Yeah, they need to fix this bill. But this is a good idea that deserves support, and shouldn't leave the decision to offer sick leave for swine flu in the hands of the employer. (We all know how shaky that can be.) What's wrong with simply requiring a doctor's note?

With H1N1 flu fears spreading as fast as the sickness itself, a leading House Democrat wants rapid action on legislation that would give employees five paid sick days.

But in rushing out the measure on Tuesday, November 3, Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, roiled paid leave advocates who worry that he gives employers too much power to determine who can stay home.

The author of broader paid sick leave legislation, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, is not on board.

“I am concerned that the Miller bill —while a modest step forward — would establish a limp paid leave benefit that is triggered by the employer and can also be taken away by the employer; and it offers no real guarantee that a working parent can care for a sick child,” DeLauro said in a statement Thursday, November 4, to Workforce Management.

DeLauro added that she “can work with Chairman Miller to make it a better bill.”

The House labor committee will hold a hearing on Miller’s measure, the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, the week of November 16. It’s unclear when or if a companion Senate bill will be introduced.

President Barack Obama declared the H1N1 pandemic — popularly known as swine flu — a national emergency on October 24.

Miller caught some in the advocacy community and on Capitol Hill by surprise with his proposal, which would guarantee five paid sick days to an employee if an employer “directs” or “advises” him or her to go home. The employer can end the leave at any time.

“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood and their co-workers’ or customers’ health,” Miller said in a statement.

He asserts that at least 50 million workers lack paid sick leave.

The bill applies to companies with 15 or more employees but exempts those that already offer at least five days of sick leave.

DeLauro’s bill, the Healthy Families Act, would allow workers to accrue up to seven days of paid sick leave a year and gives them time off to care for sick family members.

It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before the wingnuts tried to maliciously and deceitfully connect the Fort Hood shooter to the Obama White House. We just didn't expect it would take less than 24 hours.

And of course the perpetrator is the reliably wrong conspiracy-meister Jerome Corsi, writing at WorldNetDaily:

NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.

Media Matters has the facts:

However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

Why, we can hardly wait for the next Glenn Beck episode.

The fact that it is crap, of course, guarantees that Glenn Beck et al will run with it. We can now look forward to a “the Fort Hood killer advised the Obama transition team” meme -– shortened to calling him “an Obama adviser”.

This is, naturally, just par for the course for Corsi:

Continue reading »

There are, perhaps, only a few jobs for which you truly cannot prepare, but just leap in and do.

One of those jobs has to be President of the United States. No matter how much you think you've learned--be it in the Senate like Barack Obama, or as the governor of a state, like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, or even as Vice President, like George HW Bush and Lyndon Johnson--the American presidency is a whole other animal. Often insulated and isolated from those who put you in office, the American president must juggle political, economic, foreign, security and partisan interests to lead the Executive Branch--and the free world--to the best of their abilities.

Obviously, some presidencies are more successful than others.

As journalists assigned to cover the White House, Craig Crawford of CQ Politics and Helen Thomas of the Hearst News Syndicate, together share decades of observing from the White House Press Room. They have watched and noted each success and each blunder. Helen Thomas has covered more presidents than any other present journalist, starting with JFK in 1960, but her career really began in 1945 during Roosevelt's administration. Craig Crawford, who actually interned as a college student in Jimmy Carter's press office, began covering presidential campaigns in 1988 with Ronald Reagan. So there's no shortage of presidential triumphs and stumbles between them, and it is that experience they have collated to create Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do, where they share the attributes of successful presidencies by looking at the choices made by predecessors: from Clinton's prickly and sometimes overly hostile handling of the press to JFK's deft deflectons with humor, from Johnson's brave stance on civil rights, knowing the political costs to him and his party to Reagan's Cold War fight, which alienated him with his conservative base when he began negotiating nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev.

Every presidency is marked with mistakes as the president navigates this unbelievably difficult and occasionally thankless job, but Helen and Craig have listed some basic principles which, if followed, should make any future president successful, such as finding trustworthy advisers, remembering they are not above the law, be honest, have the courage to do the hard thing and keep a clear vision.

I'm happy to have Craig Crawford here with us today to discuss his book, Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do. Please join us to chat on what makes for a successful American presidency.

It's so predictable, isn't it? Every time there's legislation to help ordinary working people, the Republicans hold it for ransom until they get... tax breaks! Is there any illness for which they don't see tax breaks as the cure?

A $20 billion-plus package of homebuyer and business tax breaks was advanced in the Senate Monday, together with a precedent-setting expansion of unemployment benefits to help carry the jobless through the holiday season.

Ending weeks of delay, all but two Republicans joined Democrats on an 85-2 roll call to cut off debate. Procedural obstacles remain, but passage this week appears all but certain. The House is expected to take up the measure next and send it on to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Concessions to real estate and business interests helped deliver the package, a remarkable political amalgam given the pain so associated with the long-term unemployed.

The homebuyer credit, which remains controversial, will apply to houses worth as much as $800,000; and businesses of all sizes stand to benefit from a tax break first afforded this year just to those with gross receipts of $15 million or less.

But the biggest emotional driver for Democrats is the prospect of hundreds of thousands of workers exhausting their benefits before Thanksgiving and Christmas without some extension.

The bill seeks to fill this gap by adding up to 20 more weeks in aid — establishing a modern record of 99 weeks when state and federal benefits are counted together. With new unemployment numbers due out Friday, the measure testifies to the enduring joblessness problem even as the economy shows signs of new strength and recovery.

Linda R. Monk, J.D.: Let Us Now Praise Uppity Women (h/t Where’s the Outrage?)

The Plum Line: Harry Reid calls GOP's transparency bluff: Is your health care bill a secret, or merely non-existent?

AMERICAblog News: Top McCain campaign advisor running out of insurance. He has a "pre-existing condition."

Apoliticus: Top 5 annoying talents of President Obama

Bill in Exile (not work safe) : New York Twenty Three

Family and Friends blog: Our Achilles Heel

Just like we here outside the Beltway Bubble, sometimes you've just had enough and there's no more need for diplomacy:

President Barack Obama is “getting bad advice from… clowns” on Afghanistan and “sucking up to the wrong people” on health care, U.S. Rep. John Conyers told a Detroit radio audience this morning, according to show host Rev. Horace Sheffield.

Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, made the comments during a discussion about the effects of the economic recession on the urban poor, Sheffield said. The liberal congressman expressed frustration that health care legislation pending in Washington, D.C., was too solicitous of insurance companies and special interests, Sheffield said.

“He wasn’t angry. He was just deeply concerned that some of the issues being focused on don’t address the human reality,” said Sheffield, who hosts the program “On The Line” on WGPR-FM radio.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1437)

PLAYS: (1563)

Holy FSM. Is George Stephanopoulos auditioning for a spot on the Fox News Channel line up? It's the only thing I can account for this ridiculous and intelligence-insulting framing:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later, the president's economic plan has passed, but with no Republican votes in the House, only three in the Senate. It sure looks like right now no Republican support, the health care bills, as they are going forward in the Congress.

And our polling shows that this partisan divide persists on issue after issue after issue. Why has that core promise of the president's campaign, healing the divide, gone unfulfilled?

JARRETT: Well, you should ask that question to the Republican Party. I mean, frankly, just listening to the president's words again, it brought back terrific memories, and I think his message was a profound one. And he has stayed true to that message. He has reached out. He has listened. He has reached across the aisle.

Just recently meeting with both the Democrats -- the Republicans and the Democrats in both the House and in the Senate. His effort has been sustained throughout the year. And the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president bears no responsibility for the failure to get Republican votes?

JARRETT: Well, I think -- I think what we look to the president to do is to lead by example. He has reached out. He has listened. He has included very helpful advice from the Republicans when it has been forthcoming. But the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not their ideas in the legislation..

JARRETT: Well, actually, that's not true. There have been examples of where he has included their ideas. And ultimately whether they vote for a piece of legislation or not, doesn't mean that it hasn't been an open and fruitful process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president doesn't feel he needs to change the way he does business at all, to reach out more to Republicans, to get more Republicans buy-in?

JARRETT: Oh, George, listen. He is constantly reaching out to Republicans. Both he and his team. And he will continue to do that. But ultimately it's up to the Republicans to decide if they want to be a constructive force and come to the table and work with us in a positive way.

We want to hear good ideas. The president is known for listening most closely to those with whom he disagrees. So the door is always open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean, for example, that Speaker Pelosi should give the Republicans a vote on an alternative in health care?

JARRETT: I'm not going to in any way comment on what the speaker should do. She is an extraordinary leader and she is going to continue to do that. And she is going to reach out in a way that she deems appropriate. But your question is what is the president's leadership about it, and hearkening back to the message from last year, and I think he has been consistent not just here, domestically, but also around the world in the way he has reached out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, to follow through, shouldn't he ask the speaker then to give Republicans a vote?

JARRETT: To give them a vote and give them a voice. It gives them an opportunity to contribute constructively. That doesn't mean that you actually have to change what you think is in the best interests of the American people simply to get a Republican vote. What you do is you reach out, you listen, you collaborate, but ultimately, the president is accountable to the Republican people -- to the American people, sorry.

Head. Bangs. Desk. Normally, I criticize these bobbleheads for not asking follow up questions, but Jeebus, FIVE questions in a row framing the lack of bipartisanship on Obama from Stephanopoulos???? WTF is that?

George, is there something they give you in the Kool-aid you've so obviously been chugging that wipes out your memory? Most Democrats are frustrated by Obama's constant calls for bi-partisanship.

Because as Obama keeps extending his hand to the Republicans, let's look at what the Republicans give back:

Obama gave the WATB Republicans the tax breaks they insisted upon in the stimulus package (even though economists said they would hurt-not help-the stimulus). How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? Bupkis.

Obama has also had to deal with Republicans giving us Tea Parties, Obama = Nazi, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Socialist, Racist and/or a Totalitarian.

He has been accused of declaring War on the Rich, the Health Care industry, Banking industry, Mortgage industry, and the Auto Manufacturing industry.

He has been accused of being a liar, of having a Kenyan Birth Certificate, of wanting death panels and internment camps.

The Republicans have also put holds on the Surgeon General nominee in the face of the H1N1 pandemic, as well as blocking 19 of 22 appointees to the courts, as well as complaining about Obama not being a sufficient enough cheerleader for American exceptionalism abroad, not moving fast enough on Afghanistan, too fast on health care reform, and most pathetically, the number of pages in the health care reform bill.

So tell me again, George, who exactly is being divisive? Who exactly is smacking down the hand of bipartisanship? Who exactly is responsible for the culture of divisiveness in DC?

I've been sickened by ABC's bizarre attempts at equivalencies before, but this is ridiculous. Stephanopoulos owes Valerie Jarrett and the American people an apology for this series of questions.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1040)

PLAYS: (1681)

The nation's most "fair and balanced" network gave up over 20 minutes of its premiere Sunday "news" show to nation's loudest conservative voice. With little resistance, Fox News' Chris Wallace allowed Rush Limbaugh to continually attack President Barack Obama. Limbaugh called Obama "the man-child president," accused him of visiting the families of fallen troops for a photo op and said the president doesn't care about the war in Afghanistan.

"You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left wing base on board for health care reform," suggested Wallace.

"Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it," replied Limbaugh. "See, this is -- I know this is going to sound controversial, but i don't think he cares."

Limbaugh went on to call health care reform an "attack on liberty" and an "attack on freedom."

"We've never seen this kind of radical leader at such a high level of power in this county," said Limbaugh.

Dean Baker makes an astute observation:

Okay, I'm not on vacation, but this is a BTP flashback. My original write-up of this NYT news article was way too positive. This article was essentially a diatribe against Germany's welfare state. To make its case, it turned an incredible success story -- Germany's relatively low unemployment rate -- into a failure.

The basic deal is that Germany adopted an explicit policy of encouraging employers to shorten work hours rather than lay off workers. The government allows unemployment benefits to be used to pay workers to cover most of the loss in wages due to the shorter workweek.

As a result, Germany's unemployment rate has barely changed in the downturn. Its unemployment rate at present is 7.7 percent. This is down from 7.8 percent earlier in the year. Germany's unemployment rate in 2007 was 8.4 percent, 0.7 percentage points higher than the current level.

This is an incredible success story. Imagine Barack Obama's approval rating if the unemployment rate today was anywhere close to its 4.7 percent average for 2007. Think of the millions of unemployed workers who would not be struggling to pay their rent or mortgages or meet other bills if only our leaders were as smart as Germany's leaders. We could do something along the same lines in the U.S.

But NYT readers will be spared such thoughts because the article described the policy as a complete failure. To make its case, the NYT even used the German government's measurement of unemployment (which counts part-time workers as being unemployed) rather than the harmonized OECD measure that is directly comparable to the unemployment data in the United States.

This was not news reporting.

Dean is one of the best economists we have.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1358)

PLAYS: (2380)

Glenn Beck was trying real hard yesterday to convince people that his running theory -- that Barack Obama is secretly a Marxist who intends to radically transform America into a communist state -- just might be right.

He compared his theory to the early stages of the Monica-baiting of Clinton in 1998, when everyone was in denial -- because, you see, he thinks eventually he'll be proven right. OK, whatever.

Then he blurted this out:

Beck: I mean, at this point, you have to try to not pay attention. I mean, you have to be working to miss the pattern here. There's so much anti-free-market rhetoric from Obama and his top officials, you'd either have to either be living in a cave in Afghanistan next to Obama, and you can't hear anything that Ob -- uh, Osama is saying because of the goats going, ah-ah-ah, or you're so deeply in love with Obama that you can't detect a single flaw in him.

This is what we'll call a Beckean Slip: An apparent slip of the tongue that is most likely intentional, and at the bare minimum clearly exposes the desire to confuse the public.

It isn't the first time Beck has slipped and mixed up Osama bin Laden's name with President Obama's. And it certainly won't be the last.

However, it does tend to undermine Beck's subsequent claim to having this high-level, all-seeing mind that is "right" about a whole host of things (that he's actually been wrong about). Indeed, it reveals a confused mind incapable of clearly distinguishing between the president of the United States and a cave-dwelling terrorist.

Beck also adds that "I could be wrong" but "I haven't been before"? Um, yeah, except for the dozens of times he actually has been wrong. (Remember when he was predicting that Americans would eventually go for McCain at the polls? That prediction turned out well, didn't it?)

Clearly, his fans are hoping that he'll be proven right, because then they'll be justified in subsequently mounting a violent assault on the White House or something. But with a mind like Beck's concocting the theories, you might have better luck putting a bagful of cats in a roomful of word processors and hoping that Shakespeare's collected sonnets somehow emerge.

All of which raises a question that Glenn Beck should ask himself: What if you're wrong?

Because then, all you have done is smear a boatload of innocent and decent people, dragged their names through the mud, and ruined their careers.

But hey, that doesn't matter, because Glenn Beck is all about values, right? Like the value of his new mansion in Connecticut ... those are the values that matter to Glenn Beck.

Basic decency? Not so much.

If you have gone to whitehouse.gov since Saturday you may not have noticed any real changes. On the outside this is true, but underneath the hood they just replaced the entire engine and drive train.

When President Obama took over at 1600 Pennsylvania one of the first things he did was order the people who manage the White House website to investigate new software. The outcome was a move from expensive and clunky proprietary software to a very familiar open source system – Drupal.

Now I don’t expect all our readers to know what Drupal is, but actually it should be very familiar. Drupal is the same software that powers Crooks and Liars. The software is extremely robust and can be extended beyond you imagination through contributed modules. In the coming months you will see more examples of this as we start rolling out our latest updated that includes countless new features to better engage you – the C&L community.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1891)

PLAYS: (2256)

Well, I guess when Dick Cheney referred to Obama "dithering", he actually meant spending any time thinking about the situation at all, given how little time they spent preparing a report for the incoming administration. CAP's John Podesta points out the problem on This Week:

(Former Bush officials and Republicans) have been citing an Afghanistan strategy report they handed off to the Obama administration that clearly laid out recommendations for moving forward (to criticize Obama's decision process). From Cheney’s recent remarks to the Center for Security Policy:

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt.

Today on ABC’s This Week, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta revealed that the Bush administration spent just one hour on that report:

PODESTA: [T]hey did present him with a report at the very end of the Bush administration, but I have it from reliable sources that the principals in the Bush administration spent one hour on that report before they handed it off to Obama.

Oh...I see...we're operating on the "shoot first, ask questions later" methodology of foreign policy. Yeah, that's worked so well for us so far.

Recently, Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE) — a former top aide to Biden and co-chair of the Vice President’s transition team — said that the Bush administration basically just “threw” the report “to the transition team as they were going out the door”:

KAUFMAN: So for him [Cheney] to come in at the end and say, “Well, we did it wrong for eight years. But then, in the end, we gave them a plan which really is what they should have used.” Let me tell you something: This administration came in. Rahm Emanuel was there. I was on the transition team on this. They started from scratch on Afghanistan. They took a blank piece of paper out and said, “What are we going to do to get this thing done?” … It was absolutely the perfect time to take a hard look at what we’re doing.

If nothing else demonstrates why the world community was happy enough with the new direction in foreign policy brought by the Obama administration that they would award him the Nobel Peace Prize, this certainly does. Imagine--taking a measured, educated and thoughtful approach as to how to deal with the mess that is Afghanistan. What a radical notion after the last eight years.

Steve Hynd at Newshoggers has a piece up on Afghanistan that focuses on why the Bush's gut reaction, no brains technique in Afghanistan has made it impossible to ever "win":

Daniel "Pentagon Papers" Ellsberg talks to Real News Network about Afghanistan. He says that he wrote McChrystal's assessment thirty years ago, only with the names changed; that counter-insurgency cannot succeed for a foreign occupier and that there can be no success that will survive after U.S. troops leave Afghanistan.

Ellsberg should be followed by reading Paul McGeogh's blistering critique of McChrystal and Obama's Afghan plan, which I noted yesterday and Andrew Sullivan picked up on today.

Ah, the audacity of playing it safe! Obama clearly doesn't understand how positively this will affect people's lives, or he wouldn't be so lukewarm. The public option is polling well everywhere - including those conservative districts.

In fact, just about the only group not strongly supportive are the big contributors:

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

"The leadership understands that pushing for a public option is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

"Everybody knows we're close enough that these guys could be rolled. They just don't want to do it because it makes the politics harder," said a senior Democratic source, saying that Obama is worried about the political fate of Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats if the bill isn't seen as bipartisan. "These last couple folks, they could get them if Obama leaned on them."

But with fundamental reform of the health care system in plain sight for the first time in half a century, the president appears to be siding with those who see the Senate and its entrenched culture as too resistant to change. Administration officials say that Obama's preference for the trigger, which is backed by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, is founded in a fear that Reid's public option couldn't get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. More specifically, aides fear that a handful of conservative Democrats will not support a bill unless it has at least one Republican member's support.

Getting the public option in the Senate bill makes it that much more likely that we'll be able to get it through conference, and not through the reconciliation process.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1539)

PLAYS: (3271)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone too far with his latest attack against President Barack Obama, according to Sen. Carl Levin. "The comments of the former vice president were totally out of bounds. I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people," Levin told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan during a speech in D.C. Wednesday. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected that criticism Thursday.

"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1244)

PLAYS: (1906)

President Barack Obama accused Fox News as operating in a talk radio format. Fox News only strengthened that argument Sunday as they allowed only White House detractors to comment on the situation. Chris Wallace went so far as to suggest the White House was using mob tactics in it's "war against Fox News." Of course, Fox couldn't find any White House defenders to appear on the Sunday talk show.

It's "what some people are calling the administration's Chicago way of doing business," said Wallace referring to a scene from the classic mobster movie "The Untouchables." Wallace's comparison follows other commentary by the right wing echo chamber. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel was one of the first:

A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

Glenn Beck followed the script with a rant about the White House "beatdown" of its enemies the following day.

That's the Chicago way and now we have it in Washington with Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.

What was it that Obama promised on the campaign trail? Oh yeah, a "new kind of politics." America didn't think the "new" politics would be even worse than the "old" politics.

Agree with the administration? Fantastic. Dare to stand in the way of "reform"? Uh-oh.

No longer is it a gentlemen's disagreement that can be debated. No, you are going to play ball or get a beatdown.

Media Matters put together some examples of how Fox opinion bleeds into Fox "News."