The real culprits may yet be brought to justice. Special prosecutors frequently exceed their original mandates, often dramatically so. Even if Holder's intention is to keep a tight lid on things, he may be unable to prevent the investigation from expanding. There's ample reason to expect that the evidence will compel it.
Recall that early in his tenure, Holder unleashed a firestorm of controversy by advocating for the release of photos and records relating to prisoner abuse and CIA interrogation techniques. Opponents mobilized forcefully, and the effort was largely thwarted. Since then, the AG has been playing his cards very close to the vest. If he does have an end-game in mind, he's yet to reveal it.
His caution is well advised. The President clearly doesn't want a broad investigation, and any attempt to go after the big fish, like Yoo, Bybee, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al, is sure to evoke the full fury of the Republican noise machine. Holder himself can expect to be dragged through the mud. The political costs should not be underestimated.
Complicating matters further, high-level prosecutions would necessarily involve difficult constitutional issues that could take years to litigate. Regardless of what evidence the Justice Department is able to amass, it's not at all clear that any such prosecutions would ultimately be successful. A bad result could be more damaging in the long run than leaving the matter unresolved.
In light of all this, I'm willing concede that it may still be too soon to target the architects of torture directly. When that day comes---and I believe it will---the Justice Department's reluctant, go-slow approach will serve as an effective rebuttal to the inevitable charge of political retribution.
---s
]]>Republicans don't want a debate, they want a debacle, something to distract the media from any serious consideration of what's actually at stake. But it's futile to worry the point. The media need a narrative. Let's give them one. Let's march on Washington. (I know this idea has been raised before; if there's anything in the works I'm unaware of I invite your commentary.)
There are advantages and pitfalls to planning a march. Does sufficient interest exist? My gut tells me its out there. In spades. If that's true, and we produce the type of rally I'd expect, the teabaggers get dunked.
We should be careful not to step on our own message. The likely participants are a diverse group with varied interests and a range of opinions on what's needed. The rallying cry, I believe, should be non-specific: "A Health Care March on Washington!" The goal is to frame only the problem, not the solution; there are better venues for that.
Imagine an endless stream of speakers taking turns at the podium, real people, each with a deeply personal story to tell. We'll hear from those who could not obtain insurance, whose claims were denied or whose policies were rescinded. We'll hear from doctors who've been thwarted in their ability to help those in need, from family members who've suffered along with a loved one, from mothers and fathers bankrupted by caring for a sick child...the list goes on and on.
How many column inches could we fill? Who would dare shout us down? This could be a watershed moment, a truly historic event. And what politician wouldn't think twice about being on the wrong side of history?
---s
]]>
The resurrection of this particularly ugly page from the Republican playbook has not gone unnoticed. Josh Marshall makes the connection in a recent post under the heading "And for the Blue Team?" in which he asks his readers for a sign, any sign, of an organized response. Where indeed are the Progressives? It's a valid question, one for which I hope a convincing answer emerges soon.
But as we join the fray we must remain especially vigilant, mindful not to allow the scorched-earth tactics of the opposition to reduce all attempts at rational discourse to a rancorous din. That is their aim. It's the trap they have set for us.
The higher the volume is turned up, the less inclusive the debate will become. The media will always fixate on the most intemperate voices. As the cacophony ratchets to a feverish crescendo, the very people whose support is most essential to forcing a satisfactory outcome will have all but tuned out.
It's a dilemma, to be sure, but by no means checkmate. Elements of a winning counter-strategy are already in place. By highlighting the truth about the opposition, exposing their outrageous conduct, and tracing it back to the real architects, we advance our cause. We must hold the talking heads of the traditional media relentlessly accountable to the facts. As the most recent Presidential election reminds us, when Republicans overreach, when they reflexively double down on the boldest of lies (remember the "Bridge to Nowhere?") the scales do fall from pundit's eyes. Not all of them, of course. But even a few reasonable voices can help turn the tide.
Democrats, alas, tend to hyperventilate at the first hint of adversity. We must remind ourselves sometimes that the American people are not stupid. They sense when they're being manipulated. But commitment to a principled stand, simple honesty and genuine conviction can still carry the day. We can win this battle if we find a way to fight it on its merits.
Let cooler heads prevail.
---s
about all of this as we do.
For now we'll just have to trust Tim Geitner that the Treasury really is pursuing every legal means at its disposal to limit the payouts. But it would be nice to see the specifics of these ostensibly iron-clad arrangements for ourselves. And it would be especially interesting to learn not just what they say, but when they were signed; was it before the need for a massive government bailout became apparent---or afterwards?
Pressed for details, AIG will undoubtedly declare themselves hamstrung by confidentiality agreements, the need to protect trade secrets, or some similar dodge. And if, down the road, we should discover that their bonus contracts weren't quite so air-tight as we were all led to believe, well, by then the payouts would be a fait accompli. We know only too well that those about to receive this money are unusually adept at gaming the system. Clearly they have no moral compunctions whatsoever when it comes to protecting their own selfish interests. So if the money is allowed to be spent, it will surely slip away.
Sooner or later, the Obama administration is apt to conclude that like it or not, there's little to be done. In the end AIG may agree to some tepid compromise, perhaps trimming the payouts by a token amount. As Geitner clearly isn't about to let the company fail, there are limits to the amount of pressure that can be brought to bear. But there's another way to get the money back after the fact, which neatly skirts the issue of AIG's purported legal obligations: it can be recovered through taxes.
Whether Congress has the chops to pursue such a bold option is valid question, notwithstanding the intense climate of bipartisan outrage. Nonetheless, here's how it might work. For every dollar above five hundred thousand earned from any company for which Uncle Sam is the majority shareholder, let's tax that dollar at a rate of, say, seventy-five percent. For incomes over five million, we could up the ante further, say to ninety percent. The tax should apply to all forms of compensation, not just bonuses. In this way, the government need not concern itself with how---or even how much---companies like AIG choose to pay themselves.
This scheme that has the added benefit of helping to restore at least a tiny measure of "moral hazard" to the financial sector. And while it will doubtlessly be seen as punitive by some, the real purpose is simply to shield the taxpayer from abuse. By any realistic measure, it's a pretty lenient punishment that only kicks in after half a million dollars---money, mind you, that would almost certainly not exist but for the intervention of government in the first place. Remember; we're not trying to sweep up just any concern that receives a few dollars of bailout money; only those which were about to go bust, and for which the government has been forced to become the majority shareholder, would be affected.