feeling down and out of it

i have not written in a long time for several reasons: first, I had a ton of work to do in October and early November, and second, I felt helpless about what was happening. I was supposed to have volunteered by legal services to the Corroon campaign, but that fell through due to conflicts. I had a big oral argument on Election Day and no real spare time to donate in the meantime. So I was reduced to watching from the side lines and did not like what I saw happening and what I saw coming. But since I was doing nothing about it, it did not seem appropriate that I complain. To avoid the crushing feeling to come, I have pretended not to care.

But I cannot pretend any longer. This planet has a number of serious problems that urgently need addressing. And people are too interested in winning the next election and some ideology to try to fix things. Take Obama trip to Asia for example. Clowns like Rep. Michalle Bachman use obviously false internet rumors about the cost of the president's trip to India to oppose it. Then the Chinese use the Fed's belated helicopter drop ("quantitative easing") to distract everyone from their currency manipulation.

Meanwhile, back home, Washington wants to talk about "defecit reducion" under the assumption that all 310 million Americans are like their friends at cocktail parties rather than you know, people that have to physically work to get paid. Proposd staff of new members of Congress are happy to call the outgoing speaker "garbage" and everyone seems happy that nothing of substance will get done for two years. Perhaps this new wrecking crew will realize that they need to try to fix things, and not just break stuff. But I am not going to hold by breath for two years. And neither should you.

Remember he is your father (figure)

Usually, there is little if any news that comes out the semi-annual LDS General Conference, big confab of LDS leaders speaking to the faithful on various topics. For example, I saw a headline from this year that said that the head of the Church, President "Monson urges Mormons to serve missions". That's news? How about "Pope Still Catholic"?

Also not surpassing was that some old grumpy white dude got up talked about the gays and gay marriage, and that grumpy white dude was Boyd K. Packer. What was surprising what this line, which I suppose constituted his reasoning behind his disbelief that gay people are born gay and do not choose to be gay. Sorry Packman, gay folks did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be six foot three, left handed and have red hair. Well, I suppose I chose to drink all that milk as a kid.

Speaking to a global audience of millions of Latter-day Saints on Sunday, Packer condemned sexual relationships outside of the procreative ones of husband and wife as not natural.

“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” said Packer, president of the LDS Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

Why did God make us different from each other, why aren't we all the same? Why would he do that to anyone, remember he is your father. And if it is pre-set, as Parker said, how can it be unnatural? Isn't "unnatural" code for "something that gives Boyd Packer the willies"? I believe we are different because different is beautiful what makes us human. Sadly, hating others because they are different than us seems also to be a defining human trait as well. Just ask Boyd Packer.

tightening?

Could there be a race on for Utah's govenor's mansion? What other reason could Herbert be reacting the way he is to Corrroon? If I was ahead by 21 points and a Republican in Utah, I would be ignoring Corroon and his allegations, even if they weren't true and there was no smoking gun out there. But Herbert is trotting out his LG and running campaign ads with his hard earned bribes...I mean campaign contributions, excuse my manners.

But if the race were closer or closing, this whole corruption angle would need to be nipped in the bud.

Disgraceful

The last refuge of candidates in Utah is to claim that's their opponent is not LDS, or worse still, a non-active member. And ex-staffer of Bob Bennnett's claims to have taken it upon himself to send out a mailer to GOP delegates that had imaginary pictures of one candidate standing in front of the Salt Lake Temple and one the US Capitol. And it backfired horribly. I hope the same happens to Gary Herbert.

Gov. Gary Herbert warned Thursday that the education plan put forward by his opponent, Democrat Peter Corroon, would likely mean the elimination of LDS seminary courses. Corroon’s proposal, Herbert said, would require an additional math course and science course for graduation, meaning students could take two fewer elective courses. “That means some arts and probably some seminary time,” Herbert said during his monthly news conference at KUED. “I don’t know if everyone thinks that will be a good idea to give up arts and seminary release time in order to have this more” rigorous schedule.

The obvious subtext of this comment has nothing to do with the competing education plans and everyone to do with religion and othering Corroon. The message here is clear: that Catholic Corroon is fixing to take away your LDS seminary classes, because he hates us Mormons. Herbert really should be ashamed of himself. Can his ideas really not compete with Corroon's that he has to stoop to poorly done whistle dog politics?

He was Corroon's response, which I wish had called out Herbert on this crap:

“There’s plenty of time during the day to take electives and plenty of time during the day to take seminary,” Corroon said. “I think the governor is trying to deflect attention from the fact our graduation rates are starting to fall, that our school system is not funded adequately and is starting to suffer because of it.” ... Asked if he thought Herbert was trying to use religion as a campaign issue, Corroon said he “would hope the governor is not trying to use the religion … card to divide people.”

On the Prop 8 case

It took me a few days to get through the 130-something page opinion for Perry v. Schwarzenegger the so-called "Prop 8 case," but now that I had, I wanted to share some thoughts I had about it with you, my ever faithful readers. Several things jumped out at me.

First, Judge Vaughan Walker put over 100 pages worth of findings of fact in the opinion, which are entitled to substantial deference on appeal. Reading those findings, and opinion as a whole, you can tell it is written for Justice Anthony Kennedy, the proverbial 5th vote on the US Supreme Court who has been favorable to gay-rights plaintiffs in the past. But more on that later. The other thing that is striking about the facts, other than their shear volume and construction, is that the proponents of Prop 8 did a very poor job of presenting their case relative to those in favor of gay rights.

Which brings me to my second observation: good lawyers make a big difference. David Boies is particular is a fabulous trial attorney, who was able to really turn the witnesses for the proponents of Prop 8 into his witnesses. Of course, Ted Olsen is hardly a slouch either: his closing argument was as masterful as Boies' cross-examinations. Yet the other side had virtually no lay or expert witnesses to testify as to what purpose California has in enacting this constitutional amendment other than dislike of homosexuality and homosexuals. This case to me was like the Kitzmiller case (the so-called evolution case) all over again. You had a federal judge appointed by a conservative president: Judge Jones in Kitzmiller was recommended by evolution skeptic Sen. Santorum and appointed by George W. Bush during a GOP controlled Senate. Just as Judge Vaughan was appointed by President George HW Bush over the protests of gay-rights members of congress Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Pelosi. But both were confined by the law to observe that the social conservatives had failed to present any credible experts or lay witnesses that there was a legitimate secular purpose behind what they did.

This leads me to ask the question: did the defendants in Kitzmiller and Perry lose because they were outgunned by better attorneys and experts? Or is there simply no evidence out there that would support the case that would need to be made to uphold the Dover School District's decision in Kitzmiller and/or Californian's votes in Perry? Where are the studies showing that gay marriages cause bad things (higher divorce rates, more out-of-wedlock births, lower overall marriage rate, lower adoption rates, economic costs to the government, worse outcomes for children) to happen? Where are the peer-reviewed studies to show that evolution is flawed or that creationism Intelligent Design is science?

Social Conservatives better hurry and find some better experts, better attorneys, and better evidence to bring a companion case to Perry quickly. The evidence is stacked very high in favor of overturning state bans on gay marriage thanks to the legal dream team. Even if Judge Walker was wrong to find that the Prop 8 suporters' experts shouldn't have been tossed out, it is much harder for appellate judges to say that Judge Walker was wrong to view the weight of the evidence was in the plaintiffs' favor and that their experts were more credible than the proponents. Even if Judge Walker sexual orientation caused him to rule the way he did, which there is no proof of, the proponents did not seek to have him recused, so is alleged bias is not reviewable. Judge Walker found that the proponents did not even provide a rational basis for Prop 8, the lowest possible standard for 14th Amendment rights.

Given Lawrence v. Texas (finding sodomy laws unconstitutional) and Romer v. Evans (finding state constitutional amendment prohibiting amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize homosexual citizens as a Protected class unconstitutional), the argument that gays aren't a class of people whose rights should be examined under the 14th Amendment is an argument that won't fly. And the author of those two opinions? Justice Kennedy. Judge Walker's opinion addresses the Justice Scalia's out there who say that there is no right to gay marriage in the text of the constitution, pointing out that the high court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental right, and combined with the finding that domestic partnership laws are second-class quasi-marriages designed just for gay folks in mind, the step to saying gays and lesbians should be able to receive marriage licenses from the state is not a giant leap.

When I was working for a Massachusetts State Representative when Goodridge v. DPH came out on the heals of Lawrence, I too thought "what's the big deal" about gay marriage and wondered by civil unions didn't cut it. But then I began to read the letters from couples who wanted to marry that came pouring into the office (along with the hate mail), a listened to openly gay legislators discuss what it was like when they wanted to visit the child that they were raising with their partner at the hospital, or make medical decisions, or simply fill out forms. There are over a thousand federal benefits that I received when I married my high-school sweetheart. And there were untold social benefits of being able to say that she was "my wife" is much more socially acceptable and understandable public level of commitment than having to say she is "the girl that I knew I wanted to spend the rest of my life with since I was 18."

The world didn't end after the Massachusetts legislature failed to amend the state constitution to overturn Goodridge. In fact, studies presented in Perry showed that gay marriage had no effect on the institution of marriage: the divorce rates were the same the years leading up to Goodridge as they were in the years that followed.

Marriage is a grand enough institution with physical (married people live longer on average), psychological (better mental health), financial (lower taxes and fees, economies of scale, division of labor, average high incomes) and social (better outcome for children in married households on average) benefits that people of all sexual orientations should be able to join.

invitations

Forget the Chelsea Clinton Wedding, I wish I had been invited to Lisa's:


Oh and I can't say D'Oh, otherwise I would get sued by Pillsbury.

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.