Time for a little stroll down memory lane. This is what I wrote about Penny Pritzer, Obama's just-announced appointee as Commerce Secretary, back in February:

Penny Pritzker, union buster.

Penny Pritzker, sub-prime lender who drove Superior Bank into the ground.

Penny Pritzker, Chicago Board of Ed members who thinks your children only deserve enough education to make them a member of the workforce.

Penny Pritzker, billionaire tax dodger.

Penny Pritzker, potential Secretary of Commerce nominee? Is this a joke?

No, it was not. Okay, just kidding. Yes, it was. The joke's on us. Ha, ha!

(MoneyWatch) The position of U.S. Commerce Secretary has often been a political plum for top fundraisers, so it was no surprise that President Obama continued that tradition today when he named Penny Pritzker, the Chicago billionaire heiress to the Hyatt fortune.

Said to be worth nearly $2 billion, Pritzker put together nearly $800 million for Obama's presidential campaigns.

Pritzker's appointment shows that the administration is abandoning even a fig leaf of a relationship with labor unions -- Hyatt has had many run-ins with its work force, and Pritzker herself was deeply unpopular with the Chicago Teachers Union during her tenure on the Chicago Board of Education.

The appointment also suggests the administration is betting that people don't care much anymore about the subprime meltdown that succeeded in bringing the world to the brink of financial ruin. Her role in the banking business may startle those not familiar with the history of the subprime meltdown.

The Pritzker family, along with a partner, bought the failed Lyons Savings Bank in 1988 for $42.5 million, getting $645 million in tax credits in the process and rechristening it Superior Bank. Under Pritzker, who served on the board, Superior bought Alliance Funding, which moved aggressively into subprime lending.

Bert Ely, an independent banking analyst who testified about the failure of Superior, noted the garish pitch the bank was making at the time. "I remember the basic message to mortgage brokers: 'Send us the applications that no one else will accept.' "

As one of the earliest pioneers of risky loans that were then bundled off and sold as securities, Superior was also one of the practice's earliest casualties: The bank collapsed in 2001. "The kinds of lending they were doing were outrageous," Ely said. "But what was also outrageous was that when Superior failed -- there were a lot of uninsured depositors who took losses. It was more outrageous given the wealth of the family, which may have walked away without any losses."

Tim Anderson, a retired banking consultant who has written and testified about the failure of Superior, said Penny Pritzker played a direct role in persuading people to park their money in a bank that was taking wild-eyed risks. He points to a letter she wrote in May 2001 to bank employees and managers, assuring them that the bank was being recapitalized. But while that pledge of support may have convinced people that the bank was sound, the recapitalization never occurred. In fact, the bank failed two months later.

The letter was also indicative of the approach the bank was taking, and of Pritzker's hands-on role in strategy. "Our commitment to subprime has never been stronger," she wrote.

Anderson said that when Pritzker goes before the Senate to defend her nomination, these questions should be front and center. "What has not been focused on until now is what was Penny's role in the subprime mortgage meltdown," he said. "It was the Pritzkers who got investment-grade ratings on subprime debt. It was the Pritzkers who were into subprime lending long before Wells Fargo, Countrywide and Washington Mutual. They were in the forefront of the subprime fiasco, but they have never been held accountable.

"The Senate needs to ask her what was her role in the subprime mess. Not her family's, but hers."

Meanwhile, in the world of labor unions, Pritzker's enemies are legion.

"Penny Pritzker has a long and storied history as being an anti-labor, anti-worker kind of boss," Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis said in March when Pritzker resigned her seat on the Chicago school board. "She has supported policies that have had an adverse impact on working-class families and their children. As a member of the board of education, she has worked to close schools, destabilize neighborhoods and disrupt the economic lives of thousands of public school employees."

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/obama-nominates-sleazy-subprime-banke

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

09:22

Click here to view this media

I told you before that the only difference between PA Gov. Tom Corbett and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is that Corbett made sure to avoid saying things in front of TV cameras that might turn up on YouTube. Well, there you go.

The ALEC-subordinate gov was being interviewed on PAMatters.com when the topic of the state's poor job statistics came up --- and there it was, finally: A classic Corbett moment.

First, he complains the statistics are "misleading." He said we were in better shape than other states when the recession hit, so those other states are growing faster now because they were in worse shape. (Although we went from 7th to 49th in job growth since he became governor. Oh, and he previously blamed unemployment on... unemployment benefits, the favored bugaboo of all good Republicans who kiss the Koch rings.)

"The other area is, there are many employers that say, 'We're looking for people but we can't find anybody that has passed a drug test,' a lot of them. And that's a concern for me because we're having a serious problem with that."

enlarge

It's the triple axle of Republican spin, the old "many people have told me" trick of trying to pass off anecdotes as data! He and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley must be working out of the same ALEC playbook.

Yesterday afternoon, Corbett's office referred the Huffington Post to Dave N. Taylor, director of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association:

Taylor said drug use is part of an overall workforce readiness problem that includes things like basic communication skills and punctuality.

"Our manufacturing employers have to go through hundreds of applicants just to get a handful who are qualified," Taylor said, noting that employers need clean workers in order to obtain insurance. "I don't believe that many people understand that by being recreational drug users they're rendering themselves unemployable."

One problem figuring out exactly how many job applicants disqualify themselves with drugs, Taylor said, is that some people drop out of the application process as soon as they know there's a drug test.

enlarge

I don't do drugs, but I've killed applications for that very reason because I resent how they've spread to every job sector out there. I'll bet I'm not the only person who feels that way, either. But the people I know who do use drugs have all figured out how to beat the tests, and they're all gainfully employed. Go figure!

And they're lumping all these factors in together. I'm sure drug use is a factor in some jobs, but it would be nice if instead of telling people they're not educated enough (or too stoned) to get jobs, Gov. Corbett concerned himself with addressing the underlying issues, like this:

Philadelphia has the highest rate of deep poverty - people with incomes below half of the poverty line - of any of the nation's 10 most populous cities.

The annual salary for a single person at half the poverty line is around $5,700; for a family of four, it's around $11,700.

Philadelphia's deep-poverty rate is 12.9 percent, or around 200,000 people.

Phoenix, Chicago, and Dallas are the nearest to Philadelphia, with deep-poverty rates of more than 10 percent.

The numbers come from an examination of the 2009 through 2011 three-year estimate of the U.S. Census American Community Survey by The Inquirer and Temple University sociologist David Elesh.

[...] The Philadelphia deep-poverty figure wasn't a complete surprise for antipoverty advocates, since the city already has the highest poverty rate - 28.4 percent - of any of America's biggest cities.

Still, it's significant, because while many people who live just below the poverty line often move out of poverty, those in deep poverty are in such a profoundly disadvantaged state that they're more likely to stay mired in it, according to Judith Levine, a Temple sociologist. "Poverty becomes a long-term experience, and it's very different, especially for children," she said.

Children in deep poverty do worse in school than less poor kids, said Arloc Sherman, researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"The consequences may last decades," he said.

Yet the Republican-controlled state legislature, under Corbett, continues their push to starve the Philadelphia public schools of adequate funding, all the while showering cash on fly-by-night for-profit charter schools. (And Wall Street.) If Gov. Corbett actually gave a rat's ass about getting adequately trained employees for manufacturing jobs, he might start with the largest city's abysmal literacy rate. Because if you can't read any higher than a third-grade level, odds are you're not going to community college to train for a decent job.

But Corbett is just another soulless Republican scumbag -- and that's an insult to prophylactics, which at least serve a useful function. State Senate Majority Leader Dom Pillegi, another scumbag who got his start as a bagman in the famously corrupt Delaware County, is pushing hard to change the state's electoral system to ensure a Republican presidential win -- and it also might save Corbett's bacon. (This is why I despise the Republican party. When they can't win on the merits, they lie, cheat, steal or change the rules to win. They don't like actual democracy, because it's the only thing standing between them and total control.)

Tom Corbett is a pimple on the ass of humanity, and I will dance all night on his political grave when Pennsylvanians finally kick his lying, greedy ass to the curb. From these lips to God's ears!

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-earth-pennsylvania-gov-tom-corbe

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

09:22

Gov. Bob in happier times!

This seems like such small beans compared to the crimes of the bankers who crashed the world's economy and bled it dry. On the other hand, it is wingnut Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, one of the "new faces" of the Republican party, so we can enjoy watching this particular sideshow:

FBI agents are conducting interviews about the relationship between Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, his wife, Maureen, and a major campaign donor who paid for the food at the wedding of the governor’s daughter, according to four people familiar with the questioning.

The agents have been asking associates of the McDonnells about gifts provided to the family by Star Scientific chief executive Jonnie R. Williams Sr. and actions the Republican governor and his wife have taken that may have boosted the company, the people said.

Among the topics being explored, they said, is the $15,000 catering bill that Williams paid for the 2011 wedding of McDonnell’s daughter at Virginia’s historic Executive Mansion. But questions have extended to other, previously undisclosed gifts from Williams to Maureen McDonnell as well, they said.

The interviews, at which Virginia State Police investigators were present, began in recent months as an outgrowth of a federal investigation into securities transactions involving Star Scientific, which produces a dietary supplement called Anatabloc. The company disclosed that probe in a regulatory filing last month, saying it had received subpoenas from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Now, federal officials are trying to determine whether to expand that investigation into a broader look at whether McDonnell or his administration took any action to benefit Star Scientific in exchange for monetary or other benefits, according to the four people familiar with the interviews. It is unclear whether the probe will be broadened.

U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride declined to comment, as did spokespeople for the FBI’s Richmond division and the state police.

Tucker Martin, a spokesman for McDonnell, a possible 2016 presidential contender, said, “It is the policy of the governor’s office to not comment on any possible investigations.”

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/feds-investigating-relationship-betwe

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

09:22

enlarge

Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev (left) posed for a photo after graduating from Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School.

Friends say they were shocked that the suspected bomber was the student they knew:

The UMass Dartmouth campus closed abruptly today after school officials realized the man being sought as the Boston Marathon bomber is a student at the Southeastern Massachusetts school.

On its webpage, the school posted a stark message: “UMass Dartmouth has learned that a person being sought in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing has been identified as a student registered at UMass Dartmouth. The campus is closed. Individuals on campus should shelter in place unless instructed otherwise.”

In a telephone interview, Pamala Rolon, a UMass Dartmouth senior at and a resident assistant at the Pine Dale dorms, said she knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the past year and finds it incredulous that he played any role in the bombs at the Boston marathon.

“He studied. We hung out with me and my friends,” she said Friday morning. “I’m in shock.”

Rolon, 22, said the 300 or so students at the dorm were evacuated this morning by school authorities.

Rolon said when she returned from class Thursday afternoon, she and her friends watched the television news broadcast showing the images of the suspects, including one that she did think looked faintly like the sophomore student she knew on campus.

“We made a joke like – that could be Dzhokhar,” she said. “But then we thought it just couldn’t be him. Dzhokhar? Never.”

Rolon said the 19-year-old studied marine biology, and was quite studious. She did say that he was not seen on campus over the past two weeks, although she didn’t think much about it because everyone was busy with tests and studying.

Rolon said he finds it impossible to believe he was involved in any zealous religious or political cause, or would turn to violence.

“I think he’s Muslim, but not so religious,” she said. “He’s a normal city kid.”

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bombing-suspect-was-student-umass-dar

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:37

So I guess this is the part where people explain to me that the Republicans are only pretending to support cutting Social Security, and it's all eleventy dimensional chess and nothing to worry about. But see, I just don't believe that, and I think the Obama administration will use his budget as the basis of a September sequester deal. (You know, the same sequester he practically begged them to impose, so he would have cover for cutting our safety net?)

Call your Congress creatures. Congressional switchboard: 800-998-0180

President Obama’s offer to trim Social Security benefits has perplexed and angered Democrats, but GOP leaders are embracing the proposal and rushing to jump-start a debate that will delve even more deeply into the touchy topic of federal spending on the elderly.

This week, two House subcommittees plan to hold hearings on “reforms to protect and preserve” programs for retirees, starting with Obama’s proposal to apply a less generous measure of inflation to annual increases in Social Security benefits.

Also on the table are higher Medicare premiums and reduced benefits for better-off seniors, and a higher Medicare eligibility age.

At the same time, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he has moved to tamp down criticism of Obama’s proposal, which quickly bubbled up from GOP lawmakers in swing districts, such as Rep. Chris Collins (N.Y.), who accused the president of cutting spending “on the backs of our seniors.” And Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the chairman of the House Republican campaign arm, called Obama’s plan “a shocking attack on seniors.”

The developments signal an important shift in the budget battle as party leaders nervously prepare again to raise the federal debt limit. After more than two years of talking about taxes and “wasteful” government spending, policymakers appear ready to move into the more serious and sensitive realm of entitlement programs.

Republican leaders have made reducing the cost of entitlements their top priority, and for good reason, budget analysts say. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for nearly 40 percent of federal spending and are growing rapidly, as they must provide benefits to all who qualify, regardless of cost.

Once again, the Washington Post conflates the funding of Social Security with that of Medicare, and can't seem to work up enough enthusiasm for the alternate methods of cutting Medicare spending -- like negotiating lower prices from Big Pharma, for instance.

Recipients pay into the programs throughout their working lives, and through premiums. But as the baby-boom generation retires, the programs threaten to swamp the federal budget. But relatively minor changes could make a huge difference. For example, the new inflation measure — known as the chained consumer price index, or chained CPI — would reduce benefits by only about 0.3 percentage points per year. But over the long run, it would save enough to wipe out as much as 20 percent of the program’s 75-year funding gap.

See? It doesn't even occur to this journalist that less painful methods accomplish the same thing -- like raising the income cap.

The elderly are disproportionately likely to vote, however, and although Republicans have offered a plan to overhaul Medicare a decade from now, both parties have shied away from more immediate changes, particularly to Social Security. Chained CPI has come up in private negotiations and recommendations from independent groups, such as the Bowles-Simpson commission. But Obama’s decision to include it in his formal budget request — and House leaders’ decision to hold hearings with the hope of drafting bipartisan legislation — is plowing new ground.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/post-gop-embracing-obamas-offer-cut-s

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:08

Oh dear. This patriot is being oppressed over his fight to protect our nation from U.N. conspiracies by threatening to disclose a state senator's alleged marriage problems! You'd think someone so obviously well-versed in our constitution would also know that extortion is a crime. Just imagine if teabaggers took all that energy and applied it to something useful -- like Medicare for all, or stopping the chained CPI:

A co-founder of the Sooner Tea Party was charged Tuesday with blackmail over an email that he admits sending to a state senator.

Al Gerhart, 54, of Oklahoma City, also was charged with violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act. Both counts are felonies.

Gerhart, a carpenter, denied any wrongdoing after coming under investigation last week. He had not been arrested yet Tuesday evening.

Gerhart sent the email March 26 to Sen. Cliff Branan, promising to make the senator a laughing stock unless the Senate Energy and Environment Committee passed a bill dealing with a United Nations plan. Branan, R-Oklahoma City, is chairman of the committee. The senator turned the email over to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

Misspelling one word, Gerhart wrote: “Branan, Get that bill heard or I will make sure you regret not doing it. I will make you the laughing stock of the Senate if I don't hear that this bill will be heard and passed. We will dig into your past, yoru family, your associates and once we start on you there will be no end to it. This is a promise.”

Gerhart admitted at a news conference at the Capitol last week that he sent the email.

“Political pain and embarrassment will be necessary if the citizens expect to regain control of this Senate down here from the state chamber of commerce and special interests,” he said. “The time for ‘nice' behavior is over with.”

[...] Last week, Gerhart claimed his email was constitutionally protected free speech. He also said the investigation of the email was an attempt to harass him because the Sooner Tea Party tactics are effective.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ok-tea-party-founder-charged-blackmai

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:08

Watch as the perfectly reasonable Sen. Elizabeth Warren backs these government hacks into a corner over protecting crooked banks from consequences of their illegal actions. How naive -- she actually believes regulators are supposed to work for the people!

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) embarrassed government regulators during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday morning as she demanded to know why they won’t reveal how frequently big banks illegally foreclosed on homeowners. In January, regulators abandoned a case-by-case review of foreclosure fraud conducted by some of the nation’s largest banks in favor of a $9.3 billion settlement. Under the deal, most of the 4.4 million homeowners who were foreclosed on in 2009 or 2010 received less than $1,000 each.

Fair housing advocates and Democratic lawmakers panned the agreement, claiming that it short-circuited a more detailed review process (known as Independent Foreclosure Review) and let banks off the hook for illegally foreclosing on millions of homeowners. Regulators had initially claimed banks broke the law or made errors in 6.5 percent of all the loans reviewed, though the number has since been revised upward.

During the hearing, Warren pressed officials from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve for answers about how frequently banks broke the law, only to discover that regulators didn’t know the exact number before reaching their settlement and were now unwilling to publicize the error rate.

“You’re saying that the [you] did not have an estimate in mind of how many banks had broken the law and how many home owners were the victims of illegal activities?” Warren asked in disbelief. She pressed for public disclosure, but was told that the information about banks’ illegal activities is proprietary and may not ever be released:

WARREN: So you have made a decision to protect the banks but not a decision tell the families who have been illegally foreclosed against?

RICHARD ASHTON (FEDERAL RESERVE): We haven’t made a decision about what information we would provide to individuals. [...]

WARREN: So I just want to make sure I get this straight. Families get pennies on the dollar in the settlement for having been the victims of illegal activities or mistakes in the banks’ activities. You now know individual cases where the banks violated the law and you’re not going to tell the homeowners or at least it’s not clear if you’re going to do that?

Gee, it all sounds so sleazy when she says it like that! Huffington Post reports that Sen. Sherrod Brown also kicked some ass in these hearings, so let's give him props, too.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/warren-feds-you-dont-know-how-many-ba

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:22

enlarge

In real life, nuns are a lot more liberal than the rest of the church. But it's a funny picture!

Personally, I think this would be an excellent time to reconsider the tax-exempt status of those schools, but that's just me. There's just something about a landlord forbidding the teaching of a subject on religious grounds that doesn't sit well with me:

In New York City, the public school students who attend classes in a building owned by the Catholic Church can’t actually attend allof their classes there. As the New York Daily News reports, students need to leave campus in order to receive state-mandated instruction on sexual health, as part of a long-standing agreement between Church officials and the city’s public school district that has recently come to light.

New York state law requires sex ed classes to include information about condoms, birth control, and HIV and STD transmission, and those standards were strengthened specifically for New York City’s public school district under a new citywide standard enacted in 2011. So far, that initiative has been wildly successful, and New York City’s teen pregnancy rate hasplummeted by more than 25 percent over the past decade.

But Church officials say that type of comprehensive sex ed instruction violates Catholic doctrine. In Catholic-affiliated schools, students are taught abstinence-only education with no mention of contraceptive methods — and at least in New York City, the Church’s influence can even impact public schools’ ability to teach sex ed.The Catholic Church is the biggest landowner in New York City, and leases about 40 buildings to the city’s Department of Education. That financial arrangement is attractive to the Church at a time when enrollment in private Catholic schools is declining, and Church officials see no reason to change their sex ed policy. “It is an arrangement that has been working well for both sides for years, and one we intend to continue,” Diocese of Brooklyn spokeswoman Stefanie Gutierrez told the New York Daily News.

Some public school students disagree. Tayshawn Edmonds, a 15-year-old who attends El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice in Williamsburg, has to walk 15 minutes off campus to attend his sex ed classes. “The church owns the building, so they call the shots,” he explained. “But I don’t see why they get to control what we’re doing at our school.”

I'm glad you asked that question, Tayshawn. Because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! You see, the Catholic Church defines "religious freedom" as the ability to impose their religion on everyone else.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nyc-schools-cant-teach-sex-ed-propert

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:08

Digby on the Sophie's Choice presented to Democrats with Obama's Grand Bargain:

Greg Sargent has frequently made the case that liberals are going to have to choose between the sequester cuts and the Grand Bargain and therefore will need to make the affirmative case for why they are choosing the sequester. (I never get the sense that if they "choose" the Grand Bargain that anyone other than a bunch of loser liberals will demand an explanation.)

And Greg is probably right that if the Republicans are smart enough to take yes for an answer, the liberals in the House will face the wrath of their Party apparatus and the president (and the liberal establishment) if they end up voting against a Grand Bargain. But it is NOT like the health care vote in which they were faced with the choice of walking away from a plan that greatly expanded healthcare for the working poor or giving up a public plan they wanted. That was a choice between two positive outcomes --- nobody was going to lose something they already had.

This, on the other hand, is a choice between two negatives. Essentially, as before, the White House and the Democratic centrists are holding hostages but this time they're basically telling the progressives that a hostage is going to get shot no matter what: Head Start and food inspections today or the elderly, the sick and the veterans tomorrow and they have to choose which one. Why should progressives bear that responsibility? They didn't get us into this mess.

I say they should just say no. Republicans do it all the time and everybody just throws up their hands and says, "well, I guess we'd better figure out something else." They should hold fast and say "the sequester sucks and so does the Grand Bargain and we don't support either one." Most of the progressives didn't vote for the sequester in the first place and bear no responsibility for it. (And even those who did have no obligation to defend the monster that everyone assured them had no chance of ever becoming law.) This is a failure of the leadership of both parties and progressives are not required to betray their most fundamental values and defend any of these ridiculous cuts to anyone.

Just say no. The "sequester vs Grand Bargain" is a phony construct made by man, not God, and there's no reason on earth why any progressive should be forced to own either one. Find another way.

She also points out the compelling case to be made for expanding Social Security, not cutting it.

Now, here's my position: The Grand Bargain (and let's look at the historical definition, in which both sides take highly unpopular decisions in order that voters, in a kind of stalemate, have no one to punish at the polls) is a profoundly undemocratic strategy, and Obama's been angling for it since Day One.

I said at the time of the sequester that it was a setup, something to force Democrats to support Obama's Grand Bargain in order to end the sequester cuts. I thought it was obvious.

I don't think there's any question at all as to the voters' intent, what with Joe Biden swearing on dead relatives and adorable puppies that he would throw his body on the train tracks to protect Social Security and Medicare, and Obama repeatedly orating to adoring crowds that a vote for him was a vote to stop Republicans from "slashing" Social Security. (I said at the time it all depended on how you defined the word "slash.") Voters do not want these cuts.

But the Beltway elites, those chummy millionaires who do the bidding of billionaires, simply do not care what the voters think, or even what they need to survive. They decided they could "handle" those pesky voters, both by a campaign of Pete Peterson-funded astroturf groups, and by the careful use of misinformation.

If that doesn't go against the very spirit of democracy, I don't know what does. And everyone who took part in this charade -- from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Rendell, etc. to the so-called progressives who will turn on a dime to sell us out -- well, they should be very, very ashamed.

But since they don't hobnob with the likes of us, they will get hearty pats on the back from other rich people. Huzzah!

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sophies-choice-sequester-or-grand-bar

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:08

Documents in the Aurora shooting investigation were unsealed this week, and they show that James Holmes had been reported as a threat to campus police by the psychiatrist who treated him. However, she did not place him on a 72-hour psychiatric hold, according to the Denver Post.

Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and it's good that doctors don't use commitment lightly, but maybe this shooting could have been prevented:

CENTENNIAL — Thirty-eight days before the attack on the Century Aurora 16 movie theater, the psychiatrist treating suspect James Holmes told a police officer that her patient had confessed homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public, according to newly unsealed court documents in the murder case against Holmes.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, also told the officer that Holmes had stopped seeing her and had been threatening her in text messages and e-mails, the documents state. The officer, Lynn Whitten, responded by deactivating Holmes' key-card access to secure areas of University of Colorado medical campus buildings, according to search warrant affidavits.

But the documents don't reveal what — if anything — campus authorities did to investigate Holmes until 38 days later, when 12 people were dead in the July 20 movie theater shootings, 58 more were injured by gunfire and

Aurora police came to campus to ask questions.

"Dr. Fenton advised (Whitten) that through her contact with James Holmes she was reporting, per her requirement, his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made," one search warrant affidavit states.

[...] For instance, prosecutors have previously revealed that Holmes made threats and had his key-card access cut off. But CU officials have denied that Holmes was banned from campus for making threats, saying instead that his key card was deactivated as part of a normal process when a student withdraws from school — which Holmes was doing at the time of the alleged threats.

Likewise, the affidavits contradict a statement Fenton made when testifying during an earlier hearing in the case. Fenton said she went to police in June with concerns about a patient. But, when asked whether she had ever reported a dangerous patient to police because she was required to by law, Fenton said she hadn't.

A source has told The Denver Post that Holmes told Fenton on June 11 that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people." The affidavits unsealed Thursday say Fenton told Whitten about her concerns on June 12, and Whitten deactivated Holmes' key card on the same day.

But the source told The Post that Fenton declined to order Holmes detained on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. On June 13, Holmes allegedly bought a 100-round magazine for his AR-15-style rifle, adding to a considerable arsenal of weapons and ammunition, according to court records and testimony.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/psychiatrist-reported-aurora-shoote-0

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

08:22

Someone reminded me of that old story about the pre-Russian revolution days. Peasants would lament how bad things were, and at the end would add, "If only the czar knew!" Because they somehow believed the czar had no idea of their conditions, or how they were treated. (Some historians joke that the revolution finally happened once the peasants realized the czar did know.) Oh, if only President Obama knew that Republicans were trying to trick him into cutting Social Security and Medicare!

Well, Obama really is going to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. No, it's not a clever ploy -- unless you count the part where he's counting on you thinking that.

So here it is: The biggest trial balloon of them all. Get your dialing fingers ready. There's a reason they let this story out on Good Friday, they're counting on you not noticing or being too busy to do anything about it. The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414, the comments line is 202-456-1111 (be prepared to hold) or you can email here.

WASHINGTON—The White House is strongly considering including limits on entitlement benefits in its fiscal 2014 budget—a proposal it first offered Republicans in December. The move would be aimed in part at keeping alive bipartisan talks on a major budget deal.

Such a proposal could include steps that make many Democrats queasy, such as reductions in future Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, but also items resisted by Republicans, such as higher taxes through limits on tax breaks, people close to the White House said.

These measures would come as President Barack Obama continues his courtship of the Senate GOP in an effort to thaw tax-and-spending talks. The White House's delayed annual budget is scheduled to be released April 10, the same day Mr. Obama plans to dine with a group of Senate Republicans to discuss the budget and other issues.

President Obama's inclusion of the proposal would be aimed at breathing new life into bipartisan talks on reaching a deficit-reduction deal.

Oh yes, the Bipartisan Wet Dream of a Grand Bargain.

Including entitlement curbs would be notable, as Republicans often have criticized the White House for offering such steps in private negotiations but never fully embracing them as part of an official budget plan.

People close to the White House believe a proposal to slow the growth rate of such benefits would use a variant of the Consumer Price Index to measure inflation. The new inflation indicator would cut overall spending by $130 billion, according to White House projections, and raise $100 billion in tax revenue by slowing the growth of tax brackets. The White House earlier called for an additional $800 billion or so in cuts on top of those resulting from the inflation adjustments.

"We and all of the groups engaged on this are starting to feel it may well be in the budget," said Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president at AARP, an advocacy group for seniors that opposes such changes.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare in exchange for small tax increases on the wealthy is like taking a bag of groceries from poor people in exchange for a cookie from a rich person. No, not even a cookie -- a crumb from a cookie. Good Lord, these people are insane.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/let-white-house-know-you-dont-want-ss

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

07:22

Jesus, it's just too early in the day for this kind of insanity. Yes, you would "share" your car with Walmart's packages and they would give you a small discount to cover the cost of gas, but they wouldn't "share" your insurance costs if you get into an accident on the way, and you certainly wouldn't get paid for your time. In other words, you get to work FOR FREE! Feel the oligarchy!

(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is considering a radical plan to have store customers deliver packages to online buyers, a new twist on speedier delivery services that the company hopes will enable it to better compete with Amazon.com Inc.

Tapping customers to deliver goods would put the world's largest retailer squarely in middle of a new phenomenon sometimes known as "crowd-sourcing," or the "sharing economy."

Wal-Mart is making a big push to ship online orders directly from stores, hoping to cut transportation costs and gain an edge over Amazon and other online retailers, which have no physical store locations. Wal-Mart does this at 25 stores currently, but plans to double that to 50 this year and could expand the program to hundreds of stores in the future.

Wal-Mart currently uses carriers like FedEx Corp for delivery from stores - or, in the case of a same-day delivery service called Walmart To Go that is being tested in five metro areas, its own delivery trucks.

"I see a path to where this is crowd-sourced," Joel Anderson, chief executive of Walmart.com in the United States, said in a recent interview with Reuters.

[...] Wal-Mart has millions of customers visiting its stores each week. Some of these shoppers could tell the retailer where they live and sign up to drop off packages for online customers who live on their route back home, Anderson explained.

Wal-Mart would offer a discount on the customers' shopping bill, effectively covering the cost of their gas in return for the delivery of packages, he added.

Wow. I really didn't think Walmart could stoop any lower, but I see I underestimated them.

This is a company that has already "crowd sourced" their low wages by having the rest of us subsidize their food stamps. They also "crowd sourced" employee health insurance by holding workshops telling employees how to apply for Medicaid.

This, from a company that's owned by the wealthiest family in America.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/walmart-wants-you-deliver-their-packa

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

07:22

How sad and ironic, that this happens the day after several cowardly Democratic senators refused to support an assault weapons bill. I guess none of this will matter until it's one of their relatives lying dead:

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed new gun control legislation into law on Wednesday, just hours after the head of the state's prison system was shot dead. Tom Clements, 58, was the head of the Colorado Department of Corrections. He was shot once, fatally, in his home Tuesday night. The Denver Post has more details on the shooting:

Clements' wife, Lisa, told a 911 dispatcher that the gunman rang the doorbell and then shot her husband in the chest, according to a dispatcher's recording. She told the dispatcher she was not sure if the gunman was in the house.

Police are still searching for the shooter, and have not yet identified any suspects, according to Reuters. The Post notes that police are looking for a "boxy" two-door vehicle seen outside his home at the time of the shooting. Officials say that the shooting doesn't appear to be the result of a home invasion, and that they're not sure whether it was random or if Clements was targeted, possibly because of his job.

Colorado's new gun laws will, starting July 1st, require background checks for online and private gun sales, and ban ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. While some county sheriffs and legislators in the state have vocally opposed the new laws, Hickenlooper's signing of the bills on the eight-month anniversary of the Aurora movie theater shootings was emotionally charged. Here's the Associated Press describing the scene:

Hickenlooper was surrounded by lawmakers who sponsored the bills at the signing ceremony. Before signing the first bill, which requires purchasers to pay fees for background checks, he looked around with a solemn look on his face and then began signing it. Every time he signed a bill, applause erupted from lawmakers and their guests, which included families of the victims of last year's mass shootings in Aurora and Connecticut ... After signing the bills, Hickenlooper hugged various lawmakers and victims.

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-co-gun-law-signed-hours-after-hea

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

07:22

You can see why the elite hate her -- and why we don't:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren unloaded on bank regulators Thursday about the fact that British bank HSBC is still doing business in the U.S., with no criminal charges filed against it, despite confessing to what one regulator called "egregious" money laundering violations.

Her comments came just a day after the attorney general of the United States confessed that some banks are so big and important that they are essentially above the law. His Justice Department's failure to bring any criminal charges against HSBC or its employees is Exhibit A of that problem.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing about money laundering, Warren (D-Mass.) grilled officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC, which recently paid $1.9 billion to settle money laundering charges, wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya over several years.

Defenders of the Justice Department say that a criminal conviction could have been a death penalty for the bank, causing widespread damage to the economy. Warren wanted to know why the death penalty wasn't warranted in this case.

"They did it over and over and over again across a period of years. And they were caught doing it, warned not to do it and kept right on doing it, and evidently making profits doing it," Warren said of HSBC. "How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?"

The regulator she was questioning, David Cohen, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, repeatedly refused to answer the question. Like the other regulators at the hearing, he said that his department has no authority to shut down a bank unless the Justice Department -- not represented at the hearing -- convicts the bank of a crime. He said that Treasury had come down as hard as possible on HSBC. But he wouldn't answer Warren's question about when a bank deserves to be shut down in the U.S.

"You sit in Treasury and you try to enforce these laws, and I've read all of your testimony and you tell me how vigorously you want to enforce these laws, but you have no opinion on when it is that a bank should be shut down for money laundering?" Warren finally asked. "Not even an opinion?"

A frustrated Warren, who has sounded off on the issue of big banks repeatedly in the past week, was less constrained.

"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're gonna go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," Warren said. "But evidently if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your bed at night -- every single individual associated with this. And I think that's fundamentally wrong."

via Crooks and Liars http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-warren-banks-launder-drug-cash

Crooks and Liars johalputt Susie Madrak

06:07