Blue Wave News

Super PAC's in Action In SC

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:54:00 +0000

We've seen reports of massive buys by Super PACs in primary states, particularly those affiliated with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Both are accusing the other of being "unfair," in their advertising. A new player has entered the field with this ad:

And yes, they are supporting a candidate who is on the ballot:

Whether either Mitt or Newt can survive this, one can now say that South Carolina Republicans have a real choice!

Mitt The Ripper

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:12:00 +0000

Stephen Colbert's super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has an ad for South Carolina:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Although humorous, this also repeats what Newt Gingrich's super PAC has released in a film "When Mitt Romney Came To Town."

The documentary, titled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” paints the GOP presidential frontrunner as a corporate “raider” more unscrupulous even than Wall Street executives, preying on the misfortune of people who lost their jobs when his company, Bain Capital, turned around their companies.

While this in itself is bad enough - Mitt has since dropped his claim of "creating 100,000 jobs," changing it to the amorphous "thousands of jobs," it's turning out that it wasn't just the companies that Bain took over that suffered. Under his leadership, Bain played dirty with Wall Street itself.

Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.

"Anything to get an advantage," seemed to be Mitt's motto when he was with Bain. Mitt's flip-flops on the campaign trail, and hard examination of his actual record, are demonstrating that anyone who thinks he'll be a "moderate" president or "not bad" should think again. As the latter article concludes: "I have no idea how Romney might behave in office. I do believe, however, that when he was running Bain Capital, his word was not his bond." So neither should we believe him.

Obama and DNC Raise $68 million in 4th Quarter

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:05:00 +0000

The newest fundraising reports are in, and President Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised a combined $68 million dollars in the last quarter of 2011.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said Thursday in a video to supporters that the campaign collected more than $42 million for the quarter, with the DNC bringing in more than $24 million, along with $1 million for a joint fund to help state parties in key states.

Breaking it down, that's 1.3 million individual donors last year, with 583,000 in the last quarter. More than 98 percent were for donations of $250 or less and the average donation was $55. That puts the president in good position heading into the election, but more is going to be needed. Mitt Romney raised a total of $56 million for the primary last year. If you don't think that's important, read this:

Romney has been a formidable fundraiser and most party leaders expect a large amount of money to flow into his campaign if he sews up the nomination. Republican-leaning Super PACs have also fared better than Democratic-backed outside groups, further offsetting the president's fundraising.

While we may all decry the corporate money being funneled into the campaigns because of the Citizens United loophole, we have to acknowledge that for at least this campaign season, it's a major factor.

In other news, Republicans in Congress are "outraged" by President Obama's use of a recess appointments, particularly of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That's because they're claiming they're technically not on recess. Which is why they're planning on introducing a resolution criticizing the move.

Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) and 71 other House Republicans introduced a nonbinding resolution today voicing concern over President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of four administration nominees last week.

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.” [emphasis added]

Jonathan Bernstein calls it "the best self-refuting argument ever." In other words, they're going to decry the president's use of recess appointments, because they weren't in recess, and they'll vote on it the minute they get back from recess.

This is why we, as Democrats, need to get involved. It's not just returning the President to the White House. It's returning Congress to Democratic control, so we don't have to put up with obstructive nonsense like this any longer.

Romney and Other GOP Candidates Make the Case for Re-Electing Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:41:00 +0000

Last night was the New Hampshire Republican debate, which the consensus was that Romney hadn't been hurt by it. There were fireworks between the other candidates, though. Ron Paul called Newt Gingrich a "chickenhawk," Santorum took shots at Ron Paul, Gingrich complained about "anti-catholicism," and Rick Perry suggested putting troops back in Iraq.

Santorum has emerged as the new "challenger" to Romney after his victory in Iowa, and predictably has drawn fire for his statements. The first came from his attempt to talk about cutting welfare and government aid, when he singled out one group:

For Santorum that means cutting government regulation. Making Americans less dependent on government aid. Fewer people getting food stamps, Medicaid and other forms of federal assistance — especially one group.

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," Santorum begins. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."

Drawing fire for that, he's now saying he said "Blah," not "Black." Which isn't being believed by many. Adding more fuel to the fire, he also went back to his favorite theme, gay marriage.

Reporting from Manchester, N.H.—

For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

Which isn't backed up by actual professionals, and he was notably not willing to name the specific "expert" he quoted.

In Democratic news, President Obama announced that he will be hosting a forum on Wednesday about "insourcing American jobs."

“We’re heading in the right direction. And we’re not going to let up,” the president said. He announced the White House will host a forum Wednesday titled, “Insourcing American Jobs,” highlighting “business leaders who are bringing jobs back home.”

The White House’s focus on reversing the trend toward outsourcing could put an uncomfortable spotlight on one of the Republican contenders for Obama’s job, Mitt Romney, who headed up an investment firm that took over distressed companies and sometimes outsourced their U.S. production to China or other markets where labor is cheaper.

Also helping is the newest jobs report, as unemployment dropped to 8.5%, along with other signs that the economy is strengthening.

Looking ahead, the "enthusiasm gap" seems to have disappeared, according to new PPP polling:

Voters who made up the core of President Obama's 2008 victory are just as excited and motivated about 2012 as Republicans, conservatives and tea party activists, according to a new survey.

The Democratic-leaning pollster Public Policy Polling finds that African-Americans, tea party supporters and young people are the three most motivated demographic groups going into the 2012 election cycle. According to PPP, 62 percent of black voters describe themselves as "very excited" about voting this cycle, while 55 percent of voters 18 to 29 describe themselves the same way. In 2008, 95 percent of blacks supported President Obama, and 66 percent of voters 18 to 29 backed him.

As the Republicans continue to alienate groups in their attempt to select a presidential candidate, expect these figures to grow.

Bachmann Out, Obama's Youth Jobs Program, and Bad Boeing

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:32:00 +0000

Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the presidential race, much to the dismay of bloggers everywhere. Talking Points Memo has a great tribute to her.

Mitt Romney still hasn't released his tax returns, and is unlikely to. Why?

When Romney jokes that he’s been unemployed for years, he’s obscuring the fact that he’s still collecting millions of dollars of investment income, which is taxed at a much lower rate than it would be if he, like most taxpayers, took home a regular paycheck. He’s also obscuring the fact a great deal of that same income is only vaguely connected to his own underlying investments, and yet benefits from a key loophole in the tax code that allows him and other wealthy finance veterans to more than halve their effective tax rate.

In private equity, fund managers are typically compensated with both a fee (two percent of assets) and substantial share (20 percent) of the fund’s profits. Those profits are called “carried interest” and they’re classified as long-term capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent — much lower than wage income, on which the top marginal rate is 35 percent.

In other words, even though he's making a lot of money, he's not paying as much in taxes as most middle-class people. It's something that he'd rather not call attention to.

Good news for the economy: U.S. companies added 325,000 jobs in December.

In the "free market bites" or "you expected loyalty?" category, Boeing is closing its Wichita Kansas plant. They're moving the work to their Washington state plant. This has resulted in predictable screaming by the Republicans in the state:

The decision announced on Wednesday drew a bitter reaction from Kansas politicians, who felt Boeing had betrayed commitments to the state and their efforts to help the company win a big refueling aircraft contract from the U.S. Air Force.

President Obama will announce a youth jobs program today.

President Obama will continue his campaign to bypass Congressional opposition to his jobs agenda Thursday by announcing a new partnership aimed at helping a quarter of a million young people find summer jobs.

The initiative, part of Obama's "We Can't Wait" campaign, is intended to replace a youth jobs fund that would have been enacted had Congress passed the president's $447 billion jobs bill.

Iowa Results - Updated

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:35:00 +0000

Last night the Iowa caucus was held. It's the first of a number of caucuses and primaries to determine each party's nominee for President. The results are:

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, had 30,015 votes. Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and an upstart challenger who just weeks ago polled in the single digits, had 30,007, the state GOP said.

Each had roughly 25% of the vote in Iowa, the first state to vote in the 2012 presidential caucus and primary season. Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas, had 21%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was at 13%. Perry was at 10%, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had 1%

Perry said in his concession speech “With a little prayer and a little reflection, I’m going to decide the best path forward,” which is usually a way of saying "I'm dropping out." Huntsman did not campaign in Iowa, preferring to focus on New Hampshire. Michele Bachmann is saying that she's staying in (for now), but after her early showing in the straw polls in Iowa, this result is pretty much the end for her.

Santorum was the surprise, since even two weeks ago he was in single digits. But his showing, along with Ron Paul's, demonstrates the influence of the religious right and Tea Party in the Republican "base," as well as a strong "Not Romney" sentiment among the Republican primary voters.

Romney's win tonight, as close as it was (just 8 votes) is a strong indicator that he will be the eventual nominee. He wasn't expected to win to begin with, with various pundits saying he'd do well to finish third. Whether this translates into actual momentum and the party getting behind him will be the topic of discussion over the next few months.

Updated 11:30 AM: Michele Bachmann has announced that she is suspending her campaign.

Eliminating Capital Gains Tax - Bad for America, Great for the 1%

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:30:00 +0000

One of the common threads that Republicans keep hammering on is the need to "reduce taxes" to improve the economy. One of their efforts is the "flat tax" where everyone pays the same tax rate, and among other things, reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax.

HORSLEY: Perry's plan would also cut corporate tax rates to 20 percent, and eliminate the tax on dividends and capital gains. By doing away with those investment taxes, Perry would give a big windfall to the wealthiest Americans.

Just what sort of windfall are we talking about? This article tells us: The top 0.1% of the nation earn half of the capital gains.

The top 0.1%-- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million-- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

Capital gains are currently taxed at 15%, down from the 28% it was under Reagan - and he had raised it to that level. Various conservatives try to make the case that this low tax rate is beneficial for the economy:

So what does this mean for this debate? It means that when you tax millionaires, you reduce the biggest wells of disposable income we have. This means cars will not be bought, houses will not be built, planes will go unproduced, and charities will suffer. It means fewer jobs in our economy as the engines of purchasing power get burdened by higher taxes. We need to promote wealth and high incomes by making it easier to achieve that lofty goal rather than making it something at which to sneer.

Which is a somewhat different argument from their previous one, where the wealthy would be investing in other businesses. Now the argument is that they'll "buy stuff with the money." That this has apparently not happened with previous reductions, in either case, is an indicator that they want "the wealthy to be wealthier," and that the wealthy don't want to pay for the society they live in.

There is a huge difference between the small investor who may be making a few thousand dollars in capital gains from sale of stocks and the very wealthy who are making millions turning over stocks and hedge fund investments. The original purpose of capital gains was to encourage long-term investing. You bought your stocks, you held onto them. The current policy encourages rapid turnover, and investment in risky investments promising high return and quick turnarounds. It does not increase "value" or economic growth and investment. At a time when the nation faces deficits and decaying infrastructure, it's time to change that, and make the very wealthy start paying their share.

Open Thread - Republican Follies Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:20:00 +0000

Rick Perry challenged Nancy Pelosi to debate the part-time Congress plan.

In a letter to Pelosi obtained by The Hill, the Texas governor wrote: “I am in Washington Monday and would love to engage you in a public debate about my Overhaul Washington plan versus the congressional status quo.

Nancy Pelosi responded via Twitter:

Re: Gov. Perry--Monday I’ll be in Portland. Later visiting labs in CA. That's 2. I can’t remember the 3rd thing.

After his debate performance, even Texans are starting to realize something about him.

But White knows this: Texans everywhere are seeing a side of Perry they’ve never seen, a side unscripted. He says Perry has long run from accountability, whether in the form of debates, editorial board meetings or regular press conferences.

And now we know why: Perry has never really known the answers, he just memorized what polls and advisers told him the answers were.

Herman Cain is having his share of problems, after his disastrous "Libya" moment in an interview. First, he canceled an editorial board meeting with New Hampshire's most read newspaper.

A scheduled meeting with the New Hampshire Union Leader‘s editorial board was canceled about an hour before it was to begin. There was disagreement over whether the meeting would be videotaped. The Union Leader typically allows filming of its meetings with presidential candidates; Cain’s campaign refused to allow it.

The newspaper is an influential voice among New Hampshire conservatives.

But that's not his only recent gaffe:

“What about Cuba?” he asked. “One of my principles is: Go to the source closest to the problem. You will find the solution… I want to get from Cuban leaders a solution what we should do.”

Oh, and he apparently doesn't know languages:

Cain also stepped in it a bit (as Gov. Rick Perry might say) when he said while enjoying a cafecito and croquette at the Cafe Versailles, “How do you say delicious in Cuban?”

With her campaign hopes fading, Michele Bachmann violates Reagan's rule about Republicans, and goes after Newt:

“Fannie [Mae] and Freddie, as you know, have been the epicenter of the financial meltdown in this country, and whether former Speaker Gingrich made $300,000 or whether he made $2 million, the point is he took money to also influence senior Republicans to be favorable toward Fannie and Freddie,”

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is facing some problems regarding transparency in his campaign, and his time as governor:

Just before Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts governor’s office and first ran for president, 11 of his top aides purchased their state-issued computer hard drives, and the Romney administration’s e-mails were all wiped from a server, according to interviews and records obtained by the Globe.

The Globe story went on to detail how nearly a dozen aides paid some $65 each to purchase their work computer hard drives -- proved by cancelled checks, provided to the Globe -- and that new servers were installed for the incoming Democratic administration of Deval Patrick in 2006. The result? There are no electronic records of any Romney administration emails, although boxes of paper documents do exist in state storage facilities.

Rick Perry Wants an (Unconstitutional) Part-Time Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:39:00 +0000

Rick Perry, after his brain freeze in a recent debate when it came to which government departments he would abolish if he were President. In an effort to salvage his campaign, he's started announcing his plans to "reform" government, starting with the legislative branch. What's his plan? A part-time Congress.

The U.S. does not need a full-time Congress that is more focused on increasing its perks instead of reducing spending. America needs a part-time, Citizen Congress – populated with those who choose to serve not for profit, or for the promise of a high-paying lobbyist job, but for the good of their communities, states, and the nation. Even with a 50 percent pay-cut, Congressional members would still make a significantly higher income than the average American.¹¹ By changing the way Congress operates, and moving towards a part-time legislature, Congressman will have the freedom to live in their communities, engage their constituents, and truly speak for the people they represent. Rules preventing members of Congress from holding private sector jobs must also be repealed. – When lawmakers hold the same types of jobs as their constituents, they will gain a much greater understanding of how congressional laws impact the real world.

Reaction has been swift, with Matt Yglesias calling it dangerously unsound. The Daily Mail calls it a populist attempt to regain his standing. It's one of those "sounds good" to the Republican base proposals, but doesn't stand up to the reality of Congress. It even doesn't stand up to a fact check, as Matt Glassman points out:

I haven’t checked if his statements about inflation are true (I have no reason to doubt them technically), but if they are true then almost all the real increase in congressional salaries took place in the 19th century.* According to the inflation figures Perry used, real prices fell by almost 50% between 1815 and 1907, while Members’ salaries went from $1500 to $7500. There’s the entirety of the 10-fold increase he cites.

and

Members make approximately 1.7% more in real dollars than they did 100 years ago. So if the salaries of the legislative branch ran wild because something changed in Washington, that something took place in the 19th century, not the 20th.

So the "make far more than ever before" is a fabrication, when checked against a constant dollar scenario. Yglesias points out some other problems:

You can see this along a number of dimensions. One is that if members of Congress need to work second jobs, their business relationships will involve conflicts of interest. A second is that to the extent that earning extra income takes up more of members of Congress’ time, they’ll become more dependent on lobbyists and special interest groups for information and assistance with their projects.

It's an astoundingly bad idea from any number of standpoints. Beyond the fact that people expect that their congressional representatives will work full-time at it, the idea that they will "work at a job" when not in session is ridiculous. Even in states which have "part time" legislatures, it often turns into a full-time job for the legislators and their staffs to do the job properly. What the proposal does is to ensure that only the very wealthy can take the time to become members of Congress.

But even beyond it being impractical, there's another facet. It's unconstitutional. A quick read of the United States Constitution, Article 1 says so.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

In other words, he can't do it. Only Congress can do so, and only Congress can change its pay. So what he's doing is simply posturing, and it's meaningless. He can't do it, and he can't force Congress to do it. Only Congress could make those sorts of changes to itself, and not even the Republicans would go along with that. Which is something that any serious candidate who studied government would know. Saying this just shows that Rick Perry is not a serious candidate, but that he even is being considered a contender just shows how far the Republican Party has fallen.

Mississippi Is Turning Women Into Criminals

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:07:00 +0000

There's an amendment being voted on next week to the constitution for the state of Mississippi which is called the "Personhood Amendment." It's fairly simple in its language:

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

This amendment has been pushed by a group called "Personhood USA," in attempt to overturn Roe v Wade. It's based on a statement made during arguments:

Justice Potter Stewart said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here."

Which is why this measure is being pushed. By defining a "person" as an egg from the moment of fertilization, it makes it their case that it is a legal person. There are multiple problems with this definition, not just from an ethical standpoint, but from a legal and biological standpoint.

Human fertilization is a complex process in itself. A series of things have to happen in sequence, and with the right timing, for the egg and sperm to merge. Even after that point - when Mississippi wants to define it as a person - it has to travel down the fallopian tubes, and implant in the uterus. For this to happen, a series of things have to go right. Which more often than not, it doesn't.

John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception.

Even, if implantation does occur, and development starts, it doesn't mean that things will go smoothly.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a majority of pregnancies never go past the first few weeks, and even after a clinical diagnosis of pregnancy (using ultrasound), there's still about a 25 percent chance of miscarriage.

Given the odds, and the number of things that have to go right, it's often more astonishing that women carry to term than that they don't. But, that highlights the problem with the Personhood Amendment: Every one of those embryos which didn't implant, or those that miscarried, is a "person" whose life has been lost. Even more, this would ban many forms of birth control.

Unfortunately for proponents, the Personhood movement spokesman Walter Hoye stated the opposite on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show. As the Florida Independent reports, when asked if there were any restrictions on birth control in the amendment, Hoye answered “no…well, yes,” adding, “any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure,” including the pill:
HOYE: Any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure.
REHM: So that would then include the IUD [intra-uterine device]. What about the birth control pill?
HOYE: If that falls into the same category, yes.
REHM: So you’re saying that the birth control pill could be considered as taking the life of a human being?
HOYE: I’m saying that once the egg and the oocyte come together and you have that single-celled embryo, at that point you have human life, you’ve got a human being and we’re taking the life of a human being with some forms of birth control and if birth control falls into that category, yes I am.

In short, many of the most commonly used forms of birth control become illegal because they prevent implantation. The result of this amendment is not "stopping abortion," although it's been promoted this way by many on the right. Instead, because they ignore biology, the actual result of it is to make women "killers," because they failed to save a person - even though she may never have known that conception had taken place, or was trying not to become pregnant.

If this passes, and I sincerely hope it doesn't, it will mark a new low in women's rights. It's not just an assault on reproductive choice, it makes them criminals. For that alone, it should never be allowed.

The Media Gets It Wrong ... Again

noreply@blogger.com (Norbrook) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:04:00 +0000

One of the continuing themes the mainstream media pundits and newspapers keep pushing is that President Obama is "in trouble" when it comes to the 2012 election. One of the indicators they say they're using to determine that is that "donors are not returning" to the campaign. Last month, the NY Times ran a story about "Small Donors Are Slow to Return to the Obama Fold":

But in recent months, the frustration and disillusionment that have dragged down Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have crept into the ranks of his vaunted small-donor army, underscoring the challenges he faces as he seeks to rekindle grass-roots enthusiasm for his re-election bid.

Yes, according to the New York Times he's "in trouble." After all, he's "sinking in the polls," with "dismal approval ratings!" This portends, according to the pundits and media, a problem for the President to be re-elected. Obviously, we (and the Obama campaign) should be panicking right now. The problem with this portrayal? Reality.

A recent poll shows the President's approval rating surging. As in his favorability ratings up 11 points, and his job approval ratings up 6 points. Which doesn't quite match up with the media discussion of his "sinking polls." But the real kicker is in the FEC report for the most recent quarter. OFA sent out an e-mail detailing what they've done:

Here's what you should know about what we'll report to the FEC tomorrow:

-- In the third fundraising quarter of this year, 606,027 people donated to this campaign -- even more than gave in the record-breaking previous quarter.
-- Those people gave more than 766,000 total donations -- 98 percent of them $250 or less, at an average amount of $56. That's more than twice as many donations than we had at this point in the historic 2008 campaign.
-- We are focused on building infrastructure that will help us win in 2012. And each quarter we set a combined goal for the campaign and our allies at the Democratic National Committee. We far exceeded our goal of $55 million this quarter between the two organizations. Great work.
-- Together, Obama for America and the DNC raised more than $70 million. And it all happened during a summer when the President was focused on doing the job he was elected to do -- a summer when we had to cancel a series of fundraising events and ask everyone to dig a little deeper.

If I could sum up this last quarter in a few words: You came through. Thank you.

Here's even bigger news: Right now, 982,967 people have donated to this campaign. We're within striking distance of 1 million donors.

In other words, the reality is that small donors are not "slow to return," they've been donating at a record pace. What's important about that? Small donors are "the tip of the iceberg." Remember, there's a maximum limit on the amount one person can give, and an average of $56 dollars - and most under $250 - means that there are more donations possible, and more money that they can raise.

Which point the newest OFA e-mail makes:

You and a whole lot of other supporters turned that headline upside down. Today we filed a report with the FEC that shows this movement isn't just as strong as ever -- it's growing.

Sometimes the media gets so caught up in its own echo chamber that the storyline separates from the facts.

The great thing about building a grassroots organization based outside of Washington is that the press won't decide what happens here -- you will.

The media has consistently underestimated what this campaign can do. It doesn't fit into their predetermined story, and reality keeps coming back to bite them. Let's keep it up.

White House Announces 'We the People' Online Petitioning Feature

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:43:00 +0000

Do you get emails almost every day from progressive activist groups urging you to "tell President Obama to do/not do [insert action on [insert issue] here]?"

I do. Generally, I find them annoying, but I support the grassroots activism they represent. Some of them I ignore. Most of them, I sign, figuring it can't hurt. But does it really help? I often wonder what effect online petitions (or even physical ones) really have on policy decisions, at all levels of government.

But today, the online petitioning process became a little more interesting to me. Macon Phillips, director of the Office of Digital Strategy, announced that the Obama Administration will soon launch "We the People," an official online petitioning feature on its website, WhiteHouse.gov.

"We the People" is designed to give Americans an official and easy-to-use tool to petition their government, as prescribed in the Constitution, and - and this is the really important part - get an official response from the administration.

How's it gonna work? It seems pretty straightforward: You, or any other individual, go to the website and start a new petition on "a range of issues." I'm assuming that means there will be broad headings like "Health Care" and "Tax Reform" and so forth. You create a petition that clearly states the policy action you are calling for. Simple!

Then comes the hard part: you have to garner support for your petition, which means getting people to sign it. The White House has tried to ensure a grassroots approach by not making the URL of newly-created petitions visible on their site until the creator has convinced 150 people to sign it. This means that no activist group searching WhiteHouse.gov could come across a relevant new petition accidentally and drive traffic to it independent of the efforts of the originator. If you create a petition, it's up to you alone to get those first 150 signatures.

According to Phillips, the initial policy will be that petitions amassing more than 5,000 signatures in 30 days "will be reviewed and answered." The review process will be conducted by "a standing group of White House staff," which will route the issue to other relevant offices to "generate an official, on-the-record response."

I have to say, I like this idea, because I see it as empowering all citizens to get the ear of the White House, rather than just the PACs and other activist groups that I see in my inbox every day. Frankly, I often decide not to sign a petition from Move On or Change.org or whomever largely because of the way they word the email that urges me to support their cause du jour. If the email says, "Tell President Obama he can't hide behind the coattails of corporations any longer!", I'm closing the email without signing, even if I support the action they're calling for. I don't respect hysteria or deliberate mischaracterizations, and I don't want my name associated with people who use them for political purposes.

However, with We the People, I could start a petition of my own calling for the very same action, and the messaging would be under my control. I'd be writing the emails urging people to go sign it. I'd be authoring the blog posts. And then, other people would forward my words to others as they sought to help me get my 150 signatures, and then 5,000 signatures.

So yeah, this sounds great! Let's go start a petition right now!

Slow down there, Sparky - the program hasn't launched yet. The White House is telling us about it now, before the launch, so that we can have time to think about the issues and the actions we want to see. This will (it is hoped) result in petitions that are thought through and carefully written, which will make them more likely to achieve the signature tipping points and more likely to get to the review process.

Here's a video with Macon Phillips explaining the new program.

White House Counters Myths About Debt Ceiling Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:19:00 +0000

President Obama signs Budget Control Act of 2011

The White House released a new infographic today to help explain the details of the Budget Control Act, the bipartisan compromise the president and congressional leaders reached in order to raise the debt ceiling earlier this week.

The graphic is intended to make the actual content of the budget deal clear and to dispel various myths and misinformation that have been swirling in the public dialogue both before and after the deal was made public.

Click to enlarge image

The top of the graphic outlines the three key elements of the budget deal: 1) the lifting of the debt ceiling by at least $2.1 trillion through 2013; 2) the schedule of spending cuts amounting to almost $3 trillion (with notes that Pell Grants are protected and that the cuts are balanced between domestic and defense spending); and 3) the establishment of the bipartisan committee that must identify additional spending cuts of$1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November of this year.

The graphic breaks into further detail the workings of this "super committee," explaining that it will consist of six members from each party and that the legislation it sends to the floors of the two houses will be fast-tracked and protected against filibusters and amendments, two processes that traditionally slow, kill, or neutralize legislation.

Writing on the White House blog, Jon Carson-- deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement--sought to counter several common misunderstandings about the budget deal with facts:

Myth: President Obama caved.

Fact: President Obama laid out key priorities that had to be part of any deal. Those priorities are reflected in this compromise. First, we avoided default which would have plunged the economy into a deep recession, imperiling the well-being of millions of Americans. Second, the initial down payment on deficit reductions does not cut low-income and safety-net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Third, we set up a path forward that will put pressure on Congress to adopt a balanced approach. And finally, we raised the debt ceiling until 2013, ensuring that House Republicans could not use the threat of default in just a few months to force severe cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Myth: Republicans got everything they wanted

Fact: They won’t admit it publicly, but when push came to shove, Republicans backed down on their key demands. For months, Republicans called for a budget that would have ended Medicare as we know it, made catastrophic cuts to Medicaid, or cut investments in education by 25 percent, clean energy by 70 percent and infrastructure spending by 30 percent. As if that wasn’t enough, they also demanded that we repeat this debt-ceiling crisis, just a few months from now.

None of these of these demands made it into a final deal.

Myth: This deal cuts Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Fact: There are no changes to these programs included in the initial phase of this agreement. In the second phase of the agreement, everything will be on the table – and the President has made clear that the committee must pursue a balanced approach where reforms to programs like Medicaid, Social Security or Medicare would only be acceptable if coupled with higher revenues from the most fortunate.

Myth: This deal reduces the deficit entirely on the backs of the middle class.

Fact: While the initial down payment on deficit reduction - about $1 trillion – will require belt-tightening, it still will allow us to invest in the programs and priorities we care about most. Moreover, hundreds of billions of this initial round of cuts will come from security spending.

As we negotiated the domestic side of the cuts, we protected our historic new investments in Pell Grants as part of the down payment. For the second phase, we made sure that programs for the most vulnerable, like food stamps, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit, would not be hit by the “trigger,” the automatic cuts that will go into place if Congress does not find an acceptable compromise.

Myth: The joint committee -- the so-called "super committee" -- makes it easier for Congress to cut the programs we care about.

Fact: The joint committee system puts pressure on Republicans to seek compromise. As we all know, in this round of deficit reduction, there wasn’t a lot of leverage bringing Republicans to the table. In round two, that changes.

If Republicans aren't willing to compromise, then the joint committee will fail. This would automatically trigger an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction designed to be painful for both sides, with half that coming from savings in the defense budget.

Myth: Since we weren’t able to raise revenues right now, we won’t be able to raise revenues in the future.

Fact: The deal lays out two paths for further reducing our deficit. Both of them include revenues. Option one is for the joint committee to develop a plan that is passed by both Houses of Congress, and signed by President Obama. The President has already said that he will only support a balanced approach involving shared sacrifice. That means raising revenue through steps such as closing loopholes for corporations, reforming our tax code, and asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes.

If the joint committee cannot develop a balanced compromise,that brings us to option two for raising revenues: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. On January 1, 2013, President Obama can use his veto pen to end special tax breaks for high-income Americans if Congress votes to extend them.

Gabrielle Giffords Votes as House Passes Debt Ceiling Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:52:00 +0000

Gabrielle Giffords waves to House colleagues (photo from CNN)

The debt ceiling ball is now in the U.S. Senate's court as the House voted today 269-161 to pass the deal agreed upon by President Obama and Congressional Leaders yesterday.

While there is still widespread anger over the drama created by the Republican refusal to lift the debt ceiling without ransom-like concessions, and dissatisfaction on both sides over the terms of the deal, there was one hugely positive emotional event in the midst of it all.

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords returned to the floor of the House to cast a vote on the bill. It was her first appearance there since she was shot in the head at a meet-and-greet with constituents in Tucson in January. She was accompanied by her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, and close friend Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Giffords was greeted at the door by Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and received a prolonged standing ovation from her House colleagues. Vice President Joe Biden also stopped by to see her.

When Biden was asked about what he spoke with Giffords about, he joked, "She's now a member of the cracked head club like me."

In a statement, Giffords explained why she felt obligated to vote today.

"I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what's going on in Washington," Giffords said in a statement. "After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy."

The Senate must pass the bill early tomorrow, August 2, to ensure that it can be signed by President Obama in time to avoid a government default.

GOP Fundraising Page Inadvertently Concedes 2012 Presidential Election

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:16:00 +0000

You want to know why the GOP is behaving so desperately these days? I think it's because they are, in fact, feeling desperate.

Exhibit A: The fundraising page of the GOP's official website has a graphic celebrating "President Obama's Last Day," which they apparently think will be January 20, 2017:

GOP: We'll get Obama out of office by the end of his second term, or else!

Either this is an accidentally revealed indicator of the GOP's lack of confidence in their chances of winning the presidency next year, or else it's a very clever fake-out designed to make Democrats overconfident and cause them to slack off on their own fundraising and volunteer recruitment efforts.

But since we are talking about the party that denies the disastrous effects of global climate change and has attempted to legally bar the U.S. government from purchasing power-saving fluorescent light bulbs, I feel safe in ruling out any explanation that relies on GOP cleverness.

(Hat-tip to politicususa.com.)

Just what is Cut, Cap, and Balance?

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:49:00 +0000

H.R. 2560 - The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. That is what most of the discussion in Washington is going to be about today. So what, exactly, does it do? First of all, you can take a look for yourself here, but it isn't necessarily that pretty. Let's take the bill title word by title word.

Title I: "Cut"

Title I is, appropriately named, "Cut." It's meant to cut the 2012 federal budget. Sec. 101 would cap discretionary spending budget authority for FY 2012 at $1 trillion, 19.4 billion and would cap FY 2012 discretionary outlays at 1.225 trillion.

Just for comparison, FY2010 (which is the last year we had a real budget), the total discretionary budget was $1.378 trillion, so that would be a cut of $349 billion for budget authority and $153 billion in outlays. And that's not taking into account any increase in defense spending between FY 2010 and FY 2011. Based on FY2010 numbers, a $349 billion cut in appropriations would result in a essentially a 50% cut in non-defense discretionary funding, if no defense funding were cut from FY2010 levels. Even if one went with the $153 billion in outlays, that's a 21% cut.

Just for some scope, to make up $349 billion, we would have to eliminate, entirely, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture (give or take a billion).

(To make up $153 billion, if you want to use that number, you would merely only have to cut Health and Human Services and Transportation, plus another 2 or 3 billion).

If one were to carry that cut over 10 years, one would be looking at $3.5 trillion in cuts from the discretionary budget alone based on budget authority, or $1.53 trillion using the outlays number, assuming budget growth is equal to inflation.

Title I also caps the money that can be spent on the "Global War on Terrorism" (their term in the bill) at $126.5 billion. I'm not entirely sure if that is in addition to the discretionary spending or not.

Title I then also caps direct, or mandatory spending, at $680.7 billion, exempting Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits and Services, and national debt interest (note: Medicaid is NOT on the exempted list). This may or may not result in any mandatory cuts in 2012. Based on FY 2010 numbers (PDF), that would be a cut of $60.3 billion (taking out gains from TARP), though would be pretty much even with expected expenses based on FY 2012 projections made in January 2011.

So that's the "Cut" section. meant for FY 2012.

Next:

Title II: "Cap"

Section 201(a), as far as I can tell, removes section (c)(4) from this piece of the US Code, which eliminates certain discretionary budget categories, including "highway category," "mass transit category," "conservation spending category," "Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund sub-category," among others. I don't think this prohibits funds from being spent for these things, but it appears to eliminate them as distinct budget categories. It then adds to the US Code, this:

"The term ‘GDP’, for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions."

Section 201(b) then limits total outlays (both on and off budget) to:

21.7% of GDP in 2013
20.8% of GDP in 2014
20.2% of GDP in 2015
20.1% of GDP in 2016
19.9% of GDP in 2017
19.7% of GDP in 2018
19.9% of GDP in 2019, 2020, and 2021

Just as comparison, federal outlays for the past 40 years have averaged at about 20.6% of GDP, though FY 2009 and FY 2010 averaged at 24.4% of GDP.

Finally 201(b) says that if outlays are over, sequestration measures should be taken, though Medicare, Social Security, military pay, military retirement, veterans benefits, and national debt interest are exempt.

Then we get to:

Title III: Balance

This section extends the debt limit to $16.7 trillion (an increase of $2.3 trillion), but only unless and until a balanced budget amendment as introduced in H. J. Res. 1, S. J. Res. 10, or H. J. Res. 56 (or any comparable amendment) is passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and sent to the states.

So what do these amendments do?

Not shockingly, they all require a balanced budget. H.J. Res. 1 allows this to be exempted by a 3/5 vote in both Houses. S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 require a 2/3 vote to override this provision
They spending at 18% of GDP and requires a 2/3 vote of both Houses to override this requirement
They require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress
They require that any increase in revenue require a 2/3 vote in Congress to pass
They require a 3/5 vote in both Houses to increase the debt limit
They allow the waiving of the balanced budget requirement, GDP requirement, presidential budget requirement, and debt ceiling requirement in the case a declaration of war is in effect. H.J. Res. 1 also allows the waiving of the revenue increase requirement.
Ditto on the waiving in the case of the US being engaged in "a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security." H. J. Res. 1 would allow Congress to declare such a state by a majority vote. The other two amendments would require a 3/5 vote. Those two would also require that any additional spending be limited to the military conflict in question.
S. J. Res. 10 and H. J. Res. 56 say that no court may require an increase in revenue
H. J. Res. 1 would take effect in 2 years after ratification, unless it is ratified after 2016, in which case it would take effect in 1 year.
S. J. Res 10 and H. J. Res 56 would take effect 5 years after ratification
None of the amendments have a ratification time limit

So what does this do? It does several things, very few of them good.

It would force federal spending to be at a level that we haven't consistently seen since before World War II, as there has not been a stretch of more than 5 years in a row that the federal government has spent at 18% GDP or less since. In fact, only two years - 2000 and 2001 - has this been the case since 1974.

It would likely gut entitlement spending. The average GDP in 2010 was $14.660 trillion. A 18% cap would have required a spending cap of $2.639 trillion, which would have required a cut of about $913 billion from the budget that actually passed. Even if all discretionary spending, including defense, were cut by 50%, we'd still have to cut $224 billion from mandatory programs. Assuming defense were untouched, we'd have to cut $556 billion from mandatory programs, or about 25.5%. If Social Security, Mediare, and Medicaid were left intact, that would mean ALL other mandatory spending, sans interest on the national debt, would have to be eliminated, including food stamps, veterans benefits, unemployment, student loans, etc.

The federal budget could very well be reduced to defense spending, Social Security, Mediare, Medicaid, and national debt interest and absolutely else - assuming that revenues actually reached 18% (and that's happened under two of President Bush's, and none of President Obama's budgets). If not, then even more cuts would be necessary. Based on FY 2010 revenue - and remember it would take a 2/3 vote to increase revenue under these Amendments - the budget would be operating closer to 14% of GDP, meaning that the budget would have faced a cut of about $1.5 trillion, or a 42% budget cut across every single program, including Medicare and Social Security.

Also, cutting $1 trillion yearly from the federal budget would have a devastating impact on the economy, which would likely reduce the GDP, both lowering the funding cap and reducing tax revenues, forcing further cuts, lowering the GDP further. Such an amendment could trigger a downward spiral that would almost certainly result in the gutting of most of the nation's entitlement programs.

This amendment would also largely trigger elections moot, and that's something that all but the hardest core Republicans should be opposed to, regardless of whether one agrees with current Democratic policies or not.

This amendment would enshrine in the Constitution right wing conservative economic doctrine, ensuring that conservatives could implement their agenda of cutting the budget and cutting taxes by a mere majority vote, but would require moderates and liberals to meet a virtually unattainable goal of 2/3 vote in both Houses to implement any of their policy goals, or to even undo anything Republicans might have done when they were in power. It would effectively ensure that Republicans control government, even if they lose elections. Only an overwhelming election of Democrats, ensuring a 2/3 majority in both Houses could undo this arrangement.

Is an arrangement where one party can do what it wants by majority vote, but the other party must face the burden of a 2/3 vote really something that Americans want?

Further, these amendments would:

Make it near impossible to implement stimulus spending in a recession. In fact, it would almost certainly require severe budget cuts in the very programs that help people the most during a recession.
It would create a disincentive to implement possible stimulative tax cuts as it would take a 2/3 vote to repeal them (assuming one couldn't just sunset them)
It would make it difficult for the government to provide disaster relief in the case of a major hurricane, earthquake, flood, drought, or other natural disaster as it would require a 2/3 vote to do so
It would make some common sense fixes to Social Security difficult, by making any vote to raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap subject to a 2/3 vote, putting the sustainability of Social Security into even further question
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would almost certainly have to be repealed. This would actually make it harder to balance the budget, as the PPACA has the net effect of lowering the deficit, but it would violate the 18% of GDP provision.
It would almost certainly require that any steps to be taken to lower the national debt would have to be taken by spending cuts only.
If the GOP cut taxes with the argument that it would increase revenue - and were wrong - it would be nearly impossible to reverse as it would take a 2/3 vote to do so.
However, it would make it (relatively) easy for a party who controls Washington to do something such as Invading Iraq again, as it would only take a 3/5 vote of both Houses to declare doing so a "imminent and serious military threat to national security." - but would make it difficult to pay for such action by raising taxes as 2 of the 3 amendments wouldn't waive the 2/3 vote to raise taxes provision, even in a time of war.
It would make the US much like California in that it would take a 2/3 vote to do any sort of real budget reforms. This situation was a large reason why California faced one of the biggest budget deficits in the nation
It would encourage Congress to balance the budget using budgeting tricks, similar to what is happening in many states with balanced budget amendments right now, making the nation's financial situation less stable, not more stable

Oh, and with no time limit on ratification, it could make the balanced budget amendment a state-level election issue in perpetuity, and could eventually be ratified sometime in the future, much like the 27th Amendment was, 203 years after it was passed by Congress, if enough states happened to elect sympathetic legislatures in favor of it at some unknown time in the future.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what the GOP's proposals are trying to do.

McConnell's Debt Ceiling Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:08:00 +0000

Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed an interesting debt ceiling proposal that could amount to allowing Obama raising the debt ceiling through the 2012 election with absolutely no budget cuts to offset the increase.

Here is what the proposal amounts to as far as I can tell from media reports. Note: these details may change either due to reports being incorrect or the proposal itself changing:

Congress would vote to allow Obama to "request" an extension of the debt ceiling by a total of $2.5 trillion dollars - first in a $700 billion tranche now, and in two $900 billion tranches later
The debt ceiling increase would go into effect unless Congress passed a measure preventing it. This measure, in turn, could be vetoed by Obama, meaning that effectively 2/3 of both Houses would have to vote to NOT increase the debt ceiling for it not to happen
Obama would be required to recommend offsetting cuts, presumably equal to the amount of the debt limit increase request. These recommendations could not include revenue increases. However, these are only recommendations. Congress would have to approve these budget cuts separately.

This plan comes with a few plusses and minuses. I think on balance, it comes with a lot more pros though:

Positives:

Obama could get his debt ceiling increase with no strings attached if none of his recommended budget cuts are agreed to in Congress.
It would prevent the United States from defaulting
Since one would assume that Congressional Republicans would vote to refuse to extend the debt ceiling, Democrats could attack them for voting in favor of national default.
Republicans can also be attacked for thinking that tax cuts for the rich are more important than ANY deficit reduction whatsoever.
The tea party base will likely be enraged at the GOP for effectively agreeing to a debt limit increase with no guarantee of budget cuts.

Negatives:

Obama would be required to unilaterally propose as much as $900 billion in budget cuts, with no option of including new revenues whenever he asks for an increase. The GOP probably feels that it could take Obama's own recommended cuts, stick them into a bill, and either dare the Senate Democrats to vote it down or dare Obama to veto his own budget cut recommendations, meaning they can attack either Senate Dems for not going along with their own President's budget cut proposals or they can attack Obama for being a hypocrite.
They can attack Obama for raising the debt ceiling and, potentially, Senate Democrats for blocking Congressional action to prevent it

I think the biggest catch with this plan is the required recommendations Obama requests, since it does put Democrats in a difficult situation if the House GOP just puts his own recommendations into a bill and passes it.

However, Obama may be able to counteract this by recommending cuts that he knows would be unpalatable to the GOP House and/or the Democratic Senate. And if either chamber, particularly the House, makes changes to his recommendations, that gives Senate Democrats cover to vote it down or Obama to veto them.

This one hitch is the main thing Obama and Senate Democrats would need to think about before agreeing to McConnell's proposal. They would want to make sure that they could either prevent any cuts from going into effect or at least have a plan to not be trapped into a corner by Obama's own required recommendations. Given that Biden and Obama have gone through two rounds of negotiations with the GOP - first with the budget and again now - one would think they would have a good idea of what cuts would and wouldn't be acceptable to each side, especially the GOP.

How an Illinois Union Helped Break Unions in Illinois

noreply@blogger.com (Elise) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:15:00 +0000

Here's a video of the co-founder of Stand for Children, Jonah Edelman. This is an organization that actually spends a lot of time screwing their children out of a good education by driving quality teachers out of their jobs and into the private sector.

You can listen to him describe how his organization went on the attack and knee-capped unions in Illinois, with the help of... none other than... the very unions that were being knee-capped. The problem for unions begins in the first minute and a half. There's a pension crisis in Illinois and the state legislature was working to basically screw new teachers out of the same pension that tenured teachers get. Simple enough.

Mr. Edelman's position is that the unions should have been thankful that the pension reform didn't go further. Realistically, he's correct in that assessment. That may be an uncomfortable reality for some. I'm not happy about it myself, frankly. I have family members that are teachers and administrators in Illinois. I was a teacher myself in Illinois for many years before moving to a different private sector position. I find it appalling to suggest that incoming teachers should make less than tenured teachers. That kind of inequality doesn't sit well with me. Of course, this kind of legislation is easier to pass because unions may be able to swallow future cuts that don't impact current employees. They don't have anyone to explain that to - yet.

Instead of being glad the cuts were limited and necessary given our tough economy and a big deficit in Illinois, AFT (American Federation of Teachers) decided that they weren't going to give money to any Democrat that voted for pension reform. Then they decided they were going to withhold their usual $2 million donation from Mike Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois State House. This is your typical take your ball and go home pouting move of many groups on the left. It's the same mentality that brings you, "Obama sucks, so why bother voting in the mid-term elections." One debt crisis later, and maybe these progressives will remember WHY it was so important to support Democrats in mid-term elections. But did it ever have to come to that?

Watch this video and you'll see that the move by AFT - to remove support from Democrats who had been supportive of labor issues for decades - was literally the very thing that gave anti-union right wing groups a window to lobby those very Democrats to take further action. Edelman points out that they purposely proposed more extreme anti-union measures and then got everyone to the negotiating table and had room to move to a less extreme, but still right wing position.

Let's imagine how this scenario would have worked if AFT had played nice with Speaker Madigan - who has a decades long reputation of helping those who help him and harming those who harm him. Undoubtedly, unions would have had to negotiate and make some concessions, but would they have had to give up as much?

6th Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality of Obama's Health Care Law

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:10:00 +0000

This is great news for the American people: The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati issued a decision today upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It's the first of the three challenges currently before appeals courts to reach a decision point. The Fourth Circuit in Richmond, VA and the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta have also heard arguments on the law's constitutionality, and it's likely that we'll be hearing their opinions soon, as well.

Perhaps the most interesting--not to mention encouraging-- thing about the Sixth Circuit's opinion is that it did not break down along ideological lines, but instead was achieved with a bipartisan application of law:

The Sixth Circuit opinion is the first on the merits that has not broken down strictly along seemingly partisan lines. Two of the judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents and one was appointed by a Democrat. At the lower District Court level, five judges have divided on the question, with three Democratic appointees ruling in favor of the law and two Republican appointees rejecting it

And ThinkProgress noted something even more encouraging, with respect to possible outcomes when one of these ACA challenges reaches the Supreme Court: the writer of the Sixth Circuit's opinion was Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee who clerked for SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia. That might mean nothing, but it at least suggests the possibility that a near-term SCOTUS decision could also cross ideological lines to find in favor of the ACA.

Why the "14th Amendment" Solution to the debt ceiling won't work

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:54:00 +0000

There is a new post on Huffington Post suggesting that some Democrats are thinking about invoking what I like to call the "14th Amendment Solution" to the debt ceiling. It basically goes like this:

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in part, the following:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The argument then goes that, since the "public debt" cannot be questioned, then that makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional.

However, I think this is a misunderstanding in terminology. The 14th Amendment deals with the "public debt" - that is to say the ability for the federal government to pay back interest on T-bills that have been issued. Here is the problem: the likelihood that the federal government will default on the actual payment of interest on T-bills is pretty small. We have more than enough money to pay for that interest, and it will likely be the first thing "out the door" if we have a debt ceiling crisis, preventing a technical default at least.

What the United States government wouldn't be able to pay would be obligations that it has promised to be able to pay via the appropriations process. We generally pay for these obligations either through tax revenue or by generating public debt. Not paying these obligations may very well create a crisis in of itself (and there are strong indications that it will create a crisis), but it would not be a crisis of being unable to pay off interest on the public debt. We may not be able to send out Medicare payments, make payments to universities or students for student loans, or pay some military salaries and the like, but we'd still be paying interest on the national debt.

This is kind of along the lines of what some Republicans have been saying: that there is no reason why the US would technically default on it's debt, though they ignore the warnings that not paying other obligations might spook Wall Street just as much, which is why we still can't ignore the debt ceiling problem (to say nothing about all the programs that would be affected and the hit to the economy it would cause). However, I think in this instance they are right: there is no reason why the US would have a technical default on it's public debt, which is why I don't think the "14th Amendment Solution" is really valid in this instance.

The only real counter that I could see is the phrase "authorized by law" in the Amendment. Someone could try to argue that this means any appropriations made by Congress are kind of de facto paid for by the "public debt" and thus not paying those obligations are akin to defaulting on the "public debt." While I think applying the 14th Amendment to that interpretation is still a stretch, it is similar to an argument I made back in April where I suggested that whenever Congress approves deficit spending, it implicitly extends the debt ceiling as well.

Boehner's Dangerous Game With the Debt Ceiling Deadline

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:07:00 +0000

We've seen an increasing number of statements like this from various Republicans, but this is the first time I recall the #1 Republican in the debt ceiling negotiations saying something like this:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday rejected Aug. 2 as the final deadline for Congress to raise the government's credit limit before the U.S. defaults on its debt.

"Dealing with this deficit problem is far more important than meeting some artificial date created by the Treasury secretary," Boehner said in an interview taped for Fox News's "Hannity."

Essentially, Boehner is now joining the chorus of Republicans who are essentially saying that the threat of us going into default isn't real, or if we do go into default, it's not that big a deal. It's an increasing trend by the Republican leadership to justify doing nothing until after it's too late. And if they're wrong and the economy blows up, well then it's obviously Obama's fault, or Obama is intentionally using the crisis to wreck the economy to make the GOP look bad.

As we've already seen the past couple of days, Republicans are demanding compromise, but are unwilling to do the same, refusing to raise taxes on anyone for any reason to raise revenue. They are probably hoping that Democrats will be so desperate to avoid a default that they'll eventually succumb and agree to the GOP's demands. And the GOP's recent rhetoric indicates that the GOP is fully intending on following through on forcing a default if they don't get their way. After all, how can you say that the deadline is artificial or that defaulting isn't so bad, and then suddenly go into a mode where you have to pass something by August 2nd or else. They're planting the flag: we're making it so that it will be rhetorically impossible for us to compromise with you, so you better capitulate if you don't want the nation to go under.

They probably also figure that, come 16 months from now when people are voting for President, no one is going to remember this debt ceiling showdown. If the economy bombs into another recession or into a depression, all people will remember in November 2012 is that the situation hasn't gotten better since Obama took office, and will sweep Republicans into total control of government. Then they can tax cut and slice programs with near impunity and it will take literally decades for anyone to be able to fix the damage.

They're betting that Obama and the Democrats would rather face an irate Democratic base for having cut trillions from the budget with no new revenues than face the electorate in 2012 with the US economy in the tank. And they're betting, in the end, the GOP won't be blamed for any of it, just like how they weren't blamed for obstructing everything in the Senate after Obama was elected, and people's memories are fading about their culpability in causing the recession in the first place.

It puts Obama and the Democrats in an extremely difficult position when the GOP truly doesn't care if the nation goes to hell and feel like the debt ceiling situation is a win-win for them, no matter how it turns out. It's a very dangerous and damaging opponent to face, and leaves Obama and the Democrats with very few good options.

The "Truthfulness" Scale: Evaluating GOP Presidential Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:06:00 +0000

I thought I would start doing this now that campaign season is upon us. I won't promise to do these at any particular set interval, but I at least hope to do them now and then: That is calculating a "Truthfulness" Scale using PolitiFact's rating system.

Seeing how many True or False or Pants-on-Fire ratings someone has give someone a good indication about how truthful someone is, but how about condensing it down to one single number? That's what I'm trying to do here.

First, I take PolitiFact's ratings and assign them a score. I did that thus:

True = 2 points
Mostly True = 1 point
Half True = 1/2 point
Barely True = -1/2 point
False = -1 Point
Pants on Fire = -2 points

The rest is pretty much simple: add up and average the scores that each candidate has received. Effectively anyone between 0.5 and -0.5 is pretty much splitting the difference, of course with the more positive number doing better. Over 0.5 is doing pretty good. Over 1 would be doing great. Under -0.5 would be pretty badly, and under -1 would pretty much mean you wouldn't know the truth if it kicked and slapped you in the face and ground your nose against a Truth Wheel.

And also note: A higher score doesn't necessarily mean that candidate's positions are correct, it just means they are more truthful in presenting reality.

So here it goes: I looked up ratings for 9 declared GOP candidates: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Johnson, Paul, Pawlenty, Romney, and Santroum, plus Obama and then plus Palin just for the hell of it.

Huntsman and Johnson I couldn't really use since they both only had 1 rating each, so I've left them out. I'm including Santorum, but he only has 5 ratings, so one should still see that as kind of a provisional score until he gets more.

Having said that, here are the results:

Ron Paul: 0.75
Barack Obama: 0.58
Mitt Romney: 0.51
Tim Pawlenty: 0.29
Newt Gingrich: 0.17
Sarah Palin: 0.04
Herman Cain: -0.45
Rick Santorum: -0.90*
Michelle Bachmann: -0.96

I'm actually not that surprised Ron Paul is first. I don't agree with his policies, but he seems to be somewhat of a straight shooter when it comes to what the objective truth is. Next we have Obama - not exactly the place people who think he's the biggest liar in history would think he would place at. Third is Romney which is, for the moment, the frontrunner on the GOP side.

We then have a drop down to the next three candidates: Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Palin. Perhaps it's a sign of just how crazy this GOP field is when Palin would be in the middle of the pack when it comes to telling the truth.

Then we have another significant drop down to Cain, who is the only person with 10 or more ratings without a "True" rating.

Then we get down to the, so far, two insane candidates: Santorum, who has a Half True, three Falses, and a Pants on Fire, and Bachmann, who has 17 of her 24 rated statements coming in as "False" or worse. In fact, if she hadn't gotten her first "True" statement about two weeks ago, her rating would have been below -1. One has to wonder whether, whenever she happens to say something that is the truth, whether it's by sheer accident, much like how a broken clock is right twice a day.

President Obama Speaks to America on Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 02:01:00 +0000

In case you didn't get to watch, below is a video of President Obama's address to the nation on the schedule for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. A complete transcript follows.

8:01 P.M. EDT
     THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Nearly 10 years ago, America suffered the worst attack on our shores since Pearl Harbor. This mass murder was planned by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, and signaled a new threat to our security –- one in which the targets were no longer soldiers on a battlefield, but innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives.
In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al Qaeda and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda’s leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.
For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda, to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to draw down our forces this July.
Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.
We’re starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda’s leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”
The information that we recovered from bin Laden’s compound shows al Qaeda under enormous strain. Bin Laden expressed concern that al Qaeda had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed, and that al Qaeda has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam -– thereby draining more widespread support. Al Qaeda remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant against attacks. But we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done.
In Afghanistan, we’ve inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds. Along with our surge, our allies also increased their commitments, which helped stabilize more of the country. Afghan security forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, and in some provinces and municipalities we’ve already begun to transition responsibility for security to the Afghan people. In the face of violence and intimidation, Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating new opportunities for women and girls, and trying to turn the page on decades of war.
Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning -- but not the end –- of our effort to wind down this war. We’ll have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we’ve made, while we draw down our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government. And next May, in Chicago, we will host a summit with our NATO allies and partners to shape the next phase of this transition.
We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and security forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.
The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: No safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people, and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures –- one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.
Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We'll work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keeps its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us. They cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.
My fellow Americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country. We've learned anew the profound cost of war -- a cost that's been paid by the nearly 4,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and the over 1,500 who have done so in Afghanistan -– men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended. Thousands more have been wounded. Some have lost limbs on the battlefield, and others still battle the demons that have followed them home.
Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. We’ve ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.
As they do, we must learn their lessons. Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.
We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force –- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we’re doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny.
In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power -– it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We’re a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law, and respecting the rights of all our citizens. We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. We stand not for empire, but for self-determination. That is why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the Arab world. We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity.
Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens here at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource –- our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.
America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.
In this effort, we draw inspiration from our fellow Americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. To our troops, our veterans and their families, I speak for all Americans when I say that we will keep our sacred trust with you, and provide you with the care and benefits and opportunity that you deserve.
I met some of these patriotic Americans at Fort Campbell. A while back, I spoke to the 101st Airborne that has fought to turn the tide in Afghanistan, and to the team that took out Osama bin Laden. Standing in front of a model of bin Laden’s compound, the Navy SEAL who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost –- brothers and sisters in arms whose names are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas, and on headstones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten. This officer -- like so many others I’ve met on bases, in Baghdad and Bagram, and at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital -– spoke with humility about how his unit worked together as one, depending on each other, and trusting one another, as a family might do in a time of peril.
That’s a lesson worth remembering -– that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause, with faith in our fellow citizens, and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America -– for this generation, and the next.
May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.
                             END           8:16 P.M. EDT

Can Obama Really Adjourn Congress So Easily?

noreply@blogger.com (FleetAdmiralJ) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:47:00 +0000

CitizenVox has a new post out today seemingly describing a way that President Obama can do recess appointments, even though the U. S. House can block the U. S. Senate from adjourning (and thus preventing recess appointments).

The relevant clause in the constitution (Article I, section 5, clause 4) says the following:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Seems pretty straight forward: if the Senate wants to adjourn, they have to have the House's permission to do so, and vice versa.

However, CitizenFox has found an obscure clause in the Constitution that could undo this little trick by the House GOP. How obscure? So obscure that it appears that it has never been used by a President, ever. That is Article II, section 3, clause 3:

[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

Eureka! Jackpot! Or so it may seem at first. However, there are two items I would point out: one, the clause that would suggest that it should only be done under "extraordinary Occasions" and the second that says that it can only be done in the "Case of Disagreement between [both Houses]." I'll take the first of those items first.

One could argue that the "extraordinary Occasions" clause only applies to the part about convening both houses, not to the part about adjourning both houses. I can see how someone could read it that way, but I find it illogical that they would find the power to convene to be "extraordinary" but not the power to adjourn.

However, there is another point that makes this item not much of a problem: the determination that it is an "extraordinary Occasion" by the President is probably very similar to the determination of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are by the Congress, which is to say it's whatever they say it is. So if President Obama decided that not being able to do recess appointments because the House refuses to adjourn is an "extraordinary Occasion," then there is likely little Congress could do about it.

The next item: the fact that the power can only be used "in Case of Disagreement between them" is the more problematic one for using the power, and I'll demonstrate why with an example:

Let's say the the GOP House of Representatives decided they were going to impeach Obama. Obama, and Senate Democrats not wanting this, decide on a plan: The US Senate would decide to adjourn, and then Obama would declare that there is a "Case of Disagreement" on when to adjourn and forcibly adjourn both houses before the House could pass articles of impeachment, and he could conceivably keep them adjourned until the end of the session (as it says he has the power to adjourn them until "such Time as he shall think proper."

Other than being an obvious abuse of power, I think one can see the problem here: with the interpretation CitizenVox is using, if the President and one House of congress are of the same party, they could coordinate to force the adjournment of both Houses of congress, whether the other house actually intends to adjourn or not.

And that's where I think a careful reading of the actual power is important: "in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment" - this suggests that both Houses have passed resolutions to adjourn but can't agree on the specifics and, for whatever reason, can't work out their differences. Then, and only then, can the President use his power to adjourn both houses himself. Otherwise you may create a situation above where the President can adjourn one of the Houses of Congress, even if they have no intention of actually adjourning. That seems contrary to the spirit, and possibly the letter, of the Constitution.

Study That Claims Businesses Will Drop Insurance Coverage is Highly Suspect

noreply@blogger.com (Leanne D. Baldwin) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:17:00 +0000

This week, you may have heard or seen news reports on the results of a study just released Tuesday by the corporate consulting firm McKinsey & Co. The findings of the study are dire, purporting that 30 to 50 percent of U.S. employers will discontinue offering health insurance to their employees when the Affordable Care Act goes into full effect in 2014, based on survey responses from 1,300 employers.

What you haven't seen is a copy of the actual survey, which would show us exactly what questions were asked and how they were worded, how many different industries were sampled and the size of the sampled companies, how much information or "spin" prefaced the questions, and so forth. The reason you haven't seen anyone reporting this information is because McKinsey only bothered to release their report on the study - not the study itself.

This makes their extraordinary claims about the findings highly suspicious. For one thing, they starkly contradict every projection to date made by reputable nonpartisan organizations about the effect of the ACA upon employer-offered health insurance. In fact, on Wednesday Nancy-Ann DeParle on the White House blog characterized the McKinsey findings as "an outlier," citing studies from the nonpartisan Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute and the consulting firm Mercer (emphasis is mine):

The Rand Corporation: "The percentage of employees offered insurance will not change substantially, but a small number of employees in small firms (defined as those with under 100 employees in 2016) will obtain employer-sponsored insurance through the state insurance exchanges."

The Urban Institute: "Some have argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would erode employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) by providing incentives for employers to stop offering coverage. Others have claimed that most businesses would face increased costs as a result of reform. A new study finds that overall ESI coverage under the ACA would not differ significantly from what coverage would be without reform."

Mercer: "In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was 'not likely.'"

Additionally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the effects of ACA implementation on employer-offered health coverage also seems at odds with the McKinsey findings. Their report states that a net 3 million fewer Americans would be covered by employer-offered insurance in 2019 as a result of several factors:

Between 6 million and 7 million people would be covered by an employment-based plan under the proposal who would not be covered by one under current law (largely because the mandate for individuals to be insured would increase workers’ demand for coverage through their employers).
Between 8 million and 9 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal. Firms that would choose not to offer coverage as a result of the proposal would tend to be smaller employers and employers that predominantly employ lowerwage workers—people who would be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges—although some workers who would not have employment-based coverage because of the proposal would not be eligible for such subsidies. Whether those changes in coverage would represent the dropping of existing coverage or a lack of new offers of coverage is difficult to determine.
Between 1 million and 2 million people who would be covered by their employer’s plan (or a plan offered to a family member) under current law would instead obtain coverage in the exchanges. Under the legislation, workers with an offer of employment-based coverage would generally be ineligible for exchange subsidies, but that “firewall” would be enforced imperfectly and an explicit exception to it would be made for workers whose offer was deemed unaffordable.

The White House's DeParle also pointed out two factor that will combine to give large employers little to no incentive to drop insurance coverage: 1) there will be penalties for large employers who do not offer their employees health insurance, and 2) offering health care coverage is a key tool for employers to attract the top talent to work for them.

So, given that McKinsey's survey results are so far outside the results of studies by other reliable nonpartisan organizations - not to mention rather illogical - there is ample reason to question the methodology of the McKinsey study. In fact, Kate Pickert of Time's Swampland blog tried to get some answers on this topic by calling McKinsey & Co. directly. The only thing they would say that wasn't "no comment" was that no third party had paid for the study. All her questions about the methodology of the survey, they declined to answer. Here's a sampling of the kind of information Pickert was trying to find out:

What were the precise breakdowns of size, geographic location and industry for the businesses included in the survey? This would tell us if the sample was representative of American business as a whole. Small businesses, for instance, might be more likely to drop coverage due to the structure of the ACA.
How were the businesses chosen? An unbiased sampling method here is key. If the list of businesses was culled from Chamber of Commerce memebrship or McKinsey client lists, this is important to know. Ditto if the list was generated in a more randomized way.
What was the response rate? And how were businesses surveyed? If 13,000 businesses were contacted, but only 1,300 responded, such a 10% response rate could call into question the results. Also, there is, for example, a huge difference between surveys conducted in person, over the phone and over the Internet.
Lastly, this tidbit was included in the McKinsey Quarterly article about the survey:

“…our survey educated respondents about [employer sponsored insurance] implications for their companies and employees before they were asked about post-2014 strategies.”

In other words, those conducting the survey may have primed respondents to say they would keep or drop coverage.

So what we have here is a survey that McKinsey won't let anyone see, questions about methodology they refuse to answer, and a possible coaching of the respondents to answer in a certain direction. And this study - which radically contradicts every other reputable study - just happens to be released right about the time that a court case challenging the ACA's constitutionality arrives at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hmm. Whatever are we to make of this coincidence?