Ryan Griffin in HuffPo, yeah yeah:

A bloc of African American House Democrats, angry and worried that not enough is being done about high unemployment by the administration, forced the postponement of a much-anticipated vote Thursday on comprehensive financial regulation reform.

And "progressives" couldn't do the same thing on health care why, exactly?

I sent an email to Eric Massa some time back, thanking him for voting against HR 3962, and specified that I didn't need a reply, as I'm not one of his constituents. I got a 'form letter' response anyway, and thought I would share it.

Dear [hipparchia]:

Because you have previously been in touch about health issues, I am writing to let you know why I voted "no" on the 2009 major health care reform bill (H.R. 3962). Being accountable to you for my actions, perhaps you will forgive a detailed response.

(x-posted at ePluribus media)

Via The Hill, John Conyers hammers Obama's weak stance in the healthcare battle in a radio interview:

"I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House," Conyers said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "He only won by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn't even anything to write home about."

"The only way he could have got it through was that progressives held their nose," Conyers added.

The veteran Michigan Democrat had teamed with Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-Ohio) to push single-payer options in the health reform bill, a
battle which Conyers said was far from over.

And on Rahm Emmanuel? Via the NY Times:

Simon Johnson:

[Brit banking boffins] Haldane and Alessandri offer a tough, perhaps bleak assessment. Our boom-bust-bailout cycle is, in their view, a “doom loop”. Banks have an incentive to take excessive risk and every time they and their creditors are bailed out, we create the conditions for the next crisis.

Any banker who denies this is the case lacks self-awareness or any sense of history, or perhaps just wants to do it again. ...

The Haldane-Alessandri “doom loop” is fast becoming the new baseline view, i.e., if you want to explain what happened or – more interestingly – what can happen going forward, you need to position your arguments relative to the structure and data in their paper. ...

How can we believe that for the regulators, “next time is different“? Most likely, next time will be exactly the same, with different terminology: the financial sector “innovates”, regulators buy their story that risks are now properly managed, and the ensuing bailout (again) breaks all records.

Pravda:

The Obama administration announced plans Monday to hold a forum on jobs and economic growth at the White House on Dec. 3, after which the president will go on the road to demonstrate his concern about the nation's rising jobless rate.

With the nation's unemployment rate at its highest level in 26 years, President Obama plans to bring together CEOs, small business owners and financial experts* to sound out ideas for continuing to expand [?] the economy and create jobs.

"During these difficult economic times, we have a responsibility to consider all good ideas to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country," Obama said in a statement.

The president outlined plans for the forum before leaving for Asia last week, but at the time had not nailed down a date. The White House said Obama would follow the forum with a visit to Allentown, Pa., for the first stop of what the White House is calling a Main Street Tour, which will take him to across the country over several months.

Months. So, we're going to have to go through the campaign of 2008 all over again.

... in the Afghanistan quagmire, graveyard of empires.

Via RDemocrat in Hillbilly Report:

As if the ideas being floated in the Senate were not bad enough, it appears as if even the "exchange" that they have adopted as one of their main components of healthcare reform will have an "escape clause" for Insurance companies. ...

Senate Bill Could Offer Insurance Companies "Exchange" Loophole [WaPo]:

For example, the bill written by the Senate health committee would not require insurers operating outside the marketplace to provide standardized disclosures about what they cover. ....

I'll just quote Riggsveda:

The Final Word on Health Care Reform

Charles Pierce at Altercation sums it up so perfectly it needs nothing more than a blockquote:

I'm sorry but while both Ezra KLEIN and Jon COHN have done great work on this issue, they are talking here about a country and a political system that no longer exist. And their responses to Marcia Angell's CRI DE COEUR are largely political, and not really to the point of her piece, which is that no substantive reform of the system is possible until the control that the insurance industry exercises over the practice of medicine is broken forever. The now-familiar argument is that the House bill--even if it had a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the Senate intact, which it doesn't--represents a good first step. When exactly was the last time our political system--to say nothing of the Congress--did anything in "steps"? We don't progress. We move a step ahead, and then there's an election, and then we move another ste

Crossposted at ZBlogs, Firedoglake and TPMCafe

How can we get repealing bans on first cousin marriage on the US legislative agenda?

I think it would clearly help in getting started to consider why it has not already been raised as an issue, given facts like that no other Western country prohibits it and that the genetic arguments have been shown to be hollow.

I can see at least two big reasons why it's been neglected:

Eye of the Storm:

now first of all the legal approach to these cases has been an insane tissue of contradictions. so: the opponents of a civilian trial say: 9.11 was an act of war, not a crime. well then, he is a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal and must under treaty be treated as a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal: treated according to the geneva conventions and tried in the hague, for example. but no: he's not a soldier, not a general: terror is not war (these same people say during a different three-minute slice): he's not in uniform; does not represent a state. now this combination of assertions (for short, p and not-p) is why we can do exactly anything we feel like to him at any time, for example, waterboard him hundreds of times over a period of months, or torture him continuously for years. that is, as any logician will tell you, anything follows from a contradiction.

That's the sting in the tail of this Golden Sacks report quoted at HuffPo. To GS, though status quo is best* (bien sur), the Senate Finance Bill is the "base" scenario, a watered down version of it the "bull" scenario_{MR SUBLIMINAL No shit} and the HR 3962 is the "bear" scenario. But remember the baseline on financial reform? That if the banksters aren't threatening to commit suicide, the reforms are too weak? Same here. If GS isn't saying the bills are the end of the world, they're too weak.)

A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing a watered-down version of the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

Haw.

A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the estimated stock performance of the private insurance industry under four variations of reform legislation. The study focused on the five biggest insurers whose shares are traded on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and Humana.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman's analysts conclude is the version most likely to survive the legislative process, is described as the "base" scenario. Under that legislation (which did not include a public plan) the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, the "variance with current valuation" -- essentially, what the value of the stock is on the market -- is projected to drop four percent.

Things are much worse [that is, better for people who need health care], Goldman estimates, for legislation that resembles what was considered and (to a certain extent) passed by the House of Representatives. This is, the firm deems, the "bear case" scenario -- in which earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with current valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.

What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private insurance industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.

The study's authors advise that if no reform is passed, earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.

And now, here's the sting:

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Barney Frank has become something of a darling on the left because of his feistiness, which heaven knows is in short supply among Democratic politicians. That quality seems to work best for someone who will go down with the ship on principle, all other considerations be damned; someone like Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the House health care bill under just that circumstance. (Phoenix Woman brilliantly articulated the hazards of this outlook.*) It does not work so well with someone who appears to be at least half in the pocket of the interests he ostensibly oversees.

His interview with Ed Schultz earlier this week gave a clear illustration of why. Schultz pushed on a couple of key points: Last year's bailout came with no strings attached, and as a result the major players have gone back to the same reckless behavior. Frank turned prickly, which is what feisty looks like when you don't like it, and almost immediately said "don't condescend to me" when Schultz was obviously doing no such thing. He proceeded to condescend to Schultz throughout the interview; "the point I made to you several times" and "What's the matter with you?" stand out. There was also this:

SCHULTZ: Congressman, why can't you just admit that this was a serious misstep on the part of the Congress? You forked out billions of dollars to save the economy, I get all that, to get the structure back going again. But you didn't ask them questions about how this...

FRANK: No, Ed. You're wrong.

SCHULTZ: Oh, tell me I'm wrong.

FRANK: You're wrong. And I'd like to be able to explain it.

From the U.S. based Iranian scholar Behzad Yahgmaian, some optimistic updates:

The presidential election of June 12, which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared to have won, gave birth to a grassroots movement that has been evolving politically, embracing broader segments of the population, discovering new methods of struggle, and refusing to die despite widespread government violence.

It has bewildered the conservatives, surpassed the political limits of the reformists, and become a wildcard with a potential to change Iran in profound ways.

... for another Kool-Aid aperitif. Obama's thinking 2010 won't be 1937-38. But Krugman's disagreeing. Krugman's got a keen chart, too:

Pravda buries the lead:

Allies [of departing White House counsel Gregory Craig] also note that he oversaw the successful confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and praised him for trying to keep Obama in synch with some of the ideologically liberal ideas he promoted in the campaign.

McClatchy called their shot on this "Rahmian act of public humiliation" back in September.

The only reason the Howler repeats himself is that our famously free press does. As for example:

This morning, the gods rocked with laughter: On Olympus, that is. Reason? On the front page of the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg penned a report about the way current health reform bills would deal with American health care spending. On Olympus, her opening paragraph produced some muffled laughter:

STOLBERG (11/10/09): As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama's promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

Note that definition again: We’ll accept a rise in health care spending—it just can’t be a runaway rise! As Stolberg continued, the muffled laughter became full-throated—almost a roar:

STOLBERG (continuing directly): Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Can you see why the gods, and their guests, were now openly laughing? In the face of a “runaway rise in health care spending,” Stolberg almost seemed to suggest that a “trim” in growth, of 1.5 percent, somehow connected to the idea that “cost containment” was “a centerpiece” of Obama’s agenda! And then too, the gods, and their guests, had all seen the OECD figures—the figures which show the baseline of American health care spending. Can you see why the gods, and their guests, were now laughing hard at us mortals?

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
France: $3601
Germany: $3588
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)

There’s the baseline for any future rise. In 2007, the U.S. spent 102 percent more than the French! In Stolberg’s account, it seems that we’re planning to “trim” 1.5 of those 102 points! But then, cost containment is a centerpiece of our health care agenda!

On Olympus, the sides of the gods are starting to split in the face of our culture’s year-long clowning—clowning which is mainly conducted at the very top of our “press corps.” Our advice: Surrender the prejudice of your youth! In a hundred different ways, you were told that “man” is “the rational animal!” As your society flounders and drowns, you—like the gods—can learn to see something quite different.

By contrast, here's how they do it in France:

On a separate thread where folks are discussing possible legal challenges health care bill, I said I'd look around to see if there have been any challenges to Massachusetts mandatory coverage law and how they fared. This is by no means comprehensive:

Mass.
Against the Mass. law, I could find only one challenge and that was thrown out on what seem to be procedural grounds rather than on the merits. (I can't find the slip op. online to confirm).

Tea Party Challenges

[I thought I'd update and re-post this, since with HR3962 our GENIUS Dems have really outdone themselves their indefatigable efforts to preserve the two-party system by giving the Republicans ever better odds in 2010 and 2012. Not that it matters to them; they're all made in Versailles by now anyhow. --lambert]

Obviously, I'm not a member of that curious breed, the "Democratic Strategist," nor do I play one on the teebee, nor do I have an interest in joining the League of Triple-A Democratic Strategists as a way to make it into The Show; and anyhow, if I were any good at strategerizing, somebody would be paying me to do it (Inside Rotisserie Baseball commenters take note).

Then again, because I'm not paid [except for your donations!], I can't ignore the obvious on health care insurance reform, and it seems to me that the "some bill, any bill" that the current Congress is going to emit will have some problems down the line. Among them:

1. Pffft. That deflated feeling, as of air escaping from a tire, will come when people compare the promise of "hope" and "change" to what is actually delivered -- and when (2013). As far at the [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan], I still think my "baseline scenario" -- the mandate will force millions to buy junk insurance, bailing out the insurance companies -- is the most likely outcome, and it's not going to play well over time, especially with Obama's youthful base [UPDATE See Ian Welsh]. Then again, we might think that the electoral process has become a stepping stone to lucrative jobs on K Street or on the teebee, and so what we think of as the politics or optics of it all is just not relevant to insiders and wannabe insiders.

Who knew? But it's nice to see it all put together:

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Because it’s not the best we can do. It mandates people purchase private insurance. It is a $70 billion giveaway to private insurance companies and locks in this system that’s the problem, not the solution.

David Jenny writes* in the Bangor Daily News:

The president and Congress agree: Washington’s solution to 46 million uninsured Americans is to “mandate” that they all purchase health insurance from private companies, or — if the president’s view should prevail — a government-run “public option.”

Until now, our federal government has never claimed the power to compel individual citizens to pay insurance premiums to either private companies or government entities.

Astonishingly, no one is asking: “Does the federal government actually have the power to dictate that individuals purchase health insurance?” ....

Krugman:

[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

If only the same thing would happen with the Democrats!

Times:

A widening gap between data and reality is distorting the government’s picture of the country’s economic health, overstating growth and productivity in ways that could affect the political debate on issues like trade, wages and job creation.

The shortcomings of the data-gathering system came through loud and clear here Friday and Saturday at a first-of-its-kind gathering of economists from academia and government determined to come up with a more accurate statistical picture.

Shackled Howie Hawkins appears in Syracuse City Court

Hawkins was arrested around 1 p.m. Wednesday by Syracuse police outside the office of National Government Services at 400 S. Salina St., which houses the care claims office of Wellpoint Inc., a large health insurer. Hawkins said he was trying to enter the building to deliver a letter to the CEO of Wellpoint Inc. demanding that the CEO’s salary be cut and put into healthcare. ...

Telegraph:

Pupils in England will be given classes in sex and relationships from the age of five under Government plans to cut teenage pregnancies.

Children will learn about parts of the body, the facts of life and puberty in primary school. At secondary school, they will be taught about pregnancy, contraception, HIV and homosexual relationships, it was disclosed.

Morning-after pills available to one third of pupils All mothers and fathers will be able to keep children out on moral and religious grounds but will lose the right of withdraw when they turn 15. The ruling will affect 600,000 pupils a year.

As a testiment to Delaware's secrecy, I barely knew it existed.

Reuters:

Move over Switzerland. The tiny state of Delaware beats the Alpine country in a contest for the most secretive financial jurisdiction, a tax justice rights group said on Saturday.

The United States, led by the eastern seaboard state, took in $2.6 trillion in deposits from non-resident corporations and individuals in 2007, according to a survey of financial jurisdictions analyzed by the Tax Justice Network.