Month: April 2012

Wisconsin Voter Suppression Law Won’t Be In Effect in November

No Comments

The State Supreme Court has decided not to review the court decisions at this time, so the injunction remains in place:

The state Supreme Court refused Monday to immediately take up a pair of cases that struck down the state’s new voter ID law, a decision that will likely mean citizens won’t have to show identification when they cast ballots in recall elections in May and June.

The court’s terse orders send the cases back to two different appeals panels, though the cases could eventually return to the Supreme Court.

The justices issued their orders just three weeks before the May 8 primary for Democrats to pick a candidate to run against Republican Gov. Scott Walker in the June 5 recall election.

Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan in March blocked the voter ID law for the April presidential primary, saying it likely disenfranchised voters, based on testimony that there are more than 220,000 Wisconsin residents who do not have photo IDs but who are otherwise qualified to vote.

A trial in that case began Monday, and Flanagan is expected to decide whether to lift his injunction or block the law permanently after it concludes this week. The case was brought by the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera.

My guess is that one of the 4 reactionary hacks (7 members on the WI state Supreme Court) on the court looked at the political landscape, and realized that there was no benefit to jumping in line, because it would put a pall over the recall election.

Another Reason Banksters Walk

No Comments

Because there are a lot of people who make a lot of money by finding the scammers and betting on the damage that they do, like this short seller:

But then he came to the nub of the issue. The easiest scammer to find is a repeat offender. We actively seek out people who promote dodgy stocks and who who are repeatedly involved in dodgy companies. The slogan is “once a scumbag, always a scumbag”. That slogan is probably not strictly accurate – but we only need to be right 90 percent of the time to be fantastic at this business – and the recidivism amongst scammers is surprisingly high.

………

So, says my son asks you like nasty people to steal from poor investors, mutual funds (and he did not say pension funds for school teachers) so that you can join them in taking the loot by being a short-seller – and you don’t want the regulators to do anything about it because there are more opportunities for you?

Sheepishly I confess yes.

And he says with a mixture of admiration and horror: “daddy you are more evil than I thought”.

As shocking as the outright law breaking on Wall Street it, what is legal is even scarier.

I’m surely not the first one to observe this, but the incentives in our financial system are seriously whack.

Betraying Women for Fun and Profit

No Comments

It looks like the Democratic establishment in Michigan is going all in for a Congressional candidate who has voted to defund Planned Parenthood:

That’s a serious question: Who does the DCCC back in the Michigan 3rd CD race?

Context — Obama’s White House is in the process of trying (and failing) to damp down the firestorm from the gay community about Obama’s pointed refusal to grant the same protection against same-sex–preference bias as it routinely grants to other biases.

Marcie Wheeler, who lives in the district pointed it out this way:

Meanwhile, the Democrats are still going to use GOP attacks on women as a political stunt. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz tweeted or re-tweeted 7 comments about women’s issues yesterday, in addition to the seemingly mandatory condemnation of Rosen.

I was particularly amused by this DWS tweet:

Bottom line: Choice, affordable contraception, and Planned Parenthood are at stake in this election. http://j.mp/I6A8c0

As it happened, a few hours after DWS sent that tweet, I went to a Debbie Stabenow event hosted by a local women’s group. As we were waiting for the Senator to speak, a top county Democrat was sitting several rows behind me trying to convince some of the women not to support Trevor Thomas. “There is absolutely no way he can win,” the guy said (the polling says he’s wrong, and I suspect he knows that). In addition to saying a gay man can’t win, he also said a pro-choice person can’t win in the district (his listeners pointed out that Stabenow herself had won the district; so have at least two other pro-choice candidates). Then he described Steven Pestka, using the line Michigan Democrats used to defend Bart Stupak as he was rolling back access to choice for women across the country.

He’s with us on everything else.

But the really appalling comment, uttered by a man at a women’s event, was this:

I need to win this year.

If the guy were reasonably intelligent, he might have said, “we need to win the gavel back for Nancy Pelosi.” But he couldn’t even muster a “we need to win” this year. Nope. It was “I need to win this year,” and that’s why women have to suck it up and vote for someone who has attacked their autonomy in the past.

Steve Pestka’s with us on everything else, this guy said at a women’s event. But he’s not just anti-choice. When he was in the State House (the experience locals point to to claim he’s a better candidate than Trevor) he scored a whopping 0% on votes to support choice. That included a vote for HB 4655, which singled out Planned Parenthood to be defunded, precisely the outrage–at the national level–that Democrats use as the cornerstone of their metaphorical attack on the GOP for its “War on Women.”

It really is remarkable just how craven, and willing to abandon core principles the professional Democrats are, and how f%$#ing stupid this sort of behavior is.

Cowardly political calculation, particularly with the active public support of the party establishment, turns off voters.

Though I’m Sure that New Yorkers are Glad to be Rid of Rush…

No Comments

It appears that the numbers don’t lie, but right wing economists do:

Proponents of the migration myth are at it again, trying to sell the idea that if states with lower taxes gain more population than states with higher taxes, taxes must be the reason.

To prove that people migrate from state to state in search of lower taxes, the latest edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Rich States, Poor States” report notes that, over the past two decades, Hawaii (which has an income tax with a relatively high top rate) has lost twice as many residents to other states as Alaska (which has no income tax).

Wait, you might ask. What about differences in the job market? Oil prices? Housing costs? Shouldn’t we take these and other potential factors into account?

………

For example, ALEC attributes Florida’s 46 percent population gain between 1990 and 2010 to its lack of an income tax, ignoring the fact that neighboring Georgia — which has an income tax — grew by 50 percent over that period.

As for Alaska and Hawaii – the states that ALEC uses to illustrate the tax-flight myth — IRS data show that, in fact, slightly more households are moving from no-income-tax Alaska to high-income-tax Hawaii than the other way around. In 2010, the last year for which data are available, 300 households moved from Alaska to Hawaii; 287 moved the other way.

As our report stated:

It would not be credible to argue that no one ever moves to a new state because of the desire to live someplace where taxes are lower. But neither is it credible to say that taxes are a primary motivation, nor that migration has a large impact on the revenue impact of tax measures.

As for Rush, he probably decided to move to Florida because it’s easier to get a direct flight to the Dominican Republic from the sunshine state.

After all Rush has to be able to indulge his “tourist proclivities.”

H/t Mark Thoma.

Vikram Pandit, F%$# You

No Comments

What Cee Lo Green Said (NSFW)

At the Bank of America’s annual meeting,; shareholders voted down Vikram Pandit’s pay package:

In a stinging rebuke, Citigroup shareholders rebuffed on Tuesday the bank’s $15 million pay package for its chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, marking the first time that stock owners have united in opposition to outsized compensation at a financial giant.

The shareholder vote, which comes amid a rising national debate over income inequality, suggests that anger over pay for chief executives has spread from Occupy Wall Street to wealthy institutional investors like pension fund and mutual fund managers. About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank’s five top executives, including Mr. Pandit.

“C.E.O.’s deserve good pay but there’s good pay and there’s obscene pay,” said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger’s firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup.

Capitalism is a bitch, ain’t it, Mr. Pandit?

We need a lot more of this.

 In the meantime, I’ll just enjoy the feeling of amusement.

Stating the Obvious

No Comments

Eliot Spitzer notes that Barack Obama was on Wall Street’s side from Day One:

That being said, I think that Spitzer is wrong on the finer points here. He thinks that the tepid (largely phony) moves toward regulation have turned Wall Street against Obama, not his occasional speeches about “fat cat bankers.”

I think that it is these words. These are very rich men, who spend their lives surrounded by toadies and sycophants who validate their self worth, because of they have a pathetic need for affirmation.

People simply don’t tell them that they might not be the most valuable people in the world in their world, so when Obama offers the most tepid of critiques, while doing their bidding, they freak out.

I just wonder how small these guy’s penises are.

A Nice Recapitulation of Rather and Bush

No Comments

I’m not sure if it really reveals much, but I think that it’s pretty clear that Rather and his producers got punk’d by Karl Rove.

It’s basically a recapitulation of what we know, but the circumstantial evidence is:

  • George W. Bush got into the National Guard because his dad, or someone close to him, pulled stings.
  • Ben Barnes was in the thick of things, and some (remarkably corrupt) doings involving the Texas Lottery were involved, which might have been the real reason that Harriet Miers was dropped as a Supreme Court nominee.
  • Texas is generally a festering pit of corruption and self dealing.
  • That what Dan Rather reported was probably true, but that someone *cough* Karl Rove *cough* used false documents to simultaneously get the facts out and discredit them.  (He appears to have done the same with the late J. H. Hatfield with his book Fortunate Son)
  • Bush almost certainly stopped flying when he became afraid to fly.

So there are no new blockbusters, and quote honestly, much like the Reagan/Bush deal to keep the Iranian hostages locked up in 1980, the ‘Phants are well past the denial stage, and into dismissing the whole affair as irrelevant common knowledge.

H/t Jesse Singal at Washington Monthly.

WhyEeveryone at the ECB Should be Fired and Replaced With Kitchen Appliances, Part CLXVII

No Comments

The banksters at the ECB, those self-appointed protectors against the ravages of inflation, are demanding an inflation adjustment for their pensions:

Since the start of the Eurosystem our brave inflation warriors at the ECB regularly praise themselves what a heck of the job they are doing about their primary objective the maintenance of price stability. But yesterday the German Daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an article (German), that our guardians of price stability fight another good fight. The employees of the ECB want their own pensions to be inflation protected.

So the same folks who lecture member states of the Eurozone about the danger of private sector labor and pension contracts being inflation-indexed because of moral hazard want their own pension contracts inflation-indexed. For this fight to be successful ECB employees deploy a very evil institution: the central banker union IPSO. According to the FAZ article a former employee sued the ECB with the help of IPSO at European Court of Justice.

Seriously, I cannot think of of a better illustration of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called experts who want to tell us how we are supposed to run our economy.

Their rules only apply to us, not to them.

The Word for April in Pashtun is “Tet”

No Comments

Charlie Pierce is right, There Is No Mission in Afghanistan Anymore. There Isn’t Anything. There Is Only Abject Failure. And That Alone:

The attacks, they said, were “orchestrated.” Or, if the people reporting them were being particularly precise, the attacks were “carefully orchestrated.” The order of the adverbs is the order of battle. In Kabul on Sunday, Taliban fighters attacked the Afghan parliament building, and several embassies, and a NATO base. There also were attacks in the provinces. Those people old enough to remember the Tet Offensive can be excused if they mention the obvious parallels. Whatever its historical ambiguity as a military operation, Tet was a mind-quake in the United States. It forced the country to face squarely the sheer mendacity of its own government’s statements about the war as a war. It redefined for the United States what “winning” in Vietnam meant and it redefined it as an impossibility. In Afgantsy, his admirably lucid history of the Russian catastrophe in Afghanistan, Rodric Braithwaite quotes an old aphorism of which the guerrilla fighters in that country were fond: The foreigners have the watches, but the locals have the time.


But the fact is that, in terms of the domestic reaction it provoked, Tet was closer to a beginning than it was to an end. The war would grind on for seven more years, two years longer than the Americans chose to stay with it. The domestic antiwar movement was just building toward a crescendo that few people could imagine; the shootings at Kent State were still two years away. Lyndon Johnson was still president, and the presumptive nominee of his party. Nixon was still something of an underdog. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. — they were still alive. The Vietnam War was just beginning to reach all corners of American society like a dark, living thing with a thousand faces.

That being said, Charlie explains that this is in some ways worse than Tet, because we’ve already lived through Tet, and apparrently have learned nothing:

And that is the biggest reason why what happened in Kabul this weekend is not Tet: because, when Tet happened, we didn’t have Tet to remember and to learn from. Afghanistan was supposed to be the Soviet Union’s Vietnam, and it did rather work out that way. But it turned out that Afghanistan was a worse Vietnam than Vietnam ever was, and we wandered over there just in time to make Russia’s Vietnam our own. We have done what we came for. Osama bin Laden is as dead as Lord Kitchener; the al Qaeda network, at least in Afghanistan, is in a shambles. We do not have the power to enforce a stable government on a country that so manifestly resists the notion, especially when it comes from foreigners. What in hell are we doing over there anymore.

I think that Pierce is a bit optimistic: I think that the American establishment and the Pentagon learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam.

You see, they asked the question, “Why did we lose the war,” and in their infinite wisdom, they concluded that it was because the “lost” the American public, so the answer to the Vietnam debacle was to create an all volunteer force, so middle America’s sons would not be subject to conscription, and to ramp up restrictions and manipulate the media, embedded reporters and the like.

But we didn’t lose the war. We were beaten.

That question, “How were we beaten,” places the onus on that same American establishment and Pentagon, as opposed to scapegoating the public and the media, which is why they don’t ask that question.

While We Are On the Subject of Jabba the Governor

No Comments

It appears that Republican “It-Girl” Chris Christie lied through his teeth about the reasons that he canceled the new tunnel to New York City:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

Canceling the tunnel, then the largest public works project in the nation, helped shape Mr. Christie’s profile as a rising Republican star, an enforcer of fiscal discipline in a country drunk on debt. But the report is likely to revive criticism that his decision, which he said was about “hard choices” in tough economic times, was more about avoiding the need to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which would have violated a campaign promise. The governor subsequently steered $4 billion earmarked for the tunnel to the state’s near-bankrupt transportation trust fund, traditionally financed by the gasoline tax.

On Tuesday, in a speech at a conference on taxes and the economy in Manhattan, Mr. Christie did not mention the report, but defended his decision to cancel the project, saying, “I refuse to compromise my principles.”

………

Martin E. Robins, the founding director of the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University and an early director of the ARC project, criticized the governor. “In hindsight, it’s apparent that he had a highly important political objective: to cannibalize the project so he could find an alternate way of keeping the transportation trust fund program moving, and he went ahead and did it,” he said.

(emphasis mine)

His principles in this case are pandering to “No New Taxes” promises that he made.

What a surprise.

H/T the Shrill One, Paul Krugman.

And Now They Are Claiming that Hyperlinking is Infringement

No Comments

This is not about making money, This is about seizing control of how we discuss any form of media:

The Motion Picture Association of America is squaring off against a coalition of Internet giants and public interest groups over the key question of whether it’s possible to directly infringe copyright by embedding an image or video hosted by a third party.

A federal judge took that position last July, prompting a chorus of criticism. Two briefs—one by Google and Facebook, the other by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge—attacked the decision as contrary to past precedents and potentially disruptive to the Internet economy. They asked the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn it.

Last week, the MPAA joined the fray with a brief in support of Illinois federal judge John F. Grady’s ruling. It urged the Seventh Circuit not to draw a legal distinction between hosting content and embedding it. In the MPAA’s view, both actions should carry the risk of liability for direct copyright infringement.

The case arose from a dispute over Internet pornography. MyVidster is a video bookmarking site that allows users to save links to their favorite videos and share them with others. The site supports embedding, so bookmarked videos can be viewed on a myVidster page surrounded by myVidster ads.

This is technical, but there is primary and secondary infringement, and the burden of proof is lower, and the penalties are higher, for the former.

If you extend primary infringement to embedding, which is practically indistinguishable from hyperlinks, then expect a full assault on hyperlinks, and if they win on this, the internet becomes another corporate walled garden.

Christie the Hutt Complains About Americans Being Couch Potatoes

No Comments

Normally I wouldn’t make fun of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for being a lazy fat slob. (Well, except for the bit where he takes a helicopter to his kid’s high school baseball game, and is met by an SUV that takes him the final 100 yards to the bleachers. Ignoring that would be superhuman)

That being said, when he blames the American public for being couch potatoes, all bets are off: (and there is so much WTF in this)

Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says that American are turning into couch potatoes,(first WTF) just sitting around waiting on their next check from the government.

Speaking to the Bush Institute Conference on Taxes and Economic Growth (WTF? The F%$#ing Bush Institute Conference on F%$#ing taxes and F%$#ing Economic F%$#ing Growth) in New York City on Tuesday, the first-term governor said that he had “never seen a less optimistic time in my lifetime.”

What major political figure resembles a fat slob sitting on his couch waiting for his check from the Koch Brothers Government?

Seriously, the Koch suckers out there have no sense of irony at all.

H/t Cthulhu at the Stellar Parthenon BBS.

I’m Not Sure if These are Winglets or Stators

No Comments
Click for full size


I Think that it’s more of a stator than a winglet

Aviation Week has an article about looking at winglets to increase the performance of the V-22 Osprey (paid subscription required):

The ability of the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor to fly farther, as well as faster, than helicopters has been a key factor in its fight for survival for more than a decade. But now, with both CV-22B and MV-22B versions recently pressed into service on longer-range, self-deployed combat and rescue missions in Libya and Afghanistan, the hunt is on for greater unrefueled performance.

Squeezing more range out of the V-22 is not easy, however. Constrained from birth by the need to fit on the restricted decks of U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships, the tiltrotor was necessarily limited to smaller-than-optimal wing and rotor dimensions leading to an inevitable impact on range. Without the options of increasing wingspan or rotor diameter available to them, designers are taking a leaf out of the Boeing Commercial Airplanes playbook and studying nacelle-mounted “sails” that work on the same principle as winglets.

Although Bell Boeing declines to comment on the development, Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) confirms it is preparing to flight test a modified MV-22 with the upgrade which could boost range by almost 5%. The concept, which was studied by Boeing for the Special Operation Forces CV-22 version as far back as 1994, harnesses the energy from the vertical upwash around the wing and nacelle. In the case of the V-22, Bell Boeing’s research indicates upwash angles of 10-20 deg. around the nacelles at the nominal cruise pitch attitude of 8 deg. The additional upwash velocity produces a propulsive force by tilting the lift vector forward.

I should note that I am not an aerodynamicist, but it looks to me a lot of the gains from these surfaces are from straightening the rotational wash off the props, much in the same way that stators do in a multi-stage turbine.

Because it increases effective wing area, it would have the effect of reducing longitudinal stability, so the flight test regime will target this concern.

Adventures in Hack Journalism

No Comments

In this case it is draw by crayon libertarian Declan McCullagh with an assist by Greg Sandoval, who have decided that the way to write a story about the suit against apple Apple and the publishers who colluded with them was to show that Apple was going to win this suit by consulting with law profs who have been paid by right wing think tanks or have a long history of opposing anti-trust law.

They quote Geoffrey Manne, who works for the Hoover institute, Dominick Armentano, whose Independent Institute is funded by the Olins, the Kochs, and served as a “straw buyer” for Microsoft for the purchase of ads regarding that antitrust litigation, and Richard Epstein, who is the godfather of libertarian legal theory.

In the process, they ignore the facts of the case, as Time Magazine (of all people) documents:

So the publishers worked urgently to hatch a scheme to raise e-book prices before $9.99 became an “entrenched consumer expectation,” according to the lawsuit. Publishing executives are said to have plotted, cloak-and-dagger-style, during meetings at upscale Manhattan restaurants, and tried to conceal their communications “to avoid leaving a paper trail.” A favorite meeting spot was the Chef’s Wine Cellar, a private room at Picholene, just off Central Park West. It’s clear from the complaint that the Department of Justice went so far as to obtain the mobile-phone records of major-publishing-house CEOs.

Meanwhile, Apple was debating business models as it planned to storm onto the e-book market with the iPad. At one point, according to the lawsuit, Apple “contemplated illegally dividing the digital content world with Amazon,” with audio-video going to Apple and e-books to Amazon. Instead, Apple, led by content honcho Eddy Cue, reached out to the publishers to propose that the industry shift from a wholesale model, in which retailers set the price, to an agency model, in which the publishers set the price and Apple, as the “agent,” would receive a 30% commission.

Apple’s then CEO Steve Jobs described the talks in a now infamous quote that appeared in Walter Isaacson’s Jobs biography: “We told the publishers, ‘We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’” Apple played a special role in the plot, according to the government, acting as the “spoke” of a wheel of conspiracy by playing the major publishers off one another to ensure they all participated.

Even if Apple were not engaging in an illegal act on its own, it is engaging in an illegal conspiracy to fix prices, but the draw by crayon libertarian cannot extend his Rolodex beyond the usual suspects.

If the DoJ wanted to go RICO on their asses, it would get really ugly, but if you are a dedicated Randroid, you consult the usual suspects, and create the illusion that there is no “there” there.

Well Duh!

No Comments

Gee, as a result of Bill Clinton’s “Reinventing Governmnent” initiative, basic functions of government were outsourced, things like supervising contractors.

The common sense descrption of this is letting the fox run the henhouse.

Case in point, the FAA :

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration isn’t properly monitoring costs and potential ethical violations in contracts related to improvements in the nation’s air-traffic systems, an audit found.

Practices for selecting and overseeing contracts awarded since 2010 for work related to the so-called NextGen project are “not sufficient,” the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General said in a report released today.

The seven contracts examined, awarded to companies including Boeing Co., CSSI Inc., ITT Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., are valued at as much as $7.3 billion, the largest cumulative award in FAA history, according to the report. The contracts are for technical and professional support of new systems to let the FAA track aircraft using satellite navigation instead of radar.

The agency didn’t verify labor rates charged in five of seven contracts, according to the report. The FAA overestimated the labor hours required, the auditors found.

Basically, if you use contractors, and you don’t watch them like a hawk, they will do whatever they legally can to maximize profits.

The you can call this “capitalism”, or you can call it “maximizing shareholder value”, but it’s what managers are supposed to do.

Well Duh!

No Comments

This just in, a new study has shown that homophobes are likely to be self deluded closet cases:

Homophobes are a group of people who have a negative feeling towards homosexuality, but new research claims that people who express hatred of gays are secretly more likely to be attracted to the same sex.

Researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex and the University of California in Santa Barbara have discovered that homophobes are actually attracted to the same sex but they do not admit it because they grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires. They found this when they conducted a series of psychology studies.

The researchers assert that people who define themselves as straight and who hate homosexuality are often attracted to the same sex. They believe that homosexual people remind them of similar tendencies within themselves.

“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves,” said Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex, in a statement.

The Obvious Answer is Because They Don’t Care

No Comments

Annie Lowrey of the New York Times looks at the parts of the TARP that were intended to help ordinary homeowners, and it ain’t pretty:

A fund to support homeowners in the communities hit hardest by the collapse of the housing bubble has disbursed just 3 percent of its budget and aided only 30,640 homeowners in the two years since its creation, according to a report released on Thursday by a federal watchdog office.

The Hardest Hit Fund, which was created in the spring of 2010, grants money to state housing finance agencies for efforts to help families that are facing foreclosure. It has “experienced significant delay” because of “a lack of comprehensive planning” by the Treasury Department and limited participation by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the large mortgage servicers, said the report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“TARP wasn’t supposed to be just a bank bailout,” said Christy L. Romero, the special inspector general for TARP, in an interview. “It was specifically designed with the goal of helping homeowners, and our concern is that that goal may not be met.”

As of the end of 2011, the Hardest Hit Fund had spent $217.4 million out of its $7.6 billion budget, the report found. The program is intended to reach homeowners who are unemployed, or living in areas with high unemployment rates or steeply falling home values.

The report is just the latest to criticize the Obama administration’s efforts to relieve homeowners battered by the nationwide drop in housing prices and the broader recession. The office of the special inspector general has repeatedly criticized Treasury’s management of the Home Affordable Modification Program, Washington’s main initiative to prevent foreclosures.

By this point, they were supposed to have helped 2-3 million, so they are low by a factor of almost 100.

Think about it.  They had $7.6 billion to spend, without any meaningful oversight, but they couldn’t be bothered to spend it.

This was not just an economic opportunity, it was a political one, because when they saved people, they would most likely get their votes, but it just didn’t matter.

This is going on because the Obama administration in the person of Timothy Geithner, the last man standing of Obama’s original economic team, simply don’t care.

The Treasury has already admitted that the homeowner protection programs was primarily about allowing banks to buy time, and extract fees, from desperate homeowners before they wrote down the loans.

Helping homeowners was in the TARP because they needed it to get the votes, but if it ain’t protecting the big banks and big banking, Geithner/Obama ain’t interested.

My Conclusion is that Obama is Homophobic

No Comments

I don’t mean that he is personally homophobic, there is no evidence that I know of about that, but that he is is politically homophobic, and so is unwilling to do anything for gay rights unless absolutely forced to.

Writing an executive order mandating that federal contractors don’t discriminate is literally the least that he could do, but for Mr. Hopey Changey, it’s a bridge too far:

A surprising new rift opened between the White House and the gay rights movement after White House officials revealed Wednesday that President Obama would not sign an executive order sought by activists to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Community advocates learned of the news during a closed-door meeting with two top Obama aides, Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Munoz, who told the group that the White House would instead lead a multi-pronged effort to urge companies, federal agencies and others to oppose discrimination.

The Center for American Progress, which is Obama’s bitch among the think tanks called this “Disappointing”, and the HRC, another member of the Obama knee pad set was similarly pissed off.

It appears that Obama does not remember the, “Don’t ask, Don’t Give,” efforts, but my guess is that he will:

And, just to confirm that it’s not going to go away, we got this via press release;

Within hours of the White House announcement, the “We Can’t Wait!” campaign received a $100,000 cash infusion from liberal donor Jonathan Lewis, the son of major Democratic philanthropist Peter Lewis.

Quotes from Jonathan Lewis:

“This isn’t a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress. He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership.”

“Over the past several years the LGBT advocacy groups have jumped through hoops for this administration, conducting extensive research and polling — more than has been done for any similar executive order — and now the only impediment is President Obama.”

“This is nothing short of craven election-year politics, a game Obama told us he would not play.”

Jonathan Lewis and his father, Peter, are major contributors to progressive causes. And, by major, I mean they give millions.

Another reason to give to specific candidates, particularly in the primary, as opposed to OFA, the DNC, the DCCC, or the DSCC.

But hey, a wing of the Talibaptists at the Focus on the Family liked that he dissed the LBGT community.

Below, you can see Jay Carney saying that “more study is needed”.  I guess that the unspoken assumption here is that gays are just too icky to have equal rights unless we can make bigots feel better about themselves.

Seriously, Andrew Breitbart was better on gay inclusion that Barack Obama is:

Seriously, how about not being a coward on this issue. Not being a coward gets you votes.