Is the time right to legalize marijuana? Should it be legalized? The Seattle Times makes a powerful argument for legalization now and passage of Washington state's HB 1550. Can Washington succeed where California failed? An analysis of the bill is here. The Times says,

Pass HB 1550. Legalize cannabis, regulate it, tax it. It is radical, yet commonsensical.

Its reasons: The cost of marijuana prohibition: [More...]

How are you spending the holiday? Michelle Obama and the First Daughters are skiing in Vail. Michelle ate at Kelly Liken's restaurant last night (remember Kelly from Top Chef? She made it pretty far.)

The first lady went to Restaurant Kelly Liken in Vail Village on Saturday night, dining on a pickled pumpkin salad with arugula and a braised ancho-chile short rib with hominy wild mushrooms and sauteed kale.

Check out Sasha's cool boots.

Al Gore spent the weekend addressing global warming in Aspen. Veep Joe Biden spent it in Key Largo.

And the President? He was at home, and coached Sasha's basketball team in Maryland, even though she was skiing in Vail.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

(photo from Rocky Mountain Diner website)

If you've spent any time in downtown Denver, you've probably eaten at the Rocky Mountain Diner. At 18th and Stout Streets, it's one block from the old federal courthouse and the federal court of appeals, three blocks from the new federal courthouse. The Diner is housed in the historic Ghost Building, designed by architect William Lang in the 1800's for a man name A.M. Ghost.

The seats start filling up at 11:30 am, by noon, there's a wait. The food is terrific and plentiful (lunch menu here, dinner menu here, dessert menu here) and the atmosphere inviting and familial. To call it a Denver institution is not an overstatement. [More...]

One of the unexplored issues (at least in my internet travels) regarding the importance of public sector unions is the issue of whether federal labor laws can be applied to States and their subdivisions. One of the principal arguments, I would posit, for the critical importance of public sector unions is the strong possibility that federal labor laws do not apply to States (and their subdivisions) as States. That is, to States as employers. Absent federal standards, public sector employees, more so than even private sector employees, strongly rely on their unions to guarantee their rights. In order to flesh out this proposition, a review of the pertinent case law is in order.

In 1976, relying on principles of federalism, the Supreme Court, in National League of Cities v. Usery, declared that federal labor laws can not apply to the States as employers:

Via Kevin Drum, E.J. Dionne writes:

Washington is acting as if the only real problem the United States confronts is the budget deficit; the only test of leadership is whether the president is willing to make big cuts in programs that protect the elderly; and the largest threat to our prosperity comes from public employees. [. . .] Consider all of the problems taking a back seat to the deficit in Washington and the media.

[. . .] Lori Montgomery reported in The Post last week that a bipartisan group of senators thinks a sensible deficit reduction package would involve lifting the Social Security retirement age to 69 and reforming taxes, purportedly to raise revenue, in a way that would cut the top income tax rate for the wealthy from 35 percent to 29 percent. [. . .] Only a body dominated by millionaires could define "shared sacrifice" as telling nurses' aides and coal miners they have to work until age 69 while sharply cutting tax rates on wealthy people. I see why conservative Republicans like this. I honestly don't get why Democrats - "the party of the people," I've heard - would come near such an idea.

"Where's Obama?" Dionne asks:

What is the Obama Team up to on the budget and other political battles? The attempt, it appears to me, is to triangulate, and be perceived as the Sensible Center, as opposed to "Radical Right" Republicans and "Loony Left" Democrats. Consider this from the New York Times:

The battle in Wisconsin over public employee unions has left President Obama facing a tricky balance between showing solidarity with longtime political supporters and projecting a message in favor of deep spending cuts to reduce the debt. [. . .] Republicans [have] seized the opportunity to depict Mr. Obama as siding against deficit-cutting efforts, [but] some Democrats and union organizers said the political benefit ultimately could be theirs.

"Some Democrats and union leaders" mistake Obama's "political benefits" with their own. Obama's is to win reelection in 2012. Union organizers and, hopefully, "some Democrats," are to represent their constituents. Their interests are not perfectly aligned. Consider Obama's interest in being perceived as being in "favor of deep spending cuts." Since The Deal, Obama has been in favor of losing the argument about the deficit (it's not about tax policy, it's about spending - the Norquist Message, is now the Obama Message) in order to win reelection in 2012. That is not likely in the political interests of "some Democrats and union organizers." More . . .

CNN:

The current funding law expires March 4th and lawmakers are attempting to reach a short-term deal before leadership works out a more permanent resolution. [. . .] On Saturday the House passed a Republican measure to cut federal spending by $61 billion below current levels, which is $100 billion below the president's budget request for 2011 that was never enacted.

[. . .] Schumer said Democrats already agreed to $41 billion in cuts below the president's 2011 budget request � which is roughly the same as 2010 levels � and are now preparing "an emergency stop-gap measure to keep the government going so there's not a shutdown." "What we're proposing is that for a short time � a couple of weeks � we continue that $41 billion level while House and Senate negotiators come up somewhere in the middle," he said. "We are saying, 'Negotiate,' and they're saying, 'Do it my way' before any negotiations even begin."

Cut taxes on the rich in December 2010. Then cuts government services to all other Americans in March 2011. Congratulations Grover Norquist! You're the big winner! Now let's see how much you have won . . .

Speaking for me only

Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow and her mother sold $10.00 of marijuana to a police informant inside their home. Patricia's children were present. When the informant paid her, she asked her son for single dollar bills so she could make change. A few weeks later, the informant returned and bought $20.00 of pot.

Both women were first-time offenders. They were offered two years in prison and turned it down, pleading guilty without plea agreements. Patricia got ten years in prison, her mother got 30 years suspended, with five years of drug treatment. Both received fines in the thousands of dollars. Patricia was taken into custody immediately. She has effectively lost her four children and her husband. She was unemployed at the time, and the family had recently lost their home. She had previously been employed at a nursing home, as a certified nursing assistant and certified medical assistant, work she'll never get again when out of prison.

Here's what her life will be like in prison. Here's a photo of Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow in prison.She won't be up for parole until 2014. [More....]

Open Thread.

If you care about deficits, you have raise taxes, particularly on the well off. Paul Krugman writes:

The current Obama budget calls for defense spending of 3.4% of GDP by 2016; you can make the case that the number should be closer to 2%. But that�s not enough to avoid hard choices about health care and revenue. If you can�t see how it�s possible both to believe that we waste a lot of money on the military, and to believe that ending that waste would make only a modest contribution to our fiscal problem, I can�t help you.

While I generally agree with Krugman's point, by the same token, a hundred billion here and a hundred billion there and all of sudden you are talking about real money. But the point stands, the biggest impediment to addressing the deficit remains our tax policy. When Democrats give up on tax policy, as President Obama did when he made The Deal, what's left is Grover Norquist's dream, drowning government in a bathtub.

Speaking for me only

Citizen Snoop meets Citizen Snitch in Baltimore. The Baltimore Police have initiated a program called iWatch in which it asks citizens to text or send videos and photos of suspicious behavior. The site is monitored 24/7.

Citizens are encouraged to report activity that just does not fit. You can now use our web tips form to submit a tip or report suspicious activity to police. Information can be sent from your cell phone, hand-held device, or computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Tips can also be e-mailed.

Among the suspicious behaviors it encourages people to report:

• Unknown individuals loitering or lurking near you
• People drawing or measuring important buildings
• Strangers asking questions about a home or building
• People who identify themselves but do not have credentials

Places it encourages you to watch:[More...]

Enjoy the day! (And then the night.)

Open Thread.

A federal judge has dismissed Jose Padilla's torture lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates saying he has no right to sue for money damages.

The ACLU says:

The court today held that Donald Rumsfeld is above the law and Jose Padilla is beneath it. But if the law does not protect Jose Padilla, it protects none of us, and the executive branch can simply label citizens enemies of the state and strip them of all rights — including the absolute right not to be tortured. If Jose Padilla is not allowed his day in court, nothing will prevent future administrations from engaging in similar abuses.

Jose Padilla is an American citizen. He was arrested on American soil. He is serving his 17 year sentence, imposed by a federal court, at Supermax in Colorado. The decision is here. [More...]

Law enforcement groups around the country got together for a day last year, and ten months later, have released a report concluding that more states need to follow the federal system of pre-trial release and adopt policies allowing for pre-trial detention -- and that law enforcement should play a key role in formulating such policies.

The report fails in its introduction (page 4), when it claims:

The group consisted of police executives from large, medium, and small jurisdictions; prosecuting attorneys; academic researchers and scholars; judges; and defense attorneys. (The complete list of attendees is attached as Appendix A.)

There are no defense attorneys listed in "Appendix A." (pages 14 and 15.) Of the two pages of attendees, there's a research director from a criminal defense organization. That's not a criminal defense attorney. To claim criminal defense attorneys (plural no less) participated in the group and agreed with the conclusion is just not true.

This matters, because it claims defense attorneys supported the conclusion:

The consensus among the group was that law enforcement can and should play a leadership role in addressing the issues relative to the pretrial process, particularly those that directly affect public and officer safety and defendant accountability.

Via digby, the Joe variety:

[I]t seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones [. . .]

I'm no expert in the field, but I'm thinking that asking a union to give up the right to collectively bargain is pretty much the opposite of a "modest request." But, I'm sure Klein will 'have a lot more to say on this issue -- but first [he'll] have to learn more about it."

Speaking for me only