Too big to fail bank loses $2 billion (so far) in bad trades

Bloomberg reports this morning

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said the firm suffered a $2 billion trading loss after an “egregious” failure in a unit managing risks, jeopardizing Wall Street banks’ efforts to loosen a federal ban on bets with their own money.

The firm’s chief investment office, run by Ina Drew, 55, took flawed positions on synthetic credit securities that remain volatile and may cost an additional $1 billion this quarter or next, Dimon told analysts yesterday. Losses mounted as JPMorgan tried to mitigate transactions designed to hedge credit exposure. 

There are several stunning concerns here.

First, these colossal losses occurred within a unit that had initially been set up to manage risk but in recent years had been given the go ahead to expand into other markets to generate profits. This suggests that the bank's risk management strategy has been compromised.

Second, the episode exposes a potential counter-strategy by the big banks to restrictions on proprietary trading. Banks argue that those restrictions inhibit their ability to hedge and manage risk. However, if the banks are going to use their risk-management units as profit centers, any hedging exceptions in the proprietary trading rules would allow the banks to play a shell game where they simply move the same trading from one unit to another but call it "risk management."

Third, while the losses are huge, the underlying trades are larger still. Again from the same Bloomberg report

Bloomberg News first reported April 5 that London-based JPMorgan trader Bruno Iksil had amassed positions linked to the financial health of corporations that were so large he was driving price moves in the $10 trillion market.

Here we have a single unit within a single bank influencing prices in a $10 trillion market. It's anti-competitive--the bank has moved from a price taker to a possible price maker. Worse, the bank's actions have introduced a systemic risk. Indeed, one of the problems for JPMorgan right now is that its unit's position in the market is so large that it can't be immediately unwound.

JPMorgan risks losing more money now because other market participants will figure out what the bank has to do to unload its position, said Charles Peabody, an analyst with Portales Partners LLC in New York. Costs from the trades may affect earnings through the end of the year, he said.

“When there’s blood in the water, the sharks are going to attack that animal,” said Peabody, who downgraded his recommendation on the stock in March to sector perform. “It could make it very difficult for them to unwind a trade.”

Republicans are already attempting to eliminate the restrictions on proprietary trading and gut other provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.

This latest episode shows that, if anything, tougher regulations are needed and that the biggest banks need to be split up.

Too big to manage? Too big to trade competitively? Too big to fail? Too big period.

Tea-Party Darling and 'Anchor Baby' Critic a Dual Citizen since 1978

So it turns out that, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the darling of the Tea Party movement, a prominent birther-enabler, and a critic of so-called "anchor babies," has held dual Swiss citizenship since 1978.

Poltico reports

Rep. Michele Bachmann tried to downplay her dual U.S.-Swiss citizenship Wednesday, releasing a statement that asserts she has actually been a dual citizen since 1978.

“I automatically became a dual citizen of the United States and Switzerland in 1978 when I married my husband, Marcus. Marcus is a dual American and Swiss citizen because he is the son of Swiss immigrants. As a family, we just recently updated our documents,” the Minnesota Republican and former presidential candidate said in a statement. “This is a non-story.”

Rep. Bachmann's dual citizenship came to light when she and her husband used a birthright technicality in Swiss citizenship law to obtain dual citizenship for their children.

Hypocritically, Rep. Bachmann has criticized the citizenship granted to children of foreign-born parents in the U.S., derisively referring to those children as "anchor babies," and she has sponsored legislation to restrict birthright citizenship in this country.

However, having Swiss "anchor in-laws" seems to be another matter altogether.

Gov. Romney's indecency

Once again, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was confronted by divisive, over-the-top rhetoric from his radical supporters, and once again, he only egged the rhetoric on.

A few months ago when Rush Limbaugh lit into Sandra Fluke, calling her a "prostitute" and a "slut," Gov. Romney refused to criticize Limbaugh, saying merely, "I’ll just say this, which is, it’s not the language I would have used."

Yesterday, Gov. Romney thanked an Ohio Republican official who warmed up a Romney rally thusly

Ohio state auditor Dave Yost, one of the local politicians warming up the crowd for Romney before his event Monday, said Obama claiming credit for the bin Laden raid was like "giving Ronald McDonald credit for the Big Mac you ate for lunch." Yost continued on to say "the guy at the griddle deserved credit."

Yost went on to mock the president for taking a trip to New York City with his wife, Michelle, saying Obama was "lecturing" the middle class while spending lavishly.

"Anyone get three vacations in 2009 at the depths of the recession?" he asked. "Anyone fly to New York just to have a date night with your spouse? I didn't think so. Mr. President, that's not middle class, and you stop lecturing us about our lives."

Later another supporter stated that President Obama "was operating outside the structure of our Constitution" and "should be tried for treason." Gov. Romney's response? "If you've got some specifics you'd like me to address in terms of policy, I'd be happy to."



When a reporter subsequently asked Gov. Romney whether he agreed that President Obama should be tried for treason, Gov. Romney said, "No, of course."

The decent and honorable response would have been to rebuke this extremism when it arose.

However, that kind of decency is a stranger to the former Mass. governor.

Something in the water?

There may not be enough tin foil in the world to cover the heads of all of the crazy Republican candidates running in North Carolina.

The News and Observer explains

Long after the controversy over President Obama’s birthplace seemed settled, some Republican congressional candidates in North Carolina have brought new attention to the issue as they seek advantages in hard-fought primary races.

Richard Hudson, considered a leading Republican candidate in the race to unseat Democratic U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell in the 8th Congressional District, told a Tea Party group in Rowan County recently that “there’s no question President Obama is hiding something on his citizenship.”

Dr. John Whitley, one of Hudson’s opponents in Tuesday’s primary, declared Obama’s birth certificate a “poorly reproduced forgery” after comparing it to the Hawaiian birth certificate of one of his campaign workers.

The article goes on to list George Hutchins and Ilario Pantano as fellow birthers.

Whether these folks are really this crazy or just pandering to the crazy elements in their party, birtherism should be disqualifying in the minds of sensible voters.

Brave Sir Robin makes bid to "lead" NC Democrats

Under the Dome reports that Sen. Don Vaughan has thrown his hat into the ring to "lead" the scandal-plagued North Carolina Democrats as state party chairman.

Sen. Vaughan has been effective in Raleigh, respected in his district, and would bring many great qualities to the position. However, he would also be a grievously flawed choice to lead the state party.

One of the chief duties of the party chief is to recruit good candidates to run for state offices, sometimes against long odds. Or as Sen. Vaughan has written in his self-nomination message

We need to fight the Republicans in every county and in every city from Murphy to Manteo. After redistricting the Republicans are willing to claim victory before votes are even cast. I’ll make sure that we are a 100 county competitive force and remind them why voters in our state have time and time again chosen Democrats.

Sen. Vaughan recently had the opportunity to compete in such a race, when he was re-districted into the same district as Sen. Republican leader Phil Berger.

What did Sen. Vaughan do for his constituents and party in this instance?

Well, let's put it this way...



Senator Vaughan ran away 
Bravely, ran away...away... 
When Phil Berger reared his ugly head 
Don Vaughan turned his tail and fled 
Yes, Don Vaughan bravely turned about 
And gallantly he chickened out 
Bravely talking to his feet 
He beat a very brave retreat 
Bravest of the brave, Senator Vaughan

If North Carolina Democrats need a party member to organize occasional candidate retreats, Sen. Vaughan fits the bill.

But a courageous leader to restore Democrats to electoral competitiveness,  not so much.

North Carolina Democrats need a leader who will reverse the party's recent electoral slide, not someone who simply goes in reverse.

North Carolina'’s Constitution should confer civil rights, not revoke them

The first right declared in North Carolina’s Constitution states

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yet legislators in Raleigh, who swore oaths to uphold this same Constitution, have put forth an amendment that would eviscerate its most fundamental rights by removing the possibility of marriage for some in our state and the possibility of civil unions and domestic partnerships for all.

The proposed amendment carries the perverse title, a “Defense of Marriage,” but it does no such thing. No sound heterosexual marriage is put at risk by marriage among same-sex adults. Because same-sex marriages pose no risk to heterosexual marriages, prohibiting them defends nothing.

Instead, what the amendment would do would be to enshrine in North Carolina’s governing document unequal, discriminatory treatment of committed, loving adults and to deny to some adults a right and a path to happiness that other adults enjoy. Our state’s Constitution should confer civil rights, not revoke them.

Revealing the cynicism that underlies this whole sordid episode, the Republican House Speaker, Rep. Thom Tillis, who shepherded the amendment through the General Assembly, has said, "if it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years."

North Carolina citizens should not be denied their rights for a minute much less a generation.

The voters should reject Amendment One.

North Carolina pastor says to beat the gay out of your sons

Jesus hates gays, yes we know
For this pastor tells us so.



Some of the low-lights from Sean Harris' 55-minute bigoted and hate-filled diatribe on behalf of Amendment One:

• about 12:45: "Gender dissatisfaction is an affront to God...Transgender operations are an affront to God."
• about 19:30: "God's plan in almost all cases is for you to get married...Only in particular cases where the spiritual gift of celibacy is given to someone are they not to marry."
• about 35:30: "The world will never run out of people so long as there are Muslims on the planet...and the Muslims are having children at an incredible rate will take over us."
• about 39:40: "Gays and lesbians are not prohibited from 'loving' each other; they're that already doing in the most sick and ungodly way."
• about 52:40: "There is a due penalty for practicing homosexuality because it is unnatural."

The most despicable section, however, starts at about 45:35:

You were born white; you were born black, but you were not born gay...So your little son starts acting a little girlish when he's four years old, and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying 'man up son,' get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch cause that's what boys do, you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it . And next thing you know this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed...Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Okay. You're not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male, and you're going to be a male.

And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you rein her in. And you say 'Oh no! Oh no sweetheart. You can play sports. Play 'em. Play 'em to the glory of God. But sometimes you're going to act like a girl and walk like a girl, talk like a girl, smell like a girl. And that means you're going to be beautiful, you're going to be attractive, you're going to dress yourself up.'

If you had any doubt about whether Amendment One was motivated by bigotry, hate, and a desire for retribution against gays and lesbians, those doubts will be erased after watching Harris' sermon.

Health insurance mandates...Washington is and was the problem

Logical consistency has never been a strong suit of the Tea Party movement, what with signs saying "Government, Keep Your Hands off Medicare." Now it turns out that the Tea Party is historically inconsistent as well.

A pillar of the Tea Party movement is that the U.S. should return to a limited, originalist federal system that strictly adheres to the Constitutional principles of the founding fathers. In particular, the founders would never impose national mandates to purchase health insurance or other goods.

Except that they did.

Last month, historian Einer Elhauge wrote a fascinating piece in the New Republic, listing several purchase mandates, including health insurance mandates, that our first Congresses passed and that Presidents Washington and Adams signed.

In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington.

...That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. ...And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Ayn Rand was not a founding father; George Washington, John Adams and many members of the first Congresses were.

If purchase mandates passed muster with those actual founding fathers, can the originalist underpinnings of these policies really be questioned?

Tea Party members are right to blame Washington for health insurance mandates; they've just got the wrong Washington.

Another day, another Tillis staffer gone for diddling a lobbyist

Under the Dome reports that a second aide to North Carolina House Speaker Thom (Caligula) Tillis has resigned for carrying on with a lobbyist.

House Speaker Thom Tillis says he asked chief of staff Charles Thomas earlier this year if he was having an affair with a lobbyist, but Thomas lied to him about it.

Tillis says that a review of correspondence and other records showed no favoritism from Thomas toward the lobbyist, Jessica B. Hayes of the N.C. Home Builders Association.

Tillis, in a news conference Tuesday afternoon, also said a second staffer has resigned after having an affair with a different lobbyist.

As the ancient saying goes, the fish stinks from the head down.

Or as they say in Raleigh, if the Speaker's office is rockin', don't go a-knockin'.

In other news, Speaker Tillis announced that he would soon be introducing a new constitutional amendment proposing that affairs between one staffer and one lobbyist would be the only domestic legal unions that will be valid or recognized in North Carolina.

Their master's voice

North Carolinians can thank the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for some dandy legal reform legislation and can especially thank Representative Rhyme and Senators Apodaca and Brunstetter for carrying the organization's water.

ALEC is a tax-exempt organization that provides a forum for big businesses to coordinate on legislative agendas. As its FAQ page states, "The potential solutions discussed at ALEC focus on free markets, limited government and constitutional division of powers between the federal and state governments." One of the "services" that the organization provides is to develop model legislation.

As part of a complaint challenging ALEC's tax-exempt status, Common Cause has obtained a database that ALEC used to track the progress of its legal reform legislation in various statehouses. The database shows that:

Rep. Rhyme introduced H 542, the Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses Act, which was based on ALEC's Reliability in Expert Testimony Standards Act. ALEC's law was enacted in June.

Sen. Apodaca introduced S 33, Medical Liability Reforms, which was based on ALEC's Noneconomic Damages Awards Act and Periodic Payment of Judgments Act. ALEC's law was enacted in July.

Sen. Brunstetter introduced S 674, Civil Justice System, which was based on ALEC's Trespasser Responsibility Act and its Reliability in Expert Testimony Standards Act. Most of this bill became moot when H 542 was passed.

ALEC has drawn fire for, among other things, promulgating the "stand your ground" legislation that figures into the homicide of Trayvon Martin.

Rep. Rhyme, Sen. Apodaca and Sen. Brunstetter are supposed to represent the interests of North Carolinians; instead it appears that they are doing the bidding of out-of-state business interests.

Republicans strengthening marriage and clean government in North Carolina

Even as Republican-led effort to enshrine bigotry into the North Carolina Constitution through the amendment to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions continues, their leadership is actively doing even more to "promote marriage" and "clean up government."

The Charlotte Observer reports

The chief of staff to state House Speaker Thom Tillis has been in an intimate relationship with a lobbyist for the North Carolina Home Builders Association, a special interest group that often seeks help from the legislature and provides money to political campaigns across the state.

...Both Thomas and Hayes are married to other people, according to public records.

The story goes on to note that Speaker Tillis and his philandering chief of staff share an apartment and that Speaker Tillis' campaign fund contributes towards the chief's rent.

Despite this, Speaker Tillis knows nothing of his chief's and roommate's infidelity. Um, sure.

Oddly though, the Speaker is rumored to have requested a secret service detail.

McCain to Obama: Don't Politicize National Security Like I Did

The Obama re-election team has released a video contrasting the President's decision to launch the successful raid on the Bin Laden compound with former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney's pitiful hedging.



Now that video has drawn the outrage of Sen. John McCain. The Hill reports

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rebuked President Obama on Friday for using the anniversary of Obama bin Laden's death to score political points, calling it a "shameless end-zone dance."

"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad," McCain said in a statement circulated by the Republican National Committee.

Shameless?

Where was Sen. McCain's shame in politicizing votes to support the troop surge in Iraq and vows to kill Bin Laden during his run for the White House?

People with better memories than the doddering Sen. McCain might think back a mere four years ago when his campaign released this shameless end-zone dance from a surrogate with respect to the Gov. Romney.

The next President of the United States must be a leader of courage, not a weather vane who shifts in the wind. John McCain will not waver in the face of the enemy. He's been tested under fire in war and did not wilt on Iraq when the polls went south and the drumbeat for withdrawal grew louder. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Governor Romney. When it came to unequivocally advocating and supporting the successful surge in Iraq, John McCain was rock solid while Governor Romney sought political cover by indicating his support for secret withdrawal timetables. At a critical moment, John McCain proved that he was ready to be Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, Governor Romney didn't. Governor Romney failed the test of leadership on the most crucial national security issue facing the United States with American combat forces in the field; he wilted. John McCain stood tall.

Or when Sen. McCain danced thusly (and shamelessly) with reference to his Democratic opponent

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told "Good Morning America" that he was glad Obama was in Iraq and insisted the trip will give his Democratic rival an opportunity to see the success of the surge strategy. "He'll be able to have the opportunity to see the success of the surge. It is a success. This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain told ABC News' Diane Sawyer. "He should admit he was wrong about the surge," McCain later added.

Or when Sen. McCain also danced.

Let me conclude by reminding you in wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago.

Or when Sen. McCain shamelessly promised.

I want to assure you I have complete confidence I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Thank goodness we have a fine senator who is above this sort of shamelessness.

Que es mas macho? The economy, demographics, and sensible border enforcement or reactionary Republican immigration policy

In the lead up to the presidential primaries, the Republican contenders engaged in a sorry nativist spectacle of playing «¿Qué es más macho?» with respect to immigration from Mexico. Republican legislators in Arizona, Alabama, and other states have also played a similar game with draconian anti-immigrant legislation.

Yesterday, the Pew Hispanic Center released a report on recent trends in Mexican immigration and their causes.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.

You read that right, net migration in recent years from Mexico, legal and illegal, has fallen to zero.

The Pew Center study examined immigration through early 2010, the start of the economic recovery in the U.S. From 1995-2000, net migration from Mexico to the U.S. (the difference between in-migration and out-migration) was 2.3 million. From 2005-2010 however, net migration was just below zero, with 20,000 more Mexicans leaving the U.S. than entering.

The leveling off of immigration predates the most recent round of Republican chest-thumping. For example, Arizona passed its odious anti-immigration bill in April 2010 and didn't begin enforcing selected provisions until that summer. In essence, Republicans are falling all over themselves to shut the barn door several years after the horse escaped.

If the recent state legislation wasn't responsible for the immigration standstill, what was? The study provided some understandable and predictable U.S.-based explanations--the depressed employment situation in this country especially in the construction market, strengthened border security and enforcement, and an increase in deportations.

However, the also uncovered some other explanations that were Mexico-specific, including a slowing in that country's fertility rate and a general increase in its economic development. Regardless of conditions in the U.S., these Mexico-specific circumstances will continue to act as a brake on migration in the future.

To borrow from Laurie Anderson, ¿Qué es más macho? Una piña o republicanos reaccionarios?  

Una piña.

Cookie-gate

Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney displayed a little more of his own special common touch and understanding of the role of women last week when he sat down with eight Pittsburgh residents for a picnic-style get together.

“I’m not sure about these cookies,” Romney said, looking at the women and around the table. “They don’t look like you made them. Did you make those cookies? You didn’t, did you? No. No. They came from the local 7-Eleven bakery or wherever.”

A local CBS station captured Mr. Romney's boorish performance.

Mr. Romney knows better than to look a gift Austrian Warmblood or Missouri Foxtrotter in the mouth, but cookies? They're another thing altogether.

Mr. Romney managed to insult his hosts, the local bakery that actually provided the cookies, 7-Elevens, and small businesses generally. However, he may have picked a fight with someone even more important.

If only tax collection was as efficient as the Food Stamp Program

This time of year, we are reminded of the pain of filing and paying taxes...at least some of us are.

Each year scofflaw Americans skip out on hundred of billions of dollars in potential federal tax revenues. This noncompliance includes under-reporting income on tax forms, under-paying taxes that are filed and owed, and not filing at all. When the IRS last studied this issue in 2006, it found that $450 billion went unpaid because of noncompliance. Although the IRS was able to recover some of this, $385 billion, a seventh of all potential tax receipts, was never paid.

Noncompliance is grossly unfair, as some Americans pony up the money that they owe, while others get away with a lower effective tax bill or no taxes at all.

Noncompliance also adds to the deficit. Assuming that the noncompliance rate has remained about the same since 2006, unrecovered noncompliance will rob the treasury of more than $400 billion, which works out to just under a third of this year's projected federal deficit.

In testimony before Congress on Thursday, the GAO recommended a number of steps that Congress could take to reduce noncompliance, including

• restoring funding to the IRS so that it could improve services to taxpayers, increase enforcement, and modernize its computer systems,
• changing IRS practices to check taxpayers' compliance before issuing refunds, and 
• simplifying the tax code.

Perfect compliance isn't feasible. Suppose, however, that Congress set the modest goal of making tax collection as efficient as the much-maligned Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program).

The estimated over-payment error rate for SNAP in FY 2010 was 3.05 percent, or less than a fifth of the tax non-compliance rate. Improving tax compliance to the SNAP level would bring in $325 billion this year, enough to pay for the entire federal costs of the SNAP more than four times over.

Even a single percentage point increase in tax compliance, from its currently level of about 86 percent to 87 percent, would bring in nearly $30 billion.

If Democrats and Republicans are truly interested in closing the deficit, they could properly fund the IRS and give it some the tools it needs to improve tax compliance. Alternatively, they could put the USDA in charge.

NC job growth a dead shark

Woody Allen had a great quip in Annie Hall. "A relationship, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark."

A similar thing applies in job growth, and what we've got on our hands in terms of North Carolina job growth is a dead shark.

For the second month in a row, the monthly state jobs report indicates that job growth has completely, utterly, unmistakenly stalled. To borrow from another movie, job growth is not only merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the state lost 1,300 jobs on a seasonally-adjusted basis (basically no change in jobs) in March after adding a barely detectable 6,100 jobs the month before.

The national job report had indicated that the U.S. as a whole added a very modest number of jobs. However, even relative to this modest standard, North Carolina continued to under-perform.

Newt Gingrich and Amendment One

Joe Guarino and I seldom agree in our political wishes, but in at least one case, we couldn't agree more.

Commenting on a visit to Greensboro by Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Joe opined

It would certainly help the cause of the marriage amendment if he spends a lot of time here. More Gingrich visits to the Piedmont Triad over the next few weeks would be very welcome.

I too would welcome the former speaker's presence in the state campaigning as the doughy poster child for Amendment One.

Nothing could help more to expose the true intent of the amendment--to codify bigotry against lesbians and gays into the North Carolina Constitution while doing absolutely nothing to promote marriage--than to have the narcissistic, philandering, thrice-married, disgraced former speaker campaign on its behalf.

Not the way to begin your outreach to women

As attention now shifts to the general election for President, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney begins with a huge 19-percentage-point gap among women.

During the Republican primaries, Gov. Romney pandered to the worst anti-woman elements of his party, promising to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood, reversing himself to eventually support the anti-contraception Blunt amendment, and refusing to call Rush Limbaugh out for his verbal assault of Sandra Fluke (saying instead that Limbaugh's hateful remarks were "not the language" that he would have used).

Having now reached the "etch-a-sketch" moment where he could begin an outreach with women, Gov. Romney indicated that he would focus on women's jobs and pay. However, his campaign has now fumbled that issue.

Asked today on a conference call if Mitt Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — a landmark law passed in 2009 that empowers women to seek restitution for pay discrimination — the presumed GOP nominee’s campaign officials told reporters, “We’ll get back to you on that.” The law, the first signed by President Obama after he took office, was killed by Republicans in 2008 and is named after a woman who discovered she was being paid less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same work.

Echoing Sen. Rand Paul's comments on the landmark Civil Rights Act, a Romney spokesperson later provided the mealy-mouthed follow-up that Gov. Romney "is not looking to change current law."

What a tremendous comfort that must be to women.

Republicans think there is too much coverage of the Trayvon Martin tragedy

The Pew Research Center has released a poll in which 56 percent of surveyed Republicans say that the press is providing too much coverage of the homicide of Trayvon Martin.

Republicans are a funny bunch when it comes to what should and shouldn't be covered.

In August 2009, when Pew asked people about the coverage of the "debate" over President Obama's citizenship, an identical fraction of Republicans, 56 percent, said that there was the "right amount" or "too little" coverage; only 26 percent of Republicans indicated that that there was "too much" of that issue.

To recap, a utterly phony and wholly disproved smear against a black politician deserves a lot of press coverage to 56 percent of Republicans, while the actual tragic death of an unarmed, innocent black teenager generates too much.

Greensboro Police "not sure" if anti-semitic graffiti is a hate crime

The News & Record reports this morning that three houses and a car in a Greensboro neighborhood were vandalized with spray paint. The tagging included obscenities and the word "jews."

Police were investigating possible hate crimes in Reedy Fork Ranch after three homes and a vehicle were spray painted late Friday or early Saturday on Elderbush Drive.

The graffiti included obscenities and the word Jew.

“We are treating it as a hate crime.” said Susan Danielsen, a department spokeswoman. “But we don’t know for sure if it is.”

One would hate for the Greensboro Police Department to go out on a limb for this one. There could be any number of reasons for someone to spray-paint anti-semitic graffiti.

Maybe this is just someone who wants to play words with friends but lacks a computer connection or a smart phone.

Maybe the auto-correct in the spray can accidentally inserted the word "jews" into the message.

Or maybe it was a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain who was "standing his ground" when the houses and car attacked him.

The possibilities really are endless.