One Year Later: Affordable Care Act

March 23rd, 2010, the day that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. Despite the fact the bill has a name, Republicans insist on calling it ObamaCare (I wonder how they'll feel about that name when he's a 2nd term President?). While Republicans point at the act and say the public hates it, the simple fact is that the majority either like it, or think it didn't go far enough, to which I agree. A year later, the public doesn't like the bill, but they don't like repeal either. Mixed signals to Washington.

I think the process really sucked. The President made the amazing mistake of allowing Max Baucus to drag the process out, then it only got worse. They let Joe Lieberman and his buddies get rid of the Public Option, a very popular component. They took out the employer mandate in favor of the individual mandate. I could go on, but won't. The bill wasn't great. It was "good enough" though. Repealing the bill would simply return us to a system driven entirely by corporate profit, run by men who are borderline criminals for their treatment of the common man. While the GOP says the bill is "job killing" and "budget busting," the CBO said neither of which, and that's really the best judgment we have to go on right now, at least for the next few years.

It's my best hope that the bill will be expanded on and improved in the next few years. I'd like to see a Public Option passed, I'd like to see changes to the mandate system, I'd like to see low premium, catastrophic packages made available, and I'd like to see more in the area of cost control. For now though, I'm just happy that something came of this, finally, and that the industry didn't kill reform efforts, again.

Real History, Meet Tea-Bag History

Maturity.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting the state's labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor headquarters, according to WMTW-TV.

A spokesman said the mural was "not in keeping with the department's pro-business goals and some business owners complained."

At least he's honestly pro-business. But seriously, does he think suppressing history makes it less true? Secondly, why is it politically fine to be "pro-business?" I mean, I don't think one should be "anti-business" either, but it's now politically cool to stack the deck their way?

Speaker John Boehner: In His Own Words

Charlie Dent Misleads On Marcellus Shale.

You'll have to forgive me. When I first saw the video of Charlie Dent saying he didn't support a FRACK Act, and saying the questioner needed to take it up with state officials, I found that answer to be reasonable. My understanding was that this was a state issue, and was being played out in Harrisburg. Apparently, I, and Congressman Dent, are wrong.

One of the major problems with fracking was caused by Congressional action. From LVI:

Noel Jones asked Charlie Dent to sign Bob Casey's FRAC Act and he refused. The FRAC Act would close the Halliburton loophole from the 2005 Bush Energy bill that exempts natural gas drilling from pollution regulations.

Now, I know that there may be Senatorial politics playing in this. The 2005 Bush Energy Bill was one of Dent's first votes, and it of course, gave these "frackers" the rights to not care about pollution. Yes, that's FEDERAL action.

Let me be clear here, the same as with state politicians who say an "extraction tax" will kill jobs, your argument is bunk: natural gas companies are not going to "pass" on this huge supply of gas, just because they have to follow rules and pay in some money so that we don't get run over in this. These companies are stretching our infrastructure in central PA thin, they are polluting our water, and they are making BILLIONS doing it. It's not too much to ask to have them pay our state a tax for that profit. It's not too much to ask that they don't pollute our state free of penalty. None of this kills jobs.

Boo-Hoo! Now The Courts Are To Blame, And Only Christie "Gets It."

Beautiful.

Today, a judge found that Gov. Chris Christie (R) violated Abbott v. Burke requirements when he slashed $820 million in state aid to schools last year, because the cuts were slanted too heavily towards poor districts:

Judge Peter Doyne, who was appointed as special master in the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case, today issued an opinion that also found the reductions “fell more heavily upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts.”

“Despite spending levels that meet or exceed virtually every state in the country, and that saw a significant increase in spending levels from 2000 to 2008, our ‘at risk’ children are now moving further from proficiency,” he said.

“The difficulty in addressing New Jersey’s fiscal crisis and its constitutionally mandated obligation to educate our children requires an exquisite balance not easily attained,” Doyne wrote. “Something need be done to equitably address these competing imperatives. That answer, though, is beyond the purview of this report. For the limited question posed to the Master, it is clear the State has failed to carry its burden.“

Laymen's terms: You cannot simply slash spending on poor kids to balance your budget because you want to cut taxes for corporations and such. New Jersey has built into it's case law constitutional protection of funding for poor school districts, a group that usually find the budget cutting knife in other states, and would certainly with Christie. Christie responded with:

A Christie spokesman responded to the ruling this evening, blaming the court for exacerbating New Jersey's fiscal troubles, and sidestepping the central issue of unequally distributed cuts: "The court’s legal mandates on the legislative and executive branches of government have incontrovertibly contributed to our current fiscal crisis without uniformly improving education, particularly for the at-risk students the court claims to be helping with its rulings."

Essentially, Christie has been told "you can't do that." So now he's saying the judge is wrong, as is the precedent protecting poor districts. Why? Because Christie doesn't believe that in New Jersey, one of the nation's wealthiest states, extremely wealthy suburbanites should pay any of the bill for kids in Newark, Camden, Trenton, Jersey City, and even out in little old Phillipsburg. Don't get too excited or happy though. Think Christie will now go back on his corporate tax cuts, his opposition to a millionaire's tax, or cuts to corporate welfare in his state? Think again. Christie will not do these things, or anything else to balance his budget. He will blame public workers, President Obama, and the legislature. He'll end up either laying off thousands of public workers, or demanding enormous givebacks from them. With Christie, all the sacrifice is for "us," and not for "them."

Force The Issue- Talking About Budgets

Tomorrow will mark the ONE YEAR point since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. A year later, the public isn't crazy about the bill. On the whole, they oppose it's repeal, but they greatly dislike the "Individual Mandate." With time, approval will improve for the bill. In a few short years, people will start to see increased coverage, along with the government subsidies to pay for it. They will see something else. Twenty years from now, this will have saved us hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. It was the most important deficit busting bill so far passed in this administration, as CBO has said.

How much does this currently matter in the debate about budgets? Zero. Guys like Haley Barbour, wasting state money on trips to set up his Presidential campaign, are lecturing us about the need for austerity. Governors like Scott Walker, Tom Corbett, and Rick Scott are destroying public education, public health, and worker compensation for the purpose of "shared sacrifice," while slashing corporate and top end taxes record amounts, and worse yet, giving jobs to their cronies. John Boehner is cutting $61 billion from federal spending that benefits the public, while not touching the wealthy and the Pentagon. All the while, they tell us we already have the most "progressive tax code" in the world, and it's time to go back the other way. Boehner even went so far as to say we "don't have a revenue problem." Really?

Don't let reality get in the way for ya' guys. The goons on Capitol Hill write to the President and "beg him to not make them raise the national deficit," all the while pretending that ending the Bush Tax Cuts, the largest driver of our debt the last decade, isn't an option. Really guys?

It seems as though everybody in Washington has forgotten that the Bush tax cuts are by far the biggest reason that the deficit has exploded. During the Clinton years, federal taxes were a bit less than 20% of GDP. During the Bush years, they dropped to a bit under 18% of GDP. Meanwhile, with the exception of Bush's final year in office (which featured TARP plus a decline in GDP), spending was virtually unchanged as a percentage of GDP. In other words, the increase in debt under Bush is almost entirely attributable to his tax policy, with most of the balance coming from TARP and the Great Recession.

It's only logical, therefore, that any serious policy to restore fiscal health would return to Clinton-era tax rates by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. For the longer-term, we'd still have to deal with the impact of rising health care costs on Medicare and Medicaid, but at least in the medium-term, we'd have eliminated most of the structural deficit.

For extra credit, we could also immediately adopt Jan Schakowsky's millionaire's tax proposal. Her plan would raise $89 billion for 2011 if adopted immediately, reducing the deficit by 50% more than the GOP plan while avoiding crucial cuts to programs like childhood vaccinations.

Yeah, but that's not even in the "adult conversation." Instead we're cutting nutrition for pregnant women, the same pregnant women the right-wing wants to force into motherhood. We keep hearing we're broke, but the fact is we're not. We're not "overtaxed" either. Taxed Enough Already? Some of us might be. The billionaires are not.

There are certain realities that those of us on "the left" do need to face, such as the need for entitlement REFORM (not destruction). The right needs to face a lot too. The rich pay less taxes than the rest of us, as a percentage of their income, and that's simply not right. The Bush Tax Cuts need to go away. The spending cuts that Defense Secretary Robert Gates SUGGESTED be cut from HIS budget, have to be axed now. Health Care Reform is necessary to solving our long term deficit, even if it needs to be changed substantially. Ronald Reagan's "slash taxes to the top, see it trickle down" theory just doesn't work, even if you do want to elevate him to saint hood. And finally, yes, behavior matters. If you want us to take your "austerity" seriously, you can't take expensive trips on the public dime, hire mistresses and unqualified family members of your campaign manager, or cut taxes for corporations while gutting out our public services. We understand that less is less. No Governor Christie, $50,000 a year workers ARE NOT the reason your state has an exploding budget, no matter how many times you say it. Do we have stuff to accept? Yeah, we liberals do, in fact we may have to accept at some point the government doing less for people, if these other things are all done. No though, shared sacrifice doesn't mean "screw the poor."

Photo of the Day: Your President, Abroad

Isn't it great to have a President the whole world wants to see?

Bombs Cost Money

Great point.

A Tomahawk Missile cost $569,000 in FY99, so if my calculations are correct, they cost a little over $736,000 today assuming they are the same make and model. The United States fired 110 missiles yesterday, which adds up to a cost of around $81 million. That's twice the size of the annual budget of USIP, which the House of Representatives wants to de-fund, and is about 33 times the amount of money National Public Radio receives in grants each year from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the House of Representatives also wants to de-fund in the name of austerity measures.

Ideology.

Daniels Under Political Attack

Gentlemen (and ladies), Start Your Engines....

Well, finally. As the first quarter of 2011 ends (President Obama had raised $25 million in 2008 by now), Tim Pawlenty will announce his Presidential Exploratory Committee on Facebook today at 3 pm. He becomes the first major contender to enter the race for 2012, and kicks off what has been a slow and unexciting process, so far.

Well, welcome to the race. Time to start covering a real election. It's nice.

Can America, And The World, Sustain The Libyan Action

It's been remarkably interesting to watch the reaction to the military action taken in Libya. I've seen some question how this will turn out. Some question the cost. Some question if we have any place in this. Some question why we weren't there before. Some question why we're not on the ground. Some question if we're helpful to the rebels. Some question if we have the military capability. Basically, this is not breaking on the regular "side A vs. side B" political fight we're used to. It's fairly fractured up, and there are a lot of questions.

I want to take a look at one question though, which is whether or not we're stretched too thin right now. The United States is currently still in major commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the "combat" portion in Iraq supposedly over. We're involved in the humanitarian effort in Japan (where we have troops stationed anyway), as well as still patrolling in the Balkans. We're involved in humanitarian efforts when they come up, as in Haiti. We're basically global right now in military actions. So can we really afford to involve ourselves here?

Whether or not we can afford it from a money standpoint is a different debate, one that I welcome the side of people who think not (we spend a ton on military action, to our own detriment each year). Whether we have the forces though seems elementary to me, that we do. We're actually on a person for person basis, in less committed to Afghanistan and Iraq combined than we were a summer or two ago. While we can't sustain those levels forever either, it's worth noting that on manpower, we probably are less "stretched thin" than we've been in 3 years, and can probably afford to deploy fighter jets there. While it's a valid concern that we're stretched too thin, I don't think we're breaking over this.

Now, should we really do this? You know, I think so. The tide of change in the Middle East and North Africa is coming in fast, and we were very slow to support it in the previous nations to see it. We're not being overly supportive in other parts of the region right now. I don't think we want to allow this tide to roll in without us. I also don't think we want to not do things we believe are right, just because we've over extended ourselves in Iraq for years, a nation we didn't need to invade. On the whole, I think as long as we're not staging a massive land invasion of Libya, this is a worthy cause that we can afford the manpower to do, and should do. While we can't do this everywhere, there seems to be global consensus on this, and a willingness to take the lead from our allies. I didn't, and still don't, support the decision to go to war in Iraq, but this just isn't Iraq, and I think we have to be careful not to group every military action in with Iraq.

Congressman Dent Makes The Case For A Public Option

Charlie Dent is my Congressman. I don't think the guy is stupid, or even insane, although I think much of his caucus in Congress is both of those things. Sometimes though, when he speaks, he makes the case for the other side really easy. In the video above, he made two points absolutely crystal-clear.

• We need a "public option" to make health care affordable.
• The individual mandate is essential to getting healthy, young people into the health care system.

Now, let me be fair here and say that Dent disagrees with me on BOTH of those points. When Dent talks about "cost control," his solution to that would be Tort Reform and allowing insurers to compete across state lines. The problem with his position there is that Tort Reform's record so far, where it has been tried, is mixed on lowering costs. The problem with eliminating state-line requirements for health insurance is that it will encourage all providers to move to the state with the least requirements for care. In other words, whatever state is most in the bag for health insurers will get all of the companies, and we'll be living under the laws of state legislators we don't elect. Now you can easily fix that by enacting "minimum coverage" standards that any company competing in the pools would have to meet, but Dent, like most of his caucus, opposes most or all of the regulations in the Health Reform law, so it's hard to believe they'd back other regulations now.

The only way to achieve the adequate "cost control" that Dent talks about is to introduce a market force to the insurance market that has no regard for cutting a profit each year. While a series of "non-profits" may make sense at first glance here, the record on them driving down costs isn't great, because while they don't have to make money for profits, they still operate on the same economic scales as their private brethren, still pay their executives on the same scale, and basically operate in the same ways as corporations. The only actor in the market who can operate on a grand enough scale to drive down prices, and can afford to do so, without regard to profits, is the federal government. Dent's argument for better cost control is the best argument for the Public Option you can make, as well as for major PHARMA reform as well (both of which were things the Democrats declined to take on in the bill, to their detriment.).

The second one is more interesting, because it's the foundation of many conservative challenges to the bill. Dent says we need to get younger, cheaper to insure people into the market. He suggests we can do that by letting them by catastrophic coverage, coverage that has low premiums and high deductibles. I agree we should make that kind of coverage plentiful to people my age, it'd be very helpful to the public. With that said, it doesn't change the fundamental reason people that are younger don't buy health insurance: they don't need it. It's one more expense for people who are drowning in college debt and having more and more trouble finding work. This is why you have an individual mandate. The "exchanges" need these low-cost people paying into the insurance pools to help keep prices down (people who are paying in, but not using a lot of care, help pay for people who are older and less healthy), and the only way to get them in is to have a mandate. You can subsidize care, and offer less expensive care all you want, it's still an expenditure that a lot of younger people see as unnecessary. Now, they would be much better off, as would our health care system, if they participated younger, for the long haul, but that's another story all together. You can make my premiums $1, if it's $1 I don't have to spend, why would I do so?

Thanks to Lehigh Valley Ramblings for putting up these interesting videos.

AT&T Buys T-Mobile, And You Lose?

Interesting perspective from the LA Times David Lazarus:

When the Bell telephone system — aka AT&T — was broken up in 1984, consumers were told this would be a good thing because it would increase competition.

When the U.S. telecommunications market was deregulated in 1996, consumers were told this would be a good thing because it would increase competition.

And now AT&T is planning to merge with T-Mobile, the latest in a string of acquisitions that effectively restores Ma Bell to her former girth yet allows the company to operate in a looser regulatory environment.

Consumers might wonder if they've been played.

"There's no way this latest merger can be good for consumers," said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. "This places a lot of power in the hands of only a few companies."

What's that mean?

The reality, however, is that the most competitive segment of the telecom market — wireless service — will now have one fewer player, and we are a big step closer to a marketplace controlled by only two companies, AT&T and Verizon.

The AT&T-led Bell system effectively controlled phone service in the U.S. from 1877 to 1984. What's particularly galling is that for years the descendants of the Bell system insisted that they had no intention of re-creating the old network.

In 1998, Ed Whitacre, then CEO of telecom giant SBC, addressed wary senators in Washington about his company's planned $72-billion acquisition of rival Ameritech. He acknowledged concerns that "SBC and Ameritech have set out to turn back the clock and re-create the old AT&T Bell system."

It won't happen, Whitacre testified. "The competition genie is out of the bottle," he declared.

SBC went on to purchase AT&T for about $17 billion in 2005 and subsequently assumed Ma Bell's name. In 2006, it snatched up BellSouth for $67 billion.

Meanwhile, Bell Atlantic merged with GTE in a $65-billion deal to form Verizon, which in turn acquired MCI for $6.7 billion. Where's that competition genie now?

We have a problem here. First is, essentially we're heading towards a two company telecom world. Second is a broader problem, that fewer and fewer people own everything. We have less and less telecom companies, owned by fewer and fewer competitors. This same problem can be brought up in regards to our media as well. Capital is being consolidated increasingly in the United States, and it stands to reason that we're losing companies as that happens.

As bad as that is, let's not forget:

When the Federal Communications Commission deregulated the telecom market in 1996, the intent was to compel local phone companies to open their networks to new players. That never quite happened. As the companies underwent consolidation, barriers to entry for new players grew steadily higher. Consumers saw fewer telecom companies providing a greater array of services.

And prices have continued to rise.

In other words, you'll pay more and more either way. Which begs the question, do you lose either way? I think it's bad for the country that we have fewer and fewer companies controlling the market in different fields, but at the same time, competition doesn't cure all ailments the way it does in text books. While we need more competition, we have to remember that it takes a lot more than just "market forces" to improve the lives of the masses.

Polls: Boehner Better Not Shut Down The Government

Anytime two sides go into conflict, someone wins and someone loses. In 1995, Newt Gingrich, a new Speaker of the House with a big, conservative majority, decided to shut down the government in a dispute with President Bill Clinton. The result was pretty bad for Gingrich, as Clinton got most of his way and went on to be re-elected.

Polls suggest that if Speaker John Boehner, in the exact same spot now, wants to replay that fight, he'll find the same result. From TPM:

A PPP poll of registered voters released this week showed that most Americans think a government shutdown would be bad for the country. And if a shutdown does occur, the poll also found that a majority of Americans would blame Republicans for the mess, not President Obama.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they believed a government shutdown would be bad for the country. At the same time, 53% said they would put more blame on congressional Republicans than on Obama for a shutdown, while just 22% said the reverse.

That finding backs up an ABC News/Washington Post poll released earlier this week, in which 45% of adults said they would blame Republicans for a shutdown, compared to 30% who said they'd blame Obama.

Basically, read that as saying "do it and pay the price." Accusations of overreaching have already done a lot of damage in state houses, and the national GOP would be well advised to hear those cases out. If they choose to go into this fight with the White House, and take the President to the mat on spending levels, they are at great risk for political destruction. The Democrats will need roughly 25 seats (the exact number will be more clear after re-districting) to re-take the House, and Speaker Boehner would be well advised to not hand it over on his own. I'd be fine if he does though.

Rick Scott The Fraud

The PA Congressional Map?

PoliticsPA reports that this Cook Report map is the front-running candidate to be the GOP's re-districted Pennsylvania map. The map is much more "conservative" in that it only attempts to shore up GOP seats, not create new ones. It does do a number of things though.

Some observations:

• The 15th district, based in the Lehigh Valley, will no longer include Montgomery County (a good thing), but will stretch westward into Berks County, out to the Fleetwood-Kutztown area. From a common-sense, good government standpoint, this makes sense. I'm sure it makes the district slightly more red for now, but with huge growth out in the west end of the Valley, and the addition of Kutztown University, it could make the district better for a Democrat to challenge Charlie Dent. It also probably makes the district smaller from a population standpoint, although we'll see.
• Gerlach would be the big winner in this, moving further from the city, and into more of Berks. He still would not be "safe," but he wins here.
• Meehan and Fitzpatrick get marginally better seats for the GOP, but they give up on ever beating Schwartz, or the city guys.
• Holden would now have Scranton under this proposal, which I think is destined for court, although it does appear to be good to my eye. While they think this sures up Barletta, it doesn't look so to me. It keeps the Stroudsburg-East Stroudsburg area in with Wilkes-Barre, which may burn them in a few years, if not right away.
• Don't expect a Carney or Dahlkemper comeback here. With Thompson keeping State College, the 10th is a wasteland for Dems now.
• Schuster is taking in a lot of Dems in the southwest area of his district.
• Murphy only gets a bit safer out west. He gets better than he had, but not "safe."
• Critz and Altmire would be in a primary. Both would be favored to win the general, but would have to take considerable damage first.

The map is being made to make a 12-6 GOP majority in the state more permanent. They didn't make it "permanent" from my standpoint, but they did improve their odds, at the price of giving up on 5 of the 6 Dem seats for good. It'll be interesting to see if this is the final product.

Charlie Sheen- Winning!

This is just a "wow."

In what could be the most unusual 2012 poll to date, Public Policy Polling finds that Sheen bests Palin 41 percent to 36 percent among indy voters ahead of 2012. When all voters are included, the former Alaska governor regains a significant advantage, leading Sheen 49 percent to 29 percent.
But the Sheen/Palin match-up may not even be the craziest result in the poll. According to PPP, Democrats would support Sheen over Palin in 2012 by 44 percent to 24 percent. Meanwhile, Republicans would back Sheen over President Obama 37 percent to 28 percent.

So, to sum this madness up: Democrats really dislike Sarah, and Republicans hate Barack too, however the Democrats are backed up in their dislike by independents, while the GOP is off in crazy land. Doesn't this just show the polarization caused by today's politics?

The Taxation Myth

The 2011 list of billionaires is out. What do you need to know? Bill Gates is worth $56 billion. Warren Buffett is worth $50 billion. Larry Ellison (Oracle) is worth $39.5 billion. Christy Walton (Wal-Mart) is worth $26.5 billion. Sheldon Adelson (Sands Casino) is worth $23.3 billion. Charles Koch (Koch Brothers) is worth $22 billion. His brother David is worth the same.

Not all of these guys are bad people. They are making astronomical amounts of money though. ALL of their fortunes grew this past year. To put it in better perspective, it would take 440,000 people making $50,000 a year to equal either Charles or David Koch's fortune. It would take 1,120,000 people making $50,000 to equal Bill Gates. Remember, there's a few billionaires in this country, but only 310,000,000 people total (at least I think, we'll see with the census). Basically, you have nothing in common with these people economically, nothing at all.

This is what makes the right-wing story that 35% of all income in this nation is government "handouts." Aside from the fact that the story is proven wrong, and the number is at most 10%, the way the right-wing is trying to use it is alarming. They are now using it to illustrate a stupid, and frankly useless, point.

Today, more than 97% of federal income tax receipts are paid by the top 50% of income earners.

The bottom 50%? They pay less than 3% of the taxes, making it a truly privileged class because many of its members get to live at the expense of others.

Those in the bottom 50% make only 13% of the nation's wealth, so they can hardly afford to pay a higher share, not to mention that the nation's top 400 earners make as much as the bottom 50% (or 150,000,000 people). They also are ignoring the simple fact: of course they are paying more raw dollars, they have more.

Let's consider it for a moment. For the most part, these folks pay under the 15% "capitol gains" rate, while average Americans are paying in the 20%'s. They have lobbyists and donate massive amounts of money to get legislation that allows them to shield much of their money from taxation. So let's use someone making $1 billion this year, mostly under the capitol gains rate. They figure out how to exempt $200 million from taxation, meaning they are only being taxed on $800,000,000. If that is taxed at 15%, they are paying $120,000,000 in taxes. A person being taxed at 25%, making $100,000 a year, an "upper middle-class" person, is paying in $25,000. It would take 4,800 people at this rate to pay the same as the one person making $1,000,000,000.

When you consider this, and the fact that we now have 8.4 million families who are worth $1 million, it's easy to see how the wealthy pay more in raw dollars by such a high amount. Yeah sure, they pay a lot more than all of us do, in raw dollars, but they get to exempt hundreds of millions of dollars from taxation, they basically pay a lower rate than the rest of us, and they get to pass their wealth on to their "heir," who basically never has to earn anything, with very little taxation. Is this fair? Is it good for the economy? When considering questions of taxation, one must ask themselves what harm is done by these people paying the rates they did in the 1990's? Is the deficit being caused by us receiving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, or is it caused by their corporate welfare, tax cuts, and tax havens? Sure, in reality, the answers are complicated, and not in black and white. At the same time, just because these people "pay more," does not mean they are being a fair partner.

Pennsylvania: Nuclear Risk Zone?

Uh oh.... three of the top ten, really?

Pennsylvania has three of the top ten most susceptible nuclear power plants to failure in the even of an earthquake, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Limerick, 21 miles northwest of Philadelphia, Beaver Valley, just west of Pittsburgh, and Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, are 3rd, 5th, and 10th on the list. Beaver Valley's odds of failure are 1 in 20,833. Limerick's are 1 in 18,868. Three Mile Island's are 1 in 25,000. In other words, the odds are in our favor. Indian Point, 24 miles north of New York City, on the Hudson, is first, with a 1 in 10,000 chance.

Sherrod Brown Looking Better In Ohio

Great news from the Buckeye State:

There's been a fundamental shift in the Ohio political landscape over the last three months and it looks like the biggest beneficiary of that could be Sherrod Brown.

When PPP polled Ohio in December Brown looked extremely vulnerable for reelection, polling at only 40-43% in match ups against four potential Republican opponents. That gave him anything from a tie (against Mike DeWine) to an eight point lead (against Jim Jordan.) Now Brown is at 48-49% against six different Republicans we tested and his leads range from 15 to 19 points.

There are not big differences among the GOP candidates in how they fare against Brown. Drew Carey and Secretary of State Jon Husted come the closest to him, each trailing by 15 points at 49-34. Treasurer Josh Mandel does next best, trailing by 16 points at 48-32. He's followed by Congressman Steve LaTourette, who has an 18 point deficit at 48-30. And bringing up the rear are Congressman Jim Jordan and Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor, each down by 19 at 49-30.

Not even Drew Carey makes this race super competitive right now. There's a real shift going on in the Midwest since November. The overreach of Governor Kasich, much like Walker in Wisconsin, is turning the state back towards Democrats. Hopefully Senator Brown, a great first-term Senator, can pull it through.

You Saw It Coming: O'Keefe Lied, As Usual.

Wow, shocking.

Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member for broadcasting and online at the Poynter Institute, says to David that he tells his children there are "two ways to lie. One is to tell me something that didn't happen. And the other is not to tell me something that did happen." After comparing O'Keefe's edited tape to the longer version, "I think that they employed both techniques in this," Tompkins says.

One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.

Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.

Finally, long after the fact, NPR fights back against the lying child of the right. Why does anyone treat this tool as though he is serious, or might be telling the truth? I don't know, but as I've said before, it's time we all stop.

Scary: A Reason To Feel Empathy For Boehner

This is scary.

House Speaker John Boehner is in a pickle. If he moves to the right on the continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government, he loses the Senate. If he moves to the left, he loses his own Republicans. And if he just stands there, the government gets shut down -- and polls suggest the public will blame Boehner and the Republicans. In late February, the Washington Post/ABC poll found that 35 percent of Americans would blame President Obama for a shutdown and 36 percent would blame the Republicans. On March 13, the same question in the same poll found that 45 percent would blame the Republicans and 31 percent would blame Obama. A one-point gap against the Republicans has turned into a 14-point gap over the past few weeks. So that’s where Boehner is: He loses if he goes right, if he goes left and if he stands still.

But what can Boehner do? Last night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell described the situation in the House as a “three-party system”: There are the Democrats, the Republicans and the tea party. He’s right. If it were up to just Boehner and the Democrats, it’d be pretty easy to cut a deal. But it’s not. It’s up to Boehner and the Republicans and the tea party Republicans. But Boehner also can’t abandon the tea party Republicans to secure Democratic votes; he’d be handing the gavel to Speaker Eric Cantor within a year. If there’s anything that the Republican establishment has learned in recent years, it’s that you do not disappoint the tea party.

Feel any better about there not being a shutdown?

Perspective On The Planned Parenthood Cuts

What's The Matter With Florida?

Ah, the Gunshine State. They elected a Governor who's basically a fraud last year. Then he sent a budget to the legislature that cuts education funding by hundreds of millions, upon billions of dollars, while cutting corporate taxes. Just when you thought the insanity had reached a tipping point...

Nope.

First, the Florida Senate just approved a bill that will make it harder to sue automakers for a defective part causing you injury. State Senator Garrett Richter (R-Naples) is the sponsor of the bill, which was lobbied for hard by Ford and others. Now, we're not talking about the cases where the accident has nothing to do with the parts, but people sue the companies here, I agree with shielding them then- we're talking about the accidents where defective parts do cause the issue. Look, this is simply allowing negligence to go unchecked, and that's wrong.

Richter's behavior isn't even the worst from his own town though. State Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) takes the cake easily.

"There was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gangraped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute," Passidomo declared.

"And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn’t happen to our students," she added.

At this time, I'll avoid the discussion of the actual bill, about dress-codes, because it has some merit. Passidomo's "example" has no merit. You do not blame an 11 year-old girl for her own gang rape, period, end of story, ever. It doesn't matter how she dressed, or anything of the sort. She is not at fault, not even .01%.

What's the matter with Florida?

YYYYYYYYeeeeeeeesssssssss!!!!!!

Advice On Social Security

Apparently, the political and economic teams in the White House are fighting about whether to do Social Security Reform now, or after the 2012 Election, and whether or not benefit cuts should be involved. Basically, everyone agrees reform has to get done, but there is debate about when and how. From the Hill:

Social Security became “cash negative” last year as it began paying out more in benefits than it received in revenues. Thus, the federal government has begun borrowing in capital markets to pay off its IOUs to the trust fund.

The trust fund itself has a theoretical $2.6 trillion surplus, but that money has been spent by the federal government like general revenues. The payback has arrived at a very difficult time, when Washington is running a $1.6 trillion budget deficit.

Geithner and his lieutenants argue that benefits reform will give the markets confidence that Obama and Congress have the will to address the problem of long-term national debt.

So, what to do? Do it now. Here's why:

• There is little to no chance that Medicare gets done during this term, being that we're about 10 months from the Iowa Caucuses now, and re-election year beckons for a lot of freshmen in the House. I cannot imagine Speaker Boehner doing a deal. So the only alternative to doing Medicare as a "big fix" to the deficit in 2011 and 2012 is to do Social Security.
• No one wants to see the Republican alternative "fix" to Social Security, privatization (maybe not even the GOP). It's unpopular, and a real drag on them with the older voters who put them in in 2010. By bringing out a reform plan, it will force the GOP Leadership, and Presidential contenders, to come out with a plan of their own. Politically, this is poison.
• No believer in Social Security wants to see the program gutted out to nothing. So, do it now, while the Democrats hold the Veto pen, and not risk losing that before we get the chance.
• Since Medicare isn't an option, this is likely to be the biggest thing he can do with the remainder of his term. It'd be pretty impressive to add this to an impressive first term resume, saying he was the President who did a "big fix" on Social Security. He would be standing up to the left-wing crowd that says "don't do anything" on Social Security, and standing up to the right-wing "all government is bad" crowd at once. Major points with independent voters for re-election there. Also, major points with voters in general, for showing the ability to get big, important things done in a re-election cycle.
• Even though insolvency is over 20 years away, it's the right thing to do, policy wise. The program does have long-term problems, and they would put us in a debt busting situation if not fixed. By doing it now, we avoid those problems, and see major benefits.

So then, I'm sure someone will shriek "cutting benefits is political suicide." Someone else will scream, "we can't afford this damn program." Both are very wrong. Fixing Social Security doesn't take as much effort as people think, and could be done to a benefit. Here's how:

• Eliminate, or change, the cap on payroll taxes for Social Security, which currently rests around $107,000. Why do we have this anyway? I'd get rid of the cap all together, and lower the tax rate as a result (still bringing in much more revenue), but even just an upward change would fix a lot. Raising the cap to say, $250,000, or even $1,000,000, would generate billions, if not trillions long term, to pay back the "iou's" in the trust fund. It's simply "upping" the revenue.
• Raise the retirement age, slowly. Most people in their 20's, like me, assume that the retirement age will be higher for us, because we'll live longer. Even raising it gradually, and only a year or two, saves billions.
• Adjust the "Cost Of Living Adjustments," or COLA's. This is what folks on the left are really the most angry about, but it's probably necessary, in the long run. Social Security's COLA is even more generous than the one enjoyed by most government workers. Just "tinkering" with it, to put it in line with their's, would solve a lot of future problems. Again, for me, a no-brainer.

I'd propose it this year. The President would take the "high ground" in the budget deficit debate, and take control of the "adult conversation" on the Hill. I see all positives here. The President should make his move.

Corbett Slipping Already???

Last night, there was a State Senate Special Election in PA. The Democrat, Judy Schwenk, won a previously Democratic state, in a district that Corbett had done well in, despite heavy involvement from Corbett. Democratic State Chairman Jim Burn released this statement:

"Congratulations to Judy Schwank, a state Senator who will fight for the middle class in the spirit of Senator Michael O'Pake," said Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn. "Democrats worked together to ensure a victory in a difficult district, and I applaud the effort of everyone involved. This was a successful, all hands on deck effort with a strong focus on grassroots.

During her campaign, Judy Schwank focused on creating jobs, getting the economy back on track and standing up to Tom Corbett and his budget that will likely increase property taxes and tuition for middle class families.

Tom Corbett has spent his early days in office attacking the middle class while fighting for his largest donors and other corporate special interests. Today's election was a referendum on Tom Corbett and his record. In this early test, Tom Corbett and his budget have been roundly rejected by voters."

Meanwhile, Corbett's allies are taking to making things up, as is pointed out by LVI.

It's too bad that the Morning Call saw fit to publish the following false claim from Michelle Griffin-Young of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce in an unfortunate op-ed supporting Tom Corbett's budget cuts:
It is time for Pennsylvania to change its ranking of 47th in the nation for job growth. As the governor said, "government is not meant to be the answer for jobs. The private sector is."
Perhaps Ms. Griffin-Young is unaware that Pennsylvania ranked third in the nation in number of jobs created, but there's no excuse for the Morning Call not to have fact-checked this whopper. Here's Steven Herzenberg from the Keystone Research Center:
While far too many Pennsylvania families are struggling in the aftermath of the worst recession in decades, the state’s economy is rebounding better – and faster – than most states.

In 2010, the Commonwealth added more than 65,000 jobs, ranking third among the 50 states in the number of jobs created. On a percentage basis (adjusting for the size of each state’s economy), Pennsylvania’s job growth was 1.2% — exceeding three-fourths of all states.

Don't let things like facts and statistics get in the way of a GOP talking point.

Sounds to me like Tom Corbett isn't off to the start he hoped for. With potential opponents like Joe Sestak and Rob McCord waiting in the wings, he increasingly looks like a one-term Governor to me.

Today's Republican Failures....

Today's goofy Republican actions:

• So how do you get rid of Collective Bargaining without the legislative "dog and pony show" that Scott Walker had? Just don't negotiate, like Chris Christie is doing over health insurance benefits in New Jersey. Responsible Governors take their positions to the table, lay them out, and make the other side negotiate with them to keep the things most important to both sides. Christie just takes anything he can take away from state employees and then cries that everyone else won't do anything like he will. Christie says that workers have to pay more for their benefits, period, no discussion, but corporations and millionaires also have to pay less in taxes, period, no discussion. Worst Governor in the nation, anyone?
• Glenn Beck says the Earthquake, Tsunami, and Nuclear Meltdown in Japan are God punishing evil actions. Seriously, even Fox should take him down at this point. He's gotta be hurting the brand with this kind of crazy talk, right? Oh wait, never mind, not with his audience....
• One of Mitt Romney's first fundraisers of the 2012 season was apparently thrown by David Koch. The shame about Romney is that there are actually traits about him I like, and could have even supported, before he started running for President in 2008. I still don't think he's the worst of the GOP's bunch, and still rank his speech on religion in 2008 as one of the high points of that campaign. With all that said, I will never vote for anyone backed by the Koch brothers. No Democrat should.
• New RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is becoming a real headache for the GOP. First, he's too easily tied to the Koch Brothers, and easy to label as a corporately owned Republican. Then, he does stupid things like take issue with President Obama putting out an NCAA bracket. What kind of damn elitist would do that???

That's it for tonight. I'm sure we'll have more tomorrow.

Ooopsss.... GOP Stupidity On Nuclear Energy

Ari Adler, Press Secretary to the Michigan House Speaker, Tries To Explain Bad Legislation

Newt's Same Old Playbook

This is a gem. PoliticalWire did good finding this.

Gingrich once called Clinton "a very smart, very clever tactician whose core system of activity is a combination of counterculture and McGovern... he and his wife were counterculture at Yale... They really are left-wing elitists..."

And now...

In a radio interview, Newt Gingrich said Bill Clinton was "an Arkansas moderate in a liberal party, who had a pretty good common sense understanding of the average person" and a "very down home Arkansas kind of guy when you talk to him," Politico reports.

In contrast, he said President Obama is "a Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago elitist from the most expensive private school in Hawaii, who lives in an elite, radical worldview in his head."

Bottom line: It doesn't matter if the Democrats run an inbred hillbilly with no idea where New York and Chicago are on the map, the GOP will call them an "educated, elite." You see, the colleges he went to matter, because they are where the "weird, smart people" go. These people hate intelligent people, and I can't figure out why. I get the whole hating cities thing, but hating intelligence is nonsense, and yet it works, over and over again for the GOP.

The Right Tries To Cage It's Pit Bull

:)

"Among those taking aim at Palin in recent interviews with POLITICO are George F. Will, the elder statesman of conservative columnists; Peter Wehner, a top strategist in George W. Bush’s White House, and Heather Mac Donald, a leading voice with the right-leaning Manhattan Institute.

Matt Labash, a longtime writer for the Weekly Standard, said that because of Palin’s frequent appeals to victimhood and group grievance, “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.”

:) :)

"…it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.

Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.

Finishing second and third isn’t really a big deal — until you get enough delegates to be the nominee. And picking a nominee who it seems would be easily defeated by President Obama might not be the best statement.

Oh, how sweet. They unleash their "pit bull," or "hockey mom," or whatever, and then get mad at her for continuing on? No, no sympathy for any of you.

Let's Have An Adult Conversation....

"Give us our way, or we'll shut down the Senate."

The Republicans are back at it. While those weren't the words said, they might as well have been. The Republicans, lead by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, have promised to block any nominee for Commerce Secretary, or any other trade related post, unless the Senate approves Free Trade deals with Colombia and Panama. Yes, give us our way, or we shut everything down.

This shouldn't be an issue, right? The President says both deals are a priority. But....

President Obama said that the agreements were a priority in his State of the Union this year, but U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said last month that the Latin American countries must address their own outstanding labor issues, including accusations of violence against labor leaders in Colombia, before a final deal is reached.

So.... approve a deal that we don't have done yet, and now, or we don't fill the current vacancy. These are the guys talking about an "adult conversation" in this country. What kinds of adults talk like this?

The Crazy Things The GOP Are Saying

You know, the GOP isn't just legislating crazy, stupid things. They're also saying them too. Here's the latest gems.

• House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton says his legislation blocking the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases will "stop rising gas prices." If this sounds stupid to you, it's because it is. The regulation of greenhouse gases isn't what's driving up our gas prices, fears about supply from speculators is. All this garbage regulation will do is allow companies emitting these gases to go the cheap route, and simply dump them into our air.
• Congresswoman Virginia Foxx: The tragedy in Japan is a sign that "God is still in charge." On the surface, this isn't that crazy, as I believe all things are God's work. The problem with people who talk about this is, this is their way of saying "let's do nothing about it." Foxx and her ilk are basically living in wait for the apocalypse. It's pretty nuts.
• This one's amazing. I bet money Corbett doesn't fire this goon.

  This jerk is one of "The Naked Guv"'s chief "regulators" of the oil-and-gas industry, and he seems to have confused one kind of "Gasland" for a very different kind. His words would be even outrageous even if the "Gasland" filmmaker Josh Fox were not the descendent of Holocaust surviviors, which is he is:
  
  Borawski, who has been involved with oil drilling on the Gulf Coast, was asked about the recent documentary "Gasland," an Academy Award-nominated documentary made partially in Pennsylvania that portrays drilling as harmful to the environment and residents.
  
  "Joseph Goebbels would have been proud," Borawski replied. "He would have given him the Nazi Award. That, in my opinion, was a beautiful piece of propaganda."

• Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck takes the cake, I think. He says we should just have a hunt for, and shoot, illegal immigrants. He compared it to our efforts to control feral hogs in the United States. This is so disgusting, there's not much to say to it.
• But wait, he might not even be the worst. New Hampshire State Representative Martin Harty suggested we send the mentally ill, retarded, and drug addicts to Siberia to die. He called them "defective people." He finally resigned. The Speaker of that House, who didn't push him too hard up to now, accepted his resignation.

Oy vey! These people are nuts!

A Freshman GOP'er Reads The Tea-Leaves

This is kind of awesome:

"The extreme wing of the Republican Party is making a big mistake with their flat-out opposition to a short-term continuing resolution," Grimm said in a statement. "I know that there is some opposition to working with Senate Democrats from the extreme right of the tea party who would rather see a government shutdown than pass a short-term solution; however, as long as we continue to cut spending each time, we are keeping our promise to the American people to reduce the deficit and fix the economy."

Now, before we give Grimm too much credit here, remember, this guy has a lot to lose if his party looks nuts. He's a freshman, from Staten Island, New York City. He can't win if they shut-down the government over extremist stuff. He's looking at this smart. He'll probably not benefit though, because his party will ignore him, and voters won't give him credit for this.

Buyer's Remorse Setting In On GOP Governors

By now, everyone knows that Governor Walker in Wisconsin is slightly less popular than toxic chemicals in our water. What isn't getting enough press is that he's not the only GOP Governor elected in November who's approval is borderline pathetic. In fact, he's the easiest to explain, but still not alone.

Governor John Kasich of Ohio, so far famous for not liking cops, appointing an all-white cabinet, and union busting, comes in with a strong 40% approval. Well, strong if you consider his 47% disapproval to not really matter. He's been in two months and people already don't like his performance. Shocking, right?

Then there's Governor Paul LePage, who is more popular than his predecessor, but not very popular either. I guess telling the NAACP to "kiss my butt" isn't so popular, unless you consider a 43% approval to 48% disapproval to be popular?

They're sure to not be alone though. Republican Governors everywhere have walked off the crazy end of the spectrum.

As we’ve been documenting, several conservative governors have proposed placing the brunt of deficit reduction onto the backs of their state’s public employees, students, and middle-class taxpayers, while simultaneously trying to enact corporate tax cuts and giveaways. Govs. Rick Scott (R-FL), Tom Corbett (R-PA), and Jan Brewer (R-AZ) have all gone down this road.

Following suit, Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) has proposed ending his state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, cutting a $600 per child tax credit, and reducing credits for seniors, while also cutting funding for school districts by eight to ten percent. At the same time, as the Michigan League for Human Services found, the state’s business taxes would be reduced by nearly $2 billion, or 86 percent, under Snyder’s plan:

Business taxes would be cut by 86 percent from an estimated $2.1 billion in FY 2011 to $292.7 million in FY 2013, the first full year of the proposed tax changes…Taxes on individuals from the state income tax would rise by $1.7 billion or nearly 31 percent, from an estimated $5.75 billion in FY 2011 to $7.5 billion in FY 2013, the first full year of the tax changes.

Yeahhhh! That'll work! Because, we all know that when we cut taxes for corporations, they create jobs in our states, right? No, seriously, these guys have zero economic sense. I'm willing to bet citizens of more states than Ohio, Maine, and Wisconsin will soon regret last November's elections. Let's hope they repeal the 2010 Election in 2012.

Picture of the Day

Scott Walker's political popularity lasted less time than "New Coke."

The House Republicans' Version of "Small Government"

From Lehigh Valley Independent:

So this is fun. Charlie Dent and his House Republican buddies on the Appropriations Committee want to slash tsunami monitoring:
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers today introduced a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government at current rates for three weeks –until April 8 – while cutting $6 billion in spending. [...]

-$99 million – NOAA – Operations, Research, and Facilities
-$18 million – NOAA – Procurement Acquisition and Construction

Unreal. Just unreal. How many times are we going to let these clowns de-fund vital functions, and then watch it bite us. They de-funded the SEC, and we watched Wall Street nearly melt us down in 2008. They cut funding for things that we need to have a functioning economy and nation, over and over again. We keep letting them do it.

Allentown, Lehigh Valley Grows

From the Morning Call:

Early 2010 Census figures for Pennsylvania have been released and they show Allentown has grown at a robust rate of 10.7 percent.

The growth solidifies Allentown as the third-largest city in the state behind Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The five most populous cities or townships, according to the 2010 Census are: Philadelphia, 1,526,006; Pittsburgh, 305,704; Allentown, 118,032; Erie, 101,786; and Reading, 88,082. Philadelphia grew by 0.6 percent since the 2000 Census. Pittsburgh decreased by 8.6 percent, Allentown grew by 10.7 percent, Erie decreased by 1.9 percent, and Reading grew by 8.5 percent.

Bethlehem came in eighth, adding about 3,600 new residents for a total of 74,982.

Then there's Lower Macungie. The township added more new residents—11,413—than any municipality in the state. Allentown came in second with 11,400 and Philadelphia added 8,456, to come in third.

The largest county is Philadelphia, with a population of 1,526,006. Its population grew by 0.6 percent since 2000. The other counties in the top five include Allegheny, with a population of 1,223,348; Montgomery, 799,874; Bucks, 625,249; and Delaware, 558,979.

Lehigh County's population increased 12 percent to 349,497, while Northampton County's population grew 11.5 percent to 297,735. Together, the two counties added more than 68,000 residents over the last ten years.

Alaska Militia Men Arrested For Plotting To Kidnap Cops

Meet Francis Cox:

Cox was addressing a crowd of about 150 militia members and supporters in March at the Second Amendment/Constitutional Task Force, held in Kenai. His speech was laced with Sovereign Citizen code.

"God gave you rights, just as a human being He didn't give rights to a government that they can then give to you if they want, which would leave you begging at the feet of government as a subject. As a sovereign, you have the right to life, liberty and property, and a corresponding individual duty to protect those rights," Cox said.

"My greatest fear is that they're not going to hear us until we speak to them in their language, which is force," Cox said. "America is headed to bloody force. If we sit on our hands until it hits the fan and it's go time, we won't be able to exercise that warlike force with a clear conscience. So we need to be very faithful with what's at hand right now.

"I am not opposed to violent, bloody force."

Cox echoed that endorsement of revolutionary violence during an interview with Andrew Sheeler for a January article in the UAF Sun Star about Cox deliberately violating university regulations by carrying a handgun on campus. "[The government] doesn't operate under the rule of law, they operate under the rule of force. My greatest fear is the only time they are going to hear us is when we speak their language," Cox said.

"If there was a gun ban in the city of Fairbanks, that's an act of war. And it would have to be met with war. And we are prepared to do that, we won't back down on that principal. We would spill blood before we let that happen."

This man was arrested Thursday as part of a plot to kidnap and possibly kill police in Fairbanks, Alaska. He says he's a "sovereign citizen," and not subject to government regulations on things like say, gun control. He was planning a massive action against the government there. Sounds like he was serious.

I bet you won't see Pete King have a Congressional hearing about these guys. Bet you didn't even read this in your paper. If this guy had been a Muslim, or a hippy even, I bet you'd have had both. This gets glossed over though. Kind of like how King and his backers ignore David Koresh, the Unabomber, and McVeigh. I guess ignorance is bliss, and makes arguing falsehoods easier.

Live Feed From Japan

Video streaming by Ustream

Coverage of Japan

Congressman Ellison Pays Tribute To A Great Muslim-American

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy