President Obama has opposed waterboarding as torture since the 2008 campaign – so why is he sending the man who helped shed light on that practice to prison?

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who helped expose the Bush administration’s torture program, recently plead guilty to sharing the name of a colleague to journalists to use as a source. He is expected to receive a sentence of 30 months in prison.

It’s a cruel irony that the first agent connected to the CIA torture program to go to prison is the whistleblower who spoke out against the heinous practices of our government. From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz to John Kiriakou, the government’s pattern of overzealously prosecuting activists and whistleblowers has ruined too many lives already. If President Obama wants to show he opposes torture and supports government transparency he should pardon Kiriakou immediately.

Tell President Obama to pardon CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/pardon-kiriakou

In fact, the Justice Department has refused to pursue any of the people who sanctioned and carried out the torture Kiriakou helped expose. Yet they have gone after whistleblowers and activists with a zeal unmatched by any administration in history. Bradley Manning faces life in prison. Aaron Swartz took his life in the face of unrelenting prosecution. Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, the list goes on and on.

Kiriakou is the sixth person to be indicted under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration. It’s time the president end this war on whistleblowers. He can start by pardoning John Kiriakou.

Kiriakou served his country in the CIA for over 15 years, risking his life as an undercover agent chasing Al-Qaeda overseas — he does not deserve this treatment. Kiriakou says he engaged in rendition that resulted in the torture of detainees. He did not personally carry out torture. His leak was not even made public and presented no harm to the country.

Compare this to the reckless and very public outing of Valerie Plame — a case that resulted in four felony convictions for Scooter Libby, but not a single day in jail. It is unconscionable that Libby could avoid punishment, while Kiriakou must face years in prison for exposing the illegal and inhumane actions of the government — actions the Obama administration claims to oppose.

President Obama should not punish, but pardon John Kiriakou for his exceptional patriotism in speaking out against torture.

Sign our petition demanding President Obama pardon CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou.

House Republicans are about to fold on the debt limit. They are no longer going to demand that any increase in the limit be matched with spending cuts. But because nothing in Congress can be simple and easy, the House Republicans are going to wrap up the debt ceiling in a convoluted face saving measure.

Next week House Republicans will pair a three month increase in the debt limit with a demand that the Senate pass a budget. It would require that if a budget is not approved in time, members of Congress will not get paid. From Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) office:

The first step to fixing this problem is to pass a budget that reduces spending. The House has done so, and will again. The Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in almost four years, which is unfair to hardworking taxpayers who expect more from their representatives. That ends this year.

We must pay our bills and responsibly budget for our future. Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget. Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.

Budgets are legally non-binding procedures. They are not laws and they have no real power. Why Republicans have so fetishized passing a “budget” when it is the authorization bills that actually matter is beyond me.

The important thing is that the House Republicans are not going to hold the debt ceiling hostage right now, but want to leave the door open to possibly trying to again in three months if the sequestration and government funding fights don’t go their way.

After receiving a lot of blowback for calling Obamacare “fascism”, Whole Foods Markets CEO John Mackey tried to make a more nuanced criticism at the Huffington Post. His attempt though to compare the Affordable Care Act with the Swiss health care system only highlights his lack of understanding. From John Mackey:

I believe that, if the goal is universal health care, our country would be far better served by combining free enterprise capitalism with a strong governmental safety net for our poorest citizens and those with preexisting conditions, helping everyone to be able to buy insurance. This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system than where we are currently headed in the United States.

I believe that health care should be competitive in the open market to promote innovation and creativity. Despite the criticism of me, I am encouraged that this dialogue will bring continued awareness and a better understanding of viable health care options for all Americans. There is an alternative to mandated health care in free enterprise capitalism based on voluntary exchange for mutual gain. This alternative allows individuals and businesses to innovate and develop customized solutions to health care where a “one size fits all approach” fails. Creativity and progress are stifled when government regulations dictate the parameters of what health care plans can be offered. Creative businesses, and the people who work them, can make something that has value for all stakeholders.

For people who don’t know, Switzerland mandates everyone buy a highly regulated basic insurance package. Insurance companies have very little flexibility. They must offer what is effectively the same basic insurance package to everyone at the same price and can’t make a profit on it. Technically, insurance companies do have more freedom to offer supplemental policies.

It is basically the definition of a mandated “one size fits all approach.” One of my major criticisms of the ACA is that it is not nearly as heavily regulated and standardized as the Swiss system.

I’m singling out Mackey because thi highlights one of the many problems with the health care debate in this country. You have a whole segment of politicians saying that want “free market” solutions to get universal coverage yet they can’t even begin to explain how it would work.

The simple fact is that every country that provides universal health care has dramatically more government regulation than our own. In general, the greater the level of regulation, the lower the overall price. On one side, you have progressives advocating adopting one of several proven solutions, and on the other side, you have people throwing around vague platitudes with no idea how to make them work.

One of the aspects about President Obama’s address on guns that I don’t feel got much attention is what he didn’t say. For the most part Obama didn’t talk about violent movies, TV show,s or video games. The single reference in his entire speech to violent media was a call for some funding to study the impact of violent video games. From Obama:

And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it — and Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.  We don’t benefit from ignorance.  We don’t benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.

Obama didn’t even blame video games for violence he simple said it is something worth researching.

I’m happy to see that science and commonsense won out over sentimentalism or knee jerk politics. There is very little reason to think video games or movies play a significant role in the United States’ unusually high level of gun violence. The rest of the industrialized world for the most part watches the same movies and plays the same video games, yet has much lower rates of gun violence. There has also been no rise in youth violence rates as video games have become more popular.

There has often been a push by groups like the NRA to focus on video games to try to distract from the real issue, so I’m happy to the White House only gave the concept minor lip service. Obama stayed focused on gun-related solutions to a gun violence issue.

An overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to see the Roe V. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court, according to a new Pew Research poll. The poll found only 29 percent want to see the historic abortion decision overturned, while 63 percent want it to remain. From Pew:

Interestingly, support for Roe v. Wade has remain mostly unchanged over the past twenty years. There has been only a tiny increase in support since 1992. By comparison, other culture war issue such as same-sex marriage and drug policy have seen dramatic changes in the last decade.

Given the remarkably steady state of opinion on this matter it will remain a political football for the foreseeable future.

In roughly a month Washington’s focus will again turn to attempts to get a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction when the sequestration cuts are set to go into effect, so the Business Roundtable is already laying down their goals. Their proposal for Social Security and Medicare reform including adopting the chained-CPI and increasing the eligibility age for both programs to 70. There are trying to push the envelope on the issue of Medicare age beyond what has even been discussed so far. From the Business Roundtable:

Increase Retirement Age: The Social Security retirement age should be raised from age 67 to age 70. The unique needs of individuals in in physically demanding occupations should be accommodated and the Social Security Disability Insurance Program should be modernized. [...]

Protect Medicare for Those Approaching Retirement: Medicare’s age of eligibility should be moved to age 70. However, this will not affect those age 55 or older today.

Raising the Medicare age is an unique terrible policy idea. It doesn’t save the federal government much money and by forcing older people into the less cost effective private insurance, it increases overall health care spending. It increases spending for almost everyone including seniors, everyone buying individual insurance, and state Medicaid programs.

Basically the only group of people who would really benefit from this change would be individuals in the health care industry who would see their revenues increase significantly as a result. People like the CEO’s of Aetna, Unitedhealth, Pfizer and Merck who all happen to be members of the Business Roundtable.

It is worth pointing out the irony that the Republican Party’s behavior over the past four years probably played a big role in President Obama’s decision to make a big push for gun control. One of the overriding goals of Obama seems to have been accomplishing big pieces of legislation in a “bipartisan” way. Obama didn’t just want to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” which he could have done day one with an executive order, he wanted to end it with a bipartisan bill. Obama didn’t just want health care reform, which he could have quickly passed with reconciliation, he wanted 80 votes for it in the Senate.

The Republican Party though has made it clear this is never going to happen. They have zero desire to work with Obama on anything. It is so obvious that the GOP was not going to let Obama do anything big that his campaign barely even talked about a second term legislative agenda.

As it currently stands, the only pieces of legislation Obama has a chance of passing in his second term is something to clean up this fiscal cliff/debt limit/sequestration mess and possibly a immigration reform measure. That is not a lot spread over four years.

This has given Obama the freedom of nothing to lose. I imagine if Obama still thought there was even a chance of getting bipartisan support for other issues, he would probably push gun control to the back burner, but right now there is nothing else. There is no concern about “poisoning the well” for future bipartisan action because that well is already pure cyanide.

With no real hope of passing anything else Obama might as well try to seize an emotionally powerful moment in the thin hope that a grassroots outcry will force the GOP to let something pass.

Yesterday the House of Representatives approved a $50 billion clean Sandy relief bill. What is particularly interesting about this bill is that it was passed with almost no Republicans votes. From The Hill:

The House approved a $50 billion Sandy relief bill Tuesday evening, after several hours of contentious debate in which scores of Republicans tried unsuccessfully to cut the size of the bill and offset a portion of it with spending cuts.

Members approved the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, H.R. 152, in a 241-180 vote. Among Republicans, 179 voted against it, and just 49 voted for it, a protest against a bill that many conservatives say is too big and provides funding for things other than immediate relief for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

This normally shouldn’t happen in the House. The Speaker of the House has basically complete power over what bill ever make it to the floor and Republicans have traditionally used this to enforce a “majority of the majority” principles. The general idea is that no bill should be allowed to make it to the floor unless at least a majority of the party in control supports it.

For this to happen you need a majority of Republicans wanting to be on record voting against a bill but also afraid of being blamed for its failure. The legislative equivalence of plausible deniability. This is now the second time this month that House Republicans have dealt with a politically tricky piece of legislation by allowing it to come to the floor then voting against it. The other time was to deal with the fiscal cliff.

Speaker Boehner’s recent willingness to break the majority of the majority principle is likely making the Obama administration feel more confident about the debt limit standoff. If the House Republicans fold, it would most likely take the form of allowing a clean increase to come to the floor then having it approved with mostly Democratic votes.

It would seem the Obama administration is hinting that they will (or at least want the market to think they will) prioritize bondholders over everyone else if the debt limit is reached.

In order to increase the pressure on House Republicans over the debt ceiling, the Obama administration has begun very publicly talking about all the terrible things that will happen if the limit is reached. At yesterday’s press conference, Obama implied that Social Security and veterans’ benefits may not get paid.  And in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner went into further detail. What is extremely notable is what is absent from these lists.

From Obama Press Conference:

If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.

We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn’t get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.

From Geithner’s letter:

The U.S. government makes approximately 80 million separate payments per month.  These include payments for Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; Medicare; Medicaid; national security needs, including military salaries, military retirement, veterans’ benefits, and defense contractors; income tax refunds; federal employee salaries and retirement; law enforcement and operation of the justice system; unemployment insurance; disaster relief; goods and services sold to the government under contracts with small and large businesses; and many others.  If Congress does not act to extend borrowing authority, all of these payments would be at risk.  This would impose severe economic hardship on millions of individuals and businesses across the country.

Conspicuously absent are interest payments to bondholders. While some economists have made the argument for why prioritizing bondholders is the best policy, I’ve yet to hear a real solid legal justification for why debt owed to bond holders can be allowed to supercede, for example, debts owed to contractors for services rendered. Of course we would be in a strange legal situation where the President was forced by conflicting laws to break at least some of them, so the idea of what is “legal” becomes relative.

It could be over reading these statements, but it strongly seems the administration wants to up the pressure from regular voters while also not overly spooking the market.

The Obama administration acted in a similar manner during the last debt limit fight, trying to downplay the idea of “prioritization” without completely rejecting it. There were even unnamed officials telling Bloomberg News that this was the contingency plan.

Yesterday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer endorsed taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid to everyone up to 138% of the federal poverty level. While Brewer has been one of the most vocal opponents of “Obamacare,” in her State of the State address she acknowledged that it is the law of the land and must be dealt with as such. From her prepared remarks:

Saying ‘no’ to this plan would not save these federal dollars from being spent or direct them to deficit reduction.

No, Arizona’s tax dollars would simply be passed to another state – generating jobs and providing health care for citizens in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico or any other expansion state.

Remember: Arizona citizens have voted TWICE to expand Medicaid coverage.

With this move, we will secure a federal revenue stream to cover the costs of the uninsured who already show up in our doctor’s offices and emergency rooms.

Brewer joins Gov. Susana Martinez (R) of New Mexico and Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) of Nevada as part of the small group of Republican governor to have endorsed expanding Medicaid. So far most Republican governor who have taken a position have come out against expansion with 10 governors having stated that they plan to rejected it for at least the time being.

Brewer also made a point of saying she will “not allow Obamacare to become a bait-and-switch.” If the federal funding is cut she plans to have the expansion automatically rolled back. This highlights how the Supreme Court decision making Medicaid optional has indirectly taken it off the table in potential budget negotiations. If Obama wants his signature law to be mostly implement he has to keep the expansion a very good deal for the states.

Photo by Gage Skidmore under Creative Commons license