You Are the Best Readers Ever

A couple of weeks ago we posted about the tough financial times we’ve encountered as a result of some funders pulling back on previously made commitments (plus of course the general economic meltdown). We asked you to help fill the hole they left--and because you are awesome, you did. We’re going into the new year leaner, meaner, but close enough to our fighting weight to take on whatever stories our crack investigative reporters encounter. (Job One: Keep tabs on the new administration, not to mention that line of bailout applicants stretching around the block.) We’ll spend your money carefully and we hope you like (and are outraged by) the results.

While we’re on house news, next week (we think) we’re launching our brand new website—same content, but much better presented and with a spiffy new commenting system that builds on what we’ve learned from you over the years. Thanks again for being part of the MoJo community. And P.S. The subscriptions department kind of told us not to mention this, but we're going to anyway: There's a super secret special offer going on now whereby you get a MoJo subscription for a year PLUS a pound of Peace Coffee for $10. That's less than a pound of Starbucks! And then you can be just like this guy.

New Congress Begins With Progress on Earmarks

Now we're talking:

The chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees on Tuesday jointly vowed to slice the level of earmarks while providing unprecedented disclosure of Member requests.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said that starting with the fiscal 2010 appropriations bills, when Members make their earmark requests, they will be required to post the requests on their Web sites explaining the purpose of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer funds....

Gaza War Bush's Parting Gift to Middle East

At one point or another, most American presidents concern themselves with bringing peace to the Middle East. Ultimately, all other foreign policy achievements pale in comparison. It's the brass ring of presidential greatness, the elusive key to ensuring kind treatment in the eyes of history. Such thinking must become particularly acute as presidents reach the twilight of their terms and begin in earnest the inevitable consideration of how they will be remembered. Bill Clinton made a last-ditch effort late in his second term to become the great peacemaker. He failed, as had all others before him. But at least he tried. For his part, our current outgoing commander in chief, just weeks away from relinquishing his office, has steadfastly refused to get involved even as Gaza disintegrates into violence.

Not that this should come as a surprise. Bush's lack of engagement this late in the game, says the National Security Network, is nothing if not consistent with the rest of his term. As the group describes in press release issued today:

[Bush's] episodic involvement has been muddled and without coherent vision: supporting Palestinian elections in 2006, despite the very clear possibility that Hamas would win, then refusing to honor the results; asserting that the 'road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad;' belatedly engaging through the Annapolis peace conference, which has proved to be too little too late. Experts and regional actors with differing views on the road ahead share the belief that the US absence from the scene is counterproductive and harmful to the interests of all concerned. The outbreak of war in Gaza confirms that after eight years in office the Bush administration will leave behind a region that is further from achieving a lasting peace than when it came to office.

Even Heather Mac Donald Is Right Twice a Year

I have to give this one to my girl Heather Mac Donald over at City Journal. Well, partly give it to her. She's right on the problem, but wrong-ish on the solution.

There's been lots of talk lately, however muted since black dysfunction is the issue, of rising intrablack homicide and violence rates. Overall, crime is down, except for blacks. What gives?

Happy New Year, Obama Baby! MoJo's Creative Director on our Jan/Feb Cover Art (A Saturday Evening Post Homage)

When we started developing Mother Jones' January/February 2009 cover, we were looking for a way to depict President-elect Barack Obama in a lighthearted way, while acknowledging the mammoth task he has ahead of him the minute he assumes office. After rejecting numerous ideas, including one of Hercules shoveling dung out of the Augean stables (you're welcome!), we were intrigued by the image of Obama as an innocent New Year's baby (the thinking being that "innocence" can mean "not guilty" of said mess, but can also imply "inexperienced.")

I arrived at Norman Rockwell's predecessor at the Saturday Evening Post, illustrator J.C. Leyendecker, who blogger Charley Parker claims to be the source of the New Year's baby metaphor. Aside from having developed the "Arrow shirt man" (reportedly a likeness of Leyendecker's partner of 48 years, Charles Beach), and Saturday Evening Post covers throughout the first half of the 20th century, it seems that Leyendecker created the New Year's baby image for a 1908 Post cover and continued to explore variations on that theme until his very last cover, on their January 2, 1943, issue.

The Federal Gov't Decides to Let Old Folks Keep Their Own Money—What's Left of It

As one of its final acts in the worst economic year since the Great Depression, the federal government passed legislation suspending for 2009 the rule requiring old people to withdraw a minimum amount of money from their 401Ks, IRAs, or other individual retirement accounts. The current rule imposes a 50 percent tax penalty on anyone over age 70 1/2 who fails to take their so-called mandatory distributions by the end of the year.

That’s right, fellow oldsters--as a parting gift to all of us, the 110th Congress and George W. Bush, who failed to prevent or contain the financial meltdown that has cost some of us a third or more of our life savings, is now giving us permission not to spend some of what’s left.

The idea behind the legislation is that seniors shouldn’t be forced to sell off their investments at a loss. Unfortunately, however, it applies to 2009, not 2008--which is, of course, when our retirement accounts got gutted. According to the New York Times, some members of Congress urged Henry Paulson’s Treasury Department to apply the same change to 2008, but it declined to do so.

In a letter to members of Congress, the Treasury Department said any steps it could take to address the issue would be “substantially more limited than the relief enacted by Congress and could not be made uniformly to all individuals subject to required minimum distributions.” It also said carrying out the changes would be “complicated and confusing for individuals and plan sponsors.”

Well, by all means, let’s not confuse the old farts; we’re having a tough enough time figuring out how how it is that we did everything we were supposed to do--worked, planned, saved, invested--and still got so royally screwed. And let’s not complicate things for the financial institutions, who are already overburdened figuring out how to spend their $700 billion handout.

Oversight Committee: 13,847 Recommendations That Bush Ignored

The House Oversight Committee released a report this morning identifying nearly 14,000 recommendations made by agency Inspectors General since 2001 that have yet to be acted upon by the Bush administration. In addition to simply improving health, safety, and security conditions, the committee claims that implementing some of these fixes could save taxpayers an estimated $25.9 billion. It's a big number, but more interesting to me were some of the IG recommendations that have languished. Along with examples of run-of-the-mill government waste—e.g., "FEMA could
recover $16 million in excessive billings and questionable costs resulting from poor
management of a contract"—there are a few doozies.

Like:

In May 2003, the IG for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a report concluding that the Commission’s limited oversight does not provide adequate assurance that all licensees properly control and account for special nuclear material, such as plutonium and uranium.16 In a December 2008 memorandum to NRC management, the IG raised concerns about “continued delays” in promulgating rules to address these security concerns. NRC estimates it may not complete the rulemaking until July 2011, eight years after the report’s release.

Obama Picks Anti-Torture Advocate for CIA Chief

News outfits are reporting that Leon Panetta has been tapped by President-elect Barack Obama to take over the Central Intelligence Agency.

It's an unusual choice, for Panetta, a former Democratic congressman who became President Bill Clinton's budget chief and then his White House chief of staff, has no direct intelligence experience, and the CIA in previous decades has been rather unwelcoming to outsiders. (Obama's first pick for the spy chief slot, John Brennan, a career CIA officer, withdrew his name, after bloggers and others raised questions about his involvement in the agency's post-9/11 detention and interrogation programs.) Panetta, if confirmed, will work closely with retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence.

Panetta is an even-tempered and highly regarded Washington player--kind of a Mr. Fixit in a nice suit. He is also a zero-tolerance critic of the use of torture, and he considers waterboarding--a tactic used by the CIA--to be torture. A year ago, he wrote in The Washington Monthly:

9/11 Mastermind Goes on Trial in France

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "kingpin" of the 9/11 attacks, was captured in Pakistan in March 2003. He then disappeared in the global network of "black sites" operated by the CIA before resurfacing in Guantanamo in September 2006. The US military plans to try him for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans by means of a military commission. Human rights groups argue that such a trial would lack legal safeguards necessary to guarantee a fair trial, and are therefore urging that the US government try Mohammed either in civilian court or by a standard military court martial.

The battle over Mohammed's legal fate continues, but we may see him tried (and presumably convicted) well before any US action takes place. The BBC reports that a trial opened today in France, accusing Mohammed and several co-conspirators of planning the April 2002 truck bombing of a Tunisian synagogue, which killed 21 people. Two of the victims were French nationals, a fact that has enabled French prosecutors to try the case.

From the BBC:

According to court documents, suicide bomber Nizar Nouar called Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mr Ganczarski, a convert to Islam who specialised in communications, just before he drove the gas-laden truck into the synagogue.

The calls were allegedly made on a telephone brought into Tunisia by the bomber's brother, the third defendant Walid Nouar.

All three men have been charged with "complicity in attempted murder in relation to a terrorist enterprise". They face 20 years in prison if convicted.

Relatives of the victims were in court on Monday.

"We are hoping for a life sentence... and we think there is sufficient evidence," said Judith-Adam Caumeil, a lawyer for German families.

Christian Ganczarski, a Polish-born German, identified himself to the court in German and insisted on his innocence.

"I had nothing to do with the attack," he said.

The bomber's uncle, Belgacem Nouar, was jailed in 2006 for his role in the attacks.

The trial is due to last until 6 February.

Obama Nominates Dawn Johnsen, the Anti-Yoo, as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

John Yoo, who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Bush administration's Justice Department, became famous for his memos in defense of torture and his theory that the Constitution grants the president almost unlimited power during times of war. (The OLC is the part of the Justice Department responsible for providing legal advice to the executive.) Dawn Johnsen, the woman whom Barack Obama selected on Monday to run Yoo's old office*, published an article in 2007 entitled "Faithfully Executing the Laws: Internal Legal Constraints on Executive Power." That's quite the contrast. In a 2008 paper, "What's a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of the Bush Administration's Abuses," (PDF) she writes that the Bush administration's disregard for the law should be the exception, not the rule, going forward:

The lesson we should draw from the Bush administration is not that we should dramatically alter our understanding of longstanding presidential authorities. Rather, it is the urgent need for more effective safeguards and checks from both within and without the executive branch to preclude any future recurrence of the Bush administration’s appalling abuses.

If you delve further into Johnsen's work, the contrast with Yoo gets even sharper; she directly criticizes his legal theories. In the 2007 paper (PDF), she wrote:

Gaza Crisis: Israelis Echoing Bush on Regime Change?

The Israelis appear to have learned from the Bush-Cheney administration.

On Monday morning, NPR ran an interview with Michael Oren, an American-Israeli best-selling military historian and Israeli reservist who is a spokesperson for the Israeli military. (He has also been a contributing editor for The New Republic.) Asked if the goal of the current Israeli operation in Gaza is regime change--that is, the expulsion of Hamas from power--he replied that Israelis "do not want to see continuation of Hamas rule in Gaza," but added, "It is not Israel's explicit goal to topple the Hamas government....That is not the stated goal of this operation. If it happens...there will be many people happy about it...The stated goal is to restore security to the southern part of Israel."

This line echoes the rhetoric used by Bush-Cheney officials in 2002 and 2003. They repeatedly noted that the United States officially favored regime change in Iraq but that the invasion to come was about WMDs and security. If it took regime change to neutralize that supposed dire WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein, so be it.

How to Rebuild the SEC

The portions of Michael Lewis and David Einhorn's NYT op-ed that Noam Scheiber highlights are really worth sharing. On the campaign trail, Obama made it appear that he was going to use the financial crisis to bring back regulation to our financial markets. Lewis and Einhorn have an easy way for him to start. Let's hope our President-elect doesn't go weak in the knees.

It's not hard to see why the S.E.C. behaves as it does. If you work for the enforcement division of the S.E.C. you probably know in the back of your mind, and in the front too, that if you maintain good relations with Wall Street you might soon be paid huge sums of money to be employed by it.

The commission’s most recent director of enforcement is the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase; the enforcement chief before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank; and one of his predecessors became a managing director for Credit Suisse before moving on to Morgan Stanley. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the whole point of landing the job as the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement is to position oneself for the better paying one on Wall Street....

The key suggestion:

If the S.E.C. is to restore its credibility as an investor protection agency, it should have some experienced, respected investors (which is not the same thing as investment bankers) as commissioners. President-elect Barack Obama should nominate at least one with a notable career investing capital, and another with experience uncovering corporate misconduct. As it happens, the most critical job, chief of enforcement, now has a perfect candidate, a civic-minded former investor with firsthand experience of the S.E.C.’s ineptitude: Harry Markopolos [the investor who spent years trying to alert the SEC to Bernie Madoff].

Obama Transition Releases Donors

With this little toot of its own horn:

We refuse all donations from corporations, labor unions and PACs. Individuals may not donate more than $5,000. We also refuse all contributions from registered federal lobbyists and registered foreign agents.

You can search through the donors here. So far, I can tell you that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Rod Blagojevich, and Roland Burris have all chosen not to donate. Like every journalist in America, I plugged their names in before anyone else's.

"Senator Franken": Getting Closer

Here's CNN:

A state election board on Monday will announce Democrat Al Franken has defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race, state officials told CNN Sunday....

The canvassing board on Monday will say a recount determined Franken won by 225 votes, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie told CNN.

The Coleman campaign is expected to file a legal challenge, alleging that about 650 absentee ballots, many from pro-Coleman areas, were improperly rejected in the course of the recount. Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats have declared Franken the winner, but Republican senators have promised they will filibuster to keep Franken from being seated while legal challenges are still outstanding. It appears "Senator Franken" could be seated in January, February, or even March.

Update: What's the takeaway? We will soon have a senator who once did things like this.

Return a Hyundai: Further (Crazy?) Innovations from Desperate Carmakers

Remember the "Buy One, Get One Free" Dodge trucks? This rivals that in the we'll-do-anything-to-sell-cars category. I heard about it while watching the Eagles-Vikings playoff game on Fox. It's called Hyundai Assurance:

Finance or lease any new Hyundai, and if in the next year you lose your income*, we'll let you return it. That's the Hyundai Assurance.

Starting today you can feel good about buying a car, despite these current times. If you find that you cannot make your payment because of a covered life changing event, we'll allow you to return your vehicle and walk away from your loan obligation — and in most cases we will cover most, if not all of the difference.

Notice that asterisk? Hyundai doesn't explain on its website what it means to "lose your income." They suggest you visit a Hyundai dealer to find out, which I am most certainly not going to do. Lot of that going around, I guess.

Why Did Obama's Transition Team Ignore Bill Richardson's Long History of Dubious Dealings?

The wreck of Bill Richardson, who withdrew earlier today as President-elect Obama’s nominee for Commerce Secretary, surely should have been anticipated by the Obama vetters. As previously reported by Mother Jones, the New Mexico governor has, over the last decade, left behind a wide trail of questionable business dealings, many of them involving the energy industry.

Obama's transition team apparently chose to ignore these past whiffs of scandal. They also seem to have been unfazed by the current federal investigation into a possible pay-to-play scandal, which was already well underway when Richardson’s nomination was announced on December 3. Within two weeks of the nomination, the media was widely reportingthat Richardson was the subject of a grand jury probe in a “highly active stage.”

Richardson insists that he and his administration “have acted properly in all matters” and that he is withdrawing his name from consideration only because “the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.” But the accusations are pretty damning. The Washington Post reports:

The probe in New Mexico involves questions about a California firm, CDR Financial Products, and its president, David Rubin. The grand jury in Albuquerque is looking into whether the firm was given a contract with the New Mexico Finance Authority because of pressure from Richardson. CDR made $1.48 million advising the authority on interest-rate swaps and refinancing of funds related to $1.6 billion in transportation bonds issued by the agency, state officials confirmed.The firm and Rubin together gave $100,000 to two Richardson organizations shortly before winning those contracts.

Back in July 2007, when Richardson was a contender for the Democratic nomination, and was also being discussed as a possible vice-presidential pick for Hillary Clinton, I reported here on the considerable baggage Richardson carried when it came to his relationships in the private sector:

Obama, Richardson Finger-Pointing Begins

Well, we've already got a lead on which of three possible explanations applies to this Richardson situation. Here's Jake Tapper:

Sources tell ABC News that officials on the Obama Transition Team feel that before he was formally offered the job of commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was not forthcoming with them about the federal investigation that is looking into whether the governor steered a state contract towards a major financial contributor....

And the Richardson people respond as you would expect:

The Richardson camp says the governor was forthcoming, with sources close to the governor noting that there had been reports about the controversy in local media such as the Albuquerque Journal as far back as August 2008. The governor discussed the investigation with the Obama team, they say, and believes that he and his administration have done nothing wrong.

So it took, oh, less than three hours for the Obama and Richardson camps to begin pointing fingers at one another. Richardson has already fallen on his sword; it's probably better for everyone involved if both parties keep their mouths shut from this point forward. Assigning blame just prolongs the media's interest.

Update: Richardson sources are suggesting that they did tell the Obama team about the Governor's problems before he was nominated; they had hoped the Governor would be cleared in a fast-moving inquiry that failed to materialize.

Richardson Withdraws

There must be something legitimate to the allegation that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and/or his aides pushed state business to a company that was a ample supporter of Richardson's campaigns and other activities ($100,000 for Richardson and pals to travel to the Democratic Convention, for example). Richardson has withdrawn himself from Obama's future cabinet, where he was slated to become Secretary of Commerce, citing the desire to avoid a lengthy and distracting confirmation process. Here's part of a statement from Richardson that the Obama transition team released to the press.

...when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call. I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.

It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time. I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.

A Denver School Teacher Responds to the Bennet Appointment

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter's choice of Michael Bennet to replace departing Senator Ken Salazar (Salazar is leaving Congress' esteemed higher body to become Obama's Secretary of the Interior) is already drawing criticism. Bennet, the reform-oriented head of the Denver school system, has never run for office in his life and has never held a statewide position. There is little evidence that suggests he can hold onto the seat when challenged by a Republican in 2010.

A few weeks ago, when Bennet was generating buzz as a possible Secretary of Education, I spoke to a friend who is a charter school teacher in Denver. She was skeptical. Naturally, I asked her for her thoughts on Bennet's latest move. They are below.

A Former Blago-ite Fills In Some Blago/Burris History

A Capitol Hill-type who got his start interning for Blagojevich responds to a blog post from yesterday that raised the possibility that Blago appointed Burris because Burris helped Blago win the 2002 governor's race. Blago, who had no standing in the black community at the time, won the Democratic primary only because Burris stole some of the black vote away from a man named Paul Vallas who had assiduously courted the black community.

Sorry, no. Blago's not the kind of guy who returns favors, and Burris (a man who has built a lavish monument to himself listing his accomplishments) is not the kind of guy that would do a massive favor like this and then wait around 6 years for a Senate appointment that no one could have predicted in 2002. Burris ran because he thought he could get the nomination by having Vallas and Blago split the white/downstate vote, leaving Burris with the nomination in a year with a remarkably weak Republican party and candidate.

Why has Blagojevich picked Burris now? Because he needs 19 votes from State Senators to survive impeachment. 9 State Senators are black. I think Blago's hoping they're all getting calls from community leaders asking them to stand by him since he stood by them.