The Hot Mic Heard Round the World

In what has been variously labeled a horrible gaffe or a fleeting glimpse of the truth, depending on who you are talking to, President Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were overheard speaking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a less than flattering fashion at the G20 summit. Their off-the-record discussion was on a microphone that was, unbeknownst to them, live at the time. A small group of reporters in a different area heard what was said and, despite an initial reluctance to report on a private conversation, the facts eventually leaked out. According to Reuters, the conversation went as follows:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

To me, this doesn't seem like the biggest deal in the world. I mean, Netanyahu seemed to go out of his way to go on an Eff You Obama tour of the U.S. on his last visit. Not the biggest surprise that Obama might not be his biggest fan. Around Congress, however, the histrionics are going to be turned up to 11. This will be especially true at the GOP debate tomorrow evening where, I can only imagine, the POTUS will be accused of treason for daring to speak (mildly, kinda, sorta, in a milquetoast way) ill off the Israeli Prime Minister. In some circles, to say anything remotely negative about Israeli means that you are a filthy anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizing, puppy kicker. Or, at the very least, not a Christian.

Personally, I don't understand the knee jerk support of Israel on ALL issues, ALL the time. Or why a modern, developed, (relatively) wealthy country would receive more U.S. foreign aid than any other country. Like any relationship, the U.S. and Israel should have a give and take (instead of Israel being the abusive boyfriend the U.S. won't leave). Maybe the leaking of this conversation will make Israel re-think its recalcitrance, but I doubt it. Especially when a large number in Congress go out of their way to support the Prime Minister of Israeli while taking shots at the President of the United States.

UPDATE: See link for a well put analysis by Sully.

Music Video Mondays

Because it's Weezy F. Baby, and the F. is for favorite.

A Beautiful Legal Mind... Getting Clowned

Recently (somewhat), Jack Balkin, an esteemed Constitutional Law Professor at Yale, Dean Don Durkett look alike, and blogger at the eponymous Balkinization, wrote a post that suggested that the Occupy Wall Street movement co-opt the strategy of the Tea Partiers and make their point in light of the Constitution. Specifically, he feels that their struggle should couched in terms that reflect Article IV's "Guarantee Clause," which, essentially, guarantees a republican form of government. In his estimation, the OWS movement is arguing that our system of government is broken and no longer truly republican as corporate interests and the "1%" have taken over (i.e., we have an oligarchy, I guess).

Anywhooo, this brought a response from Tim Zick, a former professor of mine (not at William and Mary and who I did not particularly like) in the Concurring Opinions blog (I SWEAR this is the last dorky legal theory plug I'm plugging today). Prof. Zick argues that if OWS really wants to become a Constitutional movement, it has to look no farther than the Preamble. In his own words,

“We the People“ . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” 

These fundamental principles seem to reflect what the protesters are most concerned about.  This is a nascent populist movement.  I’m sure if they were polled, the ”99 percent” would embrace the notion of a ”Republican form of government.”  But they would embrace that principle because it is supposed to produce ”a more perfect” union, justice, tranquility, general welfare, and the “blessings of liberty” across generations.

As much as it pains me to say this, Professor Zick seems to nail it dead to rights and totally clowns JB. What the hell is happening? My world is getting turned upside down. (Pardon the coming legal theory nerd out) Professor Balkin is getting clowned by Professor Zick? This follows his former co-blogger Marty Lederman leaving for the Office of Legal Counsel, after years of beating the Bush administration up for expansion of executive powers, and promptly okays the targeted assassination of a US citizen in a secret memo. The same OLC that is basically continuing the expansion of executive power started by Bush is now headed by former Yale Law Dean Harold "Hanju" Koh. Harold, bro, what happened to my dude who practically got into a physical altercation in regards to the expansion of executive power at a national security and the law forum? I seens it with my own eyes. We miss you...

Listen, I shed no tears over Anwar Al-Awlaki but I also cannot stand blatant hypocrisy. Jumping from criticizing, vituperatively, the Bush administration for writing secret memo for actions possibly outside the Constitution, and then turning around to do the exact same for the Obama administration? Duuudddeeessss...

(RANT OVER). On a happier note, hey there Jack Goldsmith. 'Sup buddy? How's Harvard treating you? That's coooolll. So, wanna be best friends now? Excellent! Say hello to ya motha for me.

From the Annals of Common Sense- The Sense Strikes Back...

An article in the New York Times detailed how, despite raucous clamoring from various corners for reduced corporate taxes, 280 of the biggest publicly traded firms paid about half of the official corporate tax rate. In full disclosure, the study is based on a report from the liberal leaning Citizens for Tax Justice but it is still clear that many corporations use any loophole they can find to limit their tax exposure. A money quote from the article:

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

It seems, considering the facts from this article and the GOP reluctance to raise taxes, the easy solution would be to lower the corporate tax rate, say by 10% to a total of 25%, and close the loopholes. Thus, you would not have some corporations paying 10% (or 0%) and some corporations paying 35% (the actual rate) for an average 18.5% corporate tax rate. Instead, everyone pays a lower rate of 25%, which actually brings up revenue by 6.5%. And, as an added bonus, all corporations are treated fairly with none getting screwed for creative accounting. Seems fair, no? And would satisfy both political parties, no? Getting to the meat and potatoes of the matter...

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system. 

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school — things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

Worrrdddd. Again, I do not understand why this is even an argument. You cut taxes (and give Grover Norquist a boner) while raising revenues. What's not to love? Yo, POTUS... I'm ready to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Or you can slap me into that supposed Super Committee. Whenever you're ready. Just for the record, I play ball (in terrible shape, but decent court vision... classic PG) and recently gave up cigarettes (and we can cheat together. I'll never tell. I'm like a lock box). We can do this sir. YES WE CAN!

(Image from rally requesting NoMas Paine for C.E.A. Or a random Google Images pic. None of us have any way of knowing...)

From the Annals of Common Sense...

Bi-partisan fiscal policy experts (two Democrats and two Republicans) testified in Congress in from of the so-called Super Committee on Tuesday and dropped the common sense hammer.

Bi-partisan agreement on a plan that raises $1 in additional revenue for every $3 in spending it cuts (for a total deficit reduction of 4 trillion dollars)... kinda just makes sense, no?

Hopefully the panel itself will come to its senses. This country was built on compromise and this is as good a  time as any to revisit that tradition.

Speaking of Nonsensical... 'Sup NBA Lockout

As a big NBA fan, I have been toying with the idea of a lockout post for a little while. Today, however, I came across a post in Grantland, Bill Simmons' new offshoot of ESPN, that tackled the issue better than I could.

Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).  (Emphasis added).

I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]." 

Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...

Getcha Nerd on with PBS' New Nova Series

I caught pieces of a new series on PBS called the "Fabric of the Cosmos" last night and found it incredibly interesting. Though I am in no way literate in physics or math, I find it all very interesting and will wrap my head around the little that I can when it comes to string theory, quantum mechanics, quarks, higgs-boson, black holes and anti-matter. Dr. Greene is very engaging and the material is presented in a (somewhat) accessible light. I would recommend the series, which stretches over 4 weeks starting yesterday, for anyone interested in this material.

Oh, no one else? It's just me? Ok, groovy... I'm just going to sit in this corner with my Greene and Kaku books now. Thanks.