Baca, Hinchey, and Moore didn't vote on the debt ceiling bill. Really? Didn't have anything to add to this one?

Representatives Baca (CA 43), Hinchey (NY 22), and (WI 4) didn't vote on the Debt Ceiling bill. Just didn't vote. I mean, I am kinda sick of the whole thing, but seriously, you're a representative. There is no more national a conversation than the debt ceiling for the last month. Vote YEA or NAY, but for the love of god do some representing!

Am I missing an angle here?

Career Colleges have done a 180 - now want 'gainful employment' rules to apply to all colleges. Bye bye poetry major.

Here's the NPR report.

Intro to 'Gainful Employment' rules: The U.S. Dept of Ed created 'gainful employment' rules for for-profit educational institutions after studies showed that for-profit colleges, places like ITT tech, etc., had student bodies taking on big federally-backed student loans and graduating to a dearth of jobs. The rules said: If you want your students to be able to get student loans to attend your institution, you have to show that a certain percentage of graduates get jobs.

This is not controversial on two grounds: (a) you are a for-profit institution. If those profits are really the student loans of people you ought to know should not pay them back, what you are really doing is funneling federal dollars in the door on the backs of people who will default and ruin their credit to add to a long list of troubles.

(b) Most for-profit institutions are vocational programs. Their sales pitch on television, radio and internet is simple: Better degree = better job = better wages. If that promise doesn't bear out - and I don't mean per person, I mean across the board - then we need to suspend federal support.

I am surprised that for-profit colleges are so baldly going after non-profit colleges (what one would consider 'traditional' colleges) with the claim of equal treatment. First, the data doesn't back them up. The very reason for 'gainful employment' rules in the first place was the distance between student loan default rates from traditional colleges and these new for-profit colleges. The traditional colleges are the baseline that we've been ok with for years. There are two objections to this: (a) That non-profit colleges include ones with huge corporate deals and campuses and TV deals - how is that really non-profit? (b) Coupled with that is a sense that these colleges lock out the population seeking for-profit institutions on the basis of academics. Even if we set aside the fact that that translates into de facto discrimination on the basis of class, it is unfair to compare the repayment rates of a self-selected group of academic achievers to those who have not achieved. It is literally penalizing C students because their employment rates are not equal to that of A students.

Fair, but that doesn't change the fact that institutions focusing on the C students are not giving them more opportunity. Indeed, the numbers indicate that with more debt and no jobs, this population is worse off. That leads to the second point - the long-term solution to this has to be supportive, not destructive. Gainful employment is destructive - it aims to withhold from institutions that don't meet certain standards. That would leave the market without educational options for what is a predominantly low income and minority population. But America needs more craftsman, manufacturers, and other skilled laborers. So we need to find a way to support this education using something closer to the traditional non-profit college model. I don't know enough to set a path for this, but I have to imagine it is possible.

If you are going to be a polygamist, just get one civil marriage. Right on.

The stars of "Sister Wives" are suing Utah (I believe) to challenge its polygamy law. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?hp&gwh=D5C4EEAD2836F3E56DFAE7434FE6AB56). The family (families? Honestly, I have no idea.) were said to be under investigation in Utah for violating the law.

First off, that's odd given that the Utah attorney general's office explicitly states that law enforcement has no intention of focusing on enforcing those laws. (http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy.html). I guess when you are flaunting it...

Second, the 'Utah Polygamy Law' is not merely a law, it article 3 of that state's constitution, included as a condition of statehood: (http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/htm/00I03_000100.htm)

First: -- Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. .

Third, I happen to come down on the polygamist's side on this one. Here's how:

A. The Brown families have between them 1 civil marriage. The rest are religious marriages only.

B. While I admit that the intent of the Utah Constitution Article must have been to foreclose this loophole, I am not sure it can. Even if you say that the article prohibits religious polygamous marriage in addition to civil polygamous marriage, nothing prevents a man from simply taking up with several women, siring children with them and cohabiting. No stated marriage of any kind. There is no prohibition against "practical polygamy" or what I guess we'd consider polyamory.

C. As is clear from the paragraph above, the only thing the state must be targeting is religious polygamous marriage as it already makes bigamy illegal in the civil context. That raises some serious freedom of religion issues.

D. And yet, none of that forms the center of the current legal challenge, which relies on Lawrence v. Texas, in which two gay men were targeted by a neighbor who phoned in a fake weapons charge to get the two caught in flagrante delicto (don't you just love that phrase?). The Supreme Court held that laws targeting the sexual proclivities of consenting adults violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Nice choice. Seems pretty clear cut that if you cannot make a threesome illegal for a man, married or not,you shouldn't be able to make the same act illegal just because the man claims a spiritual relationship with both women. (That would, for example, invalidate a lot of the early 1970s).

But, I can hear the nabobs nattering, this isn't about sex, it is about the rest of the relationship - the holding out oneself as head of many households. For that we go back to religion. How, forsooth, is being the head of multiple households of unmarried women different from a man who has multiple children out of wedlock and visits them all? Indeed, if that man were as involved as this man, we'd applaud him. Which means what we really don't like is the religion. See Article 1.

E. And a postscript: There are many things to dislike about polygamous communities in the U.S. as it pertains to individual rights, child abuse, and so on. The thing is, much of that is not a function of polygamy per se, but of the oppressive communal norms that attend it. Utah and other states focus on those violations as they should. Look, we don't outlaw rap or first round NFL draft pick-ed-ness or NASCAR or islam or fundamentalist christianity or ultra orthodox judaism or first generation immigrants because the incidence of domestic violence is higher in those communities. I admit there are efforts on that last one. We target the action itself and lay down a rule of law. The communities in question learn to respect that law and come to prize it. That is what makes America great.

There's something about Christy. Does it make him unelectable? #2012election

There's something about Chris Christy that gives voters pause. His opponents have seized on it before, albeit implicitly.

Thing is, Christy is near the top of the aspirational party. Will those who want lower taxes and less government on the off chance they get rich enough to benefit from it vote for a man who looks like they do look rather than how they would like to look?

There's something about Christy. Does it make him unelectable? #2012election

There's something about Chris Christy that gives voters pause. His opponents have seized on it before, albeit implicitly.

Thing is, Christy is near the top of the aspirational party. Will those who want lower taxes and less government on the off chance they get rich enough to benefit from it vote for a man who looks like they do look rather than how they would like to look?

Obama 2012 offers a "Made in the USA" mug for donations. Look, a sense of humor in a campaign! #Obama2012

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/o2012-made-in-the-usa-mug?source=site_tout3

Just check that out. I think humor from the top is a class act. Enjoy.

Callista Gingrich was great in Mars Attacks!

Callista Gingrich.

Mars Attacks!

I'm jus sayin'

Peter Orszag, how did you go from healthcare reform pwrhouse at CBO and OMB to CitiGroup?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_R._Orszag

I don't mean to pick on Peter Orszag. He's a very smart guy and he just lost his dad. Thing is, I know the thoughtful Peter Orszag who spearheaded research into health reform at CBO and pushed for it at OMB. He's a wonk. His lack of polish is in direct proportion to his integrity.

Then I read about Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup and husband to Bianna Golodryga Orszag, Weekend Good Morning America host. Top level exec at the big banks whose bailout he assessed at CBO, traipsing around with on-air eye-candy in New York City.

Who is the real Peter Orszag?

Pariticpation Award

Obama received the Nobel peace prize this morning in a move that surprised even him. WHPS Gibbs had to wake him up just before 6 a.m. this morning to pass along the message. I woke up on my own this morning around 6 a.m., where's my Nobel?

I support the President, but I think my reaction was along the lines of what Gibbs had to be thinking: "Oh god. How are we going to live up to this one?" If W was master of anything it was keeping expectations low. Obama's chief fault may be the flip-side, and the Nobel, coming so early in his presidency and predicated presumably on his diplomatic world tour, doesn't help in that department.

Put bluntly, one could not be blamed for thinking that Obama didn't do much to earn this prize. The panel must have known that when they voted, which I think means two things. First, there was no other stand-out candidate. Indeed, thinking back over the year, I can't think of someone who fits the bill. Of course, that doesn't mean that the panel was without options. There are many, many unknown crusaders for justice and peace out there to choose from. Instead, it appears that the popularity-contest-cum-Nobel trend continues. Gore won it and some people pursed their lips. This year, the physics prize was explicitly aimed at those who had created technologies we use every day - Charles Kao, Willard Boyle and George Smith, creators of fiber optics and the CCD. If that is the prism through which one views the Nobel, Obama is a good choice.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the fact that there is no anti-Nobel prize. That is, even if Obama didn't do much yet, what he has done is a diplomatic 180 from the Bush administration. I don't know exactly how large that looms on the world stage, but I saw the shots of the Berlin rally and the for once favorable European press reviews of the current travels. The distinction is not in standing above the rest, but in so quickly returning from the void to stand with the rest that makes Obama special. If this was the reason for the prize, however, it is hardly about Obama at all. Instead, it is an abject lesson in just how bad W was as a leader, how painfully obvious that was to everyone else (like that girlfriend of yours they won't talk about), and how much damage that did to U.S. power and standing on the global stage.

Palin Comparison To Someone of Substance

Sarah Palin spoke to a group of investors - hedge funders and the like - in Asia yesterday. The meeting was closed to the media and the fee was rumored to be in the low six figures. She claimed to tell them what "Main Street USA" believes about the big issues of the day. Given everything we've seen from this woman for the past 2 years, what prompted these investors to think (a) that she had any expertise, (b) that her expertise could be related in a cogent manner, or (c) that the result would be worth six figures, no matter how "low"?

Cynical response 1: This is part of Palin's gearing-up for the next election. There, too, she will seek national attention not necessarily for the presidency, but for the name recognition it will bring. She will claim to be a woman of the people. Of course, the endeavor will be largely financed by 6 figure speaker fees and their attendees.

Cynical response 2: Low six figures isn't much for hedge fund managers, and getting a speaker with this much tabloid appeal is hard without drawing embarrassing amounts of attention. The Donald is, well, too smart. Paris Hilton, too flashy. So we're left with a D lister who's been quiet but can still pack a house.

It's Not What Wilson Said, It's How He Said It

Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie," at the President during his health care address to a joint session of Congress last week. Perhaps you heard of it.

He called to apologize to the President that night and got Rahm Emanuel instead. Oh, what I would have given to be a fly on the wall for that call.

In true House fashion though, that's not enough. The House has threatened to sanction Wilson for a breach of decorum. Actually, a fair point. Thing is, if there isn't bipartisan support for the move, I think it would serve little value. Based on what happened in the chamber at the time of the outburst, there should be support across the board. On C-Span, the faces of Republicans showed the same shock and dismay as those of Democrats.

Yet, now, a week later, the conversation is shifting. Republican King has circulated a letter to other representatives noting, among other things, that Obama called "prominent politicians" liars in his speech with regard to the charge of death panels. With all due respect to Rep. King - and I owe him some respect for this deft machination - that's not what the Wilson sanction is about. Calling the President a liar in front of Congress is bad, but the breach of decorum comes in the exclamation itself, not the content. That is, the House would sanction him for yelling at the dais. It is that action which is unacceptable. You want to call the President a liar on your own time? Call a press conference.

Can we coin a phrase? An unwelcome outburst shall henceforth be known as "Shouting liar in a crowded chamber."

POTUS Addresses Our Kids

I don't know why there isn't more disbelief and outrage from every thinking American at the reaction of conservatives urged on by a Florida crackpot. Seriously, keeping your kids at home so they won't hear the president speak? What if it was president H. Clinton? or president Biden? Or basically anyone else who was possibly considered for the job this past go-around? Liberals didn't keep their kids at home when Bush spoke even though they had ample evidence that his ideals were truly repugnant to them, ranging from torture to the dismantling of health care to the unbridling of big business.

He was the president, first and foremost. Kids should be able to look up to the office - they are likely too young to truly grasp the politics of the man. Second, how controversial could a speech urging kids to work hard possibly be? Reason won out and liberal kids stayed in school. There was no story because there was no question in our minds.

Look, I won't call the conservatives over-reacting to this a bunch of cowardly racists. I'll leave that to Michael Daly of the Daily News. I'll just say this - this is jingoistic politics at its best. It panders to fear and to prejudice and any conservative who respects his or her ideals and the party that supports those ideals should stand up and state clearly, "I am an American, and I show due respect to our democratic process and to the office of the president. Anyone who does not should be ashamed."

My Hero

Calm, collected, but unafraid to call a spade a spade. This is what is so great about Barney.

HT: Dorkowitz

Things You Already Knew Because You're Smarter Than Me

Here's Krugman's take on the mobs swarming the healthcare townhalls being held by the recently on-recess members of Congress. I don't cite the man much, but there were two items of note in the article:

"Astroturf organization" - A fake grass-roots organization.

and this bit:

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Healthcare is a complicated issue, made all the more so when it butts up against the other challenge we face as Americans - ignorance.

Cash for Free

Politicos have had mostly plaudits for Cash for Clunkers - the magnanimous government subsidy plan that pays $4500 for your trade-in when you decide you want something newer and sitting-forever-in-inventorier. Car dealers were far more enthusiastic, taking orders and making sales on the plan well before it was fully implemented. Now, having racked up thousands of sales and fronted rebates in the millions, they are wondering why the government can't process their claims fast enough. Seems to me that the government reasonably expected a conveyor belt of claims and instead got an upturned dump truck. I sympathize with Uncle Sam to this point.

But Uncle Sam and I parted ways on this program from its inception. While this stimulus clearly stimulates buying, the sheer number of people to take advantage of it indicates to me not that it is wildly successful, but rather that it is too generous. If I gave out one dollar bills in Washington Square Park in NY at lunch, I might have maybe 10,000 show up from a few square blocks. But if I gave out $100, you can expect that many times that would show up. Same thing here. Clearly Americans needed a kick in the pants to show up and buy, but I think we may have kicked too hard. I think it is a good thing that dealer inventories are finally shrinking, but this is a blip. It doesn't mean that car sales next year or the year after will return from the current 6M/year level to the prior 10M/year level. It means that, for the next few weeks, there is a fire sale on cars.

What is a Congress to do? This is populism at its best - giving the people bread and circus in the same bite. Having fed the masses and been lauded for it, Congress can't stop now. They can't lower the incentive or risk cries of "unfair!" On the other hand, they can't give away money forever. Representatives took one look at this and 2010 election and voted "Yea" for $2B more. Senators with a little breathing room are doing just that and asking, if they can't lower the amount, whether perhaps they tack on a few riders. $4500 requires a certain improvement in fuel efficiency. Under the plan, people are already trading down in fuel consumption by themselves - prompting Sen. Schumer to quip, "If it ain't broke..." But I say it is broke and we can't fix it because the backlash will be too great. Instead, let's tweak it to get what we can for our money. Let's restrict the rebate to cars achieving over a certain MPG and those with ULEV ratings (ultra low emission vehicles). That's your small cars, small SUVs, cross-overs and most Hybrids (I am looking at you Escalade). Perhaps we can salvage something from this program after all.

Palin

Palin steps down today. I know 75% of conservative Republicans still like her, which means we'll likely be seeing a lot of her for a long time to come. Still, I can't keep the "Hi, ho! The Wicked Witch is dead!" refrain out of my head.

Before I get flamed out here - I like that she's gone not because her ideas are bad or shouldn't be aired. I like that she's gone because she practices the sort of vapid politics of distraction that lowers the level of discourse in this country. If you need a reminder of the incoherent buzz word babbling that exemplifies her style, just look up her resignation speech.

Al Franken

Congratulations to Al Franken on being awarded a Senate seat. With an election that close, I'll openly admit that it could have gone either way. If you don't believe me, just work in a polling place some time.

Oh, and don't equate Al with the Governator or Jesse Ventura. He's been a political animal for a very long time, and I get the sense this much of a departure for him that it would be for, say, an attorney, and that happens all the time.

And for good measure, here is Al recreating a bit he did on SNL years ago (well, the skill is the same, the bit is different):

So Then We Acted Unethically...And It Worked!

Covington and Burling, a big law shop, hosted a panel on congressional investigations. This is one of those events to which everyone goes more because it is like a Michael Lewis book come to life and less because you might ever need to apply the knowledge. I mean really, representing clients before Congress is about as common as appearing before the Supreme Court...with a similarly inverse proportion of people who would love to do it - in the abstract.

Fmr. Congressman Mike Barnes shared this tidbit: My client didn't want to produce a document, but we couldn't withhold it, so instead we produced thousands of pages in the hopes this one wouldn't be noticed. If ethics is ends justifying means, he is a saint. If ethics means avoiding needless waste, particularly with Congress - the party of which Mr. Barnes was formerly a member and which oversees the public fisc - this is, at best, abusive. I get it, it works. Lawyers do it all the time in discovery. But lawyers tend to produce everything first and review later (except for privileged items). If you review first and you know which documents are relevant, and then go out of your way to pile on additional documents just to obfuscate, is that (we'll use a lighter term here) ethical?

PAYGO

That is, "Pay-as-you-go," is back on the table. Here's a one sentence primer: Congress cannot spend money on something new without cutting something old, usually Medicare and SS. Clinton used it to great effect. Thing is, Clinton wasn't in the middle of a series of stimulus bills.

PAYGO is a good idea in the abstract, but I am having a hard time seeing how it is appropriate now. To pay for the stimulus, the administration would exempt large spending bills from the PAYGO, so that run-of-the-mill legislation would require cuts, while legislation spending 100X or more would be exempt. I hate to draw the comparison, but this is a little like Bush 43's move to keep Iraq spending out of the budget. It creates an incentive for anyone writing to a bill to first to have it included in the stimulus so as to benefit from the exemption; and the stimulus is broad enough to accomodate almost any expense.

Rahm-dom Insider Factoid

The former Illionois Representative and current WH COS still works out at the House member's gym. For those keeping score at home, that means George Washington University won't let alumni use its gyms, but the House will.