Mudbug, brewdogs, and college basketball

The order of the day. In alternating importance. Appropriate self-indulgence should include a dash of schadenfreude at the plight of the Right these days, though:

-- The conservative hypocrisy reaches dizzying new heights with each passing week. If it's not Rush Limbaugh then it's Glenn Beck or Jim Cramer; if it isn't John Cornyn then it's Eric Cantor. This week, it's Sarah Palin following on the heels of Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, and Piyush Jindal in rejecting large portions of the federal stimulus funds apportioned for their respective states. From the Anchrage Daily News (emphasis is mine):

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is "shocked and very disappointed" that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it. ...

Sarah Palin, you may recall, has a special needs child of her own. And during the presidential campaign last year, she pointedly claimed that special-needs children would have an advocate in the White House.

But snce she didn't make it to Washington, I suppose that doesn't apply any more.

Acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman said he's disappointed Palin chose to turn down funding that would create jobs and maintain services. "Her rationale is like turning down a gift card because it expires in two years," Claman said in a written statement.

Palin is turning down money for weatherization, energy efficiency grants, immunizations, air quality grants, emergency food assistance, homeless grants, senior meals, child care development grants, nutrition programs, homeless grants, arts, unemployment services, air quality, justice assistance grants and other programs.

No surprise that Palin -- along with Governors Sanford and Jindal -- are whispered as aspirants for the Republican 2012 prez nom:

It's probably not a coincidence that each of the Republican governors who have showboated taken public stands on not accepting federal stimulus money are thought to be contenders for a future GOP presidential run. It's also true that the state legislatures in each of the states are able to overturn the governors decision.

Which, of course, would be the best of all worlds for these governors. They would get the Rush LImbaugh butt-kissing bonus points for claiming they will refuse the funds and later be able to claim the state legislatures overruled them. And everything worked out happily ever after.

Remind me again ...what was one of the conservative poutrages this week? Oh yeah, Obama said "Special Olympics" on Leno.

-- AIG bonuses ruled the airwaves all week long, but the GOP got confused over which direction they were supposed to scream about them. 87 of 172 House Republicans voted to tax the bonuses at 90%, but senators on the Right plan to slow-walk the legislation until the furor dies down. Very conflicting decision for the welfare-only-for-corporations representatives in the Congress.

-- Norm Coleman's lawyer says "I'm done":

According to a transcript of a radio appearance this week by former Senator Norm Coleman's attorney, Joe Friedberg, the Republican will most likely lose his election contest against Al Franken for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota.

Hotline's Jennifer Skalka quotes Friedberg as conceding that Coleman will "probably" lose when the 3-judge panel currently deliberating the case, which both sides rested last week, announce their verdict.

"I think it's probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more," Friedberg admitted, after announcing that he was "done" with the case.

Senator Al Franken will be seated as soon as the court issues its ruling. Suck on that, John Cornyn.

Molly Ivins warned us about AIG

More specifically, about Phil Gramm:

October 26, 1999

AUSTIN, Texas — I feel vaguely like Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady," announcing with gleefully inhumane relish: "She'll regret it, she'll regret it! Ha!"

"I can see her now, Mrs. Freddy Eynsford-Hill, in a wretched little flat above the store!

"I can see her now, not a penny in the till, and the bill collectors knocking at the door!"

Which is to say, the new banking bill is a thoroughly lousy idea, and the party most likely to regret it is us.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach Act is about to replace the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, with the result that bankers, brokers and insurance companies can all get into one another's business. It's a done deal except for the final vote on the conference-committee agreement. The inevitable result will be a wave of mergers creating gigantic financial entities.

"Too Big to Fail" will be the new order of the day. And guess who gets left holding the bag when they're too big to fail? One of these monsters goes down, and it will cost as much as the whole S&L debacle.

And Molly also warned us about Gramm's Commodity Futures Trading Act, a 262-page amendment which he slipped into an omnibus appropriations bill moving toward passage as Congress was preparing to head home for the Christmas recess in 2000.

December 24, 2000

Just before it left town last week, Congress passed a little horror called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, brought to us courtesy of heavy lobbying by Wall Street banks and investment brokers.

Frank Portnoy, writing in The New York Times, describes the bill thusly: "First, it lifts a long-standing ban on futures trading in individual stocks, thus allowing investors to buy shares through brokers with very little money down. Second, it protects a lucrative business for bankers — the private financial contracts known as swaps — from being regulated. ... Investors are affected by swaps because they are ... used by many mutual funds and publicly traded companies."

*heavy sigh*