Sunday, July 31, 2011

City's DA's Need Corrupt Machine Dems Like Lopez to Get Re-Elected

What on earth was Brooklyn DA Charles “Joe” Hynes thinking by appearing at Assemblyman Vito Lopez’s annual Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Center picnic this month — and vouching for the pol’s “ethical” bona fides? - When he is under federal investigation. All three DA up for re-election this year face have the backing of party bosses and face little if any opposition in the general. None of them have brought conducted any corruption cases. DA Brown has seen the fed put in jail two queens assemblyman and watch from afar a major ongoing investigation which will likely put others in jail. DA Hynes put former boss Norman in jail after he ran a candidate against him The DA & the boss(NYP)
Norman's Successor Facing Own Scandal (NYP, November 25, 2005)
Just one month after replacing scandal-plagued pol Clarence Norman as Brooklyn Democratic Party boss, Assemblyman Vito Lopez appears headed for his own tub of legal hot water. Three activists have filed a complaint with the Brooklyn DA, alleging Lopez used a fake address on his voter-registration form and doesn't live in his Brooklyn district. Instead, say the activists, Lopez for years has shacked up in a Queens condo owned by his Former Brooklyn Democratic party bossgirlfriend, Planning Commissioner Angela. Clarence Norman (above) was indicted Battaglia, who also happens to be executive for four offenses. director of a housing nonprofit Lopez founded. Vito Lopez's voting history at VOTING HISTORY According to the BOE at 64 CONSELYEA STREET 1 FL.BROOKLYN, NY 11211

4444
PRIMARY ELECTION 2002: VOTED
GENERAL ELECTION 2002: VOTED
PRIMARY ELECTION 2001: VOTED
GENERAL ELECTION 2001: VOTED
PRIMARY ELECTION 2000: VOTED
GENERAL ELECTION 2000: VOTED
PRIMARY ELECTION 1997: VOTED
GENERAL ELECTION 1997: VOTED
PRIMARY ELECTION 1996: VOTED
GENERAL ELECTION 1996: VOTED



Debt Ceiling Deal Reached To Avert Default

Debt Ceiling Deal

AP/The Huffington Post First Posted: 7/31/11 08:38 PM ET Updated: 7/31/11 09:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders reached historic agreement Sunday night on a compromise to permit vital U.S. borrowing by the Treasury in exchange for more than $2 trillion in long-term spending cuts.

Officials said Republican Speaker John Boehner telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck.

Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said that both his party and opposition Republicans gave more ground than they wanted to. He said it'll take members of both political parties to pass the measure.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the pact "will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending" and he assured the markets that a first-ever default on U.S. obligations won't occur.

Both the leaders said they will brief their colleagues tomorrow on the details of the agreement.

Check back here for the latest developments.

live blog

Oldest Newest
Today 11:19 PM GOP Senator Threatens To Filibuster Deal

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told CNN on Sunday night that he intends to filibuster the agreement reached between the White House and top congressional lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling.

Today 10:52 PM Dem Source: The Deal Came Down To Defense Cuts

The deal to raise the debt cap nearly came apart over defense spending cuts, but Republicans relented at the last minute.

Here's how a Senate leadership aide laid it out:

One of the final sticking points this evening was the issue of how to ensure the domestic discretionary spending cuts in FY12 and FY13 would be spread out across both defense and non-defense programs.

House Republicans started out insisting on a “freeze” of defense spending so that the entirety of the reductions would fall on the non-defense side. This would have imposed a disproportionate share of the burden on important domestic programs such as education and medical research. Democrats insisted on imposing a “firewall” that would ensure that any attempts to increase defense spending could not be done at the expense of domestic discretionary programs.

House Republicans balked at the firewall idea when it was first proposed by Senate Democratic leadership staff and the majority staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee almost two weeks ago. In response, Senate Democrats offered a compromise: if House Republicans would accept the firewall in concept, Senate Democrats would allow for other forms of security-related spending (State Department/Foreign Operations, Homeland Security, Military Construction/Veterans Affairs) to be grouped together on one side of the firewall along with Pentagon funding. As part of this condition, the total annual reduction in spending would be split evenly between the security side of the firewall and the non-security side of the firewall.

This proposal was at first accepted by Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office, but then later rejected. In the end, in a decision that paved the way for a deal with the Obama administration and Senate Democrats, the Speaker’s office returned to the same firewall compromise that House Republicans had earlier rejected.

As a result, out of the $7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts taking effect in FY12, at least half will come from “security”-side funding. For FY13, roughly half of the $3 trillion in cuts will come from “security”-side funding.

Today 10:38 PM Debt Ceiling Deal That Cuts Trillions, Creates 'Super Congress' Announced By Party Leaders

HuffPost's Michael McAuliff, Sam Stein and Elise Foley report:

Congressional leaders and President Obama on Sunday night announced they've cut a deal to avert a historic U.S. default, saying they have assembled a framework that cuts some spending immediately and uses a "super Congress" to slash more in the future.

The deal calls for a first round of cuts that would total $917 billion over 10 years and allows the president to hike the debt cap -- now at $14.3 trillion -- by $900 billion, according to a presentation that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made to his members. Democrats reported those first cuts at a figure closer to $1 trillion.

The federal government could begin to default on its obligations on Aug. 2 if the measure is not passed.

The next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called super Congress would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

Click here to read more.

Today 10:16 PM Pelosi Does Not Promise Support

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the most negative of the Congressional leaders who weighed in on the deal, and notably did not promise to support it.

"We all agree that our nation cannot default on our obligations and that we must honor our nation's commitments to our seniors, and our men and women in the military," she said in a statement. "I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my Caucus to see what level of support we can provide."

-- Michael McAuliff

Today 9:43 PM White House Fact Sheet Lays Out Deal Specifics

A White House fact sheet distributed to reporters shortly after the president spoke laid down the specific elements of Sunday night's deal to raise the debt ceiling:

  • The president will be authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for another increase until 2013.
  • The first tranche of cuts will come in at nearly $1 trillion. That includes savings of $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget, which will be trimmed based off a review of overall U.S. national security policy.
  • A bipartisan committee with enhanced procedural authority will be responsible for pinpointing $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction from both entitlements and tax reform, as well as other spending programs.
  • The committee will have to report out legislation by November 23, 2011.
  • Congress will be required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.
  • The trigger mechanism -- should the committee's recommendations not be acted upon -- will be mandatory spending cuts. Those cuts, which will begin in January 2013, will be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts.

The fact sheet goes on to note that there is another enforcement mechanism that the president possesses.

"The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."

-- Sam Stein

Today 9:39 PM Cleaver: 'If I Were A Republican, I Would Be Dancing In The Streets'

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, who earlier in the day called the emerging debt ceiling deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich," stood by his criticism in an interview with MSNBC following Obama's announcement of the deal.

"We lost this early on," Cleaver said. "I came back to Washington at the beginning of the year thinking we were going to create jobs, and we allowed the national discourse to change from jobs to the debt, and so right now there's very little we can do."

"If I were a Republican, I would be dancing in the streets," he said. "I don't have any idea what the Republicans wanted that they didn't get. And I can't tell you anything that Democrats got out of this deal, except that we're probably going to prevent the nation from crashing."

Today 9:26 PM Biden: 'Compromise Makes A Comback'
@ VP : I'm proud of the President. Persistence. Compromise makes a comeback.—VP
Today 9:14 PM Boehner To GOP Conference: 'This Isn’t The Greatest Deal In The World'

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke with the GOP conference on Sunday evening, telling them, "there’s no agreement until we’ve talked to you."

He was tepidly positive on the deal, saying it is a victory for the small government principles of the party despite being less than ideal.

“Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world," he said, according to excerpts of the call provided to press by Boehner's office. "But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town."

Boehner painted the deal as victory for the Republican party because it did not include revenues, which Democrats have long called for as part of a final deal.

"There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down."

Boehner's office circulated a Powerpoint presentation called a "two-step process to hold President Obama accountable" on Sunday evening that laid out the deal in broad strokes. The presentation touts the absence of tax hikes in the final deal.

Because the "super Congress" will make decisions based on current law, it will be effectively "impossible for Joint Committee to increase taxes," according to the presentation.

View the full Powerpoint presentation here.

-- Elise Foley

Today 8:52 PM Leaders Announce Deal Is In Place

President Obama and leaders of the Senate say they've cut a deal to head off a historic American default.

"Leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on the Senate floor Sunday night.

"At this point I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is now a framework to review that will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

"We can assure the American people tonight that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations," McConnell said.

The were followed quickly by President Obama, who declared that Congress should pass the compromise.

House Speaker John Boehner was making that case to his members even as the other leaders spoke.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was set to talk to her caucus in the morning.

The multiple statement suggested that the deal has enough support in the middle to succeed, but lawmakers on each side could balk at the plan.

"To pass this settlement, we’ll need the support of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. There is no way either party – in either chamber – can do this alone," said Reid.

"I know this agreement won’t make every Republican happy. It certainly won’t make every Democrat happy, either," Reid added. "Both parties gave more ground than they wanted to. And neither side got as much as it had hoped."

-- Mike McAuliff

President Obama announced Sunday night that Congress and the White House had reached agreement on a deal to raise the debt ceiling, which would cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years and create a bipartisan committee to propose further cuts by November.

"Is this the deal I would have preferred? No," the president said. "I believe we could have made the tough choices required on entitlement reform and tax reform right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process." But the agreement does ensure that the U.S. will not default on its debt obligations, the president announced.

"This has been messy, it's taken far too long," the president continued. "Nevertheless, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise, and I want to thank them for that."

"We're not done yet," Obama said. "I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal."

Rupert Murdoch given $27M no-bid contract from state Department of Education

Sunday, July 31st 2011, 4:00 AM

News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch nabbed a $27 million DOE contract without a public bidding process, the News has learned.
Louis Lanzano/AP
News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch nabbed a $27 million DOE contract without a public bidding process, the News has learned.

More than a dozen private firms wanted to work on a project like the one the state Education Department is set to award to a Rupert Murdoch-owned company in a $27 million no-bid contract.

Agency officials have cited "an extremely challenging time line" in their decision to partner with News Corp. subsidiary Wireless Generation to build a data system of student test scores and other information.

The Daily News has learned that the agency has explored the project for at least two years - proof, critics say, state officials had ample time to competitively bid out the contract and still meet a fall 2012 deadline for a federal Race to the Top grant.

"It raises all kinds of questions," said Susan Lerner, executive director of good government group Common Cause New York. "There appears to be time in this process to go through a much more open-bidding process to ensure that the public is getting the best vendor at the best price."

The News has also learned that Wireless Generation paid as much as $5,000 a month to lobbying firms to advocate for the contract and Race to the Top funds with state officials.

A time line resulting in the no-bid contract shows that:

  • In June 2009, the state put out a formal request for information about the feasibility of the project. Three weeks later, it received responses from 17 vendors, including Wireless Generation.

    State Education Department officials described the project at the time as more complex than the work ultimately awarded to Wireless Generation.

    Agency spokesman Tom Dunn said the state put out a request "focused on a different project." The Wireless Generation "project fulfills only a portion of the scope of" what the state originally asked contractors for, he added.

    Still, he acknowledged the results of the formal request process "provided a useful groundwork for developing our Race to the Top proposal."

  • By June 2010, the project was revised in time for the state's second Race to the Top bid, agency officials said, but the Education Department did not solicit another round of bids or new information from the 16 other potential contractors.

  • In August 2010, the state was named a winner in Race to the Top, netting nearly $700 million.

  • Starting in September 2010, Wireless Generation paid as much as $5,000 a month to lobbying firm Public Strategies to gain "agency support" for a no-bid contract, records show.

    Dunn said the Education Department was not aware of any "lobbying."

  • In December 2010, the state Education Department began work with Wireless Generation on preparing the no-bid contract, Dunn said.

    A month earlier, Joel Klein had announced he was stepping down as the city schools chancellor to join News Corp., overseeing its budding education division.

  • Since December, no work has been done as Wireless Generation waits for a final signoff from the state.

    The state controller's office is weighing whether to approve the contract.

    Wireless Generation directed questions about the contracting process to the state.

    "It was a state decision to give Wireless Generation a sole-source contract," said Joan Lebow, a vice president for the firm.

    "They chose a vendor known for its quality in the education marketplace nationwide."

    rmonahan@nydailynews.com

  • Rupert Murdoch given $27M no-bid contract from state Department of Education

    Sunday, July 31st 2011, 4:00 AM

    News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch nabbed a $27 million DOE contract without a public bidding process, the News has learned.
    Louis Lanzano/AP
    News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch nabbed a $27 million DOE contract without a public bidding process, the News has learned.

    More than a dozen private firms wanted to work on a project like the one the state Education Department is set to award to a Rupert Murdoch-owned company in a $27 million no-bid contract.

    Agency officials have cited "an extremely challenging time line" in their decision to partner with News Corp. subsidiary Wireless Generation to build a data system of student test scores and other information.

    The Daily News has learned that the agency has explored the project for at least two years - proof, critics say, state officials had ample time to competitively bid out the contract and still meet a fall 2012 deadline for a federal Race to the Top grant.

    "It raises all kinds of questions," said Susan Lerner, executive director of good government group Common Cause New York. "There appears to be time in this process to go through a much more open-bidding process to ensure that the public is getting the best vendor at the best price."

    The News has also learned that Wireless Generation paid as much as $5,000 a month to lobbying firms to advocate for the contract and Race to the Top funds with state officials.

    A time line resulting in the no-bid contract shows that:

  • In June 2009, the state put out a formal request for information about the feasibility of the project. Three weeks later, it received responses from 17 vendors, including Wireless Generation.

    State Education Department officials described the project at the time as more complex than the work ultimately awarded to Wireless Generation.

    Agency spokesman Tom Dunn said the state put out a request "focused on a different project." The Wireless Generation "project fulfills only a portion of the scope of" what the state originally asked contractors for, he added.

    Still, he acknowledged the results of the formal request process "provided a useful groundwork for developing our Race to the Top proposal."

  • By June 2010, the project was revised in time for the state's second Race to the Top bid, agency officials said, but the Education Department did not solicit another round of bids or new information from the 16 other potential contractors.

  • In August 2010, the state was named a winner in Race to the Top, netting nearly $700 million.

  • Starting in September 2010, Wireless Generation paid as much as $5,000 a month to lobbying firm Public Strategies to gain "agency support" for a no-bid contract, records show.

    Dunn said the Education Department was not aware of any "lobbying."

  • In December 2010, the state Education Department began work with Wireless Generation on preparing the no-bid contract, Dunn said.

    A month earlier, Joel Klein had announced he was stepping down as the city schools chancellor to join News Corp., overseeing its budding education division.

  • Since December, no work has been done as Wireless Generation waits for a final signoff from the state.

    The state controller's office is weighing whether to approve the contract.

    Wireless Generation directed questions about the contracting process to the state.

    "It was a state decision to give Wireless Generation a sole-source contract," said Joan Lebow, a vice president for the firm.

    "They chose a vendor known for its quality in the education marketplace nationwide."

    rmonahan@nydailynews.com

  • Jon Stewart Takes On Obama's Debt Ceiling Address: 'Did The President Just Quit?' (VIDEO)

    The Huffington Post

    As the Aug. 2 deadline for raising the nation's debt ceiling approaches, Jon Stewart continues to take note of the ridiculous back-and-forth between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress. On Tuesday night's "Daily Show," Stewart focused on Obama's Monday night address and how it's starting to seem like the President is giving up.

    First, Obama warned in his speech about potentially serious damage to our economy if the debt ceiling is not raised, but Stewart felt the message was undercut slightly by the "golden-chaired red carpet" room (or the "I killed bin Laden room" as it's known) in which he was giving the speech:

    "Isn't there any way to do the 'tighten your belt' speech from a room that doesn't look like the foyer of the Vatican?"

    Visuals aside, the part of the President's speech that stuck out the most to Stewart was the part where he called on Americans for help. Hearing Obama's explanation of the Republican's "cuts-only approach" where the super rich stay super rich, as well as his argument that hedge fund managers shouldn't pay less taxes than their secretaries, Stewart became filled with a Communistic spirit, grabbed a hammer and sickle, and praised the President for addressing our "grotesque income and wealth disparity."

    "What is our mission, comrade?!" Stewart got excited before finding out what Obama was really asking Americans to do: call Congress and tell them to vote for raising the debt ceiling. Stewart was amazed:

    "That's your idea, call your congressman? Did the President just quit?"

    Watch the full segment below to hear how Obama's call for action sounds just like your mother trying to get your father out of the bathroom, and see the second video to hear what Stewart thought of John Boehner's debt speech from the same night.

    WATCH:

    Saturday, July 30, 2011

    Losing $30M in annual fees shows city whiffed big-time on new Yankee Stadium, Citi Field

    Juan Gonzalez

    Friday, July 29th 2011, 4:00 AM

    Photos by Mark Bonifacio/News

    If you want to know why more than 450 city park workers are about to be laid off or why the Parks Department has imposed outrageous fee increases, just take a look at the new Mets and Yankees ballparks (above).

    Deals the Bloomberg administration negotiated in 2006 have stripped some $30 million in annual revenue the Parks Department once generated from Shea Stadium and the old Yankee Stadium.

    This is not something City Hall wants you to know. Parks officials only confirmed the revenue loss after the Daily News asked why budget documents showed a dramatic drop in the agency's franchise income since 2008.

    At first glance, that would seem impossible.

    Everyone knows private money-making operations have exploded in our parks under Bloomberg. Fancy new restaurants, food kiosks, green grocers, bike rental and private sporting concessions - you name it.

    So how could total income from all this business activity be falling?

    Well, it turns out that Shea and the old Yankee Stadium - both of which sat on park land, and were owned by the city - were the Parks Department's biggest revenue generators.

    Under the old Yankee Stadium deal, the city was assured a percentage of gate receipts, a percentage of food sales, even a percentage of the team's cable revenue.

    Because of that, the old stadium produced as much as $15 million a year for Parks - even after deducting costs for stadium upkeep.

    Likewise, the Shea Stadium deal generated as much as $9 million annually for the city.

    As recently as 2008, the two ballparks represented nearly half of the $51 million in concessions revenue generated by the entire Parks system.

    On top of that, the city was taking in an additional $6 million annually from parking fees at Shea and the old Yankee Stadium.

    Once the new ballparks opened, all that revenue disappeared - even the parking money.

    Today, the Mets keep all their parking revenue. Meanwhile, the Yankee Stadium garages, run by an independent firm, are nearly bankrupt and may never produce the $3 million annually they agreed to provide the city.

    This loss of $30 million each and every year is a hidden cost to taxpayers from the new ballparks.

    Parks officials insist there's no real problem.

    "The loss of revenue from Yankee and Shea Stadiums has no direct impact on the Parks Department's budget as the revenue was directed to the city's general fund and does not affect the agency's operations," spokesman Phil Abramson said.

    That is pure nonsense. Bloomberg's planned budget reductions for the Parks Department this year specifically said that any increase in fees to the public would help prevent layoffs and other drastic cuts.

    The result was a doubling of fees for tennis permits - from $100 to $200. Adult memberships to recreation centers went from $50 to $100, and from $75 to $150 if the center has a pool.

    Even fees for adult leagues to use ballfields increased by 60%.

    In other words, the Mets and Yankees save millions and the rest of us make it up with huge fee hikes.

    "The elected officials who voted for this welfare for rich professional teams should be ashamed of themselves," said Geoffrey Croft, director of New York City Park Advocates.

    jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

    The debt ceiling solution that Obama dares not mention -- yet

    War Room

    The debt ceiling solution that Obama dares not mention -- yet
    C-SPAN screen shot
    President Obama on Friday.

    Maybe President Obama went to sleep early and missed the insanity that played out on Capitol Hill on Thursday night. That's one way to make sense of the remarks he made to the press at the White House late Friday morning.

    Hours after House GOP leaders were forced to put off a vote on their own debt ceiling bill because it still wasn't pure enough for the true believers in their conference, Obama issued yet another call for Congress to enact a bipartisan plan to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling before next Tuesday.

    "There are multiple ways to solve this problem," the president said, adding that "this is not a situation where the two parties are miles apart."

    From a rational standpoint, he's right. The main difference between the plan that Harry Reid has introduced in the Senate (and that Obama has endorsed) and the one that the House GOP wanted to pass on Thursday night is over duration. The Democratic plan would put off the next extension showdown until after the November 2012 election; the GOP plan would force another one a few months from now. Given the potentially catastrophic effects of a default, it shouldn't be too hard to bridge this divide.

    But this impasse really has nothing to do with rational thinking. It is about a band of GOP House members who embody their party base's knee-jerk resistance to and resentment of Obama -- and that base's conviction that most of America's problems stem from the willingness of recent Republican leaders to compromise too easily. And it's about a Republican House speaker, John Boehner, who is essentially powerless to persuade them to give an inch -- and who flirts with a coup by even talking about compromise.

    So it really doesn't matter that, in practical policy terms, the two parties aren't miles apart. The bottom line is that the House is controlled by Republicans who believe that anything short of their own "Cut, Cap and Balance" program -- a draconian measure that has zero chance of ever being enacted as long as Democrats control the Senate and/or the White House -- is a sellout. In fact, the word is that House GOP leaders, in order to finally unify their conference, are now making their plan even more conservative, by making any further extension of the debt ceiling after this contingent on a Balanced Budget Amendment clearing both the House and the Senate.

    If this is the direction the House GOP is now going, it's really impossible to imagine a bipartisan solution being forged. Let's say Boehner adds a BBA provision and is finally able to clear his bill through the House. Then what? The Senate was already dead set against his plan because of its call for a short-term extension. Now that same plan would condition a short-term extension on congressional approval of a constitutional amendment that has no chance of securing the super-majorities it would need in either chamber?

    So, obviously, the House plan would not make it through the Senate. But let's say Majority Leader Reid and his fellow Democrats amend the Boehner plan, in a way that strips out the BBA language and provides for a longer-term extension. Heck, let's go crazy and say Reid does this with support from Republicans in the Senate, some of whom seem just as fed up as Democrats with all of this nonsense. But even this doesn't get us anywhere, because the amended version would then go back to the House. And if the House GOP wasn't prepared to accept Boehner's plan on Thursday night, God only knows what they'd make of the Senate's offer. Sure, Boehner could potentially go around the true believers and rely on Democratic votes to pass it -- then immediately face that coup he's been trying to avoid since he became speaker.

    Obama didn't dare mention it Friday morning, but the "constitutional option" is now looming larger than ever. The idea is that Obama, it it comes to it, can invoke the 14th Amendment, which requires that the United States honor its debt, and simply ignore the debt ceiling. Obviously, doing so would come with all sorts of unpredictable legal, constitutional and political ramifications. And, as Andrew Leonard pointed out earlier this week, even doing this might not be enough to prevent a credit downgrade.

    But the case for trying is getting stronger, if only because the prospect of a bipartisan compromise before Tuesday is dimmer than ever. Two of the top three Democrats in the House -- Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Caucus Chairman James Clyburn -- have now both suggested that Obama at least consider it, if need be. So has Bill Clinton. And given that any plan that could even possibly get through Congress will feature spending cuts that could make the stalled economy even worse, there's a solid case that the 14th Amendment is worth invoking simply to spare the country more pain.

    It's understandable why Obama is trying to play the Great Conciliator. To judge from polls, he's come off better than any of the other major D.C. players during this fight, although that's hardly saying much. But if this weekend comes and goes and the prospect of a compromise is as bleak -- or bleaker -- than it now is, he may end up the country's last line of defense against a default.

    • Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More: Steve Kornacki

    Friday, July 29, 2011

    "Denial" in American Life

    by Daniel Rose



    35% of registered U.S. Democrats believe George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, according to Rasmussen polls; and between 31% and 46% of registered Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to other polls. Neither group seems troubled by lack of supporting facts.

    Most of us casually dismiss holders of those views as oddities, and we are equally casual about our public’s growing inability to engage in rational exchanges of opposing views on a large number of important questions.

    “Denial”—the refusal to accept the reality of unpleasant facts—has become a common feature of American life. We hear what we want to hear, and the ancient concept “audi alteram partem”—“hearing the other side”—has been forgotten. The absence of reasoned discourse and thoughtful examination of opposing positions is itself a subject meriting discussion, since the price we will pay without it will be painful.

    On some subjects, our denial is self-evident; on others, it is curious; on others still, it is self-destructive.

    The state of the American economy, for example, is a clear instance of “self-evident denial.” One half of our Congress refuses to entertain any thought of revenue increase (called taxes), the other half refuses to consider substantial decreases in expenditures (called entitlements); yet both realize that our current and projected deficits indicate impending catastrophe.

    To be specific, the 40-year average of our debt-to-GNP ratio has been 37%; today it is twice that and rising. Interest charges on that debt have historically averaged 5.7% per annum but today our interest rates are at an artificial low of 2.5%. Unchecked, those interest payments must in time rise and strangle our economy.

    Without a major immediate restructuring of our short term, intermediate term and long term economic thinking, all our economists acknowledge the likely prospect of a severe crisis whose timing, depth and length defy prediction. The example of Greece is very much on everyone’s mind.

    At a moment when militant extremists in Congress control their respective political parties, virtually no discussions of compromise are taking place in Washington, while the nation at large watches in stunned fascination like a mesmerized frog about to be eaten by an approaching snake.

    The International Monetary Fund’s annual report discusses the prospect of a “profound shock” to global financial markets if the U.S, protector of the world’s reserve currency, defaults on its debt payments. Moody’s Investor Service foresees the possible downgrading of U.S. debt to Double A from its present Triple A rating, with other ratings (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) dropping accordingly, with unpredictable consequences.

    Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” that prominent economic savant Michele Bachmann dismisses such talk as “scare tactics.” Her team tells her that if our debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion is not raised by August 2nd, our government can easily pay its monthly interest charges of $18 billion by “greatly scaling back other functions.” What that will do, both to domestic peace and to international confidence in our bonds, is not mentioned.

    So much for the short term. For the longer term, the IMF forecasts U.S. economic growth at below 3% per annum through 2016, and Laura Tyson, former Chair of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, says the U.S. might not see employment reach pre-recession levels until 2023.

    “Self-evident denial” seems the appropriate term for the American public’s present relative serenity concerning our economy. With the world’s highest medical costs, its largest military, an aging population, taxes that are among the world’s lowest and relentlessly growing deficits, we refuse to look ahead. The level of national debate is embarrassing—“irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas” (Lionel Trilling’s phrase) have displaced thoughtful presentations of facts and their consequences; Tea Party leader Grover Norquist’s characterization of bipartisanship as “date rape” is one example among many. Debaters on both sides seem oblivious of where—absent compromise—their respective positions are leading us.

    “Curious denial,” on the other hand, is demonstrated by the total lack of discussion in the American Jewish community of the long term ramifications of a two-state vs. one-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians.

    American Jews are generally considered a rather astute group; and they care deeply about the well-being of Israel. However, the “blank check” they are encouraging for Israel’s leaders (who are being driven by domestic politics of which most Americans are unaware) may in time make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

    No rational person dismisses the complexities of the problems involved: the profound mutual distrust and the fears they engender, the ancient grievances, the troubling “facts on the ground”; and no one thinks successful resolution will be either easy or quick. But few American Jewish voices are heard asking whether time is working for or against the Israelis.

    The ramifications of the failure to create two stable adjoining states receives almost zero discussion among your Jewish neighbors or friends. The 1.3 million Arabs living in Israel today seem willing now to accept second-class status. At some point in the 21st century, however, with one man/one vote and an Arab majority in “one state,” life will look different. Failure to contemplate the demographics of a one-state solution—with a Muslim majority—is one case of “curious denial” by those who should know better, and the dismaying possibility of a “failed state” like Somalia or Yemen on Israel’s borders is another. “Curious” today, perhaps “tragic” tomorrow.

    “Self-destructive denial” is the saddest of the cases because, as with a self-inflicted wound, seeking someone else to blame just exacerbates the problem. The complex, evolving situation of blacks in America today is a case in point. The remarkable contrast in all aspects of life between those American blacks who are successfully entering the American mainstream and those who remain trapped in a mindset of anger, nihilism and alienation is profound.

    The traditional black American narrative of disenfranchised, victimized, marginalized people angrily pounding on closed doors, demanding admission, is becoming less and less relevant. In our increasingly pluralistic and ever-evolving society, the time has arrived for a new black American narrative, one that looks forward with hope and determination rather than backward with despair, and one that acknowledges the growing diversity—in mindset and in socio-economic conditions—among blacks in America. Those with education and with stable families, with the skills, high aspirations and determination to invest in their own “human capital,” are rising in all areas of our society.

    The situation of many blacks in the inner city, however, where prominent demagogues send a counter-productive message of defeat to nihilistic, semi-literate young people trapped in a “dead end” counter culture, is a fact of life that should be faced.

    Despite heart-breaking rates of school dropouts, unmarried teenage births, prison incarcerations and HIV-AIDS infections, painfully few voices are heard encouraging inner city youth to stay in school, to acquire the education required for upward mobility, or to change the anti-social mindset that in the 21st century will prevent young people from competing successfully in an increasingly automated, globalized and competitive world.

    Is “denial” of the importance of education today “self-destructive?” Yes: Necessary, no. Society loses, but the greatest losers are inner city young people themselves. Education is the true Civil Rights issue of our day. It is the great equalizer, the only “magic bullet” we know to bring submerged groups into the economic and social mainstream; and we must shout that from the rooftops.

    Americans are in denial about many other problems—our short term reliance on fossil fuels, for example, and our long term ecological challenges among them. If Japan has a nuclear crisis and Germany forswears all atomic energy while France embraces it wholeheartedly, we should at least discuss the question.

    What, then, can be done to raise the level of public debate today? First, no subjects should be “off the table” for examination, research and discussion. Second, we must rethink how we consider these subjects. Two approaches would help—remembering the Moynihan Dictum and forgetting ad hominem reasoning.

    Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s statement that, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” should be pounded into every undergraduate. Objective and dispassionate examination of all relevant facts, especially those of “the other guy,” would be an important first step for all of us to take.

    A second step would be to recall the concept that “facts are not responsible for those who believe them.” Just because I find, say, Noam Chomsky’s anti-American diatribes repellant doesn’t mean that every word out of his mouth must be mistaken; and just because I admire, say, Albert Schweitzer, doesn’t mean that I must necessarily agree with everything he says.

    Dispassionate consideration of all the factors involved in the major questions facing us should concern us all. It may no longer be a luxury, but a necessity for us to recognize and combat what Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics and for us to return to civilized discourse. Our well-being and survival may depend on it.


    (Daniel Rose’s talks may be found on www.danielrose.org)

    The end of John Boehner?

    War Room

    AP
    John Boehner

    What we've suspected all along can now be asserted with confidence: John Boehner is a SINO -- Speaker-in-name-only. And after what went down -- or, more accurately, what didn't go down -- in the House on Thursday night, it's fair to wonder how much longer he'll even be that.

    All week, Boehner did everything he could possibly think of to convince rank-and-file Republicans to line up behind his plan to raise the debt ceiling. That he'd been forced into this position was itself telling, the result of the House GOP's cool -- if not hostile -- reaction to the "grand bargain" framework he'd drawn up with President Obama, a long-term deficit reduction plan that was overwhelmingly slanted toward conservative priorities. But the rank-and-filers still smelled a sellout, so Boehner had to walk away, draw up his own 11th hour plan, and then persuade Republicans that by backing it they'd be sticking it to Obama.

    And it looked like he'd pull it off. The Speaker made all of the required right-wing media rounds, privately briefing Rush Limbaugh and bragging to Laura Ingraham that Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were all against his plan. He also channeled his inner Tom DeLay, telling wavering House Republicans to "get your asses in line," and played a clip from a violent movie at a GOP conference meeting. Democrats made it clear they'd all vote no -- a posture that, in a perverse way, probably helped Boehner's effort to sell it to his own members. By sundown Wednesday, there was a growing sense that the plan would end up squeaking through the House by the slimmest margin.

    But now Thursday has come and gone with no vote taking place. There was supposed to be one around 7:00 P.M., but when that hour arrived, the House was busy debating post office namings -- filler work while Boehner and his team scrambled to secure support that had eluded them all week. Shortly before 11:00 P.M., the No. 3 House Republican, California's Kevin McCarthy, announced the House would adjourn for the day without a vote, the August 2 debt default deadline creeping ever closer.

    Why are House Republicans so unwilling to follow their own leader at such a critical moment? Probably because he really isn't their leader. He's simply the guy who was in place to ascend to the speakership when Republicans regained control of the House in last November's midterm elections.

    The new GOP majority contains nearly 90 freshmen members, many of them ideological true believers who were powered to primary victories last year by a party base that seethes with resentment toward Obama. These new members (and a handful of longer-serving Republicans) share the base's antipathy toward Obama, and its conviction that national GOP leaders have contributed to the country's domestic woes by compromising with Democrats.

    This is not Boehner's natural constituency. By this point in his career, he's essentially a Washington lifer, an 11-term veteran who is now in his second stint as a party leader. In the mid-1990s, he served as a Newt Gingrich lieutenant, only to toppled by J.C. Watts, who challenged him for his post after the 1998 elections. As one newspaper reported it at the time, "In the end, Boehner, who was considered a revolutionary in his first term, was not zealous enough for the conservatives elected in 1994." Eight years later, as a string of ethics scandals tarnished House Republicans, Boehner returned to the leadership, upsetting Roy Blunt to claim the party's No. 2 post. When Dennis Hastert stepped down after the GOP lost its majority in the November 2006 elections, Boehner was then elevated to minority leader -- the post he held when President Obama was sworn-in in January 2009 and Republican base's furious backlash began taking shape.

    It was that backlash -- also known as the Tea Party -- that produced perhaps the most conservative national slate of GOP House candidates ever assembled last year. And it was that backlash -- coupled with swing voters' instinctive desire to use midterm elections to vote against the in-power party, especially during turbulent economic times -- that produced what can accurately be described as the most conservative Congress ever.

    Boehner, a country club Republican who'd worked cooperatively with Democrats on occasions, was hardly the logical leader for this Congress. But then, no one else really was, either. Someone needed to be the Speaker, though, and since Boehner was in line for it and had spent the previous two years dutifully saying "no" to President Obama at every turn -- sometimes colorfully -- he was able to claim the gavel. Whether he'd be able to achieve anything with it was an open question.

    And now we have our answer. Over and over again during this debt ceiling ordeal, Boehner has been undercut by the true believers in the GOP's ranks. Last week seemed embarrassing enough, when Boehner was forced to invent excuses for backing out of a "grand bargain" that, at virtually any other point in modern history, would have been considered a massive political victory for the GOP. But his humiliation on Thursday night -- unable to convince his own party to sign off on a plan that would prevent a default, trim about $1 trillion from the deficit, not raise a single new cent in revenue and allow the GOP to play this hostage game with Obama all over again in a few months -- seems far, far worse.

    Boehner's basic lack of credibility with the Tea Party crowd was the culprit. He told Republicans his plan was Obama's worse nightmare, and he even got some surprising cover. But many of the voices that resonate most with today's Republican base -- and with the dozens of House members who are a part of that base -- simply wouldn't buy it. Despite Boehner's efforts to win him over, for instance, Limbaugh used his radio show on Thursday to suggest that an old fashioned wink/nod Washington game was being played: The Houses passes the Boehner bill, the Democratic Senate amends it with provisions acceptable to Obama, and then it returns to the House for final passage -- this time with Democrats voting yes and conservatives suddenly unable to stop it. It was a trap!

    Limbaugh was not the only influential voice on the right pushing this kind of argument. His pitch was evidence of how sophisticated and cynical influential non-Beltway players have become in politics, particularly on the Republican side -- and how quickly and easily they can disseminate their messages to the masses. The voters who make or break House members in Republican primaries trust them and take their cues from them. Dozens of members of the House do as well. Boehner, simply put, is no match for them.

    Supposedly, the plan now is to "tweak" Boehner's bill on Friday, then try again for passage. Maybe the second time will be the charm. Maybe not. Either way, House Republicans made it abundantly clear on Thursday night that while John Boehner may be the Speaker, he doesn't speak for them.

    • Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More: Steve Kornacki

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

    Ray Kelly: From chief cop to commander in chief? Run Kelly-Run Kelly

    Mayor Bloomberg at the Department of Education, answered questions about NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, after a Quinnipiac poll found that he would be a good mayor of New York City, Also the mayor spoke about the "debate" in Washington about the Debt ceiling, and he also said that he will not run for president. Listen to the this video.
    Video by Rafael Martínez Alequín

    Amazing how taxpaying money is spent: Mayor Of William’s Town

    Mayor Of William’s Town

    Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. plays Facebook games on his phone during legislative sessions

    By

    In the real world, Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. represents a tough corner of Brooklyn and is under indictment on corruption and bribery charges. But most days this year, Boyland goes to another place, a virtual place, where he’s the mayor of his own thriving city—William’s Town.

    The place is CityVille, a Facebook game where users create their own city. And Boyland doesn’t just play the game on his personal time.

    A comparison of Boyland’s Facebook activity with a record of Assembly sessions shows the scandal-scarred pol logging on when he is supposed to be doing the people’s business. Boyland sponsored zero bills and missed one-third of the Assembly’s sessions—ranking dead last in the chamber on both measures—for his $79,500 state salary. But he was busy—on Facebook.

    On June 21, when the Assembly debated and voted on bills—including an extension of rent regulations—from 10:34 a.m. to 8:21 p.m., Boyland was tending to William’s Town.

    At 5:44 p.m., William’s Town’s virtual police needed a feeding. On his Facebook wall, Boyland wrote he needed “donuts to fuel hungry cops.” The fuel was necessary, the post noted, “to apprehend the bandits.”

    An hour earlier, he posted a request to Facebook friends to help upgrade the William’s Town Mall. He logged on to CityVille at least seven times that day, while the Assembly was still in session.

    He missed the Assembly’s sessions on March 23 and 24, but appears to have spent the entire night between them playing CityVille, posting game updates seven times between midnight and 8 a.m.

    On May 9, Boyland skipped the Assembly’s three-hour session but spent the better part of the day playing CityVille, posting updates at least 12 times that day.

    He was absent with an excuse for the Assembly’s June 6 session, but he managed to do some work in CityVille and post a video about prisons during the four hours the chamber was in session.

    While a spokesman for Boyland did not return a request for comment, his social-networking habits did not go unnoticed.

    “He was rarely there, and when he was, he often seemed distracted by his phone, and the leadership and their staff often had to remind him to press the button and vote,” said one Assembly Democrat. “He seemed often distracted by whatever was going on on his smartphone.”

    Boyland Jr. FacebookBoyland missed 20 of 60 Assembly session days this year. Perhaps he overslept: His Facebook logs reveal that on the nights before sessions he skipped, he frequently stayed up taking care of William’s Town or uploading links to music videos between midnight and 6 a.m.

    When news broke of the indictment on March 11, he stayed away from the Assembly for weeks. But late on March 20, Boyland clicked the Facebook button to “like” the New York State Assembly.

    CityVille is one of a suite of games for Facebook that encourage social interaction. Boyland also dabbled in other popular Facebook games like FarmVille, FrontierVille and Mafia Wars.

    His preferred game appears to be CityVille, which he plays almost every day. On days when the Assembly is adjourned, he updates the feed as often as 12 times a day.

    CityVille can be addictive, as the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this year.

    “CityVille is the perfect hospital-waiting-room activity,” wrote Liz Gannes. “Unlike in a real city, everything you can possibly accomplish in the game is good. You receive money, goods, reputation points, energy and random bonus prizes constantly.”

    In William’s Town, Boyland spends time catching thieves, planting flowers, getting endorsements and engaging in other expressions of civic pride. And it’s not necessarily against Assembly rules to play games on your phone while you’re supposed to be working, said Ron Canestrari, the Assembly’s majority leader.

    “It’s done; it’s hard to stop them; I hate it. But as long as someone’s not loud or disrupting things,―people do use them—go to the rear of the chamber, the front of chamber; they walk out,” Canestrari said.

    He described Boyland as a “very quiet and private individual” with a “great sense of humor.”

    Other Assembly members who sit near Boyland say he was virtually invisible, even when he was present.

    “He didn’t spend much time in the seat,” groused Assemblyman William Magee, an upstate Democrat who sits directly behind Boyland.

    “Other than that, he was kind of a low-profile guy, didn’t speak out much in the session,” Magee observed. “I didn’t have much to do with him.”

    Boyland joined the Assembly after a 2003 special election that put him in the family business. Both his father and his uncle are former Assembly members, and his sister, Tracy Boyland, is a former New York City councilwoman.

    Experts on social media say his habits may seem familiar to some political observers.

    “Obviously, it all sounds a bit like Rep. Weiner’s circumstances
    —without the sex, of course,” wrote Stuart Fischoff, senior editor of the Journal of Media Psychology. “Both politicians hung out in alternate realities and utilized social media like Facebook and Twitter.”

    The game would make sense in the context of problems in Boyland’s daily life, Fischoff suggested.

    “It would seem as though, increasingly, cyberspace and virtual reality are risky or questionable environments to inhabit for politicians who go there for some gratifications they can’t satisfy in the real world, be it sex, power, political success, or other drive or fantasy urges,” Fischoff said.

    NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly tops list of mayoral favorites in 2013, even though he isn't in the race

    Wednesday, July 27th 2011, 8:19 AM

    NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly received support from nearly a quarter of voters in a recent poll.
    Marcus Santos for News
    NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly received support from nearly a quarter of voters in a recent poll.

    New York's Finest

    Do you believe Ray Kelly would be a good mayor for New York City?

    The front-runner in the fight to become New York's next mayor isn't even in the race.

    A new poll from Quinnipiac University found that city voters put Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly ahead of other possible contenders in the 2013 campaign, although he has consistently said he isn't running, hasn't hired campaign staff and hasn't raise a dime.

    Nearly a quarter of voters - 23% - said he would be their pick, including 17% of Democrats.

    "Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has never given the faintest hint that he'd like to move from Police Headquarters across the street to City Hall, but New York seems to like the idea of Kelly for mayor," said Quinnipiac poll director Maurice Carroll.

    If Kelly doesn't run, voters give City Council Speaker Christine Quinn an early lead, with support from 23% of voters, followed by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz with 15%, City Controller John Liu with 13%, former city controller Bill Thompson with 10%, Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio with 8% and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer with 6%.

    LUPICA: WHY RAY KELLY SHOULD BE MAYOR

    The poll also found that Mayor Bloomberg has improved his image with New Yorkers after a difficult stretch over the winter.

    His approval rating jumped by 5 points since Quinnipiac's last poll in May with the number of voters giving him a thumbs-up now exceeding those with a negative view of him.

    Of the 1,234 voters surveyed by Quinnipiac between July 19 and 25, 45% now say Bloomberg's doing a good job while 43% say he's not.

    That's better than in May when 40% said he was doing a good job and 49% said he wasn't.

    The mayor took a beating over the CityTime payroll scandal, unpopular short-lived schools chancellor Cathie Black and the city's disastrous response to the December blizzard.

    The jury is still out on Bloomberg's new schools chancellor, Dennis Walcott. A full 39% of voters had no opinion on him, although most of those who expressed an opinion saw him in a positive light, with 37% of voters saying he's doing a good job.

    New Yorkers are still backing President Obama with 67% supporting him, but that's down from 73% in May and a high of 79% in June of 2009.