Today the DEA and DOJ announced the arrests of 300 more people in 19 states in "Project Coronado", allegedly affiliated with the La Familia Michoacana drug cartel. From the DEA factsheet on La Familia Michocana:

This DTO has a strong religious background. It purportedly originated to protect locals from the violence of drug cartels. Now, La Familia Michoacana uses drug proceeds to fuel their agenda that encompasses a Robin Hood-type mentality – steal from the rich and give to the poor. They believe they are doing God’s work, and pass out bibles and money to the poor. La Familia Michoacana also gives money to schools and local officials.

More on the arrests and La Familia Michocana from the BBC. [More...]

The DEA issued this statement today on the DOJ revised policy on medical marijuana busts in states where it is legal:

“DEA welcomes the issuance of these clarifying guidelines pertaining to the use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

"These guidelines do not legalize marijuana. It is not the practice or policy of DEA to target individuals with serious medical conditions who comply with state laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Consistent with the DOJ guidelines, we will continue to identify and investigate any criminal organization or individual who unlawfully grows, markets or distributes marijuana or other dangerous drugs. Those who unlawfully possess firearms, commit acts of violence, provide drugs to minors, or have ties to other criminal organizations may also be subject to arrest.

[More...]

Brian Beutler:

I asked Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for her thoughts on a public option compromise that would allow states to opt out of a national government insurance program, and her answer could slow down the proposal's considerable momentum. "I don't support that," Snowe said.

Asked further whether she would participate in a filibuster on a bill with a public option, she went almost all the way. "I've said, I'm against a public option...yes...it would be difficult" to support allowing the bill to proceed to a vote.

Now what? If I was playing the Dem hand, I would start talking about reconciliation in response to this. To wit "if Republicans do not want to grab a mop on health care reform, then we will do what we have to do to fix it ourselves."

Speaking for me only

Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House are leaning towards including a national public option -- with a provision for states to opt out of it -- in the Senate health care bill, Sen. Ben. Nelson (D-Neb.) said Thursday.

That seems to be the political sweetspot in the Senate. Listen to Nelson:

Nelson said he prefers allowing states to decide individually whether to create a public option or some other sort of competitor to private insurance. "A state public option I can support," said Nelson, although he added that he hasn't made any threats to oppose the bill based on the public option.

Nelson gets to vote for cloture and against the bill and still say he protected Nebraska from "government run health care," because Nebraska can opt out. The fight seems to be moving in this direction. The key now will be to make sure the Federalist Public Option is MedicarePlus (Medicare +5 rates).

Speaking for me only

It's still snowing here. The TL kid is coming for dinner -- my special green chile, warm tortillas and salad. It's also the worst TV night of the week, not one of the shows I watch is on.

What's on your mind tonight? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Matt Yglesias writes:

The two major advantages of relying on [the Baucus Care excise tax] method of financing health care are that (1) it “bends the curve” by encouraging people to take more of their earnings in the form of money [. . .] rather than health care services, and (2) it lets you stay deficit-neutral over the long-haul. What the House has done, by contrast, is deficit-neutral inside the three-year window but not longer than that. The big problem with Finance’s excise tax, I would say, is that it doesn’t actually raise enough money.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ezra and Yglesias live in some mythical world of a perfect competition model for labor where workers get to pick and choose how their compensation packages are formulated. It does not exist. Yglesias also contradictorily argues that the Baucus Care excise tax is "deficit neutral" but does not "raise enough money." The two statements are irreconcilable. And then Yglesias goes for the obvious solution - adopt the House approach of a surtax on the wealthy.

I say let's just cut through the nonsense and tax the wealthy - if it makes some feel better that a part of the tax comes in the form of an excise tax on health care benefits - limit it to incomes over $200,000. Mind you, I believe all the "bending the cost curve" stuff is sheer nonsense. But as long as the wealthy pay the bill, it's ok with me.

Speaking for me only

I didn't realize Denver was having an election this November until I got my ballot in the mail. I almost didn't open it, but now I'm glad I did. The only item on the ballot is an initiative mandating police seize your vehicle if you are stopped and don't have a valid driver's license.

Aimed at undocmented residents (referred to as illegal aliens in the initiative), it has a far greater reach. Here's the text on Initiative 300.

What if you left your wallet at home? Unless you have have "convincing corrorborating identification," proof of insurance and a valid driver's license of record, your car will be impounded. If you have these things with you, you will get a summons and have ten days to bring your license to court. If you miss the ten days, your vehicle will be ordered impounded.

It's one thing to take DNA samples of those convicted of a felony. It's another to take it of all persons arrested, according to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in federal court in California today.

The ACLU says DNA sampling is different from the compulsory fingerprinting upon arrest that has been standard practice in the U.S. for decades. A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

What’s more, in California the authorities are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching.” That is when a genetic sample does not directly match another, so authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

The complaint is here (pdf). A summary of the law being challenged, Prop 69, is here (pdf). Here's a congressional study saying the courts haven't fully addressed the issue and discussing 4th Amendment implications.

For those still following the Balloon Boy case, here's the 911 call.

There is an issue worth discussing about the case: Is it okay for law enforcement to lie to the media?

If you are still searching for a Halloween costume, Balloon Boy ones are now available.

Michael Wolf at Newser has a good take on why the media shouldn't forget about Bernie Kerik.

Reason #1: Rudy Giuliani. The best way to keep Giuliani from becoming Governor of NY is to remind people about him and Bernie.

Like Wolf, I've never met Bernie in person, but was "befriended" by him on Facebook and we follow each other on Twitter. I've read almost every publicly available pleading in his federal case on PACER, starting with those pertaining to the disqualification of his lawyer and ending with the suggested jury instructions filed last week. During the 2008 primaries, I wrote very detailed posts about him and Rudy, Interstate, Larry Ray (more here) and so on. [More...]

John Aravosis writes:

There's something the President is not telling us. And it's rather annoying for him to be lecturing us about coming together when, frankly, we are together. Unified around a campaign promise [a public option] he is so blithely blowing off. We have the best chance at reform in a generation, and this White House is trying awfully hard to get the bare minimum with the least possible effort. We deserve to know why.

I disagree with John. The President and his team have been telling you for some time and people just do not want to believe it (see Steve Benen) -- he does not care about the public option. He can live with it and he can live without it. Why do folks have such a hard time accepting this? The goal now should be to make him live with it. Speaker Pelosi is doing her bit. Make Leader Reid do his. Obama has been and will be a bystander in all of this.

Speaking for me only

Points for honesty for Senator Mary Landrieu:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) [said] "I am not a big fan of public option[. . . .] We already have two public options that most people in America understand Medicaid and Medicare. Both have very, very serious problems. One is gonna be bankrupt in seven years and the other one doctors won't want to participate. So we certainly don't want to create a third one like that."

I see no reason for national Democrats (not being an interloper, Louisiana Dems can decide if they want her) to care about the political fate of Mary Landrieu. But at least her opposition to a public option is honest - she would abolish Medicare if she could. As for Medicaid, Louisiana can opt out any time it likes. I wonder that Landrieu does not argue for that?

Speaking for me only