Senate

Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz of ABC News reported yesterday that the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hear a statement from a former bank employee that outed hundreds of extremely wealthy Americans who were hiding money in banks in Lichtenstein. Ross and Schwartz cite D.C. sources that say a number of Americans implicated in the matter have been subpoenaed and have informed the committee, which is chaired by Senator Carl Levin, that they will plead the fifth.

Five years ago, acting in direct violation of Liechtenstein's bank secrecy laws, a clerk named Heinrich Kieber sold bank records to tax authorities throughout Europe and the United States. Authorities in Italy then published a list of all the names. Germany has already convicted several of its citizens that evaded millions of dollars in taxes.

Kieber is in hiding, which is why his testimony was videotaped. Last month Bloomberg looked into Kieber's own checkered past.

According to Robert Novak, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman's estrangement from his former party may soon become a decisive break if Lieberman speaks at the Republican National Convention. Novak claims the move would come next year after the new Congress is seated. Lieberman, an outspoken McCain supporter, would lose his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee if the Democrats oust him from their caucus.

Mark Liebovich of The New York Times wrote about the growing tension between Lieberman and the Democrats, which recently spilled over into the lunchroom. Liebovich recounts the tale of Lieberman joining his former party members for lunch, only to have to pack up early when the conversation turned from gas prices and Medicare to the election.

Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2000, remains undecided on whether he will speak at the RNC, saying, "I would not go to speak to attack Barack Obama. I would go to say why I'm supporting John McCain."

Greg Sargent at TPM points out that campaign promises Lieberman made in 2006 make his support for McCain problematic in his home state of Connecticut where Lieberman's approval recently dipped to 45%. During a 2006 debate with rival Ned Lamont, Lieberman said he wanted to help elect a Democrat to the presidency in 2008. The Horses Mouth chronicled ten instances of Lieberman vowing to caucus with the Democrats, including one instance where he said, "I've been a Democrat for 40 years, I'll die a Democrat, I'll probably be a Democrat after my death, I may still be voting Democrat in some cities in Connecticut postmortem."

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department announced plans today to throw troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a lifeline, granting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York authority to lend money to the companies for the first time. The companies were created by the federal government to broaden access to home ownership. Both have since transitioned from government owned to privately owned companies. Together, they hold or guarantee $5.3 trillion in mortgage debt, nearly half of the outstanding mortgages in the United States. A loan backed by either Fannie or Freddie implicitly carries a federal guarantee, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for the debt if the companies fail.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson downplayed the possibility of a takeover of either mortgage guarantor, saying that Fannie and Freddie play a vital role in the housing market.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction."

Shares of both companies are down close to 75% since the beginning of the year, raising concern amongst investors that neither company would have enough cash available to back all the loans they hold, should they come due.

"Monday was sunny. And Eason was out of a job."

L.F. Eason III, a 29-year veteran of the state Department of Agriculture and life-long Democrat, had no issues asking his staff at the North Carolina Standards Laboratory to lower the facility's flags to half-staff for former senator Ted Sanford or Ronald Reagan. He didn't need to act on it though - it rained on both days. The News & Observer reported yesterday that Eason retired rather than order his staff to lower the flag for the recently deceased former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms.

But this time Eason didn't believe this politician deserved the respect afforded by lowering the flag in his honor. In an email to his staff the night before this chore was to be performed, Eason informed employees, "Regardless of any executive proclamation, I do not want the flags at the North Carolina Standards Laboratory flown at half staff to honor Jesse Helms any time this week".

After an employee called Eason's superior in another location in Raleigh, Mr. Eason was given an ultimatum - order the lowering of the flags or retire. Eason's wife and co-worker's tried to reason with him that the lab and the flags belonged to the state of North Carolina. but he wouldn't budge:

President Bush signed a revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law last week at the White House. The bill reestablishes the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, which had lapsed when the Protect America Act of 2007 expired in February. The Bush Administration counts the passage of the bill as a victory both in its efforts to protect the country from terrorist attacks and in its design to provide the next Administration with all the tools necessary to keep the country safe into the future.

The bill's detractors, and critics of the surveillance it authorizes, see the whole issue differently. Civil liberties advocates complain that the law gives the government too much authority, and provides too little oversight, to listen in on the conversations of ordinary Americans. They say that the program is a violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as a violation of FISA itself. Administration critics see the program as a first step on a slippery slope toward a police state, where all communications are subject to prying government eyes and ears.

But the program is nothing of the kind. It is a necessary part of fighting the war on terrorism. Surveillance has always been conducted in war. Only the times and tools change. The difference in this war is that the enemy could be hiding among us, plotting and planning. Whereas in prior wars, the enemy was safely overseas. The passage of the new FISA, complete with the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is a triumph of reason over emotion, pragmatism over ideology, and bipartisanship over polarization.

Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate today to be the new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). In his new position, Petraeus will give up day-to-day control of events in Iraq and take charge of all U.S. military activities in the Middle East and central Asia. President Bush nominated Petraeus for the post back in April on the recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But Gates' promotion of Petraeus for the job was probably a mere formality, given the fact that Petraeus has been the general in charge of the troop surge strategy that has been so remarkably successful at reducing the level of violence in Iraq and helping to boost the confidence and competency of the Iraqi government.

The Senate vote was 95-2. Only Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted against Petraeus's confirmation. Byrd said that his vote was based on his belief that Petraeus has been successful in Iraq, and should remain there. "[I]t does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved," he said. The reason for Harkin's no vote are unclear, but he also cast the lone vote in opposition to the promotion of Petraeus's deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, to be the new Iraq Commander. Odierno will receive a fourth star as a result of his confirmation and take over responsibility for operations in Iraq.

Petraeus's tenure as the top commander in Iraq has been nothing short of remarkable. He successfully developed and implemented the troop surge strategy, changing U.S. tactics in fighting the stubborn insurgency in Iraq and rescuing the war effort there. He has also seen first hand the daily meddling of Iran in Iraq, and will no doubt take that knowledge to his new post, where he will be charged with countering the growing threat from Iran in the region. Petraeus has won praise from Republicans and Democrats alike for his candor, his calm and confident leadership, and his tactical brilliance. He seems destined for much greater things and a higher profile role in the Pentagon in the years ahead. He is a once-in-a-generation military leader and is rapidly approaching the exalted status of a MacArthur, Bradley, Pershing, and Eisenhower.

So apparently Jesse Ventura is thinking about running against Norm Coleman in Minnesota. This could make Minnesota the runner up in media attention this election cycle. We already have the Republican convention in Minneapolis. Then the matchup between Norm Coleman and Writer and former SNL comic Al Franken promised to be at least a very interesting race.

From the LAT

The buzz surrounding Ventura grew very loud today, following the broadcast on NPR of an interview he gave David Welna Sunday in a parking lot in Minnesota. He again talked as if he had decided to run, and even offered what presumably would be one of his main messages: "All you Minnesotans take a good hard look at all three of us. And you decide: If you were in a dark alley, which one of the three of us would you want with you?"

Ventura quickly clarified that his remarks were hypothetical, and that he'll continue to weigh his options until the filing deadline. "It will come down to whether I want to change my lifestyle and go to that lifestyle or not," he said.

In my mind I've been handicapping this race for Coleman, as I thought that Al Franken has and will have just too much baggage for the Minnesota voter. And even though given his past, I don't want to predict against Ventura, he would probably make Coleman's reelection even easier by splitting the anti-Republican/GOP/war vote. But it will be up to the Minnesotans.

Sen. Ted Kennedy surprised his colleagues in Congress by showing up for a vote on Medicare legislation. It was his first appearance on the Hill since undergoing surgery for brain cancer two months ago. His family was worried the trip would be too much for the ailing senator, but Kennedy insisted on casting the vote because of a promise he made to seniors and veterans. (The measure, which blocks a cut in payments to doctors, moved past a procedural hurdle, 69-23.) Here's Kennedy's statement.

The floor erupted into cheers and applause when a smiling Kennedy arrived, walking under his own power and giving thumbs up. He was accompanied by members of his family and Sen. Barack Obama and greeted warmly by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

Two former Secretaries of State, James Baker III, a Republican, and Warren Christopher, a Democrat, chaired a commission looking into the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution was passed by Congress toward the end of the Vietnam War and was intended to revamp the way that the nation was led into armed conflict. The resolution states that the president may only take the armed forced into conflict with the express approval of Congress through an authorization or a declaration of war. President Nixon vetoed the resolution when it passed, calling it unconstitutional, a position supported by every president since. Congress was able to override that veto.

Baker and Christopher admit that the resolution may indeed be unconstitutional and have proposed a new law aimed not at fixing the War Powers Resolution, but at creating a new regime for executive and legislative branch cooperation in matters of war and defense.

"Our proposed new law, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009, does not pretend to resolve the underlying constitutional issues - only a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision could do that. It would reserve the ability of both Congress and the president to assert their constitutional war powers. In drawing up the statute we focused on a common theme that almost all past proposals shared: the importance of meaningful consultation between the president and Congress before the nation is committed to war."

The Constitution divides the war powers of the federal government between Congress and the president. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military and has exclusive authority to command the armed forces in war time. Congress has the sole authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II, and controls the funding for military operations. The president has Constitutional authority to use military force in times of emergency or defensive necessity, but must go to Congress for authorization if hostilities are expected to last for an unspecified longer period of time. It is that lack of specificity that Baker and Christopher are trying to address with their proposal.

At least he's in double digits. Rasmussen is out with a poll that finds just 9% -- NINE percent! -- of voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Not surprisingly, a number that low is unprecedented. It's the first time that rating has fallen to single digits since Rasmussen started polling.

Congress hasn't received higher than a 15% approval rating all year. Here's the breakdown by party:

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

But wait, there's more. Independent voters, those not party affiliated, are especially unimpressed with our representatives on Capitol Hill. Only 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings.

What's the source of the cynicism?

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

Hmmm. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.