My earlier condemnation of President Obama's endorsement of the abusive treatment of Pfc Bradley Manning is here. In that piece, I stupidly predicted State Dep't spokesman P.J. Crowley would not be dismissed because of his remarks criticizing the treatment of Manning. By now, you all know Crowley was in fact dismissed. This dismissal has triggered a new round of condemnations of President Obama and rightly so. (see Glenn Greenwald's roundup and this NYTimes editorial Frankly, I thought Crowley would not be dismissed because these condemnations would be inevitable. The political geniuses (set aside right and wrong, as pols always do) of the Obama team would know better. They didn't.

What I have not seen is criticism of Crowley's boss, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should have defended Crowley. Instead, she is now complicit in the Obama Administration's disgraceful behavior. Shame on the Secretary of State. This is the most disgraceful moment of her tenure.

Speaking for me only

For once, the accusation that President Obama is like President Bush rings true:

[ABC's Jake] TAPPER: State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the treatment of Bradley Manning by the Pentagon is “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” And I'm wondering if you agree with that. Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect [. . .] to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well.

Perhaps the most disgraceful moment of Obama's Presidency.

Speaking for me only

This headline, Under Obama, Taxes Are Lower Than Ever, made me wonder if President Obama has plans to be more progressive on tax policy after the 2012 election. Defenders of The Deal have argued that President Obama's motivation for agreeing to The Deal was political, which means to me concerns about getting reelected in 2012. Let's concede the point for a moment, and even pretend that that easily predictable dire consequences (slashing of government spending for the next 2 years) are a fair cost for Obama's reelection, the question for me is will Obama, even if he is willing and determined, be able to raise taxes after 2012?

Strictly speaking, if Obama wins, he will have the clear power to raise taxes - by letting the current tax cuts expire. Moreover, Obama will not be facing any more elections after 2012,so he should be able to make a non-political decision. Will he? I'd like to think yes, but I can't say I am convinced. Time will tell.

Speaking for me only

Via Kevin Drum, E.J. Dionne writes:

Washington is acting as if the only real problem the United States confronts is the budget deficit; the only test of leadership is whether the president is willing to make big cuts in programs that protect the elderly; and the largest threat to our prosperity comes from public employees. [. . .] Consider all of the problems taking a back seat to the deficit in Washington and the media.

[. . .] Lori Montgomery reported in The Post last week that a bipartisan group of senators thinks a sensible deficit reduction package would involve lifting the Social Security retirement age to 69 and reforming taxes, purportedly to raise revenue, in a way that would cut the top income tax rate for the wealthy from 35 percent to 29 percent. [. . .] Only a body dominated by millionaires could define "shared sacrifice" as telling nurses' aides and coal miners they have to work until age 69 while sharply cutting tax rates on wealthy people. I see why conservative Republicans like this. I honestly don't get why Democrats - "the party of the people," I've heard - would come near such an idea.

"Where's Obama?" Dionne asks:

What is the Obama Team up to on the budget and other political battles? The attempt, it appears to me, is to triangulate, and be perceived as the Sensible Center, as opposed to "Radical Right" Republicans and "Loony Left" Democrats. Consider this from the New York Times:

The battle in Wisconsin over public employee unions has left President Obama facing a tricky balance between showing solidarity with longtime political supporters and projecting a message in favor of deep spending cuts to reduce the debt. [. . .] Republicans [have] seized the opportunity to depict Mr. Obama as siding against deficit-cutting efforts, [but] some Democrats and union organizers said the political benefit ultimately could be theirs.

"Some Democrats and union leaders" mistake Obama's "political benefits" with their own. Obama's is to win reelection in 2012. Union organizers and, hopefully, "some Democrats," are to represent their constituents. Their interests are not perfectly aligned. Consider Obama's interest in being perceived as being in "favor of deep spending cuts." Since The Deal, Obama has been in favor of losing the argument about the deficit (it's not about tax policy, it's about spending - the Norquist Message, is now the Obama Message) in order to win reelection in 2012. That is not likely in the political interests of "some Democrats and union organizers." More . . .

The NYTimes Caucus blog asks "Why would the left be so accepting of the president’s budget?" Were they?I didn't pay much attention. I was critical, but in a fairly clinical way.

Meanwhile, CNN says "Left is livid over budget safety net cuts." I doubt anyone is livid. The reason is no one really expects that much from this Administration anymore.

Speaking for me only

With catcalls from the people he was overseeing. Via Glenn Greenwald, the Washington Post reports that Tim Geithner and his minions at Treasury are happy to see TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky go. Barofsky must have done a good job then:

In his sometimes scathing reports to Congress, Barofsky showed little reluctance in criticizing administration officials on everything from how their lack of transparency was fueling "anger, cynicism and distrust" to how their foreclosure prevention efforts had fallen well below expectations. [. . .]

Such criticisms did not sit well with Treasury officials [. . .] "We're fine with critics," said one Treasury official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more candidly. "[But] he's been consistently wrong about a lot of big things." [. . .] in certain corners of the Treasury, where news of Barofsky's departure brought a touch of delight Monday. "It was," said one official, "like a nice valentine to us."

Here's my question - do Tim Geithner and his minions, including those at The New Republic, think HAMP was a success?

Speaking for me only

Here's the White House statement outlining funds in the budget for the War on Drugs. Is there more prevention, alternative incarceration and re-entry funding? Yes. And we appreciate it.

But, it's still top-heavy on enforcement. While it says the DEA gets $24.8 million less this year, it points out that last year's amount included supplemental funding for the Southwest Border. So it probably isn't a decrease at all. And those African vacations keep on coming. Today the feds indicted 7 in Liberia and Romania as part of a reverse sting by DEA agents. (DEA agents posed as drug sellers.)

The men allegedly "agreed to receive and store multi-ton shipments of Taliban-owned heroin" and "sell multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine to the Taliban," while the two Americans -- identified as Alwar Pouryan and Oded Orbach -- allegedly agreed to sell the missiles, the statement said.

The U.S. Attorney's press release is here. Once again, it sounds like the drugs weren't intended for the U.S., but needing jurisdiction, the DEA talked the men into sending some here, with the promise of huge profits. Why are we flying these men from Liberia and Romania to New York to prosecute them? The cost of the prosecution, defense and their incarceration if convicted will be huge. [More...]

“The debate in Washington is not whether to cut or to spend,” said a senior administration official on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity to brief reporters on the budget in advance of Mr. Obama’s Monday announcement of the spending plan. “We both agree we should cut. The question is how we cut and what we cut.” - NYTimes

Today Paul Krugman writes that the appropriate slogan for the GOP budget slashing plans is Eating The Future:

“I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes,” [Barack] Obama told supporters at a Colorado rally on September 16, 2008, the same day as the bailout of AIG. [. . .] Obama promised to change that, describing it as exactly “the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense.”

You know about Tim Geithner's disgraceful tenure as head of the New York Fed. You know about Tim Geithner's disgraceful performance on the 2009 stimulus. You know about Geithner on AIG, TARP and HAMP. Now, via Atrios, Pro Publica reports on Geithner's malfeasance on bankruptcy cramdown for primary residences:

Via David Dayen, Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley echoes Grover Norquist:

The White House acknowledges that more cuts are needed beyond the spending freeze President Obama proposed, chief of staff William Daley said Sunday. Daley, in his first Sunday show appearance since taking office, said that the Obama administration understands that, if it wants to balance the budget, more cutbacks will be necessary beyond the five-year freeze in domestic discretionary spending the president laid out in his State of the Union address.

"It will take a tremendous amount more than that," Daley said on "Face the Nation" when asked if more cuts would be needed beyond the freeze. . . .] We all agree there must be cuts to this government. And again, you're going to see this president lay out a very substantial cut already."

(Emphasis supplied.) Apparently everyone agrees with the Norquist Strategy of cutting taxes and slashing government spending. Reaganomics Lives!

Speaking for me only

Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim.

And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.

And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hear! Hear! Speaking for me only