Evergreene Digest A Journal of Progress for the Rest of Us

Former Colorado Congressman Tommy Tancredo who has made a career running as a xenophobic nativist has officially entered the Colorado governor's race as the candidate of American Constitution Party. Twice a distant also ran for the GOP presidential nomination, Tancredo had issued an ultimatum last week to the two GOP contenders for GOP nomination, Dan Maes and Scott McInnis, that he would enter the race if they didn't announce that they would drop out after the August 10 primary if they won but still trailed Democrat John Hickenlooper in the polls. Both Maes and McInnis have been plagued by scandals.

More from KWGN-Denver.

The American Constitution Party was formed in 1991 and was originally called the Colorado Taxpayers Party, but changed its named to the American Constitution Party in 1995. The party is "pro-life, pro-states' rights, pro-Second Amendment" and for limited government, according to its website. It opposes illegal immigration and open borders. The party also believes that the American "republic is a nation governed by a constitution rooted in Biblical law."

First, the background courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union:

The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.

Through NSLs the FBI can compile vast dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand. Since the Patriot Act was authorized in 2001, further relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase.

The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power. The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in court in three cases.

Today, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration is seeking "to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation." According to the Post, the Administration wants to amend the existing section of the law that covers National Security Letters (NSLs) by adding "four words -- 'electronic communication transactional records' -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval."

Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

This is the sort of thing that drives civil libertarians on the left to despair and frustration. What the FBI and the Obama Administration want is to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to turn over information about a user's traffic habits without a warrant. I have to ask just how difficult is it to seek a warrant? I understand the number of NSLs is now running at 30,000 to 50,000 a year but civil libertarians remain concerned after a 2007 Inspector General report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request.

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic has more on the implications and the potential for abuse.

Inspired by a radio interview I heard earlier today, I ran a quick Google search and found this 2008 nugget from Wired magazine:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism just released The State of the News Media 2008, its annual analysis of cable television news. The mediascape proved barren: On average, five hours of viewing would yield 71 minutes of politics, 26 minutes of crime, 12 minutes of disasters and 10 minutes of celebrities. Science, technology, health and the environment received just six minutes of coverage (with health and health care accounting for half of that.)

Think about that: for every five hours of cable news one watched in 2007, viewers say just three minutes of science, technology, and the environment, three things that underlie literally every single aspect of our lives. And what this report doesn't point out is that much of what we do hear about science comes from non-science reporters - why should I trust a reporter whose field of expertise is the national political process or the local school board to suddenly grasp the details of peer-reviewed data?

It seems that every time an MSNBC substitute host gains a slight following, they get their own show. Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, Dylan Ratigan, and now Lawrence O’Donnell. The next time MSNBC has a whole in its lineup, instead of turning to a personality, it should turn to a subject. Or maybe CNN could replace Larry King with an actual news show, not another celebrity-fest.

I’m not very good at science. Both my parents are geologists, and yet my lowest grade in college was in rocks for jocks. But I do know the scientific method when I see it, and I do understand the importance of science in my daily life. Just this week I’ve seen local news stories about toxic chemicals used in retail receipts and a debate over putting fluoride in municipal water. From the air we breathe to the way our children’s food is processed, there’s no escaping science. So before debating science policy, responsible journalists should make sure their viewers actually understand the science rather than the political talking points. Let’s move the science from destination websites only insiders visit to a venue people are already watching anyway – like cable news.

The new show should come from scientists and science journalists who reach conclusions after making their observations, not pundits who observe only what will affirm their existing beliefs. The host should refuse to ever interview politicians unless they a) are scientists themselves (there are four Congressmen with PhDs in physics or chemistry); b) are on for less than five minutes for the sole purpose of describing the contents of a bill they’ve introduced; or c) are being held accountable for attacking science, like when the Bush administration censored NASA and the EPA over climate change.

The whole point of such a show would be to communicate with voters and lay persons, so it shouldn’t be too wonky. 

 Here are some other items making news today.

Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA official in charge of rural development in Georgia, will sue Andrew Breitbart who edited her remarks at a NAACP Freedom Fund dinner to appear as if she were making racist remarks when in fact the opposite was true. Mrs. Sherrod made the announcement Thursday in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention. More from USA Today.

Ian Welsh wrote earlier this week on the divide he witnessed at Netroots Nation. On the one hand, "about half the people there are some combination of angry, disappointed and bitter with Democrats in general and Obama in particular" and there are those "folks who would characterize themselves, in general, as hard nosed pragmatists and 'realists'." Today, Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic castigates those who talk "about disappointment and disillusionment" in an article entitled The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy.

The Miami Herald has published a poll from Quinnipiac University showing millionaire outsiders in their first run for office besting established career politicians in both the GOP Governor primary and in the Democratic Senate primary.

Republican Rick Scott holds an 11 percentage-point lead over Attorney General Bill McCollum in the GOP race for governor, a Quinnipiac University poll finds.

In the main statewide race for Democrats -- the U.S. Senate contest -- Jeff Greene is beating U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek by 10 percentage points, the poll shows.

Neither Greene nor Scott have held elected office before. McCollum has held or run for office for the past 30 years. Meek has been in Congress and the Legislature for more than a decade.

Both political newcomers have relied on a simple formula to best their rivals: Spend millions on television ads and watch your poll numbers rise. Greene has outspent Meek by an estimated $6 million. Scott has poured an estimated $30 million into his race, doubling what McCollum has spent. ``Money matters. You can go from nobody knowing you to becoming a front-runner if you spend enough,'' said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. ``That's not to say it's only money,'' Brown added. ``The messages that Scott and Greene have been able to send to voters through record television ad spending have been effective.'' But Brown cautions that ``anything can happen'' leading up to the Aug. 24 primary. Voters haven't completely made up their minds. And many don't know for whom they'll vote.

In the Democratic Senate race, more than a third of likely voters are undecided. And a majority -- 54 percent -- say they might change their minds.

In the Republican governor's race, 23 percent of likely voters are undecided; 43 percent say they might change their minds; 55 percent say their minds are made up.

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States. The full story from Politico.

Samuel and Charles Wyly , two billionaire brothers from Dallas who founded Sterling Software and who are large donors to conservative causes, were charged by the SEC with conducting an extensive securities fraud including insider trading. The story in the New York Times.

Bill White, the popular former Mayor of Houston, seems to be running a pretty good strategy as the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas. He and his campaign are hammering incumbent Rick Perry for corruption and failed policies in press releases and interviews, but their new TV ad is a positive one focusing on White. This should help drive a narrative about Perry and get the facts out to reporters while still allowing White to give voters the positive campaign they want.

PPP has the race tied up at 43, and you can help White win this impressive prize (Governor of Texas in a census year!) at our ActBlue page.

Here’s White’s new ad called “San Antonio.”

The campaign is also touting the endorsements of 23 sheriffs who “represent about 50 percent of Texans and 99 percent of Texans who live in counties that touch the border with Mexico.”

But on the quieter attack side, here’s a July 27 press release hitting the ten-year incumbent for his corrupt land deals.

We learned for the first time this week that the buyer of Perry's plot of land was business partners with the person who sold it to Perry through an intermediary. The timeline of this scandal clearly shows that Perry coordinated with two business partners to flip land, buying way under value from one partner and then selling it way over value to the other business partner. In total, Rick Perry coordinated with the business partners for ill-gotten gains totaling about $500,000.

In 2000 and 2001, the land buy was arranged by Doug Jaffe, who sold Perry a plot of land through an intermediary for a whopping $150,000 less than it was worth.

In 2007, the land sale was arranged by Ron Mitchell, an trusted associate of Doug Jaffe, during a time when the property was off the market. Mitchell found a willing buyer in a business partner of Doug Jaffe. Mitchell then negotiated a price for Perry with Jaffe's partner, a price a whopping $350,000 over market value.

Mitchell's real estate firm waived the typical 6% fee for Perry, amounting to a $70,000 gift that was never reported by Perry on personal financial disclosure statements. When Mitchell was asked by the DMN whether they would have waived the fee if it was someone other than Perry, Mitchell laughed and said, "We're here to make money.” …

Perry is refusing to release the public listing agreement, had previously hidden the identity of the land buyer and had hidden the fact that the buyer was a business partner with the original seller.

Other Perry scandals include what the White campaign is calling “cash for appointments and cash for favors."

The longtime New York Congressman Charlie Rangel who has served 20 terms in the House rising to become Chair of the powerful Ways and Means committee has reportedly failed to strike a deal in an effort to avoid a publicly humiliating trial over ethics violations. Rep. Rangel is being charged with misusing his office for fundraising, failure to disclose income, belated payment of taxes and possible help with a tax shelter for a company whose CEO was a major donor.

The story in the New York Times.

The House ethics committee laid out 13 charges of House rules violations against Representative Charles B. Rangel on Thursday, and began the process for a public trial on the charges.

The move came after Mr. Rangel, a veteran congressman, failed to reach a settlement to avoid the rare and potentially embarrassing proceeding before the committee gathered at 1 p.m.

Mr. Rangel’s lawyers continued to hope they could still settle the case.

The charges against Mr. Rangel, a Democrat from Harlem, include multiple breaches of the House ban on accepting gifts of more than $50 and of the requirement that members act at all times in a way that reflects creditably on the House.

Committee members struck a somber but determined tone in their brief public meeting, expressing affection for Mr. Rangel while at the same time saying they needed to uphold the integrity of Congress, especially given its dismal standing with the public.

“Credibility is exactly what is at stake here — the very credibility of the House of Representatives itself before the American people,” said an ethics committee member, Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican of Texas.

The charges involve four areas: Mr. Rangel’s solicitation of contributions to a school to be named in his honor at City College of New York; his errors and omissions on his House financial disclosure forms; his acceptance of rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, including one for his campaign office; and his failure to report and pay taxes on rental income on a beach villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Rangel did not appear at the meeting on Thursday, but has submitted a written response to the charges.

The last time the House held a public trial of a member was in 2002, after Ohio Democrat Representative James Traficant had been convicted criminally of accepting bribes. Rep. Traficant was expelled from the House and later served time in prison.

Rep. Rangel has already admitted some of the minor charges but seems averse to acknowledge that he misused his position as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in early 2007 by helping to preserve a tax break for an oil executive who pledged $1 million to help build the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 GOP runner-up Mike Huckabee hosted Tim and Beverly LaHaye, two of the founders of the Moral Majority, on his Fox News program. LaHaye, an evangelical Baptist minister and a graduate of Bob Jones University, is best-known for the Left Behind series of apocalyptic fiction, which he co-wrote with Jerry B. Jenkins. As if the above isn't enough to disqualify Tim LaHaye from a public forum, he also has ties to the conspiratorial-minded John Birch Society and is the founder of the Institute for Creation Research but Mike Huckabee apparently thinks a man with such outlandish views is worthy of having them aired.

In the segment, Huckabee asks LaHaye if we are now living in the End Times? To which, LaHaye responds affirmatively and, of course, blaming Obama and the Democrats for such a development.

I'm confused. Isn't that what they want? If the End Times is the goal of Apocalyptic Christianity, you would think that they would be dancing in the streets though I understand that Baptists frown on dancing.

So says the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll:

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).



The poll also took a closer look at the views of seniors since they are often assumed to have a uniform view about issues. Below are some of the poll’s key findings about seniors’ views:


While seniors’ views of the new law are more negative than those of their younger counterparts, they remain roughly split about the law with 46 percent of seniors holding an unfavorable view of the law and 38 percent holding a favorable one. While 35 percent of seniors think they will be worse off under reform, a greater share (57%) say they will be better off (20%) or it will make no difference (37%).

Seniors’ awareness about the specific provisions of the health reform law that affect Medicare is mixed. For example, about half are aware that the new law will result in premium increases for some higher income Medicare beneficiaries (52%) and gradually close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” (50%). However, just a third (33% ) know the law will eliminate Medicare’s co-pays and deductibles for some preventive services.


On the other hand, large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”

Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.


In general, seniors with a favorable view of the law are more likely to be aware of some of the law’s benefit improvements for Medicare, while those with an unfavorable view are more likely to be aware of increases in taxes and premiums that occur under the law.

More illustrative is the breakdown by political affiliation. Democrats largely favor the Affordable Care Act while independents split 48/37 in favor. It is only among Republicans that there is significant and still hardening opposition. Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said they had a “very unfavorable” opinion of the law this month, up from 50 percent in June.

For some time now, the US economy has had all the ingredients—soft, anemic labour markets and wage growth, slack consumer demand, a real estate sector that has to revive after a three year downturn—for a deflationary cycle. Deflation was last seen in the US in the 1930s and in Japan in the 1990s, when the inflation rate fell to zero and then turned negative for several years. But now the Federal Reserve is increasingly concerned that we may be on the cusp of a deflationary asset spiral.

From the New York Times:

On Thursday, James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed’s current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming “enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.”

The warning by Mr. Bullard, who is a voting member of the Fed committee that determines interest rates, comes days after Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said the central bank was prepared to do more to stimulate the economy if needed, though it had no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Bullard had been viewed as a centrist and associated with the camp that sees inflation, the Fed’s traditional enemy, as a greater threat than deflation.

But with inflation now very low, about half of the Fed’s unofficial target of 2 percent, and with the European debt crisis having roiled the markets, even self-described inflation hawks like Mr. Bullard have gotten worried that growth has slowed so much that the economy is at risk of a dangerous cycle of falling prices and wages.

Among those seen as already sympathetic to the view that the damage from long-term unemployment and the threat of deflation are among the greatest challenges facing the economy, are three other Fed bank presidents: Eric S. Rosengren of Boston, Janet L. Yellen of San Francisco and William C. Dudley of New York.

Deflation is a particularly vexing economic problem because as prices fall, people who already owe money have to pay back loans in dollars that will buy more goods than the dollars they borrowed. Assets are worth less than the amount owed. For new loans, it raises the real, or inflation-adjusted, cost of credit, the opposite of what monetary policy needs to do to combat falling demand. Plus, in the effort to boost spending, policymakers cannot cut the target rate below zero. At that point, negative inflation can keep the real rate high enough to restrict economic growth.

Here's a recent note from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on the Risks of Deflation.

Commonly known as the Beige Book, this report produced by the nation's central bank  covers economic conditions in all 12 Districts that are part of the Federal Reserve system. It is published eight times per year. The latest report, published on Wednesday, describes the economy as struggling under the weight of a depressed real estate market, continued high unemployment with consumers largely wary and lacking confidence with many consumers still reluctant to spend because of worries about the job market.

Two of the Federal Reserve 12 districts — Atlanta and Chicago — reported that "the pace of economic activity had slowed recently," while the Cleveland and Kansas City districts said that "activity generally held steady."

The other eight districts — including San Francisco, which covers California and other Western states — reported "improvements in economic activity" from the spring, the Fed said. But it added that "a number of them noted that the increases were modest."

More from the New York Times:

The manufacturing sector especially appears to be losing steam. The Federal Reserve regional report, said manufacturing activity in most of the 12 districts experienced some growth since the last report in early June.

But the pace of activity “slowed” or “leveled off” in half of them, including Cleveland and Chicago. In both cities, automobile manufacturing grew, while steel manufacturing declined.

Business contacts in Atlanta and Chicago said economic activity slowed in June and July, with significant worries in Atlanta related to the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Analysts say the book offers a qualitative, rather than quantitative, general overview of various sectors and regions across the country.

The report said the retailing and transportation service sectors showed signs of solid growth. Several districts reported that apparel, food and other necessities were strong sellers. However, consumer spending on big-ticket items was weak, reflected in the decline in auto sales in New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Chicago and San Francisco. The report also said consumers remained price conscious as they continued to reduce their debts.

Almost all districts reported that they had “sluggish” housing markets as a result of the April expiration of the government’s homebuyer credit. Commercial and residential construction activity was weak in almost all districts. Cleveland, in particular, said it did not expect an improvement in new home construction this year.

The Beige Book report also noted that labor market conditions “improved gradually” in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Richmond, and Atlanta, but that San Francisco reported high levels of unemployment. California remains the state with the third-highest unemployment rate in June at 12.3 percent seasonally adjusted. Nevada had the highest rate, with 14.2 percent, followed by Michigan at 13.2 percent. Not surprisingly, wage pressures remained largely contained across most Districts.

Retail sales, the largest component of the US economy, were higher than year-earlier sales in the New York, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Kansas City Districts,  while Dallas reported solid gains. But sales in the Boston District were mixed compared with the previous year. Recent sales increased slightly in the Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco Districts; sales in the Richmond District weakened; and sales in the Kansas City District were flat compared with the previous report. Several Districts cited apparel, food, and other necessities as recent strong sellers, while big-ticket items were weak sellers.

The report is likely to give credence to those have been arguing that US economy faces continued weakness and that efforts to rein in the deficit may further undercut the economic recovery which remains tepid and jobless.

If you live in the New York Metro area, the documentary based on the award-winning book by historian Frank Thomas, What's the Matter with Kansas? opens its commercial New York theatrical run on Friday, July 30th at the Producers’ Club IndieHouse Cinema in Mid-Town Manhattan.

Here are two extended clips from the documentary. This first clip covers how the Summer of Mercy protests in 1991 at the Wichita office of the now murdered Dr. George Tiller, one of two medical specialists in the nation who provided late-term abortions, were a pivotal moment in Kansas' turn to the right.

This second clip interviews Kansas Farmers Union President Donn Teske who reflects on the troubles of family farming and how neither major party appeals to him right now.

Finally, if you want to organize a screening of the documentary in your neck of the woods, here is how.

Some other items making news today.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday ordered mandatory furloughs for thousands of state workers until California passes a budget that addresses a $19 billion deficit. Schwarzenegger released a new executive order requiring state workers to take three unpaid days off per month starting in August. State workers were furloughed a total of 46 days when Schwarzenegger issued a similar order in February 2009, which translated to a pay cut of about 14 percent. There is actually a chance that Schwarzenegger may leave office without signing a budget. More from the Associated Press.

Scientists have also released what they described as the "best evidence yet" of rising long-term temperatures. The report is the first to collate 11 different indicators – from air and sea temperatures to melting ice – each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s. The story in The Guardian. If you wish to look at the report from the NOAA, the link is here.

In response to latest scientific research that yet again shows a warming planet, Jeffrey Sachs calls on President Obama to "lay out a comprehensive and costed plan to the American people showing how he will move beyond oil." While not addressing the latest findings directly, the President did note on Tuesday he still supports the need for broad climate-change legislation and pledged to keep pushing for it. That story from the Los Angeles Times.

The Hill reports that the Senate Democrats do not have the votes to lower the 60-vote threshold to cut off filibusters.

Under pressure to find new revenues sources, Congress is reconsidering legalizing, and taxing, Internet gambling. The full story from the New York Times.

Matt Dunne is a Democratic candidate for Governor of Vermont, a state that hasn’t had a Democratic Governor since Howard Dean but offers an open seat this year. Although Matt is running in a competitive primary with several other qualified progressives, he is on MyDD’s Going on Offense Act Blue page. After getting to know him in 2006, I believe he’s the right candidate for the race and the right man for the job, and I hope you can help him out.

I’ll run through his broad support and stalwart progressive platform tomorrow – a platform that has earned him the endorsement of climate hero Bill McKibben – but it’s his background that makes him the best general election candidate. Any Democratic nominee in this state will be a progressive, so primary voters need to make sure they pick one whose background can match the GOP opponent. (Lt. Governor Brian Dubie is a commercial pilot, farmer, and veteran.)

Although Matt is only 40, his resume is one of the most impressive you’ll ever see, delving into academia, business, technology, service, and policy all. You could even throw in agriculture, since he grew up and still lives on his family’s 100-acre farm. He’s also a proud father of three (seriously, ask him to show you photos, you’ll never see a bigger smile), including a newborn son less than two months old.

Business and Technology: Matt is currently Google’s Manager of Community Affairs, and helped to persuade the company to relent on its secrecy policies and reveal the locations of its servers. He has previously worked as Director of Marketing for a local software company and helped manage the Briggs Opera House in White River Junction, VT.

Service: Matt was Director of AmeriCorps VISTA under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. He based his 2006 campaign for Lt. Governor around “service politics,” asking his supporters to participate in service projects rather than traditional rallies. After the campaign he founded the Service Politics Institute.

Politics and Policy: Matt was the youngest person ever elected to the Vermont State Legislature when he was just 22. He served for six years, and after leaving to head AmeriCorps returned for four more years as a State Senator. According to his website, he “advanced legislation to drive the development of regional technology incubators, streamlined regulations and encouraged foreign companies to locate in Vermont... Matt successfully fought efforts to cut healthcare to the poor, increased funding for individual development accounts, pushed for federal recognition of Vermont's civil union policy, gave veterans preference for state jobs and promoted incentives to encourage the production and use of clean, renewable energy.” Matt's concern for and the poor led him to support the pre-scandal John Edwards in the 2004 and 2008 primaries. He left the state senate to become the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2006, and though he narrowly lost, he significantly outperformed the party's gubernatorial nominee, meaning a lot of independent voters split their ticket to support Matt Dunne.

Academia: Matt served as Associate Director of Dartmouth’s College Nelson Rockefeller Center for Public Policy from about 2002 to 2006. This is where I met him – I was very involved at the Rockefeller Center during my time at Dartmouth, and when he stepped down to run for Lt. Gov., several of us in the College Democrats regularly volunteered for his campaign. Matt founded the Policy Research Shop at Rocky, helping students learn how to effectively research and present public policy to the Vermont and New Hampshire state legislatures. He also grew up the child of a professor and is one of the smartest people you’ll ever meet.

More details about any of these ventures can be found at Matt's website or in profiles from the Vermont newspapers Seven Days and Manchester Journal.

Matt is tied for second in fundraising in the crowded Democratic field and has reached all of his publicized fundraising goals so far. Please help him out at ActBlue. His resume and 2006 showing prove he’s the man to beat Dubie this fall and pick up at least one new statehouse in a tough election year.

A paper by economists Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, finds that without the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that bailed out the nation's financial sector, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama Administration’s fiscal stimulus program - the much maligned American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - the nation’s gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year.

Additionally, Dr. Blinder and Dr. Zandi find that the US economy would have lost an additional 8.5 million jobs, on top of the more than 8 million lost so far; and the economy would be in the midst of a deflationary asset spiral, instead of low inflation. Overall, they conclude that the aggregate effects of the TARP and the ARRA "probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0." I am not quite sure why economists apart from Paul Krugman always seem to forget about the Panic of 1873, a five-year long financial downturn marked by deflation, price instability and the first sustained period of mass unemployment in world history.

More on the Blinder-Zandi report from the New York Times:

Mr. Blinder and Mr. Zandi emphasize the sheer size of the fallout from the financial crisis. They estimate the total direct cost of the recession at $1.6 trillion, and the total budgetary cost, after adding in nearly $750 billion in lost revenue from the weaker economy, at $2.35 trillion, or about 16 percent of G.D.P.

By comparison, the savings and loan crisis cost about $350 billion in today’s dollars: $275 billion in direct cost and an additional $75 billion from the recession of 1990-91 — or about 6 percent of G.D.P. at the time.

But the new analysis might not be of immediate solace to officials in the Obama administration, who have been trying to promote the “summer of recovery” at events across the nation in the face of polls indicating persistent doubts about the impact of the $787 billion stimulus program.

For one thing, Mr. Blinder and Mr. Zandi find that the financial stabilization measures — the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the bailout is known, along with the bank stress tests and the Fed’s actions — have had a relatively greater impact than the stimulus program.

If the fiscal stimulus alone had been enacted, and not the financial measures, they concluded, real G.D.P. would have fallen 5 percent last year, with 12 million jobs lost. But if only the financial measures had been enacted, and not the stimulus, real G.D.P. would have fallen nearly 4 percent, with 10 million jobs lost.

The combined effects of both sets of policies cannot be directly compared with the sum of each in isolation, they found, “because the policies tend to reinforce each other.”

Oddly enough, the New York Times failed to link to the report but here it is: How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End (pdf). The title is perhaps a bit over optimistic given that we are not quite out of the economic doldrums as yet but I do think their conclusion is inescapable:

It is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government’s fiscal situation in far graver condition.

Still no one has ever won an election with the argument that it could have been worse. 

Enjoy.

• Shirley Sherrod: An American Tale of Redemption and Courage. (The Opportunity Agenda)


• Why won't the "liberal media" listen to the liberal media ask theyoungturks in "The List" of Journolist Participants is Fake.


• Restore Fairness: Arizonan police officer speaks up against SB 1070 “Nazis."  (also: Check out Restore Fairness on a new DREAM Act campaign, DREAM NOW LETTERS: YAHAIRA CARRILLO.)


• Chuckie Corra gives an insiders take on the August 28th WV Special Senate Election: Mountaintop Removal is Hechler's Priority.


• Lowell Feld NRDC Action Fund continues a series on the state of climate legislation with Congressional Candidates’ Views on Clean Energy, Climate Change: PA-08 and High Stakes for Climate and Clean Energy in California.


• Project Vote on fighting state restrictions with Voter Registration Drives: A Thing of the Future.


• The Media Consortium's Weekly Audit: Why Are Unemployment Benefits A Major Political Fight?

 

United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix has blocked some of the more controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect but otherwise ruled that law can take effect. The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the some of the more controversial provisions  — such as the sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Judge Bolton also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. The judge further ruled that those sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigraiton statute, will go into effect at 12:01 AM Thursday.

From the New York Times:

The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. Judge Bolton put those sections on hold until the issues are resolved by the courts.

The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators opposed and supporting the law gathered here and after three hearings in the past two weeks in which she peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.

The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops are to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and is campaigning on it for election, were expected to appeal, and legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.

The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.

It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.

Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.

The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the law.

Susan Bolton is a Federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton. She joined the court after being unanimously confirmed by the Senate in October 2000.

Below the fold, the full text of Judge Bolton's ruling.

Dubbed the "the candidate hiding in plain sight" and deemed by many especially among mainline conservatives and neo-conservatives as perhaps the best hope for the GOP to win back the White House, former two term Florida Governor Jeb Bush today quashed speculation that had been building in recent weeks that he was considering a presidential run in 2012.

The argument for Jeb Bush ran something like this: each of the other presumed front runners have obvious perhaps fatal flaws and thus only Jeb Bush can pull together the disparate threads of the GOP. Moreover, he has strong conservative credentials, is the only Republican ever to win two terms of the Sunshine state, has a political pedigree second to none even if tarnished by his older brother, can appeal to the all-important Hispanic population with his Mexican-born wife in tow, is perceived as less divisive on social issues who would thus appeal to independents, would do well in his home state that electoral vote rich battleground state that has often decided presidential elections and unlike older brother can speak in complete sentences.

Despite the growing speculation that he was at least considering a run in 2012, today when asked Louisville’s ABC affiliate WHAS following an event for Rand Paul if he was eying the White House, Jeb Bush was adamant. “I am not running for president,” he said.

Politico has more on Jeb Bush's denial of interest.

Here are some other stories making the rounds today:

As I reported last week the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was looking at altering how it awards its Electors. Today, the Massachusetts Legislature approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote. The full story in the Boston Globe.

In the wake of the largest leak of military-related documentation in history, the Congress approved funding for the wars in South & Central Asia. To his credit House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, who had managed the $59 billion war funding bill, voted no in a final protest and helped to take another 101 Democrats with him but the bill still passed by a 308 to 114 margin. Twelve Republicans voted against the measure. As Politico reports "the scene was in stark contrast with just a year ago when but all but 32 Democrats supported a still larger $105.9 billion war funding measure for Afghanistan and Iraq operations." Still, the Obama Administration officials said the outcome showed that the classified leak had not jeopardized congressional support for the war and noted that the Senate had passed the money with no objection. The New York Times has more on the story.

The financial editor of The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes on how British bankers are buying up rare copies of an obscure book on the mechanics of Weimar inflation published in 1974 looking for clues on financial behaviour and the velocity of money. The great fear is really a deflationary asset spiral but these are preceded by inflationary spikes.

Over at The New Republic, Noam Scheiber does the calculus and finds that it points to the confirmation of Elizabeth Warren as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yesterday, Matt Yglesias argued that nominating Elizabeth Warren would go a long way to breaching the gulf between many progressives and the Obama Administration.

Hail the size of golf balls fell across parts of South Dakota today. Pictures from the NOAA.

The Obama Race to the Top education program continues to move forward. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia were today named as finalists on Tuesday in the second round of a national competition for $3.4 billion in federal financing to support an overhaul of education policies. More from the New York Times.

Cigarette sales in California continue to plummet reports the Los Angeles Times. Californians bought 8.1% fewer cigarettes in fiscal 2009 — which ended June 30 — than in fiscal 2008.

Colorado. Idaho. Nevada. California. From crazy to corrupt to down in the polls, the Republican Party is imploding all over the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

Let’s start with Colorado. You already know about sexist Senate candidate Ken Buck and the gubernatorial primary between plagiarist Scott McInnis and finance cheat Dan Maes. Both stories have new developments. Buck was caught yet again making stupid comments on tape, referring to birthers as “dumbasses”. He was obviously right and I’m with him every step of the way, but it still won’t help him in a GOP primary. But it’s the governor’s race where we really get to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Former Repub Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Trancedo jumped in the race for governor this week as an independent. He he was interviewed yesterday alongside state Repub chair Dick Wadhams on Peter Boyles’ radio show. The interview quickly escalated into a public screaming match, and if you’ve got twenty minutes you really should listen. It’s  just plain fun. The interview starts about ten minutes into the clip with Tancredo being a rude jerk, but by the end Wadhams is making unreasonable demands and calling both Tancredo and Boyles liars. The two men said that Wadhams has told them he dislikes both McInnis and Maes, so not only is the public meltdown fun, it also reveals new party rifts. All of a sudden this Senate seat and this statehouse don't seem to be in nearly as much trouble for Democrats as they were.

If Colorado Repubs feel lonely, all they have to do is look northwest to my neck of the woods, Idaho. I’ve already told you about the state GOP convention, which passed a resolution stating all Repub lawmakers must sign a loyalty oath to try and repeal direct election of senators. That same post also described Sarah Palin’s birthplace in Bonner County, where Repubs are protesting the local fair’s use of the word “fiesta.” The crazy gets worse with ID-01 nominee Raul Labrador, who called for repeal of the 17th amendment before the state GOP did, says our energy policy should be “increasing the production of fossil fuels,” and, like the Colorado GOP and the man he beat in the primary, is a plagiarist. This is an +18 district where McCain won by 25 points – and yet Labrador can’t so much as win the support of the NRCC, the Tea Party Express or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Small wonder the endangered first-term Democrat Walt Minnick has a 16-1 advantage in cash-on-hand and national pundits are moving the race from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic.”

But what happens at the federal level is a symptom of what happens at the local level, and state Rep. Phil Hart of Athol, here in Kootenai County, is our own little Charlie Rangel. Hart is under investigation by the state House ethics committee for tax issues. He’s been late on paying county taxes for 8 years in a row, but the county should consider itself lucky – he owes nearly $700,000 in unpaid federal and state taxes. The man’s not just a tax cheat, either – he’s a thief. The liens include $13,014 in unpaid federal withholding taxes at his engineering firm. In other words, he took his employees’ tax money but kept it for himself rather than turning it over to the government. And the best part? He sits on the House subcommittee that affects issues like his but insists there’s no conflict of interest. Hart and the Idaho GOP are a bigger joke than the name of the town he represents – Athol. But not to worry, he says; the citizens of Idaho are better off for his crimes. “I think it makes you a better legislator, to have these life experiences.”

And of course, you already know about Nevada and the crazy that is Sharron Angle. After a series of missteps – defending BP, calling for the repeal of Medicare and Social Security – she is starting to face criticism from within her own party.

"Sharron's first six weeks have been atrocious," said Danny Tarkanian, who was defeated in Nevada's GOP Senate primary. "I think she would admit to that."…

Before endorsing Angle in her election fight, former Nevada Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich warned the Tea Party darling, "You're scaring the bejesus out of everybody."

Republican Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, who backed Angle's GOP primary opponent, Sue Lowden, settled on endorsing Reid in the state's general election match-up. "Our state [would] suffer and we would never get anything done," Cashell said of the prospect of Angle being elected.

If California Republicans were hoping that maybe the San Gabriels would insulate them from the mountain west, they’re going to be very disappointed. Despite a new ad-buy from the NRSC, a new PPP poll shows that Democrat Barbara Boxer finally has a comfortable lead over the Palin-endorsed Carly Fiorina in CA-Sen at 49-40. Boxer hasn’t been up by this much since May. (The poll also found that 19% of voters have a higher opinion of Boxer’s hair and 14% have a higher opinion of Fiorina’s hair. 67% are not sure.)

This sure is a good month to be a western Democrat. Whoa, I feel good… I knew that I would now… so good… so good…

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) made headlines as the first Democrat to call for the ethically challenged Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) to resign. And she seems to have opened the floodgates.

Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID), my congressman, became the second Democrat to demand Rangel's resignation today. "I think it was appropriate for Rep. Rangel to step down from his post as a committee chair pending the investigation, but I always prefer to let voters decide whether or not someone should keep his or her seat. However, now that the investigation is complete, and provided the facts are as alleged, I think it’s clear that he should resign from Congress." Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that it's Rangel's choice alone to make. As a party leader, Hoyer has to be a good diplomat and really can't call for a Member's resignation without a conviction, so this is about as damning a statement as he could make under the circumstances. And he made it.

It would obviouslly be helpful to the party if Rangel would step aside, and it would help his district too. Seniority usually helps a district, but once a member's lost his gavel and caucus credibility as Rangel has, there are no benefits to seniority left. If Rangel left now, a new member could begin to build up seniority of their own. His refusal to resign or at least retire is proof that he doesn't have the best interests of his constituents at heart.

That said, this is a legal matter, and legally, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Justice is justice and due process is due process, so I'm more inclined to agree with Hoyer than I am Minnick and Sutton. Rangel has the right to a committee trial if he wants it, even though it would yet again prove that he values himself over his party. I certainly want him to resign and I will be apalled if the Ethics Committee cuts him a deal, but I can't in good conscience declare that the process doesn't matter and that he MUST resign.

But here's hoping, and I'm certainly glad to see Minnick and Sutton stepping forward. The last two ethics investigations to get this far both ended with the accused's eviction, and Rangel said moments ago that he expects to get a trial rather than a plea bargain, so whether he resigns or not things do not look good for "the Chairman."