Wow. Matt Taibbi has done it again, unleashing another furious and righteous broadside regarding Wall Street and the financial industry…only this time it’s aimed at an Obama administration that appears to be home-away-from-home for a legion of Wall Street expatriates and Clinton-era New Democrat-ish advisors who are determined to destroy any effort to enact fundamental reform. Taibbi’s article is dense and fact-heavy, so it doesn’t really do justice to excerpt any of it; you really should read the whole thing, and carefully at that. But here’s a taste:

The significance of all of these appointments isn’t that the Wall Street types are now in a position to provide direct favors to their former employers. It’s that, with one or two exceptions, they collectively offer a microcosm of what the Democratic Party has come to stand for in the 21st century. Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants. “Bob Rubin, these guys, they’re classic limousine liberals,” says David Sirota, a former Democratic strategist. “These are basically people who have made shitloads of money in the speculative economy, but they want to call themselves good Democrats because they’re willing to give a little more to the poor. That’s the model for this Democratic Party: Let the rich do their thing, but give a fraction more to everyone else.”

And:

“The investment community feels very put-upon,” [Daniel] Fass explained. “They feel there is no reason why they shouldn’t earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown.”

Which makes sense. Shit, who could blame the investment community for the meltdown? What kind of assholes are we to put any of this on them?

This is the kind of person who is working for the Obama administration, which makes it unsurprising that we’re getting no real reform of the finance industry. There’s no other way to say it: Barack Obama, a once-in-a-generation political talent whose graceful conquest of America’s racial dragons en route to the White House inspired the entire world, has for some reason allowed his presidency to be hijacked by sniveling, low-rent shitheads. Instead of reining in Wall Street, Obama has allowed himself to be seduced by it, leaving even his erstwhile campaign adviser, ex-Fed chief Paul Volcker, concerned about a “moral hazard” creeping over his administration.

“The obvious danger is that with the passage of time, risk-taking will be encouraged and efforts at prudential restraint will be resisted,” Volcker told Congress in September, expressing concerns about all the regulatory loopholes in Frank’s bill. “Ultimately, the possibility of further crises — even greater crises — will increase.”

I haven’t followed the financial reform efforts nearly as closely as someone like Taibbi, but every time I read about one of these clowns I’m amazed to the extent at which they all seem to be proponents of the New Democrat “free markets/low regulation” approach. But it’s obvious why they support it; they all made millions in this system. Why in God’s name would the Obama administration make them the top economic advisors, when they were largely behind (or connected to, or getting paid by, people behind) the anti-regulatory approach of the Clinton administration? Maybe somebody can ask Obama that question when they get a moment free from asking Sarah Palin her opinion of global warming.

One more excerpt:

These teabaggers don’t know that, however. All they know is that a big government program might end up using tax dollars to pay the medical bills of rapidly breeding Dominican immigrants. So they hate it. They’re also in a groove, knowing that at the polls a few days earlier, people like themselves had a big hand in ousting several Obama-allied Democrats, including a governor of New Jersey who just happened to be the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. A sign held up by New Jersey protesters bears the warning, “If You Vote For Obamacare, We Will Corzine You.”

I approach a woman named Pat Defillipis from Toms River, New Jersey, and ask her why she’s here. “To protest health care,” she answers. “And then amnesty. You know, immigration amnesty.”

I ask her if she’s aware that there’s a big hearing going on in the House today, where Barney Frank’s committee is marking up a bill to reform the financial regulatory system. She recognizes Frank’s name, wincing, but the rest of my question leaves her staring at me like I’m an alien.

“Do you care at all about economic regulation?” I ask. “There was sort of a big economic collapse last year. Do you have any ideas about how that whole deal should be fixed?”

“We got to slow down on spending,” she says. “We can’t afford it.”

“But what do we do about the rules governing Wall Street . . .”

She walks away. She doesn’t give a fuck. People like Pat aren’t aware of it, but they’re the best friends Obama has. They hate him, sure, but they don’t hate him for any reasons that make sense. When it comes down to it, most of them hate the president for all the usual reasons they hate “liberals” — because he uses big words, doesn’t believe in hell and doesn’t flip out at the sight of gay people holding hands. Additionally, of course, he’s black, and wasn’t born in America, and is married to a woman who secretly hates our country.

These are the kinds of voters whom Obama’s gang of Wall Street advisers is counting on: idiots.

The idiots aren’t all on that side either. On our side we have people like Gary Willis who are abandoning Obama because he’s sending more troops to Afghanistan, a move that had roughly a 75% or better chance of happening upon his election, and then we have people who have decided they can’t be liberal because other people are being mean to Obama about this decision. So while we’re busy fighting about things that liberals have legitimate differences of opinion on, Wall Street executives are becoming the best buddies of the Obama administration (when they aren’t one and the same, that is.)

As has become typical, Taibbi takes fire from people who mistake his style for his substance. Because Taibbi acts like a blogger instead of a mainstream journalist, he takes the time to carefully demolish his critic’s arguments. But even someone like Fernholz, who mistakes hyperbole with a purpose for fact, can see as clearly as any of us how men and women with ties to Wall Street have come to dominate this administration, and what that’s doing to the reform efforts in Congress. People ought to be angry about this but they aren’t, because they don’t understand what’s happening and so don’t know why they should be angry in the first place except that some bankers are getting big bonuses. But Taibbi explains it in detail, and his righteous indignation becomes are rage at a system that appears to be rigged against people losing their homes, their life-savings, and their dignity. I am not at all exaggerating when I say that we need Taibbi right now, because he’s the only one who’ll make us angry enough to pay attention.

As completely predicted:

Most Texas businesses next year will pay nearly triple the unemployment-benefits tax that they paid this year, the Texas Workforce Commission announced today.

The minimum tax rate owed per worker will be nearly $65 in 2010, up from about $23 this year.

Two-thirds of Texas employers, or about 255,000, will pay the minimum rate next year. This year, 278,000 – or 74 percent – paid the lowest rate.

“More of them will have an ‘experience rating’ because more of them have had layoffs over the past year” and no longer qualify to pay the minimum rate, commission spokeswoman Ann Hatchitt explained.

The rates are the highest this decade and appear to be the heaviest unemployment taxes assessed by the state since the oil and real estate bust of the late 1980s, according to commission records.

Because of the recession, the commission needs to raise or borrow $4.3 billion next year to pay for newly laid-off workers’ first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits and to replenish the state’s unemployment insurance trust fund.

[...]

critics have noted that Texas ranks near the bottom of states in the percentage of laid-off workers who receive help – about 34 percent last spring, according to federal statistics.

The critics also say the tax hit on employers is heavier because Gov. Rick Perry rejected federal stimulus money for unemployment benefits. The Republican governor said there were too many strings attached.

Texas could have avoided levying more than one-fifth of next year’s taxes if it had accepted $556 million of stimulus money. That’s true even if federally required liberalization of eligibility rules immediately were to add $90 million of new benefits costs, which some experts say wouldn’t have happened for many months.

Let’s lay out the sordid tale of Perry and the unemployment fund in Texas. Last year, when the unemployment trust fund had a surplus, he called for tax cuts even though the Comptroller was predicting a $9.1 billion drop in revenue for the state. When stimulus funds were being handed out earlier this year, Perry made a big noise about refusing government “bailout” money…until he relented and decided to accept it after all. But not all of it. He still refused to accept funds allocated for unemployed Texans. And as a result, unemployment taxes will triple to cover a projected $4.3 billion shortfall. Why go to all this trouble? It’s simple: Perry is counting on the stupidity of Texas Republican voters. He cuts taxes because he knows that Republican voters love a good tax cut, and won’t be bothered to pay attention to hard numbers about state deficits. He grandstands about the stimulus because he knows that Texas Republicans hate Obama and the “bailouts”, but after making noise he decides to go ahead and take most of the money after all because even Perry can see how desperate Texas is for the money. But to soften that blow he refuses extra funds for unemployment, citing “strings” that come attached to the money, because he knows that Texas Republicans can’t stand the idea of taking money from Obama, nor can they stand the idea of some bum getting a check because he doesn’t want to work. And now it’s revealed that Texas Workforce Commission will have to raise taxes and borrow money to cover what stingy unemployment Texas allows. And do you know who Texas employers blame when they see their unemployment taxes go up next year? Obama, and “tax and spend” liberals. How does he get away with this? Because Perry’s “defiance” of Obama gets NY Times attention, and the result gets a story in the Dallas Morning News.

Perry counts on Texas Republicans being too stupid and having too short of an attention span to notice the completely natural and predicted results of his policies, and they are more than happy to oblige.

I reluctantly supported last year’s various bailouts of the financial industry because I accepted the idea that, as distasteful as they may have been, they were necessary to prop up the troubled economy. I’m beginning to think that I was, ahem, naive:

A RAY of sunlight broke through the Washington fog last week when Neil M. Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, published his office’s report on the government bailout last year of the American International Group.

It’s must reading for any taxpayer hoping to understand why the $182 billion “rescue” of what was once the world’s largest insurer still ranks as the most troubling episode of the financial disaster. And it couldn’t have come at a more pivotal moment.

[...]

The report takes the Fed to task as refusing to use its power and prestige to wrestle concessions from A.I.G.’s big, sophisticated and well-heeled trading partners when the government itself had to pay off the contracts.

The Fed, under Mr. Geithner’s direction, caved in to A.I.G.’s counterparties, giving them 100 cents on the dollar for positions that would have been worth far less if A.I.G. had defaulted. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Société Générale and other banks were in the group that got full value for their contracts when many others were accepting fire-sale prices.

On the question of whether this payout was what the report describes as a “backdoor bailout” of A.I.G.’s counterparties, Mr. Barofsky concluded: “The very design of the federal assistance to A.I.G. was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” The report noted that this was money the banks might not otherwise have received had A.I.G. gone belly-up.

The report said that while bailing out Goldman and other investment banks might not have been the intent behind the Fed’s A.I.G. rescue, it certainly was its effect. “By providing A.I.G. with the capital to make these payments, Federal Reserve officials provided A.I.G.’s counterparties with tens of billions of dollars they likely would have not otherwise received had A.I.G. gone into bankruptcy,” the report stated.

As Goldman prepares to pay out nearly $17 billion in bonuses to its employees in one of its most profitable years ever, it is important that an authoritative, independent voice like Mr. Barofsky’s reminds us how the taxpayer bailout of A.I.G. benefited Goldman.

And in the meantime:

Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did you catch that? Hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on debt for us, billions of dollars of bonuses for executives at Goldman Sachs as a result of one of its most profitable years ever. Matt Taibbi was right; we’ve been robbed blind and as our nation sinks under a mountain of debt and rising unemployment, Goldman Sachs executives will be buying their own islands.

Glenn Greenwald highlights this episode of Bill Moyer’s Journal, where Rep. Marcy Kaptur and economist Simon Johnson tell us that the big banks on Wall Street “own” Congress. An excerpt:

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you an excerpt from the speech President Obama made on Wall Street last month, September. Here is the challenge he laid down to the bankers.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

BILL MOYERS: A reality check. Not one CEO of a Wall Street bank was there to hear the President. What do you make of that?

SIMON JOHNSON: Arrogance. Because they have no fear for the government anymore. They have no respect for the President, which I find absolutely extraordinary and shocking. All right? And I think they have no not an ounce of gratitude to the American people, who saved them, their jobs, and the way they run the world.

Why don’t they fear Obama? Because Obama’s top advisors are their own people, and they own Congress:

While the industry has scaled back its political spending in the wake of last year’s economic collapse, data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that it’s still investing heavily in the Senate, where it’s likely to have its best shot at stopping — or at least shaping — the crackdown on Wall Street that President Barack Obama has proposed.

And it’s clearly looking to Democrats to do it.

Of the $10.6 million the industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats.

The clue as to why our government struggles to deal with any substantial problem facing our country today is right there. So long as politicians must run massively expensive campaigns to get themselves elected, they will be in thrall to those who give them the most money. Between that and a media that’s incapable of either understanding or addressing the problems that face our nation, it’s hardly any wonder that some (myself included) find ourselves thinking that our nation is doomed.

An unmitigated failure. The Bush administration was a disaster for our nation…unless you were the beneficiary of those massive tax cuts:

Thursday’s annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau’s principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It’s not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.

[...]

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan’s record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush’s single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

Such is the result of a deliberate effort to shift money away from social spending and give it back to the already wealthy, combined with a general inattention to and disinterest in the well-being of our nation (beyond torturing terrorists and launching wars of aggression.) There should be retribution for such awful stewardship, but the only punishment being meted out is to you and me.

Adam and I were talking about this yesterday, about how real unemployement isn’t being reported in most news outlets. The most-quoted figure I’ve seen is the 9.5% seasonally adjusted U-3, and when a number is that qualified you know it’s not quite natural. I just looked up the U-6 measure (the most inclusive measurement) in the current statistics. The percentage of all employable people not working full-time jobs is 16.8%. The U-6 includes part-timers who are looking for full-time work as part of the figure, which is reasonable because a lot of them are part-time because of the economy. The number being reported in the news is the 9.7% U-3, which as you can see is a much more limited measurement.

Now, one thing to note is that the difference between June ’08 and June ’09 using these two indices tell two different stories. From June ’08 to June ’09, the U-3 went from 5.7% to 9.7%, a 4% change. The U-6 changed from 10.3% to 16.8%, a change of 6.5%. So the net change in employment is also worse than is being reported. Some of this is people being shunted into part-time jobs, but the U-1 is a measure of how many people have been unemployed more than 15 weeks or longer, and that has risen from 1.8% to 4.8%. Jobs have really just vanished.

The question is, even when the economy starts growing again, how many full-time jobs are going to come back for people? Even when the economy was supposedly so great back in the Bush years (coming off the Clinton high, that is), people were struggling. Just read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. Actually I think I’ve blogged on that subject plenty of times. We keep hearing about how the recession is supposed to end this year or that we may already be at the tail and the economy is starting to recover; we hear that jobs lag behind the economy in general. Either of these things may be true; neither of them means that Americans will be getting well-paid full-time jobs with benefits. Is there any way to change that?

I don’t know the answer to that, but it lies in what industries are going to make the biggest turnaround. I honestly don’t think that even if the automakers come around and turn profitable, they’ll end up re-hiring a lot of people. They’re cutting back as much as possible and if their salvation lies in competing with the foreign auto makers, they’re going to be making more of fewer kinds of vehicles, which means less workers. America needs growth industries that we can take the lead in. We need to invest in an infrastructure to produce new kinds of goods and services that other countries can’t compete with. Things like clean energy, health care and medicine, or eco-science, that the world needs but which can also be profitable industries. It’s time to do something new.

Update: Xanthippas just let me know about this article, pointing out estimates of the real number of unemployed, which is well above even the U-6. Read the article for an explanation of how these numbers are arrived at:

By adding these folks back in, William’s SGS-Alternate Unemployment Measure rose to a jaw-dropping 20.6%. Separately, the Center for Labor Market Studies in Boston puts U.S. unemployment at 18.2%. Any way you cut the numbers, the situation is very bad. According to David Rosenberg, one-in-three among the unemployed have been looking for a job for more than six months and still can’t find one.

That’s about 1 in 5 employable people either unemployed or underemployed. This recession is far from over.

1. A story in yesterday’s Washington Post reveals that the Obama administration is considering drafting an executive order asserting the President’s authority to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without any judicial process. The White House denies that a draft order exists (via John Cole) thought there is no denial that they are considering such a move. I found this quote from the Post article to be particularly odd:

“…one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order. “Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said.

First of all, I would like this official to find me one civil liberties group that has argued for such a thing. Perhaps what he/she meant is that they’d rather have an executive order than a Bush-like assertion of authority that merely cites the Constitution, but there’s essentially no difference between the two approaches legally. Also, they are arguing that such an order would permit them to get Congress’ acquiescence in the closing of Guantanamo, an effort stymied by the various Democratic and Republican bed-wetters on the Hill. Which basically would amount to Obama saying to Congress “I double-pledge to hold terrorists forever if you will please let me shut down Guantanamo.” But it seems to me like sending them Bermuda an the South Pacific was working out alright.

2. Gays and Lesbiasn are-rightly-angered as well at the Obama administration’s shuffling approach towards gay rights. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, remains in place, the Obama DOJ is arguing before the courts to retain DOMA, and Obama’s decision to extend federal benefits to domestic partners was praised until advocates realized that those benefits didn’t include health care (doubly ironic, considering the President’s present political battle over a national health care plan.) Arnold King, while not citing specifically to the administration’s approach to gay rights, makes the point that the Obama administration has many agendas, but appears satisfied to half-ass meeting their goals on any of them.

3. For some conservative Christians, Sanford’s weeping and rending of garments is enough for them to get over his infidelity and bizarre behavior. I’m sure the fact that he’s a Republican politician has absolutely no bearing on their attitudes. But stories like this make it clear that for all of Sanford’s talk, he was determined to continuing playing his own staff, his own state, and especially his own wife, until he got caught. Politically connected religious leaders and politicians may be quick to forgive, but other conservatives? Not so much.

4. Bob Herbert takes a look at the economy and calls a spade (a jobless recovery) a spade (no recovery at all.)

5. The Iranian government appears to be gaining the upper-hand against the protesters, though it also seems clear that the massive protests have revealed divisions in the leadership that may indicate long-term change.

6. Upon the news of Michael Jackson’s death, I found myself wondering what condition his estate was in and upon whom would fall the unfortunate task of trying to sort it out. It appears he had at least one will, though no one knows it’s contents yet. I predict there will be a gargantuan battle over his estate given the value still attached to his name and his music and the massive debt attached to much of his property, but I doubt it will interest the public as much as Anna Nicole Smith’s highly publicized probate did, what with the absence of a childhood custody dispute. There can be no doubt though of Jackson’s status as a mega-star, as the reaction to his death was almost more than the internet could bear.

7. You might’ve missed this news, but Wednesday the United States pulled off a shocking upset and defeated the number one team in the world 2-0 to advance to the final game of the Confederations Cup. Spain is praised for their ability to possess the ball, and it was expected that the U.S. would entrench upon defense and wait for their opportunities to counter. Instead, Spain committed uncharacteristic errors as the U.S. went with a strategy of heavily pressuring the ball and looking for quick counters, and remaining incredibly well-organized (and frankly, a little lucky) on defense. The strategy paid off with huge dividends; quick movement up the field led to a goal by Jozy Altidore, and a Spanish turnover led to a goal by Clint Dempsey. Altidore (after keeper Brad Guzan) was clearly man of the match. No telling if his outstanding play makes him the future of American soccer or another Eddie Johnson, but American soccer fans will take what they can get. The United States plays Brazil tomorrow, a team they already lost to in the first round, but against whom they might have a better chance if they play as decisively as they did against Spain.

8. I thought this article about Grandparents University at UNT was interesting. Grandparents and their grand-children apparently spend a weekend at the school’s dorm and taking classes together, in a program designed to give young teenagers and tweeners a taste of college life, and some bonding time with their grand-parents.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman finds at least one civil libertarian to whom the Obama administration official might be referring with the above quote from the Post story; Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies:

Martin thinks that established law holds that the administration doesn’t require any additional legal authorization to hold anyone captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan without charge until the end of hostilities — that comes from the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, as does dispensation for the 9/11 plotters — but would need to charge or release any detainee picked up outside either Afghanistan or Iraq. Martin thinks the reported executive order might be the only thing standing in the way of an even broader congressional effort of the sort seen in the war supplemental that Daphne critiqued yesterday. Martin has expressed her organization’s longstanding perspective on detainee matters to the administration’s detentions task force.

So Martin supports it, but only to the extent that something from Congress might be worse. Given the way Congress has handled the possible closing of Gitmo this may be true, though I happen to think that Congress should be forced to craft an indefinite detention policy if that’s what they want in exchange for closing Gitmo.

Glenn Greenwald has more though, as I’ve pointed out once before, he has a tendency to criticize the “many defenders” of Obama on various issues where Obama replicates Bush doctrines, without actually linking to or naming any of these defenders. Greenwald is a very thorough blogger, which is why I don’t understand why he so eagerly reaches for the “some say” approach to blogging.

Some reading for your Friday afternoon:

1. Ayatollah Khamenei escalates the rhetoric and says opposition leaders will be responsible for “bloodshed and chaos” if the protests continue (a possibility that members of hard-line militias may seek to ensure becomes a reality.) He denies that Iran’s election was rigged, though he’s contradicted by what evidence is available. Roger Cohen lauds the protesters, and says Obama should be more firmly on their side. I disagree. I think Obama has struck the proper tone of concern and and caution. Were it not for our history of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs, I might think otherwise.

2. More details on Obama’s new financial regulations plan. Changes no doubt, but maybe not the sweeping kind that we need, according to Paul Krugman. The bad news on the economy in general has slowed, but Martin Wolf says we shouldn’t be too hasty about thinking we’re out of the woods yet. Certainly some (like small businesses) are having a very rough time of it.

3. Check for flying pigs outside your window, because today Ken Starr has come out in support of of Sonia Sotomayor.

4. John Shalikashvilli, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs under Clinton, says that arguments against gays in the military are poorly reasoned and insupportable.

5. Egypt shocked Italy 1-0 in Confederations Cup play yesterday, a result that perhaps shouldn’t be so surprising given their play against Brazil. Fortunately for the U.S. this means that a win against Egypt tomorrow means the US will make it out of the first round. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt is playing so well against the giants makes such a victory highly unlikely.

6. Today is Juneteenth round these parts, a celebration of the day that slaves were liberated in Texas.

Some things for you to ponder this morning:

1. A senior cleric in Iran comes out against the election results. But were they rigged? Critics say yes.

2. Some analysis of Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel would consider recognition of a Palestinian state. A step forward, but still balking on other important considerations like settlement expansion.

3. A Presidential election and some new laws, but the end result is the same; you can’t trust the NSA not to spy on the American people.

4. Speaking of intelligence agencies, the CIA is fighting the release of it’s own internal reports regarding interrogations of “high-value” detainees. Obviously, there’s something in embarrassing in them.

5. Speaking of detainees, here are some people who don’t wet their pants at the thought of being responsible for them.

6. Obama will announce that the federal government will extend benefits to the domestic partners, including same-sex partners and spouses, of federal employees.

7. The Obama administration is proposing regulatory changes that will broaden government oversight of banks and the financial markets.

8. And lastly, another great column of David Leonhardt at the New York Times. This time he takes on the scare word “rationing” and explains how health care is already rationed ineffeciently and unfairly everyday in America.

Progress on the credit card reform front: The House Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights (which I first wrote about back in September of last year) has cleared the House Financial Services Committee. The Senate is presently working on a similar bill sponsored by Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer. And President Obama has signaled that he supports such reform efforts:

President Obama is making clear to credit card executives today that he intends to back efforts to crack down on what lawmakers consider to be deceptive practices, even as the industry criticizes legislation in the House of Representatives as dangerous to the nation’s hopes for an economic recovery.

[...]

This afternoon, senior executives from 13 companies — including Gordon Smith, chief executive of Chase Card Services for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Paul Galant, chief executive of N.A. Cards for Citi; and Richard Struthers, president of Global Card Services for Bank of America — are meeting with Obama and his top economic aides at the White House. Edward L. Yingling, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association, was also scheduled to participate. The president was to be accompanied by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, chief economist Christina Romer and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Aides said Obama will make clear that the power of the White House will be behind the legislation.

“The President believes new rules of the road for the credit card industry are needed and he looks forward to having an open and productive conversation tomorrow with the representatives of the credit card industry about the impact of the current crisis on consumers,” Obama aide Valerie Jarrett said in an e-mail sent late yesterday.

[...]

Obama is expected to tell the executives today that he wants to go further than the House bill without specifically endorsing all of the provisions of Dodd’s bill. Administration officials confirmed that the president will push for stronger rules in some areas than those proposed in the legislation but is “broadly supportive” of the bills working their way through Congress.

Also today, U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Banking Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) called on federal regulators to implement an emergency freeze on interest rates tied to existing balances on credit cards. The Federal Reserve’s new rules would limit such rate increases, but not until July 2010.

No word on how that last proposal will go over. But it’s always a pleasure to see businesses prevented from ripping customers off.