In 1933, Congress enacted the Buy American Act:

. . . [O]nly such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been mined or produced in the United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, shall be acquired for public use.

Despite the existence of this law, a Buy American provision was attached to the House stimulus plan. I neither understand the clamor for this provision nor the opposition to it. It seems superfluous to me. What am I missing?

Speaking for me only

After making the splashy headline about limiting executive compensation pay (which is fine, but does nothing to help the economy), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) stuck in the shiv to House Democrats. From a HuffPo interview:

McCASKILL: I think that there have been some mistakes made [by House Dems]. From my perspective there have been mistakes made on the stimulus bill. There has been such a starvation diet for some of these programs that the appropriators got a little over anxious in the House. They probably did some things they shouldn't have...

We do need to look at the safety net side of the stimulus bill that can get into the economy quickly. But we can't right every wrong in terms of programs we support in the stimulus bill. And the other thing is, whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down. And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I'm hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.

[MORE . . .]

A federal prison inmate in South Carolina has filed a motion seeking to intervene in a Securities Investor Protection Corporation lawsuit against Bernie Madoff. He accuses Madoff of promising inmates a 16.9% return on their investments, but instead sending their money to Switzerland.

Even stranger, the inmate claims he had an intimate relationship with Madoff and that they met at Harmony.com.

That claim, of course, raises a bit of a flag, since eHarmony has refused until this year to match same-sex couples.

But never mind that little fact. Mr. Riches says in his motion that Mr. Madoff was attracted to his identity theft skills and that he schooled the former Nasdaq chairman on how to commit fraud for two years. Mr. Riches also claims he has “documents, photos, exhibits and phone transcripts” that contain “juicy details” about Mr. Madoff, now 70, that he wants to share with the court.

The motion was denied by a bankruptcy judge who told the inmate to file a claim in bankruptcy court like everyone else. He also noted that this particular inmate has filed over 1,000 lawsuits in the past 3 years, mostly against famous people.

What country would do this?

For the first time, TSA Behavior Detection Officers, who are trained to observe characteristics indicating a person is about to engage in wrongdoing, will patrol the Super Bowl. TSA will also deploy their Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPER) teams and additional National TSA resources.

In plain English:

For the first time Sunday, federal behavior-detection officers will team with local police to use a controversial technique on people heading to a major event, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says. The officers usually work in airports.

A flagged person gets a casual interview from an officer who determines if he or she should be formally questioned or arrested.

Welcome to the New America.

The Senate passed a bill yesterday that will expand health insurance coverage for children. The 66-32 vote included 9 Republicans who favored the bill. The House passed the bill two weeks ago by a vote of 289-139 with the support of 40 Republicans. Two previous efforts to enact the law met with George Bush vetoes, but President Obama will sign the bill into law.

One of the most significant sections of the child health bill would allow states to use federal money to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants. Under existing law, legal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States.

[more ...]

Samantha Power has a long and distinguished record as an advocate against genocide. In addition, Power is a very sharp foreign policy thinker. She has just been named to a position in the National Security Council. It is unfortunate that this is the title of the news story reporting her naming:

Professor who slammed Clinton will be Obama aide

I became familiar with Ms. Power when she was a supporter of (as was I) and an advisor to General Wes Clark during Clark's 2004 presidential run. Her thinking and instincts were excellent in my opinion. I hope that soon she can transcend the caricature as the "professor who slammed Clinton." It was obviously a terrible thing to have done but there is much more to Ms. Power than that. It is a disservice to Ms. Power that that unfortunate incident is what she is known for. Hopefully, her accomplishments in the Obama Administration will lead to treating that incident as the trivial event it was.

Speaking for me only

Update: This blog post explains the executive orders a bit more clearly, as do its linked sources.

original post:

President Obama signed three executive orders today designed to reverse the Executive Branch's hostility toward organized labor. The text of the orders hasn't been posted on the White House website as of this writing, but should soon be available here for viewing.

In the president's words:

One of these orders is going to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to reimburse federal contractors who spend money trying to influence the formation of unions. We will also require that federal contractors inform their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Federal labor laws encourage collective bargaining, and employees should know their rights to avoid disruption of federal contracts.

[more ...]

Via Digby. Once you open the door, the Blue Dogs run right through it:

[Ben] Nelson (D-NE], a moderate Democrat, is famous for gathering lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in a so-called "Gang of 14" to avert a shutdown of the Senate over judicial nominations. He is seeking a similar bipartisan effort to improve the stimulus bill. . . . Susan Collins, R-Maine, a moderate who was a member of the original "Gang" and a close friend of Nelson's from their time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, got an invite, as has Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Nelson's energy compromise group colleague. On the Democratic side, Nelson has reached out to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a strong ally of President Obama, as well as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and freshman Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

Good luck with the unity thing President Obama.

Speaking for me only

Tom Maguire makes a good point:

I am not sure how much of "the truth" needs to be classified and how much can safely be told but this approach is consistent with the stand taken by Jack Bauer. Presumably, Bush's supporters should not be afraid of the truth (if it can be told). Let the public learn and decide.

Jack Bauer was unafraid to tell what he did and why he did it and face the consequences, if any. Why then are some so afraid of following the example of Jack Bauer? (Yes, I know Jack Bauer is a fictional character.)

Speaking for me only

desertwine reminds us that 127 years ago today, the greatest American President of the 20th Century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was born.

Roosevelt, born in wealth, became a traitor to his class and the greatest champion and most revolutionary, in terms of our philosophy of governance, the nation has ever seen.

He was the father of modern progressive governance. On this day, living in these times, let us remember the great FDR. I want to refer you to his famous speech at Oglethorpe University in 1932, words that resonate today:

Your turn/

This is an Open Thread.

One of the bizarre strains of thought that has emerged in the blogs is the view that President Obama and Democrats will now be judged by the direction the opposition from the GOP takes. Here is Nate Silver:

[S]urely the phrase "ZERO Republicans voted for the Recovery Package" is more likely to escape Democratic lips on the campaign trail in 2010 than Republican ones.

Certainly that depends on whether the stimulus works no? More . . .