My only question: How did they know it WASN'T Glenn Beck lunging for that burger?

"I liked the way he bit off that guy’s hand, and the way he did his business in the middle of the stage. We need more of that in Washington."

-- Jefferson City (MO) Tea Party supporter Gwendolene
Thomason, as quoted by The Borowitz Report (see below)

by Ken

This just in (OK, well, early this morning -- in the grand scheme of the cosmos, that's barely a trice ago):

Rabid Dog Briefly Mistaken for Tea Party Candidate
Receives Standing Ovation at Missouri Rally

JEFFERSON CITY, MO (The Borowitz Report) – A rabid Doberman Pinscher jumped on stage at a Tea Party rally in Missouri on Labor Day and barked at the crowd for nearly twenty minutes before people realized he was not a candidate.

The dog, later identified by its owner as “Mister Buster,” held the crowd spellbound as he barked, growled, and frothed at the mouth, eventually receiving a standing ovation for his exertions.

Gwendolene Thomason, 42, a Tea Party supporter from Jefferson City, was one of the hundreds on hand who were convinced that the Doberman was a Tea Party candidate until he was outed as a dog.

“I liked what he had to say,” she said. ”He reminded me of Glenn Beck, only furrier.”

The Doberman’s canine identity finally became clear when he lunged at a man in the front row and wrested a hamburger from his right hand, taking two of the man’s fingers with it.

While the discovery that Mister Buster was not a Tea Party candidate disappointed many in attendance, Ms. Thomason held out hope that, dog or no, he might consider running for office at some point.

“I liked the way he bit off that guy’s hand, and the way he did his business in the middle of the stage,” she said. ”We need more of that in Washington.”

This might usefully be read against the backdrop of the new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Here are some of the juiciest gleanings of WaPo's Jon Cohen and Dan Balz, in a piece headlined "Obama ratings sink to new lows as hope fades":

The sense of deflation is particularly apparent among Democrats, with nearly two-thirds saying things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track. The percentage of Democrats saying things are headed in the right direction has cratered from 60 percent at the start of the year to 32 percent now.

Among political independents — a prime target of Obama’s new outreach — 78 percent see the country as off-kilter. The percentage saying so in January 2009 was 79 percent. Pessimism was even higher among independents — and everyone else — during the depth of the financial crisis in late 2008. But for Obama, things are back to square one.

Obama’s overall approval rating is down 11 percentage points from the start of the year. The only other time a majority disapproved of his handling of the presidency in Post-ABC polling was a year agoafter another rough summer.

For the first time, fewer than half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 give the president positive marks. Young voters broke overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, but just 47 percent of those under age 30 now approve of the way he is doing his job; just as many disapprove.

Fewer than three-quarters of Democrats approve of the president; his disapproval rating among independents ties its high from a year ago at 57 percent.

No doubt at Obama reelect campaign HQ they're dancing on the desks over this exciting news:

Obama does, however, rate better than do congressional Republicans, his adversaries in recent, fierce confrontations on federal spending. Just 28 percent approve of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, and 68 percent disapprove, the worst spread for the GOP since summer 2008.

This gibes perfectly with the apparent reelection strategy: to pray that the Republicans nominate someone so appalling that the president, following his now-standard practice of positioning himself as "Republican lite," appears to just enough voters to be merely "appalling lite."

Meanwhile that peerless political sage Chris Cillizza went to town ("Vote out the entire Congress? You bet.") on a rival NBC/Wall Street Journal poll,

where 54 percent of those tested said that if they had the opportunity to vote out every single Member of Congress -- including their own - they would take it.

That’s the highest that number has been in the 18 months or so that NBC/WSJ have been asking the question -- and the clearest evidence yet that we may be headed to a “pox on both your houses” election the likes of which we have never seen before.

One of these damned polls, I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio, reported that something like 163 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. One might feel more sympathy if the respondents hadn't voted these very bums in, and weren't standing ready, to judge by history including the excellent midterm replacements they chose in 2010, to replace these bums with life forms a bare minimum of twice as bad, and ideally 20 to 100 times as bad.

That'll fix the problem for sure.

#

Are the Congressmembers still boosting AT&T's T-Mobile takeover just oblivious, or are they in on the fix?

The media-reform advocacy group Free Press has written a letter urging congressmembers who signed a letter to the FCC urging approval of AT&T's takeover of T-Mobile to reconsider based on the known facts.





"Every AT&T argument for the public benefits of this merger has now been proven wrong.



"But that doesn't seem to matter in a town where AT&T writes more checks to federal candidates than any other company (it has spent $200 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions over the years) and gives more than $60 million a year to charity groups and not-for-profits, many of whom have lent their name to letters in support of the merger.



"Should the DoJ and FCC approve this deal, we'll have no clearer example of industry capture in Washington -- where well-financed fictions trump the facts."

-- from a post by Timothy Karr, campaign director

of the media-reform advocacy group Free Press

by Ken



Like a lot of people I suspect, even people at our end of the political spectrum, I didn't originally have strong feelings about AT&T's acquisition of its wireless rival T-Mobile. I accepted the argument that the question wasn't whether it was a good idea to combine the two companies. Rather the question, since apparently T-Mobile was determined to be acquired (or, rather, its parent company, Deutsche Telekom was determined to rid itself of its U.S. operation), was whether there was a better alternative. And since there didn't seem to be anyone negotiating besides AT&T, with its $39 billion offer, the answer seemed to be that there really wasn't any alternative, and at least AT&T had some advantages -- like its status as a union shop and its record of giving generously to a range worthwhile causes.



Now, however, I'm afraid even those of us who pay little attention to such matters know way too much about this deal to feel other than distressed about the prospects of the deal going through.



When I wrote Monday about the embarrassing-for-AT&T revelations contained in the mysteriously leaked letter written by someone on its legal team, what intrigued me most was the suggestion from our friend (and go-to guy on telecom matters) Tim Karr that in Washington the facts-of-the-matter can matter less than what it's convenient for public people to pretend to believe.



As I wrote Monday, drawing heavily on Karl Bode's Broadband post "Leaked AT&T Letter Demolishes Case for T-Mobile Merger," even before the leaked lawyer letter, there was no longer any factual basis for accepting any of the claims AT&T has made that made it sound like its acquisition of T-Mobile was a patriotic act.



"Job creation"? Not a chance. The current projection is that by the time AT&T finishes "consolidating" the two companies, 20,000 jobs will have been lost. Some progressives, along with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), have been hornswoggled by the fact that AT&T has unions while T-Mobile doesn't, which in theory suggests a plus for union representation. However, even assuming that the ex-T-Mobile employees who survive the consolidation bloodbath are unionized, the 20,000 workers who lose their jobs sure won't be.



"Increased investment in communications infrastructure"? Hahaha!. Doesn't seem likely when AT&T is bragging to investors about how much less it's going to have to spend once another pesky competitor is eliminated. As Karl Bode wrote:

While AT&T and the CWA are busy telling regulators the deal will increase network investment by $8 billion, out of the other side of their mouth AT&T has been telling investors the deal will reduce investment by $10 billion over 6 years. Based on historical averages T-Mobile would have invested $18 billion during that time frame, which means an overall reduction in investment.

Verizon plus a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would together control 80 percent of the wireless market. Have you noticed how right-wingers always favor "competition" in theory as the theoretical backbone of their religion, capitalism, but in practice, well, not so much?



"The buildup of its LTE network coverage from 80 to 97 percent"? No way, no how, though this discredited claim is slightly trickier to debunk, because it takes multiple steps. First, there's the consideration that from a strictly competitive standpoint AT&T was going to have to do something about its inadequate-for-the future coverage anyway. Second, there's the awkward fact that T-Mobile's network adds almost nothing to AT&T's. And third, the leaked letter demonstrated what the actual cost would be of that 80-to-97-percent buildup: $3 billion. And yet here was AT&T paying $39 billion for T-Mobile, which would add hardly anything to its coverage.



To quote Karl Bode again (emphasis added):

Again, the reality appears to be that AT&T is giving Deutsche Telekom $39 billion primarily to reduce market competition. That price tag eliminates T-Mobile entirely -- and makes Sprint (and by proxy new LTE partner LightSquared and current partner Clearwire) more susceptible to failure in the face of 80% AT&T/Verizon market domination. How much do you think wireless broadband market dominance is worth to AT&T over the next decade? After all, AT&T will be first to tell you there's a wireless data "tsunami" coming, with AT&T and Verizon on the shore eagerly billing users up to $10 per gigabyte.

Now Free Press has sent a letter to 76 members of Congress who signed a June 24 letter to the FCC supporting the merger because of that famous coverage buildout, which AT&T has been claiming would bring broadband to rural areas starved for it. (T-Mobile's network is considered to be weaker in this regard than AT&T's.) The congressmembers are encouraged to reconsider their argument.



You can find the full text of the letter here. It begins:

On June 24, 2011, you were one of several representatives who signed a letter (the “June 24th Letter”) calling for increased deployment of advanced wireless broadband. That is a laudable goal, and worthy of strong support. Unfortunately, several signers were misled at the time by AT&T’s false claim that it needed to acquire T-Mobile to provide wireless broadband coverage for 97 percent of the country’s population.



Since you signed this letter, new facts that contradict AT&T’s claims about this acquisition’s benefits have surfaced. Last week the unintentional public posting of documents AT&T had filed with the Federal Communications Commission and subsequent press reports revealed that the company could meet its rural-deployment promise for just $3.8 billion -- one-tenth of the cost of the T-Mobile acquisition. The public now has the truth: AT&T can deliver 97 percent mobile broadband coverage without sacrificing an estimated 20,000 American jobs and without reducing investment in the U.S. wireless market by more than $10 billion.

And the letter concludes:

For these reasons, we ask that you review the new data that emerged last week. We hope you will revise your recommendation to the Department of Justice and the FCC, and encourage those agencies to use the available data to weigh the impact this merger will have on jobs, innovation and investment.



We hope you will scrutinize all of the facts closely —--including the dramatically lower cost for AT&T to build its own advanced network rather than pursue this harmful, horizontal merger -- in considering whether this merger will truly serve the interests of the American people.

Let me quote again the end of the post of Tim's from which I've (re)quoted above:



"The only question that remains is whether regulators feel politically safe to sign off on a bogus deal, which sacrifices so many American jobs, just so AT&T can pad its profits and tighten its grip on the wireless marketplace."



The first test is the congressmembers' response to Free Press's letter. I'm not holding my breath.

#

4th of July holiday or no, Congress and the administration begin the process of selling out ordinary Americans

Say hello to the "chained-CPI" scam!

from StrengthenSocialSecurity.com

Obama chided Congress for an unusual on again-off again schedule that has ensured the House and Senate have staggered their work in Washington, making cross-chamber negotiations difficult. The Senate has met this week, while House members have been visiting their home districts. The reverse had been planned for next week.

“They’re in one week, they’re out one week,” Obama said. “And then they’re saying, ‘Obama has got to step in.’

“You need to be here,” he said. “I’ve been here.”

-- from "Senate cancels July 4 holiday recess
to work on debt deal," in yesterday's Washington Post

by Ken

Isn't it funny how it works out? In the end, the bigger trouble-makers, the House, wind up getting their 4th of July holiday! About all they lose is the opportunity to have the coming week's headlines to themselves as those insensible and indecent thugs resume their resume their rampaging and marauding against sense and decency.

Sometimes you wish these people would all go on permanent holiday. But even that fits into the Rethuglican strategy throughout the Obama administration: We don't need nuttin'. If'n we just don't let them damn socialists do nuttin', the country'll go to hell, and we'll take over. The strategy has already re-won them the House, and with the rise of the Teabagger insurrection many Rethugs have gotten greedier about their agenda of mayhem. But it's still true that they don't need much of anything, especially alongside the pleasure and profit of obstruction.

Alas, we need a budget, and alas again, we need to raise he debt ceiling, and the Rethugs are going to get as much out of it as they can. And alas a third time, the party they're ultimately negotiating with is history's worst negotiator, Barack Obama, whose basic negotiating strategy appears to be: Let's give them what they want, and then split the difference on the rest. Of course there's an alternate theory: that what the president gives away is stuff he didn't want to begin with, that what he's been getting is "compromise with cover" that gives him what he wanted to begin with.

I've already wondered here, "Is the president, that master negotiator, once again prepared to give away the store?." Welcome to "chained-CPI," a scheme reportedly being considered by White House and congressional negotiators which would change the formula for calculating the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in a way that goes way beyond the mere technical adjustment it sounds like. A press release from Strengthen Social Security argues:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates adoption of the so-called "Chained-CPI," which would be used to determine Social Security's annual COLA, would cut benefits by $112 billion over 10 years. The Social Security Administration Chief Actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive average benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75 than they would under current law and get $1,000 less a year at age 85 -- a 3.7 percent cut and a 6.5 percent cut, respectively. [See analysis here.] The proposal will cut $1.6 trillion over Social Security’s 75 year valuation period – mainly from the oldest of the old, primarily women and disproportionately poor.

Two reports were released that analyzed the harmful effects from the proposed Social Security COLA cut. One found that the cuts would be especially painful to women who have longer life expectancies, rely more on Social Security income and are already more economically vulnerable, and to lower-income beneficiaries. About one-third of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. Another found that Social Security's current COLA formula already is too low because it does not take account of the higher health care costs that seniors and people with disabilities face.

"The Social Security COLA cut is a betrayal by politicians in Washington of today's 55 million Social Security beneficiaries. Indeed, it is a betrayal of the 165 million workers and their families who are earning those benefits every work day," said Nancy Altman, co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. "These cuts would occur soon and they would affect everyone. Social Security does not add a penny to the deficit. Those who pledged that Social Security would not be cut as part of a deficit deal are breaking their promise if they support this proposal. So are those who have pledged that they will not cut the benefits of current beneficiaries. They will vote for this at their electoral peril."

"Proponents of cutting the Social Security COLA claim that it’s simply a technocratic improvement. This is not true -- there is no economic evidence that the current COLA provides a windfall to beneficiaries," said Josh Bivens, economist at the Economic Policy Institute and the author of A Protection, Not a Windfall: Proposed change to Social Security COLA would further erode retirees' financial security. "In fact, it likely understates the actual growth in costs of living for beneficiaries because it underweights health spending -- a high-inflation component of consumer expenditures."

"This proposal is a stealth attack that will especially hurt the economic security of older women," said Joan Entmacher, Vice President, Family Economic Security, National Women’s Law Center, and the co-author of Cutting the Social Security COLA by Changing the Way Inflation Is Calculated Would Especially Hurt Women. "The cuts may not sound like a lot to some Members of Congress, but for an 80-year old woman who depends on her Social Security check to get by, they mean the loss of a week’s worth of food each month. And the cuts just get deeper as women get older."

And thanks to the genius Dems' allowing the Rethugs to wrap themselves in the mantle of "fiscal responsibility," this sounds like just a sample of what's to come. Buckle up, buckaroos.

#