Palin: Obama lacks 'the cojones' to tackle immigration

By Matt DeLong

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Sunday that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has "the cojones" that President Obama "does not have" to take on illegal immigration. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Palin blasted Obama for suing Arizona to block the state's controversial new law without addressing "sanctuary cities" -- in which local law enforcement are prohibited from asking people about their immigration status.

VIDEO: Palin PAC releases 'Mama Grizzlies' video. (AP)

The former governor said the president and congressional Democrats "are all wet" on plans to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. "It's idiotic to think about increasing taxes at a time like this," Palin said. She added that her "palm isn't large enough" to write all her notes down and she proceeded to read prepared notes about tax policy from a sheet of paper.
(Palin endorsement tracker)
Palin declined to address "fickle" polls showing that she remains unpopular with independents. "I don't blame people for not knowing what I stand for," Palin said. "If I believed everything I read in the media, I wouldn't like me either."

PHOTOS: Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, the estranged couple who came to fame during Sarah Palin's 2008 vice presidental run, say they will marry. (AP)

(Video: Palin in 2012? Dana Milbank breaks it down.)


Finally, Palin said her family has been avoiding their front yard and "certain angles" in their home after an investigative reporter moved in next door. She said her family has changed its behavior as a result and accused the reporter, Joe McGinniss, of infringing their privacy and trying to "hamper some of our freedom."
"Some people need to get a life," Palin said.
Update: This may be the most high-profile political use of the word "cojones" by an American woman since then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright famously said in 1996 that Cuba's shooting down of planes flown by anti-Castro exiles was "not cojones" but "cowardice."

By Matt DeLong  |  August 1, 2010; 10:08 AM ET

Boehner: Credit troops, not Obama, with success in Iraq

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 12:42 PM ET

Credit troops, not President Obama, for the successes the U.S. has enjoyed in Iraq, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday.

Boehner commended Obama for having largely backed the surge in Iraq since taking office and deferring to U.S. generals in Iraq, but noted opposition by congressional Democrats — including Obama, as a senator — to the surge strategy that ultimately proved successful.

"Despite what many politicians continue to say, the success of the surge strategy put in place by Generals Petraeus and Odierno is undeniable," Boehner said in a statement. "Despite many difficult debates in 2007 and 2008, Republicans stood on principle against the irresponsible plans put forth by congressional Democrats to withdraw all our troops and leave Iraq in chaos."

Obama was in Atlanta on Monday to speak to disabled veterans, where he promoted the progress that has been made in Iraq in the past year and a half, as well as the shift he ordered to end the combat mission by Aug. 31.

That progress, Boehner argued, would have been scuttled if Democrats had gotten their way several years ago.

"The administration and Congress must remain vigilant and ensure our troops have the resources they need to effectively do their jobs," said the top House Republican.

Of course, internal rifts still plague Democrats — and, to an extent, some Republicans — when it comes to military strategy in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. One hundred and two Democrats voted against a supplemental funding measure for the U.S. effort in Afghanistan last week, as did 12 Republicans.

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for August 2, 2010

Mon Aug. 2, 2010 2:00 AM PDT

 

A group of Army Reserve Best Warrior Candidates participate in the 10km road march at the 2010 Army Reserve Best Warrior Competition at Fort McCoy, Wis., on July 28, 2010. Photo via the US Army.

Weiner:King chose Politics over 9/11 Responders

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Takes Aim at Sept 11 responders

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First woman takes helm of U.S. carrier strike group

Aboard the USS George H.W. Bush, Rear Admiral Nora Tyson becomes the first female strike group commander

By Hugh Lessig, hlessig@dailypress.com | 247-7821

10:26 PM EDT, July 29, 2010

Rear Admiral Nora W. Tyson became the first woman to command a carrier strike group Thursday after taking command of Carrier Strike Group 2 during a change of command ceremony on board the USS George H.W. Bush in Norfolk. (Rob Ostermaier, Daily Press / July 28, 2010)

NORFOLK - — When Nora W. Tyson entered the Navy in 1979, women were not allowed to go to sea on aircraft carriers.

The idea of a woman commanding a mighty carrier strike group? That was certainly for another day.

That day arrived Thursday for Rear Adm. Tyson, who made history in assuming command of Carrier Strike Group Two in a ceremony on board the USS George H.W. Bush.
The strike group consists of the Bush, America's newest carrier, four guided-missile cruisers; Destroyer Squadron 22, which includes six guided-missile destroyers and two frigates, and Carrier Air Wing 8, with eight squadrons of aircraft.

In accepting her new assignment, Tyson spoke of the challenges that the Navy faces and said she was humbled to be selected. Talking later with reporters, she downplayed her history-making step.

"As far as the trailblazing piece, I understand I am the first woman on the job," she said. "But I'm a professional just like my fellow officers are, and my fellow strike group commanders."

Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said her appointment should send a signal "that there is no limit as to what you can do."

In April, the Navy announced a policy change that will allow women to serve on submarines. The first group of female sailors has since been accepted.

In June, the Navy announced its four sailors of the year, and women swept the field for the first time.

"It's been a tremendous year for women in the Navy," said Regina Akers, a naval historian with Naval History and Heritage Command.

Thursday's ceremony prompted Akers to recall other women who have broken barriers in the Navy, starting with Joy Bright Hancock. Born in 1898 and serving in World War I as a yeoman, she lost two husbands to aviation accidents while still in her 20s.

Later, she became a respected member of the Bureau of Aeronautics, a leading early figure in the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Naval Reserves, nicknamed the WAVES, and one of the first women officers in the U.S. Navy. She died in 1986.

Reflecting on Tyson's new assignment, Akers said her first thought was, "Wow, what would Joy think?"

Other Navy women have broken barriers as well. Barbara Allen was the first female aviator in 1974. Brenda Robinson was the first black female aviator. Rosemary Mariner was the first woman to command an operational aviation squadron.

"In a larger context, this is just another effort by the Navy to further diversity," said Akers.

Tyson said she's thought about whether she'll face more scrutiny. She said it all comes down to professionalism.

But while women have made progress in the Navy over the years, Tyson's appointment marks a dramatic step forward, said James V. Koch, president emeritus of Old Dominion University who also teaches World War II history.

"This is an exceedingly responsible position in terms of the pressure and the kinds of life-and-death decisions that have to be made," he said. "I think there is more pressure and more responsibility than a staff position in the Pentagon, even though the rank of that person might be higher."

Because carriers are a symbol of America's military might, "one is constantly on the front lines when you are a commander of a task force. And the tradition of the Navy is that whoever is in charge is responsible," he said.

Tyson acknowledged as much during her speech.

"This," she said, "is not an easy position to be in."

Rangel tweets statement in defense of charges, audio message to supporters

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/10 04:25 PM ET

Embattled New York congressman Charles Rangel (D) tweeted an audio message Sunday afternoon explaining to supporters the status of an action against him in the House ethics committee.
Rangel's message was as follows:

Hi, this is Congressman Charlie Rangel and I really wanted to take this opportunity just to bring a few facts to your attention.

As you know the Ethics Committee Procedure is underway and that I initiated it.

I hope that the Ethics Committee process will move forward without a rush to judgment.

I've discovered some of the mistakes I've made [unintelligible] and my answers to the allegations can be found on my website at www.rangel.house.gov.

I really believe that I've made some difference in the Congress and I just won't stop fighting until I've had a fair and open hearing.

So, thank you for the support and I won't let you down.

Two hours beforehand, he had tweeted the link to a 32-page PDF document signed by his lawyers that addresses the charges leveled by the committee on Thursday. 

"The undisputed evidence in the record — assembled by the Investigative Subcommittee over its nearly two-year investigation — is that Congressman Rangel did not dispense any political favors, that he did not intentionally violate any law, rule or regulation, and that he did not misuse his public office for private gain," the statement reads.

The investigation and subsequent charges against Rangel — who has served nearly 40 years in the House — may be troublesome for his Democratic colleagues in the coming election cycle as they try to sell the party's credibility on government ethics, an issue where they led Republicans as of July 1. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that Rangel's fate in Congress was a matter for the ethics committee.

"When I came in, I said we're 'draining the swamp.' And we did. We have passed the most sweeping ethics reform in the history of the Congress. Any personal respect and affection we may have for people makes us sad about the course of events, but we have to pull the high ethical standard and none of our personalities is more important than that," she said.  

White House backs ethics proceedings against Rangel

By Michael O'Brien - 07/30/10 07:39 AM ET

The White House stressed the need Friday for the ethics process to proceed in due course against fellow Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration believed in letting ethics proceedings go forward against Rangel, who was formally charged on Thursday with 13 charges by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee.
"There's a bipartisan committee looking into some very serious charges," Gibbs said during an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "We think that's the right step to take."

The administration has been largely silent so far on the charges against Rangel, which Democrats concerned their precarious election-year situation could be worsened further with a messy ethics trial. Gibbs deflected most questions on Thursday about the case during his daily press briefing. Democrats swept into power in Congress in 2006 in part due to Republicans' own ethics problems while in control of the House and Senate.

"I feel confident that this party and this president have a record on ethics reform that we're happy to put before the American people in November," Gibbs said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

There had been talk of Rangel cutting a deal with the ethics panel on Thursday, as some House Democrats called for his resignation. But Gibbs said that President Obama and other White House officials have stayed out of the process, and that it was up to Rangel and no one else to decide whether or not to strike a deal on the charges.

"That's not for us to decide," the press secretary explained on NBC. "That's for Congressman Rangel to decide."

Gibbs said that Obama and other top administration officials haven't spoken to Rangel about the charges.

Democrats increase pressure on Senate GOP ahead of critical vote on state aid

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 06:45 AM ET

Democrats sought Monday to pressure Senate Republicans ahead of an expected vote on a state aid bill.
Republicans who vote against the legislation, which extends aid to state governments' health and education programs, are putting CEOs ahead of teachers and public safety officials, a new Democratic National Committee (DNC) video charges.

The Senate will likely attempt to move forward with the bill on Monday, as it begins its last week of action before members leave for August's congressional recess. The state aid bill will need the support of at least one Republican to get the 59 votes to advance — assuming Democrats don't lose some of their own votes. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has sided with the GOP on many similar economic packages.

Republicans have demanded that these bills be offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, and the state aid bill is offset. The $26 billion price tag is paid for by spending reductions as well as new taxes on multinational corporations, which GOP senators are loath to support.

The DNC is lending political reinforcement to Senate Democratic leaders, who failed to muster the political support to approve a small-business bill last week, with Republicans and Nelson objecting on the same grounds. Senate Democrats also failed for weeks to advance an extension of unemployment benefits until finally sending the package to President Obama.

"Republicans are all too eager to extend tax breaks to Wall Street CEO's and 'Big Oil' — or to fight on behalf of insurance companies and against health reform — but when it comes to keeping teachers, fire fighters and police officers on the job, that's simply not a priority for Tea Party Republicans," said DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "We're going to pressure Republicans to cast the right vote tomorrow — but you can bet if they don't this will be a campaign issue in the fall."
Find the new video below:

Business ramps up recess efforts against 'card-check' bill

I do not understand "card-check" is it good or bad. I have read but can't make heads or tails of it. Any help out there to explain it to  me.

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 07:30 AM ET

Lawmakers will encounter increased pressure against "card-check" legislation after a business group ramped up its August efforts against the labor organizing bill.

The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) unveiled a new online tool kit on Monday aimed at pressuring members of Congress against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or "card-check") during the summer recess.

WFI launched a portal to help visitors organize against the legislation, as conservatives in Congress have openly worried that Democrats might look to revive the bill at the end of the year during a lame-duck session.

"The Workforce Fairness Institute’s new website serves as a one-stop shop for those interested in learning more about and combating the [EFCA]," said WFI Executive Director Katie Packer. "The platform allows workers and small businesses to make their voices heard against efforts taking place in government to advance policies that will force unionization on Americans and result in job loss.”

WFI is hoping to leverage the August recess, during which lawmakers will make their way back to their home states and districts, to get opponents to pressure their representatives in person against the union organizing bill. Its news site gives visitors resources to contact lawmakers and receive alerts on when to do so; social media sharing capabilities; and other features.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has suggested that Democrats might attempt to move EFCA during the lame-duck, when retiring and defeated lawmakers might feel liberated to support the legislation. The bill has otherwise floundered in the past year and a half, despite labor's hopes that it would be able to easily win passage for the measure, with Democrats in control of the House and Senate and President Obama in the White House.

Packer promised her group would "invest significant resources" in the next month.

"We intend to invest significant resources over the course of the congressional recess to drive citizens to our site so they can contact their representatives directly and communicate opposition to EFCA in any form and at any time," she said. "The small-business community will not take its eye off the ball or rest on its laurels, as we understand that Big Labor is working overtime to secure another bailout at the expense of America’s employees and employers.”

Cantor: 'I support Boehner for Speaker'

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 09:36 AM ET

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said on Monday that he would support John Boehner (Ohio) as House Speaker if Republicans were to win back the majority in this fall's elections.

"I support John Boehner for Speaker," Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican leader, said during an appearance on MSNBC. Boehner is the Republican leader and it is expected he would become Speaker if Republicans win back the House.

Cantor's vow of support comes as some tensions between the two Republican leaders have crept into the media in recent weeks, with reports centering around Cantor's personal ambition within GOP ranks and whether that poses a test to Boehner's leadership.

Boehner serves in the top House GOP job at the behest of the House Republican Conference, which elects new leaders at the beginning of each Congress. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, had flirted with challenging Boehner at the beginning of 2009 after the GOP received its second straight electoral drubbing.

But the stronger performance expected of Republicans in this November's contests appears to have added to support for Boehner.

It's not clear, however, whether a strong performance that leaves Republicans short of a majority in the House would spur a challenger to Boehner.

Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested over the weekend that Boehner would easily win the Speakership if Republicans take back the House.

Boehner would become Speaker under a new GOP majority, McCarthy said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers," while Cantor would become House majority leader.

Bush will sit for first interview a week after midterm elections

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 09:52 AM ET

Former President George W. Bush will sit down for his first formal post-presidency interview a week after the midterms.
NBC announced on Monday that "Today" show anchor Matt Lauer would interview Bush twice in November during the same week the former Republican president's book, Decision Points, is scheduled to be published.
Bush will sit for a primetime special with Lauer to air on Monday, Nov. 8, and wll appear live on the "Today" show on Wednesday, Nov. 10, NBC announced on Monday.

The appearances will come days after the midterm elections set for Tuesday, Nov. 2.
Congressional Democrats and President Obama have made Bush a target of their election-year messaging, warning voters that giving control of Congress to Republicans would mean a return of some of Bush's policies.
Any leaks from Bush's memoir could receive heavy attention in the days before the midterm elections, which Republicans hope will result in their winning the House. Many publishers release advance excerpts of some titles, though high-profile books like Bush's are often kept under wraps until the release date.
Republicans, for their part, have kept some distance from the former president, who has himself maintained a low profile since leaving office. His most public role to date came when Obama tapped him and former President Bill Clinton to spearhead fundraising for disaster relief in the aftermath of Haiti's devastating earthquake earlier this year. 

Dem leader: White House could be doing more to help candidates

By Michael O'Brien - 08/02/10 10:18 AM ET

There's more the White House could be doing to lend House Democrats a hand in this fall's elections, the No. 3 Democrat said Monday.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he's "comfortable" with the level of support President Obama has offered congressional Democrats, but added that he thinks the White House can do more — and has told it as much.

"I think they're doing a whole lot," Clyburn said during an appearance on MSNBC of administration support for Democrats. "I'm very comfortable as to where we are as Democrats in the House of Representatives, and I'm very comfortable with what the White House is doing thus far."

But, the veteran lawmaker said, the administration could be doing more.

"Are they doing everything that they can?" he asked. "I hope not, because I can think of a few other things they can do, and I've talked to the president about some of those things."

The White House and congressional Democrats have clashed publicly over election-year efforts in recent weeks, especially after press secretary Robert Gibbs said there was "no doubt" that enough seats were in play to hand over control to Republicans in this fall's contests. Gibbs backtracked on those remarks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dressed down a White House liaison in a Democratic Caucus meeting. Gibbs said as recently as Friday that he thinks Democrats would keep the House and Senate in the elections.

The White House has otherwise dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to hold a number of fundraisers with vulnerable incumbent Democrats across the country, and for a few campaign fundraisers for candidates challenging Republicans or running for open seats. 

Dmitry Medvedev signed an executive order declaring a state of emergency in seven Russian regions hit by fires

Official site of the President of Russia



http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/video/498

New recording on Dmitry Medvedev’s blog in response to the serious situation in the Russian regions hit by fires. The President declared a state of emergency in seven regions.

2 August 2010, 17:00

2 August 2010, 17:00
Order declaring a state of emergency in seven Russian regions hit by fires.
© Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office

A state of emergency has been declared in the Republic of Mari El, Mordovia, and Vladimir, Voronezh, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, and Ryazan regions.

Under the order, Russia’s armed forces and other troops will take part in the fire-fighting and relief effort. The order also recommends the regional authorities to get public organisations and volunteers involved too.
Acting on the order, the Russian Government and regional authorities must take all measures needed to help the families of people killed, injured, and assist those left homeless by the fires, including by providing housing and paying compensation for property destroyed.

Link to this page: http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/news/708

www.kremlin.ru

Official site of the President of Russia

In the Russian Regions/of the World

Interactive map of Russia touching the darkened regions will bring up a story line

Va. health-care lawsuit to proceed

A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.
The lawsuit, lodged by Virginia Republican Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli II, argues that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it included a provision in the law mandating that citizens purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.
Cuccinelli filed the suit moments after President Obama signed the sweeping health-care bill into law, citing the federal law's conflict with a new Virginia statute that made it illegal to require state residents to purchase health insurance.
The ruling is only a procedural step, paving the way for a full hearing on the legal arguments of the issue in the same Richmond courtroom in October.

--Rosalind S. Helderman

By Washington Post editors  |  August 2, 2010; 10:53 AM ET

Are the Corporate Money Floodgates About to Open?

After waiting on the sidelines, Best Buy, Target, and other companies are diving into the campaign finance free-for-all.

By Suzy Khimm | Mon Aug. 2, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

---

In the months immediately following the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, corporations seemed to be sitting on the sidelines instead of delving directly into the campaign finance free-for-all that the decision opened up. Instead, it was labor unions that leapt to take advantage [1] of the lifted restrictions, outspending [2]corporations on independent campaign ads by nearly threefold in the first six months of 2010. But now there's mounting evidence that some of the nation's most visible and powerful corporations have entered the fray.
One of the first test cases has surfaced in Minnesota, whose strict campaign finance laws have put the new corporate activity in the spotlight. Liberated by the new rules, Target and Best Buy have each contributed [3]at least $100,000 to a conservative political action committee that's running ads in support of GOP state Rep. Tom Emmer's campaign for Minnesota governor. Target also gave $50,000 to the group Minnesota Forward to bankroll "branding" for the outfit. The big-box retailers, which are based in Minneapolis, have been joined by five other corporations that also made $100,000 donations to Minnesota Forward, including vehicle manufacturer Polaris and Davisco Foods International.
The contributions are among the earliest signs that corporations are trying to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling. In many instances, corporations can still hide their campaign cash, given weak disclosure requirements in some states and on the federal level. But Minnesota's strong campaign finance laws have helped shed light on what Citizens United has wrought. "This is the first time ever in Minnesota history that corporate participation has been permitted," says Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the state's Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Minnesota was among the 24 states that had prohibited corporations from using their own treasury funds to bankroll independent campaign ads in state elections. Citizens United lifted the ban entirely, allowing corporations to make unlimited donations to state campaigns, so long as they aren't contributing directly to candidates or party committees. "We really anticipate a lot of activity in states where there are contested gubernatorial candidates," says Denise Roth Barber, research director for the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Next year, all states will be redrawing their congressional districts—a process that governors will preside over in many states, Barber notes. "There's a lot at stake from a national perspective."
Minnesota Forward has used its new corporate contributions for efforts like a recent TV ad that praised Emmer for being committed to businesses interests. A tea party-backed Republican, Emmer is running about even with his Democratic contenders in his bid to replace Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who opted against seeking a third term in likely preparation for a presidential run in 2012. "As a legislator, Emmer voted against job-killing taxes and for reduced government spending," the ad says [4]. "Now he's running for governor, working to grow jobs, getting government out of the way."
Recently, other signs have emerged that corporations are beginning to take advantage of the post-Citizens United landscape. Last week, for instance, a group of major coal mining companies announced that they were planning to use the new rules under Citizens United to form a still-unnamed group to campaign against Democratic House and Senate candidates in Kentucky. "With the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard," Roger Nicholson, a top executive at International Coal Group, wrote [5] in a letter soliciting other coal companies to sign on to the effort.
But free-flowing corporate money may also have a price. In Minnesota, it's fueled a backlash from gay rights activists who have slammed Target and Best Buy for backing Emmer, a gay rights foe who's called for [6] a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." Both Target and Best Buy had previously garnered praise [6] from the LGBT community for their support of gay rights in the workplace and beyond. Target, for instance, offers domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees, and has backed the Minnesota AIDS Walk and Twin Cities Pride. Best Buy had a similarly gay-friendly reputation, and both companies have been celebrated [7] by the Human Rights Campaign.
Now activists [8] have called for boycotts of both big-box retailers for supporting Emmer, launching Facebook pages [9] like "Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics." One Facebook commenter slammed Target for "blatant hypocrisy from what they espouse about diversity." Alliance for a Better Minnesota, a labor-backed progressive group, has sponsored a Facebook ad campaign aimed at Target customers nationwide. "Nobody's telling me that when I buy my juice, it's going to go to a Republican," says Denise Cardinal, the group's executive director.
Target has tried to defend itself by arguing that its campaign cash is not an endorsement of all of Emmer's views. In a memo to staff, the company's CEO wrote [10] that the company has historically supported groups and candidates "on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives," adding that "Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering."
The controversy reveals the risks that corporations may run by diving into electoral politics in the post-Citizens United world. By delving directly into races, deep-pocketed businesses and other special interests may be able to influence elections and legislative agendas as never before, but at peril of tainting one of their most valuable commodities: their brands. "The downside is once they become involved in an election, they're still appealing to a public to buy their stuff and could risk alienating people who don't agree with them," says Roth Barber. Such risks may be part of the reason that corporations have appeared to tread cautiously since the Citizens United decision.
But corporations still have many ways they can cover up their new political giving. Not all states have the same campaign disclosure laws—and Minnesota's are among the toughest, mandating that all donors to political action groups and independent expenditures in state elections be disclosed. Target and Best Buy's contributions are readily available on a state government website. Other states, however, have weaker laws: Maryland, for instance, doesn't even require [11] that independent campaign expenditures be reported for state races if they're backed directly by individuals or corporations.
What's more, for federal races, independent groups like Minnesota Forward don't even have to disclose their donors if they're not a formally registered political action committee. So corporations can give unlimited money to campaign ads by going through third party groups like the Chamber of Commerce [12] or a soft-money-backed spin-off of Karl Rove's American Crossroads [13] without outing themselves—and risk putting their political activity under public scrutiny. That's why campaign finance watchdogs and good-government advocates have pressed Congress to pass the DISCLOSE act, which would require such independent groups to list their donors on the ads they run. But Republicans lawmakers—supported by corporate interests, as well as some labor unions that have benefited [1] from Citizens United—successfully voted down [14] the bill this week in the Senate.
In Minnesota itself, conservative groups are now trying to make it even easier for corporations to conceal their political activity. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, along with the for-profit Coastal Travel Enterprises—a travel agency headed by a conservative donor—have recently sued [15] Minnesota officials over the disclosure rules for corporate contributions, claiming that the requirements "are too burdensome and unconstitutional," says Goldsmith, head of state's campaign finance board. Given the outcry that Target and Best Buy have faced after their first foray into funding elections, corporations may become even more eager to find new ways to hide their tracks.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

Blame Bush for Citizens Unite

Conservatives wouldn't have been able to gut campaign finance laws if it weren't for Sam Alito and John Roberts.

Citizens United, Take Two

The Supreme Court case that could help corporations keep their massive election spending secret.

The Citizens United Effect

Some of the first exploiters of the campaign finance free-for-all aren't corporations, but labor unions.

Everyone Hates the Citizens United Decision

Depression, Abuse, Suicide: Fishermen's Wives Face Post-Spill Trauma

Talk about post traumatic stress syndrome

"My husband's talking about finding BP CEOs and hurting them..."

By Mac McClelland | Fri Jun. 25, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

---

Inside a cool, shaded old plantation house in St. Bernard, Louisiana, we're all breathing in our favorite color and blowing out gray smoke.

This relaxation exercise is brought to a roomful of women by the St. Bernard Project [1], a nonprofit founded in 2006 to provide rebuilding services to Katrina-ravaged St. Bernard Parish as well as offer "psychological rebuilding" through its wellness and mental-health center. Since the oil spill started, the organization has been looking to vastly expand its services to meet the area's latest mental-health crisis: the unrelenting depression falling on families living and working on the Gulf Coast. Everyone here except the three clinic workers and me is a fisherman's wife.
Michelle, the clinical coordinator running this early-morning support group, asks the five wives who have come what the St. Bernard Project can do to help them.
"I don't know, because I don't know what's gonna happen."
"We need work. For the wives."
"Whatever happens needs child care. If wives are gonna start workin', someone has to take care of the kids. A lot of fishermen have kids."
"The biggest issue is that our situation is unknown," a woman named Tammy says.* She is tough and broad and has a soothing husk in her voice like phone sex or five packs of cigarettes. Tammy is dressed in white and is eight months pregnant. I hope never to get in a bar fight with her. "They haven't stopped the oil, huh? This is like a time bomb. You can't prepare for what you don't know. But I can tell you right now that we need toilet paper."
The claims checks BP is supposed to be sending are eight days late, which means everyone's out of cash for necessities. The day before, cars lined up and down the nearby highway for a 38,000-pound food giveaway. This morning, like every morning, there was a line outside a church center in New Orleans East, in a part of town where stray dogs scavenge trashy lots and industry makes the air smell like burning toast. There, and at four other locations around Southern Louisiana once a week, Catholic Charities is giving out $100 grocery vouchers. Though they don't open until nine, sometimes it takes being at the doors by four in the morning, when it's somehow already hot, to get one, because they always run out. But you can't buy toilet paper with the vouchers—food only.
I remember that about the $75 grocery vouchers the Red Cross gave us as Katrina evacuees in 2005. The checkout clerk at a grocery store in Ohio wouldn't let me buy vitamins, and boy was I mad about that. Had I not already cried myself out at the Gap looking at a shirt that I already owned but might be underwater back home, I would have pitched a sobby fit in Giant Eagle.

"They won't even let you buy Dawn," Brenda complains. It's difficult to describe Brenda without employing the phrase "fiery redhead." In January, she moved out of the 10-by-16-foot FEMA trailer she'd been living in with four kids and a husband and cats and dogs. In the new house, she can't stop the kids from sleeping in her bed, because they got used to doing it, out of necessity, for so long. She thinks almost everything, including the following statement, is funny: "I mean, Dawn is related to food."
"So is toilet paper," Tammy says, and everyone thinks that's funny, too.
"You could get food with food stamps, but ain't no way to get toiletries."
"That's why we need them checks. We never got our second check."
"Us either."
"I heard on TV that BP spent $2 billion on the spill."
"Maybe in boom. It's not comin' in money."
Everyone laughs.
"The money goes through local authorities and they stuff it in their pockets. They gettin' the money and it's supposed to come to us and it just gets stuck there."
"We got our first check for the wrong amount and we went to tell them and they said we had to bring in all this paperwork, then we gotta wait two weeks for them to fix the check."

“My husband’s talking about finding BP CEOs and hurting them. He’s not thinking clearly. The oil spill has completely consumed him.”

In the meantime, the women's husbands are working for BP, doing cleanup. Boat captains make $36 an hour, $25 for deckhands, but BP's capping their wages at $200 a day. All around, it's far less than the husbands usually make in June. And there's a lottery for work. Those people who get drawn seven days a week? It's rigged, the women say. There are cliques.
Young, fresh-faced Julie with the toddler on her lap doesn't want her husband doing cleanup anyhow. She tells him to stop doing it because it's dangerous. He says, "How do you want me to feed you?" She says, "How are we gonna eat when we're dead from chemical contamination you're bringing into the house?" He says, "We'll live on the check."
At this point in Julie's re-creation of this daily fight, everyone yells, "But we're not getting the check!"
"Okay," Michelle says calmly. Soon she will admit that she doesn't watch news about Louisiana anymore. She stopped watching it after Katrina. All it does is upset her. When she describes this to us, her body will give away how visceral her response is; she can't talk about the glimpses she's caught of the oil well gushing away, that live underwater feed in the corner of CNN's coverage, without cringing and wincing. But right now, she asks the fishermen's wives how they're feeling.
"Mad! I'm mad! At BP, at nobody has their shit together to take care of all this oil!"
"I'm not depressed; I'm angry."
And the men? How are they dealing with their own anger?
"My husband's talking about finding BP CEOs and hurting them, even if he has to go to prison forever. He's not thinking clearly. The oil spill has completely consumed him."
"They can't smoke pot anymore. It's just a part of the culture, all the fishermen do it, but now they have to take drug tests to get the cleanup work. So now they goin' drinkin'."
"My husband's goin' drinkin'. My husband comes home and screams at me. The food's not good enough, the floors aren't clean enough. That's why I'm here, for him to take it out on me."
In next-door Plaquemines Parish, 11 domestic violence calls came in on one recent weekend, compared with 3 on a typical weekend. Cathy Butler, the woman who takes the calls, isn't ready to attribute the spike entirely to the oil spill; it's a hundred degrees outside, after all, and calls always increase a bit in the summer. The mayor of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, says they've had 320 percent more incidents of domestic violence [2] since the spill. Whatever the cause, Butler is sure it's gonna get worse soon. "The more people are out of work, the more trouble we're gonna have," she says. "Plaquemines Community CARE [3] is offering help now, but we're gonna need some more counselors. In the coming months, I'm gonna see a definite increase." She says she is also seeing an increase in child abuse calls.

In Plaquemines Parish, 11 domestic violence calls came in one weekend; 3 is  typical. The mayor of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, says they’ve had 320 percent more domestic violence incidents since the oil spill.

Michelle tries to offer some perspective to the women by explaining that their husbands' anger is just a reaction against helplessness. He can't fix this, but he can fight. That's why we need to breathe to learn to be calm when we're awake. We need to accept surrender in the situation. If we can keep ourselves grounded, it helps the other person to ground themselves. That's one reason why the St. Bernard Project is reaching out to the fishermen's wives—to spread some of the grounding back to guys who aren't really therapy types. As Margaret Dubuisson of Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans, which has recently added 17 case managers and crisis counselors to its staff, says, "They're not the kind of people who think, when trouble comes along, 'Oh, I need a shrink.'"
Soon after this session, we'll hear about an Alabama charter boat captain shooting himself in the head [4] on board his vessel, which hadn't seen much business lately aside from doing cleanup work for BP. "He had been quite despondent about the oil crisis," said a coroner. One of his deckhands told the Washington Post [5] that many more fishermen share his boss' despair: "It's just setting in with 'em, you know; reality's kicking in. And there's a lot of people that aren't as happy as they used to be."
Everyone in the plantation house practices breathing in—one, two, three, four, five, six—holding for a second with abdomens, not just upper chests, full of oxygen, exhaling through the mouth for six counts more. Try to make it a game with kids, Michelle says. Have them visualize inhaling their favorite color, exhaling smoke with a hiss like a snake. The sound also lets you know they're really doing it, really practicing stress relief. Julie says her daughter can't go into the fish section in Wal-Mart anymore. When she sees it, she just starts crying.
"It's disappointing when you realize you're not as resilient as you thought you was," says a woman in a pink T-shirt. Her name is Donna, and she's ropy, a tight and wiry fortysomething with short dark hair. Once she starts talking, she can't stop spewing distress. "Everyone's saying this knocked us on our knees? We were already on our knees. I used to say I was a Katrina survivor until Gustav, and I realized I hadn't really survived, because I couldn't deal with Gustav. And now this."
The other women let her talk, nodding, though they've not been anywhere near so voluble about their own vulnerability. Tammy, for example, has simply announced several times, "I'm a nervous wreck."
"I feel like if I could just get structure back in my life, I could do it," Donna continues. "I haven't had structure since Katrina. I have four kids and a full-time job and they had all their activities and us adults played baseball but I still found a way to do it because I had structure. We functioned like this just fine. I was 40 when Katrina hit. It took me 25 years to get my structure in place, and now I don't have it. I turn on the washing machine, and come back later, and I've run the washing machine without putting the clothes in it. I don't know what I'm doin'. Every time I start to get structure something else happens. I hope I figure it out before the next disaster. But now I feel like we'll never get there. We're not even goin' in that direction anymore."
Plaquemines Community CARE hopes to expand its wellness services with satellite offices, but doesn't have the funding yet. Catholic Charities does its counseling in St. Bernard on the back porch of a rectory. The organization, which is also the only place many workers affected by the spill can go for some help toward rent and utilities, got $1 million from BP [6] for this kind of emergency assistance. The money ran out in less than a month.
The scenery between New Orleans and the St. Bernard Project office is grim, the stuff they show you on disaster tours [7], neighborhoods that look like Katrina was five weeks ago, not five years ago. The project is still helping the hurricane's survivors, treating 300 low-income patients suffering post-storm trauma in the last year and a half. They saw a surge of mental-health care need just from local residents watching eerily familiar total devastation in Haiti on the news. They now need two satellite offices and to increase hours; Patron Tequila is currently sponsoring a five-city fundraising train tour [8].
Joycelyn Heintz, coordinator of the St. Bernard Project's Mental Health and Wellness Center, is bracing herself for the psychological damage this disaster is going to inflict both on her companions and on her client base. "Once we see the full impact," she says, "it's gonna be worse than Katrina."
*The names of the wives have been changed.

"All I Wanted Was to See Happy Faces"

Louisiana fishermen's wives struggle to keep their kids—and themselves—from thinking about the oil spill.

By Mac McClelland | Thu Jul. 29, 2010 5:36 PM PDT

---

The last time I saw Julie, she was agitated and having trouble taking deep breaths. That was a month ago, at a group therapy session for the wives of fishermen, where they discussed the anxiety, depression, and anger caused by the oil spill and the sudden disruption of their families' livelihood. That was when I named Julie "Julie" to protect the identity of her husband, who she said had talked about hunting down BP CEOs [1]. But today, she's mostly pleased as pie.
"I owe my daughter four years' worth of birthday parties. One year we was in a FEMA trailer, one year we had to use the money to fix the boat trouble, another year we had [Hurricane] Gustav, another year we had the problems with the boat again. So I owe her four parties, and this is like a great, big party."
I've caught up with the fishermen's wives at a day camp they've organized at J.F. Gauthier Elementary School in St. Bernard, Louisiana, and there's hot dogs, barbecue burgers, chips, baseball, water guns, and a bouncy-castle waterslide. Earlier this month, Julie and Brenda, another woman I met at the therapy session, organized three days of entertainment for about 60 local kids with the help of the St. Bernard Project, a community organization founded in the wake of Katrina. Julie surveys the kids running around and squealing in bathing suits with her hands on her hips. "We wanted to give them something to do, something fun. Normally, they'd be fishing with their dads. Fishing, swimming in the bayou, aggravating dad on the boat." All the food and entertainment is donated, the product of endless phone calls and solicitations. "I haven't even been thinking about the oil spill these last two weeks. I've just been trying to get something to do for the kids."
The donations go well beyond picnic fare. Inside the school gym, big cardboard boxes are piled along the walls. Earlier this morning, pickup trucks pulled up and volunteers helped unload a miscellany of hastily assembled aid: Many bottles of water. Huge stacks of Levis in a several sizes. Bratz-branded tennis shoes, kids' slippers with Shrek on them. Kitchen disinfectant. About a million Band-Aids. Women walk the perimeter carrying Mastercard tote bags someone dropped off, filling them with anything they can use. None of the Levis are in Julie's size. Someone else complains that the tennis shoes are only for girls and the baby shoes are only for boys.
"We really need diapers and school supplies," Julie tells me. "School's coming up, and a lot of people are gettin' worried about buying uniforms." (Here, all schoolchildren have to wear uniforms.) With BP's claims checks coming late or in vastly reduced amounts [2], unemployed fishermen's families may be low on cash. Catholic Charities has been picking up some of the slack, giving away millions of dollars worth of grocery vouchers and rent assistance, but many people still need basics like toiletries and clothes.
"Also," Julie says, "we need people who aren't affected to stop coming and taking the donations from those in need." She lowers her voice. "Like this gang behind you."
I've already talked to the women she's referring to as they sorted through free low-quality tank tops; they are indeed not spill victims. And in this still-drowned-out part of town—the houses across the street from the school still bear the National Guard's post-Katrina spray-paint markings [3]—"need" is sort of a relative term. One of the women looking at tank tops recently moved out of a FEMA trailer. She asked me nervously if there were any school uniforms available or if I knew when or where she might be able to get some. But right now, in this gym full of children dragging each other around on empty cardboard boxes, need refers only to people who may still be struggling from the last rash of disasters and have been smacked by Deepwater Horizon.
The wives' next project, Brenda tells me back outside, is a weekend-long fundraiser. It may involve a car wash with the kids, among other things. They're still trying to get donations to put on another camp in August, trying to get the kids involved in the planning—"the water balloons we have here were their idea"—trying to find someone to spring for the uniforms. She has no idea what to do about the larger and longer-term issues. "All these kids, by the time they're in high school, they're workin'. As soon as they're of age, they work on a boat. When they're in high school, they earn enough money to buy cars. By the time they get outta high school, they buy a boat."
She's quiet about that for a moment, then waves her hand dismissively. "Anyway, settin' this up was a lot of time. I been so busy. It just kept my mind off the oil spill. I wanted to do something I knew I could make it happen, and all I wanted was to see happy faces."

Chamber of Commerce Goes After Climate Dissenters In Its Ranks

The pro-business lobby says a breakaway group of members calling for climate action is a front group for the NRDC.

By Josh Harkinson | Mon Aug. 2, 2010 4:30 AM PDT

---

A new split over climate policy is brewing within the ranks of the US Chamber of Commerce [1] as a breakaway group of local chambers is getting ready to publicly split with the business lobby's hardline stance against climate legislation. The new climate coalition, known as the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy (CICE) [2], will press Congress to take stronger action on climate and energy issues. It has already signed up about a dozen chambers and will officially launch later this year.
The US Chamber is already working behind the scenes to discredit the new group. After it caught wind of the effort last month, it fired off a letter to local chamber leaders, discouraging them from joining CICE, which it claimed was "established by the Natural Resources Defense Council." The letter, written by US Chamber board member Winthrop Hallett, the president of Alabama's Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, states that the new group's "indirect purpose appears to be undermining the U.S. Chamber's and the business community's leadership on" climate issues.
The claim that CICE is little more than a front group for the NRDC is "outrageous" and "really just pissed me off," says Steve Falk, the president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which has been organizing the independent climate coalition. Hallett's letter, which has not been posted publicly but which Mother Jones has seen [3], does not explain the alleged connection between CICE and the NRDC. Hallett and a spokesman for the US Chamber did not respond to requests for comment.

In a letter that Falk sent to local chamber leaders last week in response to the US Chamber's attack, he speculated that its claim of a NRDC link might be based on CICE's connection with Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) [4], a NRDC partner group that bills itself as "the independent business voice for the environment." Falk and E2 cofounder Bob Epstein say that the group did help design CICE's website [2] but did not conceive of the idea for the group or craft its talking points.
In his letter to chamber leaders, Falk assured them that "no organizations other than local chambers of commerce have or will influence CICE's principles." The "core principles" published on CICE's website [2] call for America to "lead the clean energy race" and assert that "limiting carbon emissions will drive innovation." Falk says the principles were crafted in partnership with other chambers and were based on language the San Francisco Chamber had originally developed in support of AB32, California's cap-and-trade law [5], which is scheduled to go into effect later this year.
Falk says the San Francisco Chamber began organizing the alternative climate coalition two months ago after he realized that lobbying for a cap-and-trade bill on his own "is probably not the best way to impact national legislation." Thousands of businesses have signed up to support carbon regulations through coalitions such as American Businesses for Clean Energy, but he noticed that no similar effort existed among local chambers of commerce. He worried that the chambers' failure to go to bat on the issue could mean that companies in San Francisco and other progressive cities "will wake up one day and question the relevance of chambers of commerce." Dozens of local chambers from cities across the country are seriously considering joining CICE, accordig to Falk. Last month, he decided to postpone CICE's original August launch date after a cap-and-trade plan stalled in the Senate. But the group's existence leaked out late last week [6] after a reporter from the Aspen Daily News atteneded a board meeting of the Aspen, Colorado, chamber of commerce, a CICE member.
Though the national Chamber of Commerce has said that it could support some form of climate bill, it has opposed aggressive efforts to limit carbon emissions and argued that any such action should be the result of a global treaty, not federal regulation. Over the past year, it has faced widening divisions [7] over its policy. Since last August, when Chamber vice president Steve Kovacs called for a "Scopes Monkey Trial [7]" on climate science, more than a dozen major companies have dropped out of the Chamber or distanced themselves from its climate policy. Several local chambers have publicly opposed [8] the national group's climate stance; the San Francisco Chamber even lobbied against it [9] in Washington.

The US Chamber has known about the new climate coalition since mid-July, when its West Coast representative obtained a copy of a  membership solicitation from the group. Falk then sent the US Chamber a copy of CICE's principles and asked for feedback. The only response he's gotten to date is a copy of the letter from Winthrop Hallett, who chairs the US Chamber's Committee of 100, a top policy committee.
Falk ultimately hopes to attract 30 to 50 local chambers to CICE—enough to earn the group a prominent spot in the national climate debate. The way he sees it, there's no conflict between advocating for a progressive climate policy and remaining staunchly pro-business. "I mean, we're a chamber of commerce," he says. "We don't want government to mandate how business is run. But we know that there's a whole new economy out there, a whole new economic development engine with a move to clean energy. We see it happening in San Francisco. We think that's possible elsewhere."

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse

By DAVID STOCKMAN

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.
This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.
The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.
It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.
It may be true that governments, because they intervene in foreign exchange markets, have never completely allowed their currencies to float freely. But that does not absolve Friedman’s $8 trillion error. Once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors.
In fact, since chronic current-account deficits result from a nation spending more than it earns, stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure. When the dollar was tied to fixed exchange rates, politicians were willing to administer the needed castor oil, because the alternative was to make up for the trade shortfall by paying out reserves, and this would cause immediate economic pain — from high interest rates, for example. But now there is no discipline, only global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve.
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.
Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.
Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.
The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.
But the trillion-dollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been government-guaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.
The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.
The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.

David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis.

Court missed the mark with ruling on immigration law (Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl

By Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) 07/29/10 11:07 AM ET

Arizona Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R) Wednesday made the following statement regarding the United States District Court of Arizona’s decision blocking enforcement of certain provisions of the Arizona immigration law:We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly "burden" the enforcement of federal immigration law.Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take , it’s even more important to implement our Ten-Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.

Despite injunction, Ariz. GOP believes court will uphold immigration law

By Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party - 07/29/10 09:08 AM ET

While we are disappointed in the federal court's decision to issue a temporary injunction, it is often the case that a judge will initially approve a temporary injunction until they have an opportunity to hear and read arguments and legal research from both sides. Our expectation is that Judge Bolton will rule in favor of S.B. 1070 as we believe that S.B. 1070 is constitutional.

Based on my prior experience with Proposition 200, I expect this case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal government's argument that S.B. 1070 would have placed and undue burden on them is as absurd as it is a complete dismissal of the tremendous burden placed on Arizona by the federal government not doing its job. The mere fact that they would rather sue the Grand Canyon state than allow us to protect ourselves is patently ridiculous and completely out of touch with needs of Arizonans.
Randy Pullen is chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and treasurer of the Republican National Committee.

'Sanctuary cities': A double standard on immigration (Rep. Charlie Dent)
By Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) 07/30/10 10:04 AM ET

Across the United States, discussions involving the state of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law became very impassioned. Simultaneously, many Americans expressed concern surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to prevent the law's implementation. Unfortunately, a very serious point was lost in the discourse.Working under the direction of President Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in its suit that Arizona’s law must be struck down because it usurps federal authority to enforce current immigration law. Ironically, while the administration spends time and resources battling Arizona's law in court, dozens of "sanctuary cities" around the country candidly refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement. I am stunned by the hypocrisy exhibited by this administration’s decision to file a lawsuit against a state for enforcing laws to protect its residents from the harmful impact of border crime, while casting a blind eye to cities that provide safe haven to illegal and sometimes criminal aliens.During a recent hearing in the Committee on Homeland Security, I questioned James Dinkins, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) official tasked with conducting homeland security investigations, about this troubling double standard. Mr. Dinkins acknowledged that the lack of cooperation by sanctuary cities can be “challenging” for federal agencies and “does come at a cost,” especially when ICE experiences difficulties building a criminal case against an alien.

Arizona’s attorney general, who has been a vocal opponent of his state’s law, even admitted at the hearing there is an “inconsistency” in the federal government filing a lawsuit against his state for attempting to identify illegal aliens in their communities, given a recent public statement by the administration indicating it has no concern with addressing the dozens of sanctuary cities across the nation.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report that found the cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is $113 billion annually. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone, the cost is an astonishing $1.3 billion. Surely these costs, borne by American taxpayers, would prompt swift action by the administration to crack down on cities deliberately providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case.
If this cost alone cannot garner the attention of the administration, certainly the dangerous activities of criminal aliens living in these communities must. Again, not the case. In 2007, the country was shocked by news that three young adults were brutally gunned down in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard by an illegal alien who was free on a $150,000 bond after being indicted on aggravated assault charges and 31 counts of child abuse.
Sadly, this assailant had an opportunity to kill these young people because the courts that set his bail were either unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he was living in this country illegally. This situation was not an aberration — at the time of the murders, the Newark Police Department had a policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to inquiring about a defendant’s immigration status. Though some may cast aside this case as a rare situation, the reality is there are cities with policies that mirror Newark’s across the country.
If this administration was serious about addressing the nation’s growing illegal immigration problem, it would be working to eliminate the alluring safe haven offered by sanctuary cities. Instead, it has prioritized a misguided lawsuit against a state taking steps to improve security for its residents in light of the federal government’s own failure to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.