Conflict of interest: Goldfinger Glenn

Glenn Beck, fanning the flames on his nightly fear-cast, frequently shouts loudly about the decline of U.S. currency and encourages people to buy gold. Presumably, when the apocalypse comes, roving bands of socialist brigands will still respond to shiny objects. Oh wait, that's Beck's audience that responds to shiny objects.

Jon Stewart has found a possible explanation for Beck's interest in gold. Ironically, it appears to be cash.

FAIL!: Mitch Mcconnell flip-flops on Medicare

(TPM)

For decades, the Republican party has been the scourge of Medicare, hostile to it as a wasteful government program, and happy to see it, in the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, "wither and die on the vine." Over the past several months, as Democrats propose paying for health care reform with savings wrung from waste in Medicare, Republicans have tried to position themselves as Medicare saviors. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) took to the Senate floor recently to warn that health care reform will make seniors "die sooner."

Today, Democrats will unveil the above poster board--taken from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's comm shop--on the Senate floor. That the two press releases were issued on consecutive days seems to heighten the contradiction.

More on the hypocrisy from BCGDAB

WHOSE deficit is "spending us into oblivion", Mr. Beck?

(Huff Post)

The emerging narrative in political circles is that the White House has a deficit problem. Glenn Beck, over at Fox News, insists that Obama is "spending us into oblivion." Politico called the recent round of job-stimulus appropriations a "spending binge." Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) deemed this an era of "fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility," the extent of which is "shocking to the American taxpayer."

(B)udget analysts say...the hysteria over the deficit misses a fundamental point: the country's fiscal problems largely aren't due to Obama but rather his predecessor.

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

Colbert on the Republican purity test

(Huff Post)

In an attempt to reclaim both houses in the 2010 election, the Republican party has proposed a "Purity Test," a screening process that would weed out candidates who don't adhere to "core conservative principles." As the ten stipulations of the test revolve around opposition to the Obama administration, Colbert compared them to the 10 Commandments - "if one of the tablets said 'F' and the other said 'U.'"

Colbert called out the GOP out for the hypocrisy of the plan, describing them as "a party of white Christian men, who call Obama a Nazi, pushing the concept of purity." He added that adhering to a checklist would not provide the assurance the GOP needs, so he presented an alternative -- putting moderate Republicans in life-threatening situations that reveal their true beliefs...like in the move "Saw."

Gore shoves back on ClimateGate, Palin

As world leaders convene in Copenhagen for the global climate conference, Former Vice President Al Gore has been making the interview rounds pushing back on "ClimateGate" and promoting his new book , Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.

His frustration with the hacked-email fallout is palpable. "The basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!--physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore?" Gore asked, and pressed his point harder: "And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it?

Video at Huff Post

We might just have a health care bill, with a public option by another name

From the amazing Bob Cesca, here and here:

Chris Bowers writes that the battle for the public option was fairly successful, despite the compromise:

--4 million more people covered by Medicaid, which is a public option, than the July version of the House bill
--1-2 million covered by a Medicare buy-in, which is also a public option, and which was entirely absent in the July version of the House bill

--An increase, from 85% in the July House bill to 90% now, in the percentage of money companies receive on health insurance premiums that must be spent on health care.

These are all concessions directly made to progressives in return for dropping a Medicare +5% public option that would have covered 10 million people. Not bad.

And this doesn't even count future expansions. I don't know what to make of the compromises yet, but I don't think they can be interpreted as a loss. In fact, I think the Medicare buy-in will have a better chance of expanding into something like Medicare For All than the opt-out public option would've.

As near as I can tell, here's the substance from the Gang of 10 negotiations.

--Public option becomes a trigger.

--The (Swiss) OPM plan replaces it. Non-profit policies negotiated by the government. If the privates don't offer adequate non-profit deals, the public option is triggered. My hunch is the CBO will score this as having much better premiums than the opt-out public option.

--Medicare buy-in for high-risk people 55-64 beginning a year from now. Everyone else 55-64 can buy in when the exchanges begin in 2014. Don't tell your favorite conservadem, but this is our path to single-payer. This bill will establish a precedent for lowering the buy-in age for Medicare. Expect further lowerings over the years, but only if we demand it. Single-payer was always going to be a work in progress, but now we have a template.

--Increased regulations on the private insurers, according to Brian Beutler. This is great news. Now what will this include?

Overall, I hesitate to call this good news. Anything we like will probably be dropped before Noon.

Benen:

As for the political implications, how on-the-fence senators will respond to the compromise is anyone's guess. Will Lieberman balk because there's a trigger? Will Snowe reject it because of Medicare expansion? Will House Dems oppose it over changes to the public option? Will Ben Nelson move away from the bill just because?
Even senators within the Team of 10 aren't sure. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) was delighted with the deal, but Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) hinted that he's now on the fence because of changes to the public option.

Fox under attack: Colbert air quotes them; Stewart calls out Gretchen Carlson for "dumbing herself down"

(Huff Post)

Fox News came under fire recently after the network was caught using footage from Sarah Palin's vice-presidential campaign to illustrate one of her book signings. This prompted the network to issue a pledge of zero tolerance for on-screen errors.

During the segment "Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger," Stephen Colbert called out the network for its stupidity: "What are you doing? You're fair and balanced. To be fair, you have to balance every fact with corresponding bullshit." His solution: using air quotes during the newscast. This strategy would allow the network to let the audience know that they are being ironic when reporting the news.

He went on to give an example to help clarify:

Sarah "Palin's" New "Book" Has Been Released "Excellent" Reviews. And many people are "reading" it.

Colbert then added that if that measure was not enough, they should have Sean Hannity do every show wearing an ironic "Journalist" t-shirt.

(Huff Post)

Jon Stewart went after "Fox & Friends" host Gretchen Carlson last night. Saying she plays the "troubled mom, just trying to make sense of this modern country," Stewart explained Carlson seems to be dumbing herself down in order to connect with an audience that sees intellect as an elitist flaw.

After showing clips of Carlson talking about Googling the words "ignoramus" and "czar," Stewart was flabbergasted:

How do you get a job on television if you appear to be one of those people who need to pin their address to their coat so a stranger can help them find their way home?

Determined to get to the bottom of it, Stewart conducted a Google search of his own. According to his findings, this "troubled mom" is a graduate of Stanford and a classically trained violinist. With this in mind, Stewart challenged Carlson: "I don't want to have to turn you on tomorrow to see you're actually surprised that the Interior Secretary is in charge of the outside stuff."

Colbert impersonates a nuclear bomb

Colbert does an interview with Joseph Cirincione from the Ploughshares Fund. during the interview he plays Sanction, Bomb Marry and then does a dead-on impersonation of the old 1960's nuclear bomb film. The rickey shack disappearing is particularly awesome. Start at 3:30.

Obama never had a chance with the GOP on Afghanistan

Obama never had a chance. In giving the generals exactly what they wanted, he's being torn to shreds by the right wing. "We must end this now," they cry. But I'll ask you to be truthful... what would they have said if we pulled out immediately?

He literally never had a chance. He inherited Bush's war and was set up to fail. Not in the mission, mind you, but in the perception. The right wing HATES him and will do whatever is necessary to see him hurt him.

Watch the video clip. In the first minute Rush Limbaugh, the leader of those saying that we don't criticize the president in a time of war when Bush was in the Oval, now abandons that scenario. They have no scruples, no sense of honor, and are seemingly all about hypocrisy for power's sake.

(Media Matters)

It didn't matter what decision he came to regarding troop levels in Afghanistan, or what he said about the ongoing conflict there, because Fox News and the rest of the conservative media had already reached two conclusions. First, he took too long. Second, he was wrong.

Since the Bush administration stuck him with the untended-to mess in Afghanistan, Obama had to make a choice -- more troops, fewer troops, withdrawal. When Obama signaled that he actually wanted to consider his options before making a decision, the Fox News followed the lead of Dick Cheney -- one of the primary authors of the Afghanistan debacle -- in accusing the president of "dithering" and "inaction." Glenn Beck, never one to be subtle or reasonable, accused the president of "letting our troops literally bleed and die" and said Obama would "pay for it" in the hereafter.

Of course, Cheney's idea of "dithering" is another man's idea of a "substantive discussion" that came as part of a "good" process. That other man just so happens to be Gen. David Petraeus, who was asked by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on December 2 if Obama had been "dithering" as Cheney alleged. Petraeus responded: "This process was actually quite good, Joe. It was a very substantive discussion. Everybody's assumptions and views were tested. I think out of this have come sharpened objectives, a very good understanding of the challenges and the difficulties and what must be done in a much more detailed and nuanced fashion."

Fiscally responsible health care (choose your punctuation [.], [?], [!])

Mixed pot of health-care news:

Health care reform hangs in the balance. Its fate rests with a handful of "centrist" senators — senators who claim to be mainly worried about whether the proposed legislation is fiscally responsible.

But if they’re really concerned with fiscal responsibility, they shouldn’t be worried about what would happen if health reform passes. They should, instead, be worried about what would happen if it doesn’t pass. For America can’t get control of its budget without controlling health care costs — and this is our last, best chance to deal with these costs in a rational way.

Paul Krugman

Bad news for Aetna customers. Actually, bad news for health care customers. More correctly, bad news for everyone, because if you don't tyhink YOUR policyholder will do this, you're just goin' Palin.

Health insurance giant Aetna is planning to force up to 650,000 clients to drop their coverage next year as it seeks to raise additional revenue to meet profit expectations.

In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.

Best system EVER! As Bob Cesca asks, how many wingnuts and tea partiers are Aetna customers?

And Politico reports that there is a serious option on the table that is basically the Swiss health system:

There appeared to be serious consideration of a new proposal on the table: a national health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which provides insurance to members of Congress and federal workers. It would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal plan, and all of the insurance options would be not-for-profit.

Commentary:

This is basically the Swiss health insurance system. Private but non-profit and government operated. But, in this plan, the privates are literally forced by the Office of Personnel Management to negotiate lower rates if they want to participate -- and the plans can't earn a profit.

Jobs growth coming?

(Bob Cesca)

While we aren't quite feeling it yet, it's entirely possible that this month or next month will show jobs growth.



It's no easy feat to go from 700,000 job losses per month to job growth within a year. Adding the balance of the TARP funds to a jobs package might supercharge the process even more.

The story behind the Afghan surge

The New York Times ran an incredible piece by Peter Baker detailing the behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the weeks of deliberations leading up to the president's decision to send up to 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. It's well worth your time to read this:

On the afternoon he held the eighth meeting of his Afghanistan review, President Obama arrived in the White House Situation Room ruminating about war. He had come from Arlington National Cemetery, where he had wandered among the chalky white tombstones of those who had fallen in the rugged mountains of Central Asia.

How much their sacrifice weighed on him that Veterans Day last month, he did not say. But his advisers say he was haunted by the human toll as he wrestled with what to do about the eight-year-old war. Just a month earlier, he had mentioned to them his visits to wounded soldiers at the Army hospital in Washington. “I don’t want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,” he said then.

The economic cost was troubling him as well after he received a private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war.

More...

Gordon Brown decries "anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics"

(Telegraph UK)

"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”