In it, but not of it. TPM DC

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) just dealt a big blow to the labor movement by announcing publicly that he would support a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), unions' No. 1 priority for this year and a subject of intense lobbying on both sides of the aisle.

"My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons," Specter said in a Senate floor speech, minutes after the news was broken by the Washington Independent. "It is very hard to disappoint many friends ... who are urging me to vote their way."

Read More →

The Transportation Security Administration has cleared Senator David Vitter (R-LA) of wrongdoing in his reported airport rage incident.

To be exact, it was determined that Vitter did not pose a security threat. He did open the door to his plane's gate, which he should not have done after it had been shut, but he didn't go further after the alarm went off.

The TSA's statement: "TSA worked with local partners to review the incident and determined the actions of the individual did not pose a security threat. The individual caused a door to alarm but did not proceed into a restricted area."

Check out the new attack ads from Jim Tedisco, the Republican candidate in next Tuesday's special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's old House seat. The first one belongs to that very novel category of attack, practiced by all sides in politics -- the kind that blasts his Democratic opponent Scott Murphy for running attack ads:

Some things should be noted about the citations here, such as the Albany Times Union saying a Murphy ad was "unfair." To be exact, the ad was from the DCCC, though the Murphy campaign itself did stand by it. On the other hand, the same newspaper recently eviscerated an ad from Tedisco, as its staff has gone about policing the claims on both sides.

Read More →

Centrist GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME), whose support the White House is counting on to pass health reform, the budget, and climate change, offered a warning to President Obama today: Clarify your position on taxing bonuses at bailed-out companies, or risk losing more political capital.

"I think the president has an obligation to address this [and to] explain why he doesn't think this is necessary," Snowe told reporters today, referring to Obama's initial embrace of taxing bonuses -- which was followed days later by a pullback from his advisers amid questions about the measure's constitutionality.

Read More →

Frustrated by the recent bonus bonanza Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asks for a chart of bonus statistics for all TARP recipients. Geithner demurs. Check it out.

Moments ago, Secretary Geithner artfully dodged a question that's on everybody's mind: What happens if his plan fails. Echoing the architects and supporters of the success-bonanza that is the Iraq war, Geithner said that the only thing we need to ensure the plan works is sufficient will.

Earlier in the hearing, Tim Geithner suggested that Goldman Sachs could be one of five institutions helping to manage the public-private partnership program to buy up a bunch of toxic legacy assets from ailing banks.

Goldman has played a central role in this drama. As an institution, it's been extremely close to the Treasury department. And, as Josh noted, it's also about to pay off all of its TARP money (with the help, perhaps, of the other government money it received as an AIG counterparty) which will free it up to return to a status quo of paying enormous bonuses.

It's also, of course, one of the institutions that helped bring the financial system to its knees--it holds many of the toxic assets in question and may be well placed to bid them up and inflate their prices at auction. (How you manage the fund to rescue financial institutions with toxic assets while you yourself hold those same assets has yet to be sussed out by committee members.)

Anyhow, in the event that you're feeling left out and want a piece of the Goldman pie for yourself, you can apply with the government to be a private asset manager here.

As Brian observed earlier, the big story of this morning's testimony from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was their request for broad governmental powers to seize non-bank financial institutions -- effectively paving the way for receivership in case another AIG-sized firm heads for collapse. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) isn't prepared to hand over those powers to Treasury without getting more questions answered.

At his weekly briefing with reporters, Hoyer was notably cool to the idea of handing Geithner takeover powers without greater congressional oversight:

Read More →

After news of the AIG bonuses broke, Geithner held to the line that they didn't know about the payments until March 10, just a little while before you and I did. And, lo and behold that's what Bernanke is saying now:

Bernanke: I knew that there were general compensation packages throughout the company. I did not know, I was not informed about the specific payments to AIGFP.

Garrett: If you had that information would that have been germane to your discussions?

Bernanke: It would have given us more time to talk, negotiate, and look for options, but frankly we still would have faced the same legal obstacles we are currently facing.

But AIG CEO Edward Liddy greenlighted a round of bonuses of some sort on September 18, at a time when both men were already deeply involved in AIG, and last week he said that Bernanke had known about the payments for three months.

Late Update: Video embedded above.

A new round of opinion polls give a shocking result: People don't like AIG's executive decisions.

In the CBS poll, 50% said they were "angry" about the bonus payments, 38% said they were "bothered," and only 12% said they weren't bothered. As for the firm's official position that they had to pay the bonuses, only 13% bought that story, with 83% saying the company could have found a way out of it. On whether the money should be recovered, 77% want the government to try to get it back, with only 20% against it.

The Gallup poll finds similar numbers: Only 12% are satisfied with the performance of AIG management, and 80% are dissatisfied. When given options of how to get the money back, only 12% say it shouldn't be recovered, while 27% favor asking for it voluntarily, 25% favor a heavy tax, and 26% are for launching legal actions or making the return of the money a condition of any new federal payouts.