inertia or the cost of doing nothing

There is a new drama shaping up in Washington DC: the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve. Obama campaigned on keeping those tax cuts in place for those earning over $250,000 a year and letting those tax cuts for upper earners expire (and default back to the Clinton era tax rates for those earning $250,000 and above).

Both parties smell a political opportunity. Democrats want to paint the GOP as the party of the rich, saying that Republicans voted down extending unemployment benefits and tax breaks for small businesses, but will go to the wall for those earning over $250,000. Republicans think they can pain the Democrats as the party of tax increases, describing the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts as the biggest tax increase in history. Oh and raising taxes in the midst of the Great Recession is a bad idea.

Of course there are problems with both sides. The GOP set up the 10 year sunset provision in the Bush Tax Cuts because they passed it through Reconciliation in the Senate, which they said was a satanic ritual when it came to Democrats passing Health Care Reform. There are a great number of small business whose taxes pass through to their owners and therefore these folks are many of the $250,000+ crowd. But that doesn't mean that these people aren't wealthy or that it will automatically hurt non-wealthy people to restore the tax levels to the Clinton era. And a good hunk of the national debt is due to those Bush Tax Cuts.

Let's look again at this chart, which I pulled from the Wall Street Journal, that commie rag. It appears that under the Obama proposal (which by no means will be the final bill that would get voted on by Congress) every income bracket does better under his proposal that simply continuing the Bush Tax Cuts.

Deadlines tend to sharpen the mind in most fields, but they also create rushed jobs? Ideally, Congress should work to redo the tax code like they did in 1986, when they eliminated lots of loopholes while lowering taxes. There are all kinds of boondoggles in there that need to go. And there should be room for creative ideas. What about getting rid of payroll taxes and raising overall income taxes? Is there a better way to arrive at how wealthy someone is than the income they make (especially for higher earners, who get things like stocks, or trust fund babies)? Would a sin tax that includes Marijuana make sense? A National Sales Tax, as Mike Huckabee suggested?

Sadly, the most likely option in this election year where Democrats know that Republicans will gain some seats in Congress and might even take over the House is likely kicking the can down the road and waiting on the commission on high to tell Congress what to do. But that would be a blown opportunity. Democrats should seize the fleeting moment when they have a 60/40 edge in both chambers to pass some tax policy that reflects who they are, and not just try to deflect criticism that will come regardless of what they do. And Republicans should hold Democrats feet to the fire with the warning that they better pass something they like enough before the end of the year, or a very different tax bill will come through Congress next spring.

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of victory, GOP edition

From Nevada to Colorado to Kentucky, Republicans have managed waste opportunities by nominating people who were not ready for prime time, or in the case of Colorado, have no one to nominate who is ready for prime time.

For example, Majority Leader Harry Reid looks like he could hang on because Sharon Angle is WAY out there ideologically and doesn't know how to talk to the media. Rand Paul seems to be the author of Ron Paul's old racist newsletters.

Meanwhile the Colorado GOP is busy being sexist and xenophobic and can't make up its mind, so they through in plagiarism to boot. As a Democrat, it's fun to watch. So long as you assume these clowns will never hold public office.

it's all fun and games until someone loses a job (or their life)

Washington is a crazy place. It rewards people with money and fame who seem to enjoy willfully distorting facts to suit their partisan purposes. These folks are rubes who don't know or don't care to know the facts, like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. These folks got into top notch schools like Yale Law School and are smart enough to know that they are editing to remove important context in order to change the meaning.

If the latest hack is to be believed, which I don't know why he should be, he got a highly-edited tape and never bothered to asked to see the entire tape. Instead, he ran off to Fox News and his website.

Because Washington is a risk-adverse place with many cowards in top posts, a woman was essentially fired because of this highly edited video. When the whole video was revealed, it turns out that the out-of-context edits were merely an acedote about how the speaker had changed for the better...the one who was fired.

In Washington, ruining someone's life (or in the case of Vince Foster, leading someone to commit suicide) for the sake of the partisan cause is something to be rewarded, not punished. It is even referred to under a racist term: the person has a "scalp." Obviously, the more important the ruined person was, the better.

Truth is sacrificed at the alter of partisan gain. I thought that Obama ran on changing Washington. Yet his Secretary of Agriculture fired a woman based on a hack's edited video...and says the fact that she might be subject to more hack attacks is enough reason to demand her resignation. And this isn't the first time. Van Jones was attacked by Glen Beck, who admits that his show is not factually based, which caused Van Jones to resign.

And we wonder why the so many people who work in government are incompetent hacks.

The List

When I first learned about this list of 13,000 people (with addresses, phone numbers, and in some cases when their child is due) who are alleged to be in Utah illegally, I didn't believe it. It sounded like a liberals' idea of a right wing dream.

But it is real, and the database information comes from the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Crimes have been committed. Thankfully, no media outlet that has received it has released it. KSL has called some on the list, and discovered that those people are here legally.

The List is a fatwah, the opposite of Schindler's List, and far worse than McCarthy's List. What it shares is the same misplaced fear and demagoguery as the anti-communist fear that drove McCarthy.

Gov. Herbert needs to not cower before the anti-immigrant crowd and fire and prosecute people. Let the FBI and throw the book at whomever is responsible. This list nothing less than an incitement to do harm to hispanics (and their families) the author believes to be here without documentation.

So far in the meta race for 2012, Jim DeMint is a kingmaker--Mike Lee is just the latest. Meanwhile Sarah Palin picks for house and senate races are hilariously bad--no research on her endorses. In the end, I don't he will run for president nor will the Moose Lady. But I bet DeMint's endorsement will be key to the 2012 GOP nomination, and that he is likely to be the VP nominee.

Why I am voting for Matheson

In the House race, Wright's FEC report showed the longtime educator raised $14,696 since shortly before she forced Matheson into his first primary race.

Matheson already had $1,413,047 cash on hand in campaign war chest in April. His latest report was not available Thursday.

Put in perspective, for every bill emblazoned with George Washington's image that Wright raised during the most recent reporting period, Matheson already had a crisp Benjamin Franklin stashed in the bank.

The money brought in by Wright since the April filing brings her campaign's fundraising total to $23,617. She reports having $6,598 cash on hand.

Six thousand dollars? You can't even pay for postage with that much. If she were to some how win, Philpot would win in a heartbeat.

And I have actually met Philpot, and even though he is a nice smart guy who has real thought out reasons for why he holds his conservative views, is a nice guy, and is smart, but as a Democrat, I want to hold this seat and pass some good laws.

legislators: lobbying works because they don't know the law they write

As much as I enjoyed reading a story about how Mike Lee, son of ex-BYU president Rex Lee and beneficiary of millions of Utahns tax dollars for a frivolous lawsuit, was a lobbyist and didn't register as one, this was much more interesting:

"If you go off of your description, I was being persuaded to vote for the bill and I was not persuaded," Liljenquist, R-Bountiful, said Thursday after being read the law. "He came up, he advocated for a bill and he did a good job. ... He met with several people over several days in the Senate lounge." (emphasis added)

That's right, the lawmaker has no idea what the law says about his job. Remember as a lawmaker, your job is to vote on bills/amendments and to write bills and amendments. As a lawmaker, you should also know when someone is improperly trying to persuade you. Of course, I don't expect lawmakers to ask for every dude's papers, but if someone like Mike Lee comes up to you and talks about bill that benefits one particular company (in this case 1-800-CONTACTS), it's because he is a lobbyist, duh.

But wait it gets better:

Retired federal judge Paul Cassell worked in the same capacity, [1-800-Contacts general counsel, Joe] Zeidner said. Cassell didn't register either as a lobbyist.

I think Zeidner could have said that a different way--and may be he did--that didn't seemingly also damn Judge Cassell. That defense of Lee kind of backfired.

Half a million

About A quarter of all Utahns-- nearly 500,000 people--have a preexisting condition.

According to a new report, 476,000 Utahns have been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition like cancer, which puts them at risk of not getting care due to insurance industry practices.
That will change in a limited way this year and permanently in 2014, due to federal health care reform passed in March. The law will stop insurers from denying people with pre-existing conditions coverage, or charging them higher rates, or providing them policies that don't cover their illness, according to Families USA, the report's author.
The new law "will protect all these individuals from the most harmful insurance company abuses that deny such critical coverage," executive director Ron Pollack said in a media conference call Thursday. ....
...
In all, Families USA estimates 57.2 million Americans under age 65, or 22 percent of the non-elderly population, have been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, having had heart surgery or an organ transplant. People over age 65 are eligible for Medicare, where they aren't denied coverage.
In Utah, 20 percent of the non-elderly population has been diagnosed with a health condition, including 51,600 children.
The report says the estimate is conservative: It only includes people diagnosed and treated in 2007 for 69 conditions that commonly lead to denials of coverage, though there are more. It doesn't include people who could be denied for taking drugs for arthritis, cholesterol or other conditions.

so it is not just the poor that will benefit from the new health insurance reform, it is your co-worker, your aunt, it could even be you some day.

This isn't just about beige empathetic or thinking ahead for what mint happen to you, it is about life and death. Chances are you know someone with a preexisting condition.

A funny thing happened

In the car to work this morning, I heard on the radio that Rep. Jim Matheson was speaking out against a provision that US Senate candidates Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater had signed off on in order to not get outflanked on the right by each other. This "peace through strength" platform sounds like it was written by Bill Kristol, and among other things recommends "updating" our nuclear arsenal and potentially testing said new nukes underground. Understandibly, Jim is a a bit touchy about the subject since his dad Governor Matheson died from radiation from the last time the federal government did testing. And Lee's and Bridgewater's families were also affected i understand, but that didn't stop them fork signing onto that neocon claptrap.

Still, last time I checked Jim Matheson was running for reelection, and still had to win his primary, but was not running for the Senate. I am sure Sam Granato would like co nfirmati on of that too. Maybe this is smart politics to appeal to primary voters without pissing off general election voters and helping Sam out at the same time. If so, very good move but still is a bit odd.

By the way, the radio referenced a website Matheson had mentioned where one could sign a pettition if they agreed with Jim's views on nuclear testing being a bad idea, without mentioning that it was paid for and run by Jim's reelection campaign. Bad reporting KCPW.

Congress will be changed?

On the liberal blogs, folks are excited that for the first time in a long time, the AP poll concludes that Democrats are favored on the generic ballot by 5 points and the majority of Americans want Democrats to continue to control Congress after the 2010 elections. But the bigger news, the one that should keep Congresscritters of both parties up at night is this: "Only about one-third want their own lawmakers re-elected."

Usually, Americans take the irrational position that Congress sucks but that their Congresscritter is great. And then somehow these voters are shocked that the re-election rate of members of Congress as a whole are incredibly high:

(Copyright and credits to the Center for Responsive Politics)
As you can see, since the the rates if anything have been remarkably stable at a high level. Even when the Congress changed hands in 1994 and 2006 the reelect numbers were 90% and 94% respectively. The lowest percentage in recent years was in 1992, when there was redistricting and a similar "throw the bums out" mentality in the voting populous. And even then it was only 88%. OK so I used the House numbers for that, and if you look at the Senate, the numbers are much higher.

Why? Well you can't redistrict a state to make your state safe for your reelection. So if a vulnerable senator is up and the political winds are against him (and occationally now her), he (or she) will lose. There is no built-in safety net of the gerrymander.

So what does this rotten number mean? Again, let's use the years 1992, 1994, and 2006. 1992 is not fair because it was also a presidential year, which meant higher turn out. But 1994 and 2006 were big years for both parties where the public were fed up with Congress and took it out on the party in power and swept large numbers of new comers into Congress from the opposite party. Even then, looking at the graph, you wouldn't know it.

However, it is important to note that in all of the primaries this year thus far, the incumbents who were semi-seriously challenged (ala Claudia Wright against Rep. Jim Matheson and some dude against Rep. Larry Kissel) were forced into a primary against someone with no money. Those who were seriously challenged are gone. (see Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)) No incumbent that has been seriously challenged this year has withstood the heat. In Pennslvannia, Rep. Joe Sestak looks like he has a good shot at continuing that trend against Specter. In Arkansas, LG Bill Halter looks to have made the run off against Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Three straight "change" elections...and yet not much feels like it changed. Maybe if you believe what they tell you on talk radio you might think we are marching forwards a communist dictatorship, but that takes a lot of willful ignorance.

If you look at what Obama campaigned on, only a handful of items that he talked about have passed Congress. And only one big thing--the stimulus--passed that wasn't part of the conversation in 2008. The rest--immigration reform, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, Financial Regulation, Cap n' Trade--are either dead or on life support. Well that isn't fair. It looks like Financial Reform will pass, but it is unclear whether the bill will take a last minute diversion to dilution. Right now, the amendment process is making the bill better.

So even if Democrats lose control of the House and hang on to the Senate--what the pundits say will happen--don't expect Ronald Reagan's face to go up on Mount Rushmore any time soon or anything else that dramatic.

quote of the day

Today was the day in Utah when two long-time, public-popular incumbents of both political parties were rebuked by their parties delegates. Sen. Bob Bennett, as was expected, was drummed out of office, failing to make it past the second ballot. Rep. Jim Matheson, in a bit of a surprised, was forced into the first primary of his political career, which has spanned a decade.

"I get it," Matheson told the crowd, not long after dozens of them had chanted "Wright for Utah!" and hoisted his opponent's signs. "You're angry about some of my votes," he said, drawing some ironic applause. "But I'm a Democrat and I'm here to tell you I don't run from that label because it's in my blood."

Three little words that incumbents all around the country need to say and mean it...or they risk becoming the next Bob Bennett or Jim Matheson.

Hatch looking out of the poor mega banks

While his colleague is getting drummed out of office for voting for the TARP and co-sponsoring bills with Democrats, Sen. Orin Hatch is looking out for his constituents donors, the big banks.

"It isn't fair to everyone," Hatch, R-Utah, told Geithner in a Senate Finance Committee hearing.

That tax-writing committee has been considering an Obama administration proposal to assess a fee of 0.15 percent on the liabilities (other than deposits and certain required capital holdings) of financial institutions that have more than $50 billion in assets.

"Is it fair to apply this tax not only to companies that have repaid TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) with interest, but also to companies that did not take TARP money at all?" Hatch asked.

Yes it is fair. Because these mega financial institutions created many of the financial instruments that caused the financial disaster that we are still trying to recover from. I spent all of last year on a case against a mega bank for "loan" that they collateralized and sold to hedge funds because they systematically overleveraged the borrowers to make their fees. There have been other cases of other big banking institutions doing similarly destructive things.

In fact, a resent study reported that bankers destroy 7 times as much wealth as they create in the economy.

Hatch's other questions to Gietner were why don't you tax companies Republicans don't like and blame for the Great Recession--Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, GM, Chrysler, etc. This just reveals that Hatch appearant concerns about fairness are really about partisanship. Newsflash: McCain lost the 2008 election in a landslide, in part because he said "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

People are really angry about big banks, and rightfully so. Those institutions made stupid products and made everyone else pay for them while they walked away with big bonuses for their overpaid executives. It is only fair that big banks, which make our financial system inherantly unstable pay into a fund to protect us against future bailouts.

Perhaps such a law would just make every firm fiddle with their balance sheets so that they have 1 cent less that $80 billion in assets. Afterall, those big banks have plenty of experience with fudging balance sheets.

oops they did it again on purpose

Today in the mail, Ms. Oldenburg got this:

Through the power of technology, I have redacted our address and name. [here are the full contents from another otherwise identical mailer from Talking Points Memo]

Do you notice that the envelope says it is an "OFFICIAL DOCUMENT" and the paper inside, made visible via the enormous "window" says "Census Document Registered To: [name redacted]"? But guess what? This was not sent out by the U.S. Census Bureau, but the Republican National Committee. This is deceptive, which is why Congress passed a law making mailings that are designed to trick recipients into thinking they are from the Census illegal. The law's exact words however, only made it illegal to have the word "Census" placed on the envelope itself. So the RNC moved that information into the "window," and voila! legal again.

"I can't help it that the Democrats wrote a bad bill," [RNC Chairman Michael Steele] said. "The reality of it is we complied to what the law required and the mailer went out."

Well, not so fast. This perhaps technically legal mailer you see above pissed off not one but two House Republicans, and one of them goes by the name of Jason Chaffetz (UT-03).

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a co-sponsor of the legislation passed last month, told The PlumLine's Greg Sargent that the mailer is intended to "deceive people," and added that he and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) will send a letter to RNC chair Michael Steele urging him to put a stop to the missives.

"They're trying to be deceptive, and it outrages me," Chaffetz said. "The reason they're using the word census is they're trying to deceive people. I think that's wrong. Even though it's my own party I've got to call this out for what it is."

So the U.S. House passed another bill 416-0 closing the Michael Steele loophole. Of course, who knows when the U.S. Senate will get off its duff. It takes 60 votes for Harry Reid to tie his shoes you know.

Why would the RNC continue to make such mailers when they are obviously flouting the spirit of the law? Especially to the neighboring district of Rep. Chaffetz, one of two Republicans in the House to write Michael Steele a nasty-gram about this tactic?

[GOP Consultant Walter] Lukens estimated to TPMmuckraker that his firm had sent out 100 million such mailers over the last decade. He said his firm had come up with the original idea around 2000, and despite some initial concerns, the RNC had ultimately green-lighted the concept. "One of the things that the RNC is very good about is letting creative people do their thing."

The mailer's apparent high rate of return suggests why Michael Steele and co. may be unwilling to stop using it.

Apparently, if people knew who really sent the letter, they would throw it away much more often. I am sorry but if this was say a credit card company instead of a political party, we could all agree that this kind of crap should be outlawed. Good for Chaffetz for calling his party to the mat when they did a dumb thing.

Financial reform and Bob Bennett

If polls are to be believed, Mike Lee will make it out of the GOP convention, and Bob Bennett will not. As Romney's attorney and Hinkley Institute head Kirk Jowers points out, it is a really bad idea to have a process for determining who our next senator will likely (sorry Sam Granato, the number crunchers at 538.com say you have a 2% chance of winning even if Bennett is a goner) be via a few thousand state delegates that are FAR to to right of even GOP primary voters, let alone in the general election where he is still popular. Jowers point was that all voters, not these delegates, should be showered with attention and get to decide who our next senator will be.

As a registered Democrat, I don't get to vote on this until the general election, which is the Republican party's right, but I think is a bad idea in general. The Utah Democratic Party has open primaries (meaning anyone can vote) and it isn't that hard to become a delegate either.

If you think I am being partisan about this, keep in mind that most Utahns are not registered Republicans, even if they vote Republican overwhelmingly, they still like to think of themselves as independents (small i) who pick the person not the party. This is something Jim Matheson understands.

What does this all have to do with Financial Reform you ask? Well, Bennett is in hot water with the delegates, for among other things, voting for the TARP fund at the end of 2008. And because he is in hot water, he is not back in Washington voting on the Financial Reform bill, but instead campaigning back in Utah. Meanwhile, his other 39 Republican colleagues (and Ben nelson D-Berkshire Hathaway) voted twice to filibuster a bill that would impose the most regulation on the financial industry since the Great Depression. Now perhaps Sen. Bennett would also vote to filibuster. More maybe he would join the other 58 Senators (all Democrats) who want to be able to vote on the bill. Maybe Sen. Bennett has some good ideas that should go into the bill that would make it better policy wise.

Soon, the bill will come up for a vote with or without Bennett as there is too much political pressure not to pass something this year. Voters are mad at big banks. But before he had to watch his back, Bennett liked to constructively engage with liberals moderates and conservatives. Perhaps Mike Lee will, but he certainly will not have learned that lesson from his election, should it happen.

Is Carroon really going to find a soon-to-be-ex-GOPer for LG? Or just a dem from a rural, southern county/Washington Co.? Something to think about while waiting for the outcome of the GOP convention. If I were to bet, I would say Lee and Bennett make it out, but I hope it is Palin Jr.

Hatch does not heart downwinders

Sen. Tom Udall, a liberal Democrat from kitty-corner neighbor New Mexico, amoung others, has proposed a bill to triple compensation to downwinders in Utah other. Downwinders are those who got radiation simply because they lived in the wrong place, and were lied to by the federal government.

And Sen. Orrin Hatch opposes the bill.

"I fear it is overly broad and prohibitively expensive," he said, worrying that high costs might sink the program in budget battles and take current compensation programs with them. Hatch added, "I also believe it is important to continue to base any expansion of the program on sound science"

Sound science? Was he getting his talking points confused? That is the talking point against the Cap and Trade bill. It must be tough to keep all those scripts straight.

And while Sen. Udall's dad, fmr. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, represented many downwinders against the government, this isn't a partisan issue.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, added, "The victims of this testing have waited years for just compensation, and the cruel irony is that the federal government has postponed action for so long that many aren't living to see this bill passed."

In fact, this bill is conservative in nature in a way. The government should be held accountable for lying to the public and punished so harshly that it will be disincentive to take similar measures against the populuous.

Because they are still lying about Utahns' exposure to radiation from nuclear testing.

Earlier research by the Deseret News found secretive government maps of fallout that showed the radiation had hit most of Utah, even though just some southern counties were eligible for compensation. Maps showed that Salt Lake County and eastern Utah — which have been ineligible for compensation — sometimes were hit harder than southern Utah areas.

Sen. Hatch didn't mind spending billions and billions on an unnecessary war in Iraq, yet doesn't want his consituents to be justly compensated for getting cancer from the federal government.

Dear Mark Shurtleff,

If the NRA isn't joining in the Montana gun case, why do you think Utah has a chance of winning? Appearantly you must have not read those interstate commerce cases in law school. Or you just want to ignore them. Do you think the NRA will endorse you for Governor or Senator later because of this case? You know, the statement case that is slightly less stupid than the eminent domain case? What a race to the bottom. Was this your "deputy" John Swallow's idea? Please explain that and the Health Care lawsuit in terms of a court will actually do.

Thanks!

Hatch's activist judges

Sen. Hatch warns President Obama: you better not appoint a "liberal activist" to the Supreme Court, or what he will still vote against his nominee? How is this a real threat? Can he bring Sen. Brown or one of the Maine Senators with him?

I mean, I know that Sen. Hatch technically represents Utah and he used to Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and is still on the committee, but he isn't even ranking member anymore. The Republicans' choice for chairman is a guy who was denied a federal judgeship because he was too racist. So why does it matter was he says? I want to know if a Republican on the Judiciary COmmittee who might vote for Obama's pick says no, or a Republican not on the committee who makes noises about voting for the eventual nominee on the floor. That's news. Sen. Hatch is one of the most partisan guys in the Senate, and that is saying something. He knows how to ask softball questions when it is a Republican nominee and he thinks he knows how to ask tough questions when it is a Democratic nominee.

Appearantly, Conservative activists like Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts are OK to Sen. Hatch. Let's look at what an "Activist Judge" is supposed to mean: someone that disreggards public will and publicly elected officials policy decisions to substitute their ideological views in that place. So since both of these catholic men have made it to the high court, what have they done?

In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

• Ledbetter v. Goodyear, where the conservative faction read into the statute a time limitation to sue for sex discrimination, even if you don't learn that you got stiffed by your your employer until years afterwards.
• The Louisville and Seattle cases, where two school districts tired to progressively diversify their schools at the choice of their local communities, and Roberts et al overturned them
• Overturned decades and decades of precedent on arbortion rights to protect the health of the mother (including a case a few years earlier which nixed a nearly identical law), to dissregard the health of the mother.
• D.C. v. Heller, where the court decided, for the first time since the creation of the second amendment, that there is an individual right to bear arms. That's right, never before in 220 years had a court held that there was a right to bear arms, even if the public believed that it existed.
• Ricci where the Court made up a new standard to ensure a white guy won (and embarressed incoming Justice Sotomayor to the delight of Fox News) where the New Haven had remade a test after no minorities passed it.
• Citizens United v. F.E.C., wherein the Roberts court overturned 102 years of precedent to hold that those poor corporations shouldn't be constrained from advertising for and against elected officials. Because when Massy Coal CEO Don "mining accident" Blankenship wanted to avoid a multi-million judgment, and he bought himself a West Virginian Sumpreme Court Justice, that was a good thing for democracy.

I could go on, but you get the picture. The point is, the next time a conservative rattles on about "activist judges," you should say, "You mean Roberts and Alito?"

Sen. Chris "Kettle" Buttars

Default Governor Herbert vetoed a bill that would have made "Cool Keeper" Program--where a little device shuts down some A/C units at peak hours to reduce the strain on the grid--an opt out. Herbert claimed that he cares about the environment and has signed up for Cool Keeper himself, but he doesn't think the state should be "forcing" people to join the program. I guess he didn't read that "opt-out" part. But the part that made me laugh out loud at work was this:

"I don't know how much further you can let government in the house," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said while the Senate was debating the bill. "I find it offensive that for 25 bucks you're going to allow the government to come into my house and tell me when my thermostat is on or off."

Seriously, Buttars? Of all state senators to complain about government intrusion into the home!

Isn't he the same guy that wants the government not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Who uses his lofty seat as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to compare what gay couples do in the privacy of their own homes to be akin to bestiality? And compared homosexuality to alcoholism? Who sought to ban gay-straight alliances in high schools? I guess he is ok with the government invading your home and your personal life, as long as it is doing something that Sen. Buttars agrees with.

If I had to choose between having the government force me to turn off my A/C for 15 minutes a day in the summer (which it wasn't doing to do anyway) or to prevent me from marrying the person I love (I already married my wife, but stick with me here), I would pick 15 minutes of suffering heat in the summer rather than a lifetime of wishing my love could be recognized in the state of my choosing. I have this crazy belief that the government should never invade the home unless it has, a really good reason, let's call it probable cause. And that invasion should be limited to that probable cause and a one time deal, with independent judicial oversight. Definitely not the oversight of Chris Buttars.

painted into a corner

Of all of the moves that the Obama Administration wishes it could do over on health care, the timing of the announcement of Scott Matheson, Jr. to fill Judge Michael McConnell's seat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has to be one of the dumbest.

Matheson had been a shoe in for the spot for months and months. I had heard rumors that Matheson had support from HHS Sec. Sebelius and DHS Sec. Napolitano last fall. Scott were friends with them from his days on the 2004 campaign trail and from his days working for Common Cause. Not to mention that Matheson is literally a Rhodes Scholar, a brilliant legal theorist, and imminently qualified. If Judge McConnell could have, he would have supported Matheson for the spot on the bench too--McConnell is also a law professor at the University of Utah--even though they are ideologically miles apart.

Heck, once he was announced, the entire Utah delegation either wholeheartedly supported him (including noted hippies Sen. Hatch and Rep. Cheffetz) or didn't stand in the way. Scott Matheson is going to Judge Matheson, I have no doubt.

But by announcing Scott Matheson's appointment on March 3, after it became clear that Pelosi needed to flip votes to pass the Senate version of the Health Care bill, Obama cost themselves a vote they might have been able to get.

As soon as Scott Matheson was announced, the right wing began to baselessly allege that President Obama was selling the Judgeship for Rep. Jim Matheson's, Scott's brother, vote.

If Jim were to vote for the health care bill, those hacks' smears would be "confirmed." If Jim voted against the health care bill, his union allies might abandon him (like they are abandoning Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)).

In the end, it looks like Speaker Pelosi and her whips (which now includes Dennis Kucinich on this issue thanks to Obama's trip to his district) will reach the magic number 216 they need to pass the Senate bill with the negotiated amendments on Sunday without Matheson's vote.

Still, it goes to show that Obama's judicial pick team has been WAY too slow in clearing candidates for openings. This is especially true when you consider that during the period when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, they should have just piled on the judicial nominee votes. Now, Judges could be filibustered by the Republicans (even though they considered even suggesting such a thing for Bush's nominees to be the end of humanity).