion in funds, enough for Bush to continue this deadly occupation for the duration of his term. Just think about that: we are starting the effort to end the war, by giving a boatload of cash buy the weapons that will inevitably maim thousands of civilians and serves to fuel radicalism and attacks against the US.

4.) Not a word about private contractors, which, as Jeremy Scahill (and Garrett Ordower) note in Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army , make up nearly half of our forces in Iraq. Without accounting for them, we are starting by allowing nearly 100,000 mercenaries to remain there indefinitely, and without any accountability. This can hardly be called an end of the war knowing this.

Now, I should note that I don't think supporters of this legislation, be they David Sirota, or progressive members of the Congress, or the bloggers over at MyDD, are sellouts or wish to continue the war. Most of these supporters, I think, have the right intentions, and indeed we do need to work together on this issue: we are on the same team in a sense. They understand the political obstacles in the way, most notably from the Blue Dogs in Congress. Lord knows Nancy Pelosi has an incredibly difficult job. I just wish more of the leaders of the progressive movement who are not politicians, but bloggers, writers, activists etc ... would keep staunch pressure on the Democrats to do more. We know that we will not get everything we ask for -- but let us ask for it nonetheless. As Howard Zinn noted the other day, as citizens it is not our job to endorse the ends of what is legislatively possible, but to support what is right, and what is just.

If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

And frankly $120 billion for this criminally stupid war, is none of those things. That progressive citizens feel compelled to look at ending this war through the cold lens of political calculation that members of Congress do, is rather disappointing.

So I do think some are overstating (also here) the new power that the progressive caucus has in light of this great "victory." It seems the Blue Dogs were successful in thwarting the will of the American people, who want to end this war. I don't mean to sound too cynical. This was and is a painful process, but at least wheels are in motion, however slowly. Congress is light years ahead of where it was in 2004, for example, and there are signs of progress. But we are not close to ending this war, not with proposals like this, and we ought to understand this as we move forward. .

But move forward we must. So lets get to work.

Sirota's Statement

I tend to agree with David Sirota on most things, but his latest letter to the Congressional Progressive Caucus is not only unconvincing, but especially so coming from him. This is not to say Sirota is not a credible progressive voice, or solidly anti-war -- he is both things, but the tone leaves a bad aftertaste, and his underlying reasons conflict, unambiguously, with his own ideals.

He leads by quoting Saul Alinsky, and writes:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be."

This serves as the general basis for his plea: in the name of pragmatism, progressive members of Congress, must vote yes on the most recent Iraq bill. But, Sirota's new found passion for compromise seems odd, given his utter refusal to do just that on other issues.

This is not to say he was wrong then, or even wrong now -- only to say that he is not the ideal voice to wag his finger at progressives for not wanting to compromise on a bill that will help to fund George Bush's war.

Moreover, Sirota admits to working for Rep. Obey -- otherwise known as the guy who called anti-war protesters "idiot liberals" for opposing legislation that fails to end the war. And Sirota, was very quick to not only defend him, but to suggest that some progressive leaders really are 'idiot liberals.' Again, this does make Sirota wrong, per se; but it is not irrelevant by any means.

Lastly, Sirota's absurd reference to the "Professional Protest Industry" sounded like it could have come out of the mouth of (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE MCARTHYITE'S NAME HERE).

He writes (emphasis is mine):

Congressional progressives now face the same pangs that come with evolving into a movement with majority power, rather than serving merely as contrairian voices in the minority. They are undoubtedly being pressured by a small but very vocal group of organizations that make up what’s known as the Professional Protest Industry – organizations that exist solely to see the world as they want it, not as it is (a note: not everyone working to kill the supplemental is part of the Professional Protest Industry - many folks just legitimately believe stopping the supplemental is the best way to go, and I absolutely respect that even though I think it is the wrong strategy - however, there is no denying that there is a loud, vocal Professional Protest Industry - check out International ANSWER or the LaRouchies for a few examples).

This LaRouche comment is simply the last straw. To attempt to link opposition to this legislation to LaRouche -- a man who has about the same level of credibility as the Flat Earth Society -- is not only grossly unfair, but utterly surreal. I would wager that LaRouche minions represent about .000000001 percent of the anti-war opposition, and have zero influence on this, or any other matter of national significance.

I hope, and genuinely expect, that Sirota will return to producing the high quality work that he is known for. This latest effort, however, is one I find to be terribly unconvincing.

John Kerry and FOIA

This effort by Kerry to make it easier for journalists -- even those, such as bloggers, that are unaffiliated with a major news organization -- to get access to government documents is a great move by the Senator. From the Kerry for Senate blog:

Senator John Kerry today announced his support for a legislative initiative designed to assist the freedom of the press. The bill would make the federal Freedom of Information Act more powerful, primarily by making it harder for the Administration to deny or delay the release of information. It does that by requiring that an agency respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days and establishes a publicly available tracking system for requests.

In addition, the legislation would help bloggers, because it would prevent agencies from denying them a waiver on fees just because they are independent or not affiliated with any institutional news organization. In the past, the need to pay fees for FOIA requests discouraged many bloggers or independent journalists from pursuing FOIA requests.

“There is no greater or more important watchdog today than our free press and we should all do everything we can to strengthen the ability of dedicated reporters to do their job,” Kerry said today. “Recent news reports on Walter Reed, the Big Dig, or even the US Attorney firings have reminded us just how important the press’s oversight is to our system of governance. In cases like those, exposure meant the difference between life and death. I am proud to sponsor this bill and look forward to voting on it when it comes before the full Senate.”