The Provocateur

Public Option Medicare Buy In Out?

2009-12-14T19:02:00.000-08:00

The Senate caucus has met and the latest news appears to be that the public option is out and so is the Medicare buy in.

Senators emerging from the special Democratic caucus confirmed that the Medicare buy-in proposal will have to be stripped from the Senate bill in order to achieve 60 votes, marking a major concession on behalf of liberal Democrats fighting to have a public option, or some kind of alternative.

Now, the question remains whether or not the liberals in the Senate and in the House will go along. That's still unclear. Roland Burris is already balking but no one seems to take his bluster seriously.

If the liberals are smart, they take this deal, and the House agrees to the Senate compromise. This would still create a massive 2000 page bill. It still has over 100 new bureaucracies. There still plenty of government control. Even if they aren't offering insurance themselves, the government will now dictate health insurance in all sorts of new ways. That still gets the liberals plenty close enough to their dream of single payer.

The U.S. as an Oligarchy

2009-12-14T09:51:00.000-08:00

The President, in his 60 minutes interview, came out with this quote in particular that seems to have the most staying power.

I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street

Whether President Obama did or not, in fact, that's exactly what's happened. The only thing that is clear that's come out of the financial crisis is that our banks were on the brink of collapse, they were given a near $1 trillion lifeline, and now most are doing just fine. That was followed immediately by a $50 billion lifeline to the auto companies.

So, President Obama's populist rhetoric means little with a policy that clearly favors the connected in the business world. In fact though, President Obama is not unique. Most of those in power produce policies that favor those in power. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing but a power thing. President Obama merely produced rhetoric that made some people believe that he would be different. When push came to shove, he showered the elites with billions like every other politicians.

What we effectively have in this country is an oligarchy.

An oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony

It's a government run by the special interests, big business, and everyone else with access to power. Long ago, it stopped being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if it ever really was.

This time last year, Goldman Sachs was on the verge of collapse. Now, it's making billions trading oil futures. The same could have been said of Chase. Now, it's making billions in mergers and acquisitions. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac have stripped the illusion entirely of being separate of the government and are now just owned. Before then, powerful politicians would move seamlessly from D.C. to powerful positions within either or both (a la Rahm Emanuel) and, as a result, both have been given special treatment and perks for decades. While President Obama demands reforms of just about everything, he's doing nothing to reform either Fannie/Freddie.

After the banks got their bailout, the auto companies were next and the bailout was followed by cash for clunkers which made served as a major stimulant to sell cars. All of it has a dubious effect on the economy as a whole, but certainly it benefits the bankers and the automakers.

President Obama is not unique in this at all. For decades Republicans have protected the oil industry as though their cousins worked there. Six companies control more than 60% of the entire market. All of them make tens of billions yearly all at once and no politician finds anything the slightest bit wrong with any of it.

The insurance companies receive their own special favors. McCarron/Ferguson gave the health insurance provider a special denomination that exempts them from Sherman Anti Trust and as a result they have conducted a so called market that's actually just created a set of regional monopolies that allow the insurance companies to dominate their own regional markets and leave other regional markets for their so called competitors. In reality, it allows a series of health insurance companies to all make money at the same time all while enjoying an environment with little competition.

If it isn't big business that gets special treatment, then it's big labor. The labor unions enjoy just as many special privileges from our government as many of our biggest companies. Health care reform can't pass unless it gets its stamp of approval from the top labor unions. When I say stamp of approval, I mean that health care reform can't hurt the health care packages of the unions.

The list goes on and on. We have a government based on influence and power. In Chicago, we call this clout. Our government benefits those with clout. If you have clout, you have influence. If you have influence, the government legislates in your favor. You could just call it an oligarchy.

Show Trial in Iran

2009-12-14T08:54:00.000-08:00

The three hikers seized by Iran and charged with espionage appear likely to face trial.

Iran said Monday it would try three Americans jailed since crossing the border from Iraq in July, a step certain to aggravate the U.S. at a time when Tehran is locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki did not say when proceedings would begin or specify the charge other than to say the Americans had "suspicious aims." In November, however, authorities accused the Americans of spying.

There are concerns in the U.S. that Iran could use them as bargaining chips in talks over its nuclear program or in seeking the return of Iranians they say are missing.

So, the geopolitical dance continues.

Crisis in Zimbabwe

2009-12-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

The ruling party appears on the brink of disintegration.

His Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu PF), which has ruled Zimbabwe since independence from Britain in 1980 is disintegrating into tribal fiefdoms.

The party's 5th National Congress ended on Saturday evening without any agreement on crucial amendments to the party's constitution, which has a bearing on the selection of Mr Mugabe's successor.One of the major constitutional proposals is a demand by party members for the scrapping of a clause that ensures that the party votes along tribal lines for the top posts in the presidium.

Members from the south western parts of the country want the position of party chairman and first vice president reserved for former members of the Patriotic Front - Zimbabwe African People's Union (PF Zapu).

ZAPU is the ruling party of dictator Robert Mughabe. The party can't seem to figure out who will succeed Mughabe. Mughabe has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. He took a relatively stable country and turned into a banana republic that once had inflation rates in the tens of thousands.

Two years ago, a tainted election lead to a power sharing agreement between Mughabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.

Dr. Chacko to Boston?

2009-12-13T17:58:00.000-08:00

After a tip from a commenter, the trail for Dr. Chacko's next job may be leading to Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Chacko's resume is on line and her preferred destination is Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Chacko also appears to maintain an active medical license in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Montana.

Dr. Chacko spent about six years in the Boston area. She spent about five plus years at Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts. When she was fired, Dr. Chacko was carried out by security screaming

Kiss my big Indian ass

She then moved onto the Boston University medical center where she was removed after about a year after sexual harrassment complaints were reported to human resources.

In order to maintain an active license in Massachusetts, it must be renewed every two years. Several questions must be answered including whether or not you have been fired from any institution. Either Dr. Chacko didn't answer those questions truthfully, or the Massachusetts Medical Board doesn't care that a doctor continues to get fired over and over. It's also interesting that one medical license not listed is Pennsylvania even though she's worked there for the last year.

UPDATE: I've just been told that to work in the VA system all you need is a license in any one state and not necessarily the state you work in and that's likely why Dr. Chacko didn't have a medical license in Pennsylvania.

Video, Quote and Word of the Day

2009-12-13T17:13:00.000-08:00

timorous

full of apprehension

When he to whom one speaks does not understand, and he who speaks himself does not understand, that is metaphysics.

Voltaire

Houston Elects First Openly Gay Mayor

2009-12-13T14:36:00.000-08:00

Houston becomes the largest city in the country to have an openly gay mayor.

A lesbian candidate won Houston's mayoral election Saturday night, a vote that made the city the largest in the U.S. to ever have an openly gay mayor.

"This election has changed the world for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Just as it is about transforming the lives of all Houstonians for the better, and that's what my administration will be about," City Controller Annise Parker told supporters after former city attorney Gene Locke conceded defeat.

Parker got 53 percent of the vote. More than 152,000 residents turned out to cast ballots in the fourth largest U.S. city.

The race turned explosive as a couple of conservative and religious groups sent out mailers and other correspondences making an issue of Parker's sexuality.

Is Obama's Foreign Policy Changing?

2009-12-13T11:41:00.000-08:00

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech gave conservatives, or dare I say neoconservatives, plenty to love.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

...

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

...

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

Without a doubt, sprinkled into his Nobel Peace Prize speech were shots at the previous administration and tacit acknowledgements to the Euro liberals about America's past moral failings. Still, the general tenor of the speech was a very vigorous defense of a muscular foreign policy.

The speech came within a week of the President's announcement that he would send more troops to Afghanistan. The speech was applauded by no less than Newt Gingrich, who called it Obama's best, and Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Neoconservative stalwarts William Kristol and Fred Kagan had this to say following the announcement of Obama's Afghanistan strategy.

Obama's decision, and the speech in which it was announced, were not flawless. The president should have met his commander's full request for forces. He should not have announced a deadline for the start of the withdrawal of U.S. forces. He should have committed to a specific and significant increase in the size of the Afghan National Security Forces. He should also have explained more clearly the relationship between defeating the Taliban and defeating al Qaeda, the significance of such a victory, and the reasons his Afghan strategy can succeed. The secretaries of defense and state, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made those arguments far more compellingly in subsequent congressional testimony than the president did at West Point.

We shouldn't miss the forest for the trees, however. When all the rhetorical and other problems are stripped away, the fact remains that Obama has, in his first year in office, committed to doubling our forces in Afghanistan and embraced our mission there. Indeed, the plan the president announced on Tuesday features a commendably rapid deployment of reinforcements to the theater, with most of the surge forces arriving over the course of this winter, allowing them to be in position before the enemy's traditional fighting season begins.

In fact, the Nobel Peace Prize speech moved Bill Kristol to say this.

There was a fair amount for Bush Doctrine-supporters, American-exceptionalist patriots, and neocon warmongers to like in Obama's Oslo speech. He sounded hardheaded and pro-American, certainly by contrast with his previous rhetorical forays abroad--his utopian world-without-nuclear-weapons remarks in Prague in April or his apologetic speech to the Muslim world in Cairo two months later.

In Oslo, Obama began "by acknowledging a hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." The implication of that? "There will be times when nations--acting individually or in concert--will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

Note that "acting individually." Despite much talk elsewhere in the speech about the international community acting together, Obama held open the possibility that nations will have to act alone and will be morally justified in doing so.

Similarly, despite his professed admiration for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Obama explicitly said, "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Indeed, Obama went on implicitly to rebuke Gandhi: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies."

Kristol goes on to speculate if the Oslo speech was a precursor to a strike on Iran.

One thing that was underreported was the reaction to Obama in Europe following this speech. The Nobel Peace Prize speech was by far the most bellicose acceptance speech for the Nobel PEACE Prize that I can think of. Yet, there was little if any criticism of its bellicosity. In fact, the general reaction was positive.

Obama has in fact set things up to lead the world into aggressive action against Iran if that's what he chooses to do. His foreign policy has slowly but surely moved away from the naive leftist fantasy that it started out as to a much more realistic one.

It's true that Obama continues to insist on closing GITMO and trying KSM et al in country is disastrous. At the same time, Obama has effectively continued Bush's Iraq policy. He's followed a similar strategy in Afghanistan. If the Nobel Peace Prize speech is any indication, he may be moving to a muscular policy toward Iran as well.

The beauty is that if that's what he chooses he's in fact set himself up perfectly. The Europeans are enthralled with Obama. Only President Barack Obama could convince the Europeans to take a muscular stance against Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean a rush to war. In fact, he could lead the charge against serious sanctions, a Naval blockade, removal of ambassadors, and any other meaningful act against that nation. He set out a muscular foreign policy in Oslo and the Europeans didn't merely not criticize but applauded.

Obama can in fact demand such a policy of the Europeans and he's about the only person capable of leading it. It's too early to tell if Obama's policy real has moderated on foreign policy. There is however plenty for those like me to like lately.

There is always an X factor in any presidency. That is that the office itself changes and evolves the holder. It's very possible that the office has shown President Obama that the policies he was in favor of when a candidate are untennable and the office is forcing Obama to moderate. It's something to watch as his own presidency evolves.

Point Counter Point Weekly Addresses

2009-12-12T14:49:00.000-08:00

There's good news this week from the weekly addresses. That is that neither had anything to do with health care reform. The president's address focused on jobs and the financial reform package that just passed out of the House.

The president has been feeling some economic momentum ever since the November jobs numbers came out and they hit a negative of 11,000. The administration, and many others, feel that the economy crossed a major hurdle with that number and the president said so.

He focused most of the address on the financial reforms that just passed the House. The president blamed, again, most of the financial crisis on the bankers and their complicated financial schemes and risky investments. He blamed not only a lack of regulations but a lack of enforcement.

The president feels that his reform package will end all that, and the centerpiece of that package is the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a new regulator. It's very dubious that any of this will do anything but make it more complicated, more full of paperwork, and more confusing. We already have a plethora of regulators and regulations. None of that stopped the crisis because the regulators and regulations never keep up with financial innovation. All this would do is give more bureaucrats more power.

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn delivered the Republican response. Blackburn delivered her response on the issue of climate change. She railed on cap and trade which she called a massive tax increase on "American families". She went after the recent EPA ruling that classified CO2 as a dangerous emission. Finally, she railed against Democrats for moving forward in Copenhagen despite the scandal regarding the emails that showed scientists willfully hiding data that went against their theses.

Blackburn said that if Obama has his way in Copenhagen then world leaders would force upon Americans all sorts of new regulations that will increase our energy costs exponentially. Meanwhile, Republicans are arriving in Copenhagen this week for their own counter protest.

Blackburn says that Republican favor an "all of the above approach". This is all standard talking points on this issue from Republicans. I don't think that anything substantive will come of Copenhagen. I don't think that any substantive cap and trade bill will pass. That leaves the EPA as the only way for Obama to impose some sort of regulation to force a new kind of economy.

GITMO to Illinois?

2009-12-12T12:19:00.000-08:00

There appears to be growing momentum to send some or all of the GITMO detainees to Thomson, Illinois to the Super max there.

Democratic leaders in Illinois applauded a draft memo leaked to a conservative Web site Friday that they believe suggests the government is seriously considering transferring terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to their state.

The White House cautioned that the memo is merely a preparation in case such a decision is made, but Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Gov. Pat Quinn said in a joint statement late Friday that it signals "the administration has narrowed its focus" to a nearly empty maximum-security state prison in Thomson, a sleepy town of 450 people near the Mississippi River about 150 miles west of Chicago.

"Even though the final decision has not been made, we are encouraged by this development," Durbin and Quinn said. "We will continue working with the White House, the Defense Department and the Justice Department to address important questions regarding security and job creation, and finalize this agreement."

The story comes after a leaked memo wound up on the web site Big Government. Thomson, Illinois is a small town of less than 1000 people on the Northwest edge of the state. The prison is actually just outside the city limits. The area has been struggling financially since most of the prisoners were moved. As such, the city manager of Thomson cheered the decision when it was first floated in the fall.

Immediately, both Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin cheered the decision. This is a major opportunity for Republicans. President Obama's old Senate seat is up for grabs and so is the Governorship. Pat Quinn, the state's current Governor, is already on record as favoring the decision. Dick Durbin has done the same.

I haven't seen any polling but I would be willing to bet plenty that the state in general is opposed to this by a wide margin. Congressman Mark Kirk, who's running for Obama's seat, came out and opposed the decision immediately when it was first floated in the fall. All Republican candidates for both Governor and Senate should be jumping over themselves to condemn this potential decision. The Democrats have giftwrapped a huge issue and the Republicans should be doing everything they can to make this gain as many legs as possible.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has stressed that no final decision has yet been made. Furthermore, in order to move any detainee the administration would have to come to Congress for funding. So, this is still a long way away from being finalized.

That said, Big Government is already reporting a protest forming near Thomson.

“This is America and our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people, and we the people were not even consulted about this decision to bring suspected terrorists to Illinois.” Beverly Perlson, founder of the Band of Mothers, and one of the rally organizers, said during a phone interview.

The rally, organized by the Illinois Tea Patriots and the Band of Mothers, has been in the works since November when the Obama Administration’s plans initially surfaced. It is scheduled to be held three days before Christmas, on December 22, outside the State Officiated Public Meeting at Sterling High School, Sterling Illinois, at 1:00 pm.

This story is still developing and so stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: Right on cue, here's a Rasmussen poll on Illinoisians view of moving the detainees to the state.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Illinois voters oppose relocating some suspected terrorists from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba to a prison in their state.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 39% of voters in the state favor housing the prisoners at the Thomson Correctional Center, a near-empty maximum security facility 150 miles west of Chicago. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

...

More Troubles for Baucus

2009-12-12T09:13:00.000-08:00

The scandal involving Max Baucus and his live in girlfriend continues to unfold.

Sen. Max Baucus gave the director of his Montana office a nearly $14,000 raise as they were becoming romantically involved last year, a spokesman for the senator said Friday.

Baucus, a Democrat who chairs the Finance Committee, recommended the woman, Melodee Hanes, for Montana's U.S. attorney post in February, by which time she was his girlfriend. He has called the former state prosecutor "highly qualified."

Hanes, 53, withdrew from consideration in March, saying she had received other opportunities. She was hired in June as a top official in the Justice Department.

The problem with this entire scandal is that it started with a personal relationship between Baucus and a member of his staff. Everything after that can be read a number of ways. In fact, his live in girlfriend, Melodee Hanes, may in fact have been more than qualified to warrant a nomination for U.S. Attorney. She may in fact have received a raise that was in line with the rest of Baucus' staff. In fact, all of this looks bad and it looks bad because she was his girlfriend.

There's a reason why some companies forbid dating in the office. All companies frown upon it regardless. In this case, it's even worse. In this case, interpersonal relationships mix with public policy. I don't know if Hanes was qualified to be U.S. Attorney. I don't know if she was supposed to get a raise. I do know that Baucus shouldn't have dated a member of his staff and that's what's caused all these other problems.

Illinois Polls

2009-12-12T07:58:00.000-08:00

The latest polls are out in both the Illinois Governor's race and the race for Cook County Board President. It appears in the Governor's race at least there is no sweeping winds of change. Governor Quinn holds a big lead for the Democrats and Jim Ryan, long time Republican stalwart, holds a big lead for the Republicans.

Among the 600 likely Democratic primary voters surveyed by telephone Dec. 2-8, Quinn had the support of 49 percent to 23 percent for Hynes, the three-term comptroller. Among other candidates, activist William "Dock" Walls had 3 percent, and attorney Ed Scanlan had 2 percent. An additional 21 percent were undecided; 2 were for others. The poll has an error margin of 4 percentage points.

...

On the Republican side, the poll of 600 likely GOP voters found Ryan with the support of 26 percent, to 12 percent for Andy McKenna, the former state party chairman.

At 10 percent was state Sen. Bill Brady, of Bloomington, an unsuccessful 2006 Republican governor candidate, while state Sen. Kirk Dillard, of Hinsdale, had 9 percent. Three other candidates had the support of 6 percent or less of GOP voters.

On the Republican side, both Ryan and McKenna, the former Illinois Republican Party chairman, are the consummate insiders. Ryan's own record on corruption is mixed. A couple weeks back, Chicago anti corruption crusader John Kass had a largely positive column about Ryan following a long interview.

"The infrastructure of the Illinois Republican Party has never really been for me," Ryan said over breakfast the other day as we talked about that 2002 campaign and his current run in the crowded GOP primary for governor. "I'm not a deal-maker. And senior Republicans knew my reputation. They knew I wouldn't be flexible."

Seven years ago, Ryan, then Illinois attorney general, had the misfortune of having the same last name as George Ryan, the crooked Republican governor who later was indicted and sent to prison in the license-for-bribes scandal. They're not related, but George Ryan's disgrace splashed over the GOP

.

Within days, the Chicago Sun Times (Kass works for the Tribune) scooped Kass with a long piece detailing Ryan's ties to some of Illinois' most disgraced power brokers.

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jim Ryan, already dogged by questions about his ties to convicted money-launderer Stuart Levine, could have another Levine-related problem.Embarking on his second run for the state's top office, the former attorney general has acknowledged that, yes, he was close to Levine, who was his law school study partner and, later, his top political fund-raiser.

And yes, Ryan knows that some will hold that friendship against him, even though he has said he had no idea Levine was a longtime white-collar crook whose "secret life" included frequent all-night drug parties with male companions -- revelations that didn't emerge until after federal prosecutors indicted Levine in 2005.

Levine pleaded guilty to federal fraud and money-laundering charges in 2006 and became a star witness last year in the successful corruption prosecution of Tony Rezko, the former top adviser to ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

It's important to note that Ryan has never had any ethics charges against him. There are no charges that he himself was ever involved in corruption directly. That said Stuart Levine is not now merely a convicted felon but he has long standing ties to some of Illinois' most notorious power brokers including Tony Rezko and William Cellini and Ryan's ties to Levine go back decades.

Meanwhile, Andy McKenna was head of the Republican party here in Illinois during its darkest period in the last four years. That includes an embarrassing loss against Governor Blagojevich in 2006.

On the Democratic side, not only is Governor Quinn in charge of a commanding lead but Democratic voters have given a collective shrug to the stain of former Governor Blagojevich. Quinn's list of "accomplishments" include raising the income tax by 50% and presiding over a farcical ethics and campaign reform bill.

On the Cook County Board President front, there may be some relatively good news. Current Cook County Board President Todd Stroger is running a distant third among Democrats.

The Chicago Tribune's poll of Cook County voters' attitudes to the Democratic primary candidates has Dorothy Brown with a lead over three other candidates. The incumbent, Todd Stroger, is in third place, but with the highest unfavorable rating of any of the candidates by far.
The breakdown of support is Brown-Preckwinkle-Stroger-O'Brien, at 29%-20%-14%-11%, with "Other" at 2% and 24% undecided.

Buried in the numbers is one other interesting point. Preckwinkle's name recognition stands at only 62% whereas Brown is at 91% and Stroger at 98%. So, Preckwinkle certainly has a serious opportunity if her name recognition goes up. The Republicans have no one of consequence and a poll hasn't been done.

I also received this email from the campaign of Tom Tresser, the Green Party candidate.

The Chicago Tribune ran a story today on the Democratic candidates for Cook County Board President (it doesn't look good for the incumbent).

At the conclusion of the story the reporters make this statement:"Two Republicans, Roger Keats and John Garrido, are running for the chance to challenge the Democratic primary winner for a seat that Democrats have held for more than 40 years."

What's missing?

The Green Party candidate.

That's true. Tresser wasn't even mentioned in the story. In fact, I'm surprised the Republicans were mentioned. They didn't bother to run a poll on them. When the 5th District held its special election to replace Rahm Emanuel, both newspapers pretended as though the only ones running were Democrats.

ACORN Funding Strip Ruled Unconstitutional

2009-12-12T07:02:00.000-08:00

The folks at ACORN won a legal victory yesterday.

The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.

U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.

Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."

This is an important ruling for wonks of the law and the Supreme Court. It's also a small PR victory for ACORN. It is however a largely symbolic victory. First, at the end of September, the funding was installed again. Second, ACORN gets most of its funding from private sources and not the federal government. Third, it isn't the court of law where ACORN is losing but the court of public opinion.

On that front, this court victory brings them small comfort. They continue to be engulfed by sea of bad press. That won't change because of this ruling and so this is still an organization on the brink of collapse.

Health Care Reform and the Genius of Our System

2009-12-11T18:57:00.000-08:00

Back in the summer, I predicted against health care reform passing. I still hold to that prediction. I base it mostly on the genius of the legislative system set up by the founding fathers.

In order for this, or any bill to pass, it has to get out of a House Committee, make it to the full house, pass the House, and repeat a similar process in the Senate. After that, the two bills have to be merged and still pass both chambers.

Such a process was never intended for any bill that is tranformational like health care reform. Before a bill passes, it must get a majority of the votes as many as ten different times. For a small straightforward bill, that's not necessarily all that tough. For a bill like health care reform, that's a process that winds up being nearly impossible. With each committee, each body of the legislature, the bill needs to meet the needs of a different set of ideologies.

When it passed through the House, it went through a fairly liberal track until it got to the full House. Only then did the Blue Dogs have any opportunity to flex their legislative muscle and the moderated the bill a bit.

In the Senate, it started in Ted Kennedy's committee and wound up in the Senate Finance Committee. The ideological make up in the two committees are entirely different. The bills passed both committees but they looked entirely different. That's where we are now. Harry Reid can't square the two bills because at some point he was going to have to reconcile the ideological differences.

Then, even if Reid et al are able to reconcile the Senate, then the two bodies will have to square the two bills with each other. They'll have to do it and keep enough votes to still pass the bill. The genius of our system makes it difficult, very difficult, to make a bill turn into law. It's meant to keep bad bills from becoming law. That's exactly what it's doing here. This process, which the Democrats thought would go for a few months, is now dragging for near a year. Throughout, the public continued to turn more and more against it.

Once again, the genius of the system was in play. The genius is to slow the process down so that the public has enough time to sniff out a bad bill. That's exactly what happened as the summer turned into fall and now nearing in on winter. As it travelled from one committee to another the public had more and more time to examine the bill. Meanwhile, the public also saw a Democratic party that couldn't legislate straight. They saw a process that turned bitter and partisan.

In our system turning a bill into law is tough. It's supposed to be. It passes through several committees and then goes to a body. Then, it moves to the other body for the same process. So, in order to turn a bill into a law, legislators need to show political acumen, have a good bill, and manage the process well throughout. By the summer, everyone could see that the Democrats had none of that. That's why I bet against health care reform then. I knew the genius of our system would keep this monstrocity from becoming law.

Video, Quote and Word of the Day

2009-12-11T16:14:00.000-08:00

No man but feels more of a man in the world if he have a bit of ground that he can call his own. However small it is on the surface, it is four thousand miles deep; and that is a very handsome property.

Charles Dudley Warner

gallimaufry

a jumble

The New Omnibus Bill: More of the Same

2009-12-11T13:13:00.000-08:00

The latest omnibus spending bill shows that in D.C. it's business as usual.

It is business as usual in Washington. Despite a recession and record $1.4 trillion budget deficit, Congress continues to accelerate runaway spending and pork. While families and entrepreneurs are responsibly bringing their own budgets under control, Congress is spending and earmarking as if nothing has changed in the economy. Congressional leaders are attempting to rush through a mammoth, 1,088-page fiscal year (FY) 2010 omnibus appropriation bill[1] that:

What's really important about this budget is not only the number of earmarks in this bill and how many of those earmarks are ordered by Republicans and especially Republican leadership. That's because all while the Republicans are bemoaning the out of control spending of the Democrats they are in fact no better than their counterparts.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, there are 5224 earmarks worth $3.998 billion. These include earmarks by stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby and rising stars like Aaron Schock. About 40% of the earmarks are ordered by Republicans.

Now, the amount of money that these earmarks cost is not the issue. Here's the issue. When you're out of power, you only really have the power to criticize. So, the Republicans have crticized the Democrats on spending. One power that Republican legislators have is to power to ask or not to ask for earmarks. That's one of the few ways that we can tell if Republicans, now criticizing spending, will be any different if they're in power. These earmark statistics show that both are nearly equally bad.

On this issue, the Republicans are showing that they're good at criticizing and not all that good at showing fiscal responsibility. What we have are two parties addicted to spending because that spending keeps them in power. This latest omnibus shows that there's not really much difference between either party.

Council Winners

2009-12-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

The Council winners are up.

Council Submissions
First place with 2 2/3 points! – Wolf Howling - Obama Fails His First Test As Commander In Chief
Second place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Bookworm Room - Reason to be grateful Obama appointed gay porn-purveyor Jennings as Safe Schools Czar
Second place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Mere Rhetoric - West Point Speech – Rhetorically Sublime Modern Day Lincoln Said “I” 40+ Times, “Win” Or “Victory” 0
Second place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Right Truth - We must do something about … Leprechauns
Second place with 1 1/3 points – (Tie*) – American Digest - Drain Bamage: I Guess It’s Going to Be “All About Soul” Forever
Third place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Glittering Eye - Can Congress Reduce Healthcare Costs?
Third place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Razor - The President’s Deaf Ear
Third place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – Soccer Dad - The ongoing refuge of the refugees
Fourth place with 1/3 points – The Colossus of Rhodey - Stereotypes are bad — except if you wanna criticize Tiger Woods
Non-Council Submissions
First place with 2 1/3 points! – Gateway Pundit - Fistgate II: High School Students Given “Fisting Kits” At Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN Conference ( Photo)
Second place with 1 2/3 points – (Tie*) – Robert Avrech/Big Hollywood - Lupe Velez: When Shame, Abortion and Suicide Collide
Second place with 1 2/3 points – (Tie*) – New Ledger - View from West Point: We Are Not The Enemy
Second place with 1 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Plum Bob Blog - 56 World Newspapers: “Scandal? What Scandal?”
Third place with 1 1/3 points – Daled Amos - Muslims Both Initiated and Funded The Goldstone report – Which Explains A Lot
Fourth place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – GrEaT sAtAnS GiRlFrIeNd - Twisted
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – Biblical Archeology Review - How December 25th Became Christmas
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Finemrespice - Their Charms Proved Irresistable
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Virgil Speaks - why I’m Not A Liberal Any More
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Jonathan Tobin/Commentary Contentions - Blame America First — World War II Edition

War On Bonuses

2009-12-11T08:12:00.000-08:00

There's news all over the world that signals that bonuses at financial services firms will be under attack. First, Goldman Sachs, in response to public pressure, has cut back cash bonuses for most of its top executives.

Goldman Sachs moved to quell public anger over executive pay on Thursday by unveiling plans to eliminate cash bonuses for its top 30 executives this year and give shareholders a vote on compensation.

The new policies come as some of the world’s financial capitals weigh steep taxes on bonuses paid to employees of banks that drew government support during the credit crisis. Goldman’s rapid recovery from the downturn, and the likely windfall many employees will reap next month thanks to surging profits, has made the bank a frequent target
for politicians and shareholders.

Meanwhile, France, Britain and Germany are all on the verge of setting so called sur tax on bonuses at financial firms.

The British special tax on banker bonuses unveiled this week received crucial backing from France, but other important countries have so far declined to follow the U.K.'s bid to curtail banker compensation.

Reaction to the U.K.'s move underscored how difficult it is to coordinate reform efforts globally. While France said it would likely enact something similar, Germany expressed support for the concept but had no immediate plans to do anything similar. On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. showed no signs of following suit.

Domestically, Kenneth Feinberg is now in full swing trying to determine bonus structures for the second tier of executives.

The Obama administration's pay czar plans to announce on Friday his next wave of rulings as bailout recipients struggle to get out from under his thumb.

Kenneth Feinberg has said these rulings will likely reduce pay for the 26th to 100th highest-paid employees at the six firms still under his authority.

Those firms, all of which received "exceptional assistance" from the taxpayers, are: Citigroup Inc (C.N), American International Group (AIG.N), General Motors Co (GM.UL), Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and GMAC.

Now, the problem is that financial executives are totally unsympathetic. So, no one will be all that bothered by a war on their compensation and many will cheer. Such an environment creates a mob mentality. That's the worst kind of an environment.

All of this is essentially class warfare. It has no economic benefit. It is filled with unintended consequences. Puntive taxes on bonuses in financial firms means that talent goes to other firms. It also means that talent goes to countries where the same punitive measurements aren't in place. We tried something similar in the 1990's. That lead to bonuses being structured in stock options and that contributed to the bubble at the end of the decade.

Morning Market Report

2009-12-11T06:09:00.000-08:00

It was announced that the trade gap narrowed yesterday in the morning and that helped push equities higher. All three equity indices were up between .25% and .75%. This morning the retail sales for November were up 1.3% from the same month last year. That's a relatively robust number and it indicates a good retail sales number for this particular holiday season. Retailer count on the Christmas season for about one in five of their overall sales. This number indicates that it should be improving. It's another sign that we're seeing a recovery. All equity indices are up about a half a percent in the pre market.

Meanwhile, bonds are shooting up. The ten year is up to 3.54%. It was at 3.32% not five trading days ago. Earlier in the week Moody's warned that our credit rating might get cut down the road. Initially, there was a shrug in bonds. In the last couple days, in conjunction with several new offerings, we've seen bonds shoot up. The yield spread between the two and ten year is now 2.64%. That's tightened a bit but still very large. The three month t bill has gotten better and is now on the edge of going negative again. It's sitting at .015%. Gold is sitting at $1135 this morning. That's up about $10 an ounce this morning. It's down some for the week. It's way down from a few weeks back when it crossed $1200 an ounce. Oil is relatively unchanged this morning but now is barely above $70 a barrel after having a miserable week. It's now at $70.61 a barrel.

It was a relatively good day in the Far East. The Hang Seng in China was up .93%, the NIKKEI in Japan was up 2.48%, and the broader Chinese index was down .21%. Equity markets are currently up across the board in Europe. The Dax in Germany is leading the way currently up just over one percent.

The Harshbarger Report:A Microcosm of the Right's Wilfull Misinterpretation of the ACORN Story

2009-12-10T22:12:00.000-08:00

Here's all you need to know about the Harshbarger report. It laid most of the blame for ACORN's current troubles on former chief organizer Wade Rathke even though no one that worked on the report even attempted to speak to Wade Rathke. Furthermore, most of the problems and solutions identified by the report were first identified by ACORN 8 or members of the organization and yet, again, no one that worked on the report talked to ACORN 8 or any single member of the group. Worse than that, the report congratulates ACORN for taking tangible steps toward correcting the problems since Rathke's removal even though members of ACORN 8 were removed from the board of ACORN when they tried to sound the alarm on all of this. That all happened after Wade Rathke was removed.

There's not a single so called leader in the conservative media world that's saying all of this even though the sphere has written hundreds of thousands of articles about the report. It's a sad display of total journalistic competence.

It's part of a pattern among the conservative media because their agenda is not to find out the truth. Instead, the conservative media has a very complicated agenda for ACORN and the truth is only one part of that agenda.

The reason that the entire conservative media totally missed the real story is because the real story has nothing to do with their agenda. Let's start with ACORN 8. I'd say a minority of the conservative has the first clue who or what ACORN 8 even is. Michelle Malkin's never written anything substantive about them. She's mentioned them a couple times in passing. That's the sort of "journalism" Ms. Malkin displays. Most in the conservative media have no idea that it was ACORN 8 that first uncovered things like the relationship between Citizen's Consulting Inc and ACORN. That was the key to unraveling the organization. From there is where all the affiliates were discovered and the complicated structure began to unfold. They uncovered evidence of most of the criminality short of the embezzlement of Dale Rathke. Yet, ACORN 8 does NOT have as one of its goals the destruction of President Obama. In fact, most of the group supports Obama. That's why the conservative media has no use for ACORN 8. Since they aren't trying to destroy Obama, the conservative media could care less what they know.

Then, there's Wade Rathke. In fact, he's the story not ACORN. ACORN is disintegrating. There won't be an ACORN within a year. Anyone can see that. Meanwhile, Rathke is building an empire that will allow him to influence culture and politics all over the world. Which of those two is more interesting? Yet, the conservatives could care less about what Rathke is up to now. After all, what Rathke is doing now has nothing to do with destroying Obama.

That myopic goal of tying ACORN to Obama and destroying both of them simultaneously is at the root of the right's consistent and willful misinterpretation of the story. For instance the most interesting story involving ACORN is all about ACORN's relationship with Steve Ratner, owner of the Nets. At first, ACORN was against building a new stadium in Brooklyn and then they flipped. Then, Ratner paid off the debt incurred coming out of the affair in which Dale Rathke embezzled a million dollars. There's tons of twists, turns, drama, and all sorts of conspiracies in that story and yet the right almost never talks about it. Why? Well, Obama isn't going to go down if you write about that story.

The other day on Big Government, the PI that discovered the garbage full of ACORN documents was making a big deal that he found that ACORN was being contracted out by Citigroup to do loan modifications. Why is that a big deal? In May they held a conference call they co hosted with the conference of mayors about ways to increase loan modifications. Of course, they work with Citigroup. They already work with the conference of Mayors. Why would anyone in the conservative media know about that conference call or what it meant for their influence on loan modifications? After all, nothing that came out of that call would have ended the career of President Obama. Linking ACORN to Citigroup, however, makes more sense since Obama engineered such a massive bailout of that company.

We could even look at voter registration fraud. Most conservatives think its voter fraud. Almost none could tell the difference. Most think there's moutains of evidence that ACORN has created fraudulent elections. In fact, the only thing that there's mountains of evidence of is that ACORN fraudulently registered millions of people that don't exist, and so would never vote, but they were paid by other organizations as though they were real. That is of course a multi million dollar fraud but not one that has anything to do with the outcome of the election.

It's why there are some in the conservatives that believe that Anita Moncrief is important and should actually be listened to. Anita Moncrief is willing to link ACORN to Obama and make it seem as though they're intertwined, he owes them his election, and they're currently dictating the agenda to him. Almost none that swallow this from Moncrief could explain what her evidence is to substantiate these charges, how she came upon that evidence, or what the sum total of all her so called evidence means. In fact, even if everything that Moncrief says is true, all she's proven is a violation of FEC regulations that would have a stiff fine of about a million dollars. That's it and that's if everything she's say is true. That's all she's said for over a year. Everything she's said is parrotting of others who've said it before.

It's frankly why some conservatives think a total hack like Michelle Malkin is worthy to be referred to as some respected journalist. The only people she's respected by are those that have the same agenda, the total destruction of Barack Obama. Check out what Malkin said about the Harschbarger report,

Harshbarger has determined — wait for it — that ACORN engaged in no wrongdoing depicted in the nationwide undercover stings conducted by BigGovernment.com/James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles.

You can read the entire self-absolution here.As I noted in September, ACORN’s “independent” advisory council included several panelists who were not only willing to overlook illegal activity, but who have also been tainted by their own shady behavior and associations:

First of all, the report didn't find no "wrongdoing" but no evidence of ACORN contributing to criminal activity. In fact, there was plenty that the report found with ACORN just none of it, according to the report, rose to the level of supporting criminal behavior. Malkin doesn't appear to know that the report even mostly blamed Wade Rathke and certainly not that he wasn't contacted for the report. Since Malkin never reports on ACORN 8, it goes without saying that this slight is totally whitewashed by Malkin. In fact, the entire body of knowledge that Malkin has about ACORN is entirely corrupted by her agenda and this is the sort of analysis that's produced. I could spent several blog posts pointing out how corrupt Malkin's reporting is on the subject. This is the just one example.

Yet, in Malkin’s world the only thing that matters is destroying President Obama. Malkin doesn’t know any news that doesn’t have that as part of the agenda. It’s why Malkin counts as her main source Anita Moncrief.

It’s ironic, funny and sad that the conservative media scolds the MSM about their coverage of ACORN. Their own coverage is little more than a propaganda machine. The media fixates on a story, beats it to death, and usually doesn’t get it right anyway. All the stories have at their core the destruction of President Obama. Frankly, it’s rare to find someone in the conservative media write a story about ACORN without making some effort to at least include his name. It’s a despicable and sad tale because all while they completely and totally misconstrue the story themselves they sanctimoniously accuse others of skewing the story themselves.

Michelle Malkin never misses an opportunity to scold the New York Times for a story they didn’t run before the election that linked Obama and ACORN. She herself has written hundreds of times about ACORN and has only mentioned ACORN 8 a couple times in passing and she’s talked about Anita Moncrief more often than Wade Rathke. That’s the hypocrisy, total incompetence, and cynical agenda all rolled into one. Worse yet, while Malkin engages in gutter journalism she has hundreds of thousands of total lemmings she calls fans to cheerlead as though she’s doing something noble.

Debt Limit to be Raised

2009-12-10T09:19:00.000-08:00

Most people likely don't know it but our Congress sets a debt limit. The reason most don't know it is that Congress on both sides simply raise it each and every time our actual debt nears the limit and that's what's happening again.

The U.S. House of Representatives will combine legislation to increase the debt limit with a bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.
The tactic greatly increases the legislation's chances of clearing Congress before the Treasury Department runs into the current limit of $12.1 trillion.

"We have already raised it in the House but we need to have a vehicle so that the Senate can vote on it, and it is our intention to have something on the Department of Defense bill next week," Pelosi said at a news conference.

The debt and deficit have become a much bigger focus since President Obama took the proverbial gloves off regarding spending. As such, Pelosi will combine this limit with other spending on Afghanistan to provide cover to Dems who know that this vote will be unpopular.

Obama Accepts Nobel Prize

2009-12-10T09:05:00.000-08:00

President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this morning in Oslo.

President Obama, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday just days after expanding the Afghanistan war, acknowledged the controversy behind the award but vigorously defended his use of military force as a tool of "global security."

The president accepted the award in Oslo, Norway, with "deep gratitude and great humility." Addressing those who believe the prize was premature for a president who had not quite finished his first year in office, Obama conceded that his own accomplishments are "slight" compared with those of past recipients like Nelson Mandela.

Conservatives are enjoying a good laugh at the president's expense. After all, awarding him this prize is a now low for the committee. Well, it may not be a new low since they also awarded one to Yasser Arafat. Either way, even the president acknowledges that he really doesn't deserve this prize.

The EPA Blackmail

2009-12-10T08:32:00.000-08:00

In a move taken straight from the book of old school Chicago politics, the Obama administration is telling Congress that if they don't act the EPA will and it will be much more heavy handed.

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business.
The warning, from a top White House economic official who spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity, came on the eve of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's address to the international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

...

If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty

If this were done anywhere but in our government the perpetrators would be arrested for blackmail. Instead, it's happening in our government and it's simply politics as usual. In Chicago, if an alderman doesn't go along with Daley, suddenly the streets in their ward aren't swept. Here we have something on the same variety.

The audaciousness of this statement is stunning. The EPA is demanding that Congress pass cap and trade or it will move to destroy the economy and consolidate as much power in its own hands as possible. The EPA is saying that it will have no choice but to destroy the U.S. economy.

The EPA is presenting this as an either or. One way or another the economy will be transformed from a carbon based economy and if our economy is destroyed in the process that's merely collateral damage. The statement is stunning in both its chutzpah and in its dangerous nature.

It's a statement of an administration that is on an environmental mission and if that mission isn't achieved legislatively, they will just accomplish the same thing through regulatory fiat.

It's still unclear just how serious this threat is. Stephen Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, pointed out that such regulations could take years to implement. By then, Obama would face reelection and be made to account for what would be a terribly unpopular policy. It would swiftly be reversed by the next admin. With cap and trade on life support, the only chance for any meaningful action to limit carbon emissions lies with the EPA. So, this story continues to be one to watch.

Morning Market Report

2009-12-10T06:18:00.000-08:00

The first time unemployment claims just came out this morning for the week. It rose unexpectedly and this week's number sits at 474,000.

Initial claims for state unemployment insurance rose 17,000 to a seasonally adjusted 474,000 in the week ended Dec. 5 from 457,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said. Claims previously had declined for five straight weeks.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims climbing but only to 460,000. A Labor Department economist said claims had been bumped up by seasonal industries laying people off and by applications that had been held back during the Thanksgiving holiday week.

This was the first week in five weeks that the number had risen. That said, the number is now solidly below 500,000. Meanwhile, the Dow was up 50 points yesterday and it's up nearly 100 points in early trading. So far, the markets have no problems with the number.

In fact, the markets are shrugging off all sorts of bad news. Word came down William Butier, former head of the Bank of England, yesterday that Greece may default on debt obligations.

Could Greece be the first member of the European Union to default? Former Bank of England policy maker Willem Buiter thinks so.
According to Bloomberg, Buiter, who will join Citigroup (C) next month as the chief economist, says “unless there are radical fiscal actions, lasting cuts in spending, and tax increases of at least 7% of GDP” Greece could be the first of the EU's 15 sovereign nations to default since Germany in 1948.

Bonds are slightly weaker this morning. The ten year U.S. Treasury is currently at 3.43%. That's up four basis points this morning. The yield spread between the two and ten year now sits at 2.69%. That's just six basis points below the all time record of 2.75%. Meanwhile, the three month t bill is still at .02%. It's maintained positive yield since falling into negative territory now more than two weeks ago.

Crude oil is relatively unchanged today after continuing to fall sharply yesterday. It's now sitting at $70.86. It was near $80 a barrel late last week. Gold is up about $16 an ounce to $1132 but that's still well off highs that reached above $1200 in the last ten trading days.

Stocks were mixed in the Far East today. The Hang Seng in China was down .19%, the NIKKEI in Japan was down 1.41% and the broader Chinese index was up .45%. In Europe, there were across the board gains, shrugging of the news in Greece.

Finally, while the real estate market in most places is struggling in China they're taking steps to cool their own.

The Chinese government intensified its efforts to cool the country's overheated real estate industry Wednesday.

A policy was allowed to expire that had eliminated the turnover tax for those who sold homes they had owned for more than two years. From now on, the tax will instead be waived only for those selling homes they have owned at least five years.

The new guidelines were released following an executive meeting of the State Council chaired by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao Wednesday.

China grew about 7% in 2008 while the rest of the world contracted.

Video, Quote and Word of the Day

2009-12-09T21:29:00.000-08:00

nugatory

insignificant

People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty.

Richard J. Needham