Political Rant: Justice Department Finally Takes Action Against Gonzales and Gang

Hello Bloggers - For years I've been writing my senators and congressman for hearings, to subpoena witnesses, to enforce subpoenas, and to indict criminals at the Justice Department involving the firing of prosecutors, the politics of new hires, and the unbelievable Don Siegelman scandal (http://www.donsiegelman.com/).

It was obscured by the bailout crisis yesterday, but Attorney General Mukasey - a man I consider to be about as useful as the Pope's sex drive, probably less - finally appointed a longtime public corruption prosecutor to explore the basis for firing of the U.S. attorney in New Mexico two years ago. It's not everything, it's not even for all the fired prosecutors, but it's a start. Most incredible, it's a start under Mukasey and Bush. I'm still in shock to be honest. Most of us were convinced the criminals were waiting it out before their full pardons.

Congress has been upping its hand slowly, but many feel too slowly. I have always felt so slowly to the point of being co-conspirators -- they have been almost negligent! It would appear that Mukasey decided to act before Congress. He appointed Nora R. Dannehy, a 17-year veteran of the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut, whose work led to the conviction of the state's former governor John G. Rowland (R) four years ago. She is responsible for delivering a preliminary report to Mukasey within two months. The best news is that lawyers involved in the case said her work will probably extend into the next administration - so it finally begins, I'm so happy.

Mukasey supposedly reacted to a report issued yesterday by department investigators that found "political motives" for the firing of three U.S. attorneys. He was probably thinking of his legacy when he decided to act. The report actually charges that senior officials "abdicated their duty to safeguard the independence of the process." Wow! Although prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president, the report said that former attorney general Gonzalez - the real culprit - "bears primary responsibility" for the debacle because he allowed youthful subordinates to carry out the purge amid his "remarkable disengagement."

We all guessed it, but now we KNOW IT! Doesn't it sound like a common thread throughout the Bush Administration - "let the kids handle it?" Incredibly, the report said Gonzales was never notified about the dismissal of another top prosecutor, something the report calls a "stunning example of managerial default."

I know it's not everything we wanted, but like I said it is a start. Whether Obama or McCain (God forbid) wins the election the next administration will have to deal with it. I personally think Mukasey did it to cover his own ass in history. I don't think he wants to go into the history books having done absolutely nothing (though he is close, making him one of the worst AGs in history), so this is his something. No matter what, it's still real, and the person he appointed actually put a governor away.

I'm hoping things will finally begin to happen. I've been begging my elected representatives for indictments and perp walks for almost two years, and despite having the great Henry Waxman (D) as my rep, I've been disappointed. Let's hope this is the beginning of something BIG!

Tuesday's Political Rant #1 - Michael

Political News: Schwarzenegger Opposes Anti-Marraige Prop 8, McCain Supports It

Good Morning Bloggers - The New York Times Opinion page had a great editorial recently calling for preserving California's constitution - it points out the governor's support and McCain's opposition.

Preserving California’s Constitution
California voters will have a chance in November to protect the rights of gay men and women, and to preserve the state’s Constitution. They should vote against Proposition 8, which seeks to amend that Constitution to prevent people of the same sex from marrying.

The measure would overturn a firmly grounded State Supreme Court decision that said everyone has a basic right “to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.” It said the state’s strong domestic partnership statute was inadequate, making California the second state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Massachusetts did so in 2004.

Whether this important civil rights victory endures is now up to California voters. Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution.

If passed, Proposition 8 would add language to the State Constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Supporters of the amendment complain about the “activist” judges who wrote the court decision. But the majority in the 4-to-3 ruling was acting to protect a vulnerable group from unfair treatment. Enforcing the state’s guarantee of equal protection is a job assigned to judges.

It is true that in 2000 California voters approved a ballot measure recognizing only heterosexual marriages as valid. But since then, the public has grown more comfortable with idea of marriage equality. The California Legislature passed a measure to let gay couples marry in 2005, and another in 2007. Both were vetoed by the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took the wrong position — that the change had to come either from the courts or through a ballot initiative.

To his credit, Mr. Schwarzenegger is now among those opposing Proposition 8. To his discredit, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, is in favor of restoring marriage discrimination. Barack Obama opposes the initiative, as do California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats.

The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact.

Similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. They also should be rejected.

(To see the editorial, visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon3.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

That says it all. I hope my fellow Californians will agree and reject Prop 8.

Tuesday's Political News #1 - Michael

Political Rant: Single-Issue Voters Drive Me Crazy

Hello Bloggers - Here is a copy of my contribution to the Papamoka blog (http://papastraighttalk.blogspot.com/) discussing single-issue voters infecting our electorate and nation. The only difference with this version is that I call it a RANT!

My first post on this venerable blog will be a discussion about single-issue voters. It’s an issue that truly gets under my skin. We all know them. We sit at dinner parties and listen to them go on and on about the one issue they care about. It’s often taxes (money), abortion (enforced morality), the Middle East (Jewish and born-again Christians), social security (the elderly), and the latest, single-sex marriage (the closed minded).

I don’t wish to debate each issue on this blog, only the fact that single-issue voters base their voting decisions on that one issue. Some might call them passionate. I often call them narrow-minded and unbalanced. It’s a shame, but single-issue voters and so-called “independents” are the swing vote in pretty much every election. Studies seem to suggest that single-issue voters wait to make their final decision based on who addresses their issue most favorably prior to Election Day. Who knows about independents – it’s still a mystery. Single-issue voters are the ones targeted most by the candidates and special interest groups. They receive a lot of attention. They respond well to negative ads. It’s kind of creepy.

So, I would like to appeal to the single-issue voters out there. You need to open up to more issues. You need to vote based on multiple, important critical issues. If you love this country like you say, then you need to do your homework. As I tell my own single-issue friends, we have so many problems in this country that nobody has the luxury of voting based on a single issue. If you do, then I believe you are ignoring the other problems that are threatening our future. As voters, we must all take responsibility for the future of the whole nation, not just part of it.

For those who feel that voting based on a single issue is about the future of the nation, I would argue that you are kidding yourself. There are always multiple factors. Those of you who only consider lower taxes when trying to understand the economy should consider the cost of borrowing from our children as a price we cannot afford to pay. “Borrow and spend” is worse than “tax and spend” any day. Oh yes, and for those who actually believe McCain’s promise to cut enough spending, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You need to learn more about economic issues, and how tax policy is only one tool in a government’s economic strategy.

In the end I’ve discovered that most single-issue voters don’t like debating their favorite issues. They seem to use them more as a crutch – a sort of personal voter cheat sheet. It’s what helps them decide who’s right and who’s wrong. Defense is a great example. Whenever I try to make a case that American voters seem myopic about defense spending, and how we need to cut spending and share the role as the world’s police force, my single-issue voting friends simply say that it’s impossible. Nothing’s impossible if you try hard enough. We need to open our eyes on this and other issues. Let’s throw away our blinders. There are billions of dollars available to us if we could only change our single-issue, military-industrial mindset.

I think I’ve “blogged” enough on this one. I hope each of us has the opportunity to sit down with a single-issue friend before the election and succeeds at getting them to tear up their cheat sheet and consider other issues. Remember, help them see the downside. There is always another side to any issue. Thanks for listening.

Monday's Political Rant #3 - Michael

Political News/Rant: Republicans Who Blame the Borrowers Getting Tiresome

Hello Bloggers - Based on earlier posts (see Monday, September 22nd - Political Rant: Absurd Republican Spin About Crisis Continues Unabated) you might have caught on that I'm kind of upset with all the Republicans who are blaming the credit crisis on minorities and others who they say "scammed the system." Many are friends of mine. They always talk about the Community Reinvestment Act and point to data that shows how much it helped encourage minority lending - see YouTube for the many propagandist videos set to music on the subject.

However, there is plenty of evidence that proves a lack of government oversight under the Bush Administration is the real culprit. There were plenty of laws and regulations in place, but predatory lending was allowed to go unchecked over the past eight years.

I owned an Internet company here in LA from 1999 to 2004 and just after Bush's inauguration a major supporter opened a quick and dirty mortgage resale company across the hall with cubicles filled with mortgage sellers pitching their wares. I spoke to many of their twenty-something year old staff at the time, and remember being shocked by the way they were compensated - mostly by commission. They called their work "pitching the poor" at the time. I'll never forget it. Something told me what they were doing was wrong at the time, and I hate to say it but my instincts were correct. If somebody like me knew something was wrong, why didn't the government, the press, and the whole business community? It was common sense. They were the predators, and that company was a good example of one that should not have been allowed to exist.

Here are excerpts from another article that might help clarify the situation for my more hard-headed Republican friends: Viewpoint: Minorities a convenient scapegoat for U.S. financial woes

"In the midst of a severe financial crisis - a meltdown fueled by clueless homebuyers, greedy lenders and money-grubbing financiers - some observers have decided to blame "minorities" for the mess. Though wiser heads have proclaimed the emergency too serious for partisan gamesmanship, some in the conservative commentariat still can't resist playing the race card."

Several days ago, Neil Cavuto, host of Fox News' Your World, proclaimed, "Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster." On WorldNetDaily, a compendium of loopy half-truths, pundit Drew Zahn declared that "when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions." The conservative National Review Online trotted out a favorite whipping boy, the Community Reinvestment Act, claiming that the legislation was the result of "racially inflammatory campaigns" that forced banks to "make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets or credit."

"Why would anyone inject skin color into a debate over credit? There is certainly no evidence to support this claptrap. Federal regulators have never "demanded parity between racial groups in lending." Not ever. The CRA - designed to stop banks from "redlining," or withholding loans from entire neighborhoods - has long been under attack by conservatives, but for entirely different reasons. Critics called it vague, contradictory and useless. They claimed it was unfair to banks and thrifts, which were regulated, while other financial institutions were left to lend money as they saw fit."

"That's where the argument tying the CRA to the credit crisis breaks down. The lending frenzy developed during the past few years, a period during which banks and thrifts made less than 25 percent of mortgage loans. (The law has been in place for 30 years, during most of which time there was no mortgage meltdown.) "The heart of the crisis was caused by unregulated and lightly regulated mortgage brokers and independent mortgage bankers and affiliates that are not subject to the CRA. It would be quite odd if an act ... caused institutions not subject to its purview to do things that were inappropriate," said law professor Michael Barr, who has studied this legislation. I hold no brief for dumb homebuyers, be they white, black or brown."

"But minority homeowners were frequently the victims of aggressive practices by mortgage brokers who received higher commissions for steering buyers into high-cost, subprime loans, even if the buyer would have qualified for a prime loan. The Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit research group, examined 50,000 subprime loans nationwide and found that blacks and Hispanics were 30 percent more likely than whites to be charged higher interest rates, even among borrowers with similar credit ratings. Again, lenders didn't push those loans to comply with any "affirmative action in lending" programs. They did it to make money. That's the same reason Wall Street's masters of the universe created all those exotic investment vehicles - instruments they didn't understand any better than some homebuyers understood their adjustable rates."

(Read the whole article at: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.viewpoint28sep28,0,6004405.story)

So, I hope that my Republican friends and fans who keep insisting the lending crisis was caused by forced lending would stop it. You are not allowed to pick and choose the facts. You must let it go. People who blame the borrowers are not looking at all the facts. We should not accept parsed debates in this country. The Bush years are almost over and it is time to go back to insisting that all the facts are considered.

Monday's Political News/Rant #2 - Michael

Political News/Rant: Another Repulican Election Fraud Subpoena

Hello Bloggers - The silence is deafening as they say when you consider the number of cases of election tampering and fraud out there not being covered by today's corporate media. Despite many investigations and evidence that our election system has been corrupted by a few despicable individuals - mostly related to Karl Rove, who else - the media seems uninterested.

The Raw Story has a new article this morning, which covers the now infamous Republican IT consultant who supposedly did a lot of damage in 2004. Remember how we wondered why George Bush was so confident that the Republicans were going to do well that year. Rememember the famous White House press conference the next day when he looked shocked at the result. It's now clear that he felt Karl had it all under control.

Republican IT consultant subpoenaed in case alleging tampering with 2004 election

"A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election. Michael S. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulated. "Connell is refusing to testify or to produce documents relating to the system used in the 2004 and 2006 elections, lawyers say. ..."Connell is a long-time GOP operative, whose New Media Communications provided web services for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Republican National Committee and many Republican candidates. This in itself might have raised questions about his involvement in creating Ohio’s official state election website."

(Read the whole story at:http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html)

Based on the number of ongoing investigations it is clear that Michael Connell is only one of many IT operatives. One currently works for the Senate and does part-time work for the RNC. Personally I believe there are many operating nationwide. I'm also certain that Karl Rove is at the center. Who knows, maybe that's why he left the White House early. He couldn't manage the operations from there. There is plenty of evidence about similar operations in all swing states - the research is easy, just Google.

I'm trying to cut back on my name calling for the sake of civility, but come on, isn't it obvious that Republicans stole the last two elections, and are trying to steal this one. I hope enough Obama supporters turn out that make it all a big waste of their time and money. I also hope an Obama Administration investigates their corruption and they all eventually go to jail - something to add to a growing list.

Monday's Political News/Rant #1 - Michael

Shocking News: Cook Dies Eating Hot Sauce

Good Morning Bloggers - For those who don't know me, I love hot and spicy foods. I'm a New Orleanian at the core who loves his Tabasco sauce. That's why I need to post this story from the London Times that describes a young cook who died - yes, died - after eating red hot chili sauce. I was shocked to say the least. Needless to say I won't be taking any more dares to see how hot I can go. I also recommend the same for my fellow heat seekers.

An aspiring chef died after eating a super-hot chili sauce as part of an endurance competition with a friend. Andrew Lee, 33, challenged his girlfriend’s brother to a contest to see who could eat the spiciest sauce that he could create. The fork-lift truck driver, who wanted to cook for a living, prepared a tomato sauce made with red chillies grown on his father’s allotment. After eating it, however, he suffered intense discomfort and itching. The following morning he was found dead, possibly after suffering a heart attack.

Toxicology tests are being conducted to try to establish if he suffered a reaction to the food. An inquest was told that Mr Lee, from Edlington, West Yorkshire, was in perfect health and had just passed a medical examination at work. He was a keen cook and would often prepare meals for his parents. It is believed that Mr Lee had never prepared a dish as hot as the one he made the night before his death.

(Read the whole story at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article4842531.ece)

Food for thought, to say the least.

Monday's Shocking News #1 - Michael

A Personal Eulogy: A Good Man, Paul Newman

Hello Bloggers - I just wanted to post a brief eulogy praising Paul Newman. I admired his acting, I admired his charitable work, and I admired the man. He was a great example of a decent human being.

I caught a glimpse of him during one of his visits to New Orleans where I grew up. He was dining quietly with a group of people in a restaurant in the French Quarter. He struck me as a very normal, happy guy. They supposedly visited my home city many times, enjoying the history and the art.

He filmed many movies in and about the South, and seemed to capture the rawness of it - the part I liked a lot. He always reminded me a little of Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, except he was Newman. Many liked him as Butch Cassidy with Redford, but I will always appreciate him in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I also admit to being addicted to his wonderful Marinara sauce and his salsas - awesome and charitable. Wow, what a great guy.

I once walked into a bar in Munich in the eighties where they were playing Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The bar patrons were all saying the lines, some Taylor's and some Newman's. I found myself playing Newman with them and watching the whole movie. The odd part occurred when I tried to talk to them about the movie, and I soon found out that none of them spoke English. It was surreal to say the least.

He made me appreciate New Orleans and the South more growing up and I will always consider him one of my role models. I'll even go so far as to say that Paul Newman reminded me of my dad in some ways. He died when I was eight (he was struck by a car being chased by police 39 years ago today), and in my memory, they were similar. Mr. Newman, thank you for showing me and many others a great example of how to live a great life. We will miss you. My condolences to your wonderful wife and family. I hope you find peace and happiness - again - wherever God leads you.

A Personal Eulogy - Michael

Political News: CBS Debate Poll Results

Hello Bloggers - CBS News polled 500 uncommitted voters during and after the debate and I thought you should have access here, so visit http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf and check out their very interesting results. Of course, I'm pretty happy with the results:

WHO WON THE DEBATE?

• Obama 39%
• McCain 24%
• Tie 37%

Saturday's Political News #1 - Michael

Political Comment: First Debate a Draw, So Obama Wins

Good Morning Bloggers - My view is that both candidates did a good job last night, and even though McCain kept Obama on the defensive more, I think Obama's solid performance was critical.

John McCain pointed out many times last night how he has the experience and voters know him. Obama simply had to prove he was well informed and could keep up with McCain. In my opinion he did a good job keeping up and more. He was knowledgeable and assertive, even questioning McCain's judgement in many areas.

McCain might have impressed some people with his combative style, but not me. I think America is instinctively turning away from that style after eight years of Bush. I don't know it hurt him or not, but McCain was slightly hunched and angry and far too dismissive, rude, and condescending. He didn't treat Obama with the respect he deserves. I really didn't like the way McCain never looked at Obama - it made him look small and petty. For all those who thought Obama was too polite, I disagree. Obama needed to show McCain respect. The American people would have been offended if Obama treated McCain poorly in any way.

Some clarification from FactCheck.org:

• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.


• Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.


• McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.


• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.


• Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.


• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.


• Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.


• Oama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.


• McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.


• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

Overall, I think they both did a good job. I think Obama - being a poker player - is keeping his cards close to his chest. I think he plans to poke McCain more and more over the next three debates, hopefully leading to an angry McCain in the end. Like Reagan in 1980, all Obama has to do is communicate competence and strength, and I think the American people will accept him in November. Your reactions?

Saturday's Political Comment #1 - Michael

Political Views: WSJ Says Plan Makes Money for Taxpayers

Hello Bloggers - A contributor sent the following Andy Kessler Wall Street Journal article to us and I agree that it does a very good job of speculating on the upside to the proposed federal bailout proposal. If you're like me and you care about what happens to our economy then I think it's worth a quick study.

Excerpts: The Paulson Plan Will Make Money For Taxpayers

"My analysis suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (a former investment banker, no less, not a trader) may pull off the mother of all trades, which could net a trillion dollars and maybe as much as $2.2 trillion -- yes, with a "t" -- for the United States Treasury."

"There is a saying on Wall Street that goes, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Long Term Capital Management learned this lesson 10 years ago when it got its portfolio picked off by Wall Street as its short-term financing dried up. I had thought the opposite -- hedge funds picking off Wall Street -- would happen today. But in a weird twist, it's the government that is set up to win the prize."

"Here's how: As short-term financing dried up, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's deteriorating financials threatened to trigger some $1.4 trillion in credit default swap payments that no one, including giant insurer AIG, had the capital to make good on. So Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. This removed any short-term financing hassle. He also put up $85 billion in loan guarantees to AIG in exchange for 80% of the company."

"Taxpayers will get their money back on AIG. My models suggest that Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, are a gold mine. For $2 billion in cash up front and some $200 billion in loan guarantees so far, the U.S. government now controls $5.4 trillion in mortgages and mortgage guarantees."

"Fannie and Freddie each own around $800 million in mortgage loans, some of them already at discounted values. They also guarantee the credit-worthiness of another $2.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Held to maturity, they may be worth a lot more than Mr. Paulson paid for them. They're called distressed securities for a reason."

"Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion. So the U.S. will be stuck with a portfolio in the trillions of dollars in bad loans and last-to-be-paid derivatives. Where is the trade in that? Well, unlike Mr. Buffett or any hedge fund, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve get to cheat. It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates -- in effect, "talking their book." While normally this creates a threat of inflation and a run on the dollar, and we may see dollar exchange rates turn south near term, don't expect it to last."

"You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion -- the greatest trade ever. Every hedge-fund manager will be jealous. Perhaps Mr. Buffett is buying a small piece of the trade via his Goldman Sachs investment. Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C., which can also strengthen the dollar. The next president gets a heck of a windfall. In the spirit of Secretary of State William Seward's purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867, this week may be remembered as Paulson's Folly."

(Read the whole Andy Kessler Wall Street Journal article at : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230704116773989.html)

So, if he's right, then things might not turn out that bad after all. I think the conservative Republicans who are currently holding back their support should rethink their positions. Of course, this is only one man's opinion. I hope he's right. I do think he's wrong about one very critical thing in the piece though. He gives Paulson too much credit for selling at the right time to benefit the US taxpayer.

If I'm correct, Paulson is a free-marketer who would probably rather see private enterprise take those profits. Paulson's original plan did not guarantee taxpayers ANY benefit from any increases in value. It only gave the Treasury Secretary the right to buy and sell - he could easily sell at break-even, or a loss, and not worry about profits (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/treasury_proposal/index.htm?postversion=2008092011). He would probably want to sell them to Wall Street friends who would then make a profit on the US taxpayer - a typical Republican position. It's subsequent Democratic Party congressional proposals and changes that are trying to guarantee an upside for the American people.

How unusual for the WSJ to try and spin it to make the Republicans look good. It is Paulson's Folly, but not for the irony like the original, because Paulson really doesn't want to help us in the end. Your views?

Friday's Political View #1 - Michael

Great editorial cartoon from the Independent Newspaper in the UK

George Bush - "Buddy can you spare $700 billion?"

Political Rant: Paulson Literally Begs for Democratic Support

Hello Bloggers - The New York Times is reporting that Hank Paulson actually got on his knees in front of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) to beg her to keep the Democrats engaged and supporting the bailout idea.

He supposedly acknowledged that Republican squabbles were torpedoing the bailout's chances, but still knelt in the White House Roosevelt Room after the photo-op session yesterday and pleaded with Nancy Pelosi not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal. “I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.” Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”

The rapid unraveling of an agreement over the Wall Street bailout seemed to coincide with Republican presidential candidate John McCain's ostentatious return to the Capitol. "It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid," the Times Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote, "with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations."

I must say, but as a Democrat observing Republicans as a hobby - this blog - I can't believe the way they act sometimes. The only thing I can assume is they must be panicking, and will do anything to get bailed out - especially if it costs them money. It's disgraceful the way they've governed and they way the act when desperate. I think Pelosi should ask the president to beg -many of us would pay a LOT of money to see that. Republicans should be ashamed. This is all so embarrassing for our nation. If you're not disgusted, then you should be. I'd like to see John McCain take credit for this bailout after a scene like that gets around.

Friday's Political Rant #2 - Michael

Political News/Rant: Why are We Bailing Out Foreign Banks?

Good Morning Bloggers - Can somebody please enlighten me as to why we need to bailout foreign banks? The London Times reports that UK banks alone are counting on $175 billion of the $700 billion in bailout money - thank you US taxpayer! What the HELL is going on? I understand they want to free up credit, but why can't foreign nations take care of their own banks? I haven't heard a good case why this is in our national interest yet.

"If the British banks tap the rescue fund being set up by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve to the maximum, they could secure one quarter of the $700 billion being made available. Under the terms of an outline agreement that appeared to have been reached by US policymakers last night, Britain’s lenders will be able to use the facility. However, the prospect that the US Treasury could pay for UK banks’ bad assets is likely to infuriate some American politicians and taxpayers, who would foot the bill. As Congress edged closer to agreeing a plan for the central bank to take on lenders’ toxic assets, HSBC appeared to be the UK-based bank best placed to benefit."

Yes, I'm furious now! Incredibly, the article doesn't give a good reason why the banks are being included. I also can't seem to find a good explanation scanning the American press. This is absurd! Why? The corporate media and our elected officials need to be looking into this issue. We should not be bailing out foreign banks to free up credit for their own national interests. Again, I feel like I live in bizzaro world when it comes to the Bush Administration. Why don't Republicans get more angry? SOMEBODY PLEASE DO SOMETHING!

(Read the Times article: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4828413.ece)

Friday's Political News and Rant #1 - Michael

Political Observation: What's Up with John McCain's Eye

Hello Bloggers - I'm so happy to learn that I'm not the only one who thinks there's something wrong with John McCain based on the way his left eye has looked lately. It's all over the web now, so I guess I'm not the only one who noticed. The corporate media and Republicans should demand to know if something's wrong, otherwise, we may end up with Sarah Palin sooner than expected. Oh God, please NO!

Political Observation #1 - Michael

Political News: More Evidence on How the Bush Administration Helped Create the Lending Crisis

Good Morning Bloggers - The Tom Hartman show this morning reminded us of a Washington Post article in February of this year that slammed the Bush Administration for not allowing states to stop predatory lenders. I think it's important so I'm just reprinting it here for our debate.

Excerpt from the Washington Post:

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot SpitzerThursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.

Well, more food for thought. The evidence is building. Any comments Republicans?

Thursday's Political News #1 - Michael

Political Rant: Bush's Disintegrating Presidency and Final Legacy Becoming Clear

Good Morning Bloggers - It's a busy day so I'll focus on what intrigues me this morning: George Bush as the most incompetent man ever elected president. Thank you so much Republicans! It still amazes me that 30% of Americans still like the idiot.

My theory is that those 30% must be comprised of the "George Costanza-fearful-types" who would do anything to keep the fighting over there - it's an extreme example of "not in my backyard" when you think about it. I'm sorry, but we're talking about people who simply ignore massive death and destruction - proven collateral damage worldwide - being conducted in their names, and who choose to take no responsibility - they just ignore it or say that's it's the "only way." They even choose to vote for more with McCain and Palin. I'm sorry, but I think that qualifies as people who are scared and in serious denial.

Anyway, I digress. I was moved to write this post after visiting my favorite morning website http://www.bbcnews.com/, where I was struck by the headline, North Korea Nuclear Seals Removed. In my opinion North Korea sums up a lot of the incompetence and disintegration of the Bush Administration. The Bush-North Korea relationship reads like a common thread spun throughout the Bush Administration: shoot from the hip, spew uninformed bravado and bluster, squirm in a stalemate, ask friends to help negotiate a solution, screw them by not delivering, and finally assume that history will vindicate you. I think Bush and his fans simply hope nobody noticed.

Anyway, I digressed again. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is a very smart lady. I love her radio show and now I love her television show thanks to MSNBC. She prides herself on being a bit of an historian - her hobby is the history and excellence of cocktails, something I can relate to - so I loved how on Monday she - along with other authorities - discussed how George W. Bush will find a place in the presidential failure hall of fame alongside Herbert Hoover and Warren G. Harding.

"Barring yet another disaster of unimaginable scale, we now know that the presidency of George W. Bush will be defined by massive, country-changing failures," stated Maddow . She went on to cite 9/11, the "mendacious launch of the Iraq War," the drowning of New Orleans, and now an economic meltdown in which "we're borrowing $700 billion dollars, probably mostly from China, to stem off utter collapse."

Maddow was joined by Thomas Frank, author of The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, who told her, "These things are connected, with the exception of 9/11...it's judgment day for the conservative philosophy of governing," Frank asserted. He pointed out that Bush isn't personally responsible for the housing bubble, "but conservatism is, with its idea of 'let the markets do what they want, the markets will always find equilibrium, the markets can self-regulate." In the end, Bush mostly failed to regulate or enforce - he basically abdicated his responsibilities.

Frank blamed not only the current economic problems but also the missteps with Iraq and New Orleans on Bush's philosophy of privatization and outsourcing. "This is a problem of letting people run government when they believe that government can't work and ought not work." What I wonder is whether or not Democrats are going to get off the Reaganeseque conservative trip they've been on since Clinton and stop following the Republicans down into their own dark places. I personally feel we need to dump the Clinton legacy too. Btw, I would like to credit Raw Story as a source for most of Rachel's quotes.

So, that's pretty much it. We're beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and the presidency of George - the screw-up - Bush is looking dim and grim with each passing day. With news that the war in Afghanistan isn't going well (see my post), it would appear that his legacy will be: stalemate, economic disintegration, war, torture, broken agreements, broken or stretched laws, ease-dropping, disregarding habeas corpus, disregarding posi comitatus, lies, conspiracies, cover-ups, war-profiteering, murder, fear-mongering, kidnapping, rendition, worldwide corruption, and the LARGEST BAILOUT IN WORLD HISTORY - to name just a few already investigated by legitimate sources worldwide.

Btw, one thing I've found about most Republicans I talk to - they never admit they were wrong or take responsibility for any damage done. Many say they didn't even vote for Bush! Prove me wrong people!

To my Republican friends, all I can say is that I hope you're not happy with past results. Get a clue people! Stop with the denial and help us THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Wednesday's Political Rant #1 - Michael

News Link: Bush Administration Keeps 'Grim' Afghanistan Report Quiet Until After Election

Read it on the Raw Story NOW: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_Administration_will_keep_secret_grim_0923.html

Call to Action: JUST SAY NO to Bush Bailout

Hello Bloggers - As you can read in the articles below I've spent a lot of time digesting the whole bailout scenario and I've decided that the Bush/Paulson version of the bailout is a mistake. It would leave this country vulnerable if we hit new, unforeseen pitfalls ahead - and they've already proven to be bad at seeing what's ahead. We may need a bailout, but not the one on the table now.

After reviewing the hearing this morning, Paulson and Bernanke would not give Senator Dodd, Shelby (R) and others enough assurances that it would solve the problem. If it does not work, the government would be out of options. It would be a disaster. Unless they can give solid assurances, then it is too great a risk. It is clear - based on past Republican policies - that we need to pass through a difficult time in this country's history. Congress should not be foolish and give the power of the purse away at the first sign of doom. We need to keep our options open in case something worse happens.

The only way to solve this problem is to be cautious and pass new laws that prop up the most important parts of our economy - the people. We need to make sure they hold on to as much wealth as possible. The people can survive tight credit if they know they won't lose their homes and have enough to feed their families. WE THE PEOPLE need to be protected, not institutions.

It is obvious that the system is broken and it needs to be repaired. Let's repair it first, then flood it with new money. Bush and his cronies are not worth risking trillions on. They have already gambled and lost too much of our nation's wealth. The risk of going slow and taking more prudent steps outweighs the risk of throwing good money after bad - or placing it directly into the hands of discredited officials. I'm begging you to please visit http://www.votenobailout.org/ and STOP THIS LEGISLATION NOW!

Tuesday's Call to Action #1 - Michael

Political News/Rant: A History of US Bailouts

Hello Bloggers - Here is a brief history of America's larger bailouts over the past 80 years. There is lots of evidence to suggest today's bailout will only delay the inevitable, enrich the rich, hurt taxpayers, and buy time delaying the collapse until the Democrats are in power, but I must admit that bailouts have worked in the past.

Therefore, I'm stumped regarding what is the best solution. Despite my research on bailouts showing some positive effects in the past, I still do not trust Republicans and the Bush Administration, and remain concerned that it's simply one more dirty scheme to harm government and line their pockets with ill-gotten gains. I still do not trust their version of a bailout.

• The Hoover administration created the Reconstruction Finance Corp. (RFC) in 1932 to spur economic activity by first lending money to financial, industrial and agricultural institutions, then injecting capital into thousands of banks by investing in their preferred stock. By the time it closed up shop in 1957, it had made loans of about $50 billion.
• The same held true for the Home Owners' Loan Corp., started under FDR in 1933 as part of the New Deal. The agency helped stop a flood of foreclosures by buying $3 billion worth of defaulted mortgages and refinancing more than a million loans at lower rates and longer terms.
• The government also created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) the same year, guaranteeing the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks following a wave of bank failures.
• The '70s and '80s brought a series of government rescues of corporations — including Lockheed and Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust.
• 1979 brought the bailout of Chrysler Corp. - the nation's 10th-biggest company had fallen into near-collapse amid high oil prices that tanked demand for its big cars, and the Carter administration arranged for $1.2 billion in subsidized loans. That spurred a Chrysler comeback and ultimately netted a profit for the government when Chrysler made good on its obligations.
• The S&L crisis in 1989 was the costliest intervention ever, creating the Resolution Trust Corporation, a government-owned asset management company charged with taking over troubled assets and paying depositors who lost funds. It involved over 700 failed S&Ls.

So, based on the historical report, a bailout may not be the worst idea, but it still leaves the question of what TYPE OF BAILOUT is needed. I still trust the Chris Dodd approach more - we should not trust Bush and Paulson. Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer (D) asked Paulson and Bernanke today during the hearing whether the Congress could feed or traunch funds gradually, by starting with $150 billion or so. They responded by saying they they need it all - immediately, and without restrictions. No matter how well bailouts worked in the past, I see a RED FLAG when they insist that restrictions, regulations and accountability will prevent them from solving the problem.

Come on people, we need to insist that this bailout is done properly. We need to admit that Paulson owns over $600 million in Goldman Sachs stock, and that he might wish to bail himself out of danger. Please contact your legislator - http://www.votenobailout.org/ is one website that will force Congress to consider their actions more carefully. In the end they will want to vote yes OUT OF FEAR (they won't want to be blamed), but there's nothing wrong with forcing them to consider all options, and to make sure they do it right.

Every bone in my body tells me that any bailout has to focus on the people at the bottom of the economy - their actual mortgages, not the institutions at the top. In the same way derivatives are mostly diluted junk, buying the institutional mortgage paper will not restore confidence. The homeowners themselves need to be bought-out. The government's plan to buy the risk or the paper will not effect the floor of the economy. To put it in terms Democrats can understand, IT WILL NOT TRICKLE DOWN TO US! So, I see the Bush/Paulson bailout as flawed, unlike some of the bailouts in the past. The people who spend to create this economy will not feel more secure. The institutions will tighten credit in the end anyway. The dollar will fall. There are too many flies in the ointment for my taste. I think we need another plan.

Overall, I still believe that we have many more problems in this country than bank/institutional debt, so my gut tells me there must be a better way to spend a trillion dollars of borrowed money - why does it have to be borrowed anyway, isn't that a red flag in itself. We should try to create more jobs and spur more domestic growth, and develop programs focused on people, not institutions. I'm nervous that we're being fleeced again, and that the American people keep trusting the same lying crooks who keep stealing from them - over and over. So, in the end, I think it would be better to wait and do it right, then to do it wrong and waste money we do not have to waste. I also question whether the Republicans are using the bailout issue to set us up - it could be the "October Suprise" we fear from them. Please offer your own opinion. Thanks for listening.

Tuesday's Political News/Rant #2 - Michael

Political News: Chris Dodd Bailout Plan Has Merit

Good Morning Bloggers - It's early, but for now I'm supporting Senator Christopher Dodd's (D) plan over the not-so-great track record of Bush and Paulson. Politico posted a decent review earlier, and there have been many critiques online and elsewhere since that really impressed me today. I wish you guys would give your opinion. It's important to the nation.

Dodd bill more aggressive than Treasury plan
"Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is taking [a] much more aggressive approach to the Treasury bailout plan, demanding foreclosure assistance, limits on executive compensation and profit sharing for taxpayers if the Treasury begins to make money back on the bad debt it plans to purchase."

"Dodd's legislation, obtained this morning by Politico, has just started to circulate among Senate legislative directors. His plan addresses many of the concerns raised by Democrats and Republicans who are concerned about handing over $700 billion blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson."

"While the Treasury would receive much of the authority that it wants to buy up distressed assets, Dodd's add-ons have many of the populist ideas that will appeal to skeptical Democrats. His plan is also broader than the one unveiled by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D), so there will be significant negotiations in the days ahead between the House and Senate if Congress is to pass a bill by the end of the week."

"Among the major provisions Dodd is adding:

• Authority for bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure. This was considered a poison pill in a housing bill that passed Congress earlier this summer, but it has gained much more currency now that Washington wants to bail out Wall Street.
• A provision that would require the Treasury to take a 65 percent portion of 20 percent any profits it makes from the newly purchased assets and put it into the federal government's HOPE program, an affordable housing program.
• An oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials.
• Limits on executive compensation. This is a major stumbling point for Paulson in his negotiations with Congress, but cracking down on Wall Street executive salaries will be a major selling point for lawmakers. Dodd and Frank have put in place what's known as a "claw back" provision aimed at revoking compensation that executives received based on fraudulent claims.
• An independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program, appointed by the president."

At first glance I think it sounds more aggressive and sensible than Paulson's plan, which requires us to trust people and institutions that have already proven to be incompetent. The most important consideration is that Goldman Sachs Group - formerly run by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson - and Morgan Stanley, stand to be among the biggest beneficiaries of his proposed, unregulated $700 billion bailout.

Common sense suggests caution. I hope you share your thoughts. I already wrote my congressman and both Senators requesting caution and oversight. Because it's important to our nation and future generations, I hope you do the same. Simply Google the legislators name and you'll find them. I must admit, I'm extremely worried.

Tuesday's Political News #1 - Michael

Political Rant: Absurd Republican Spin About Crisis Continues Unabated

Hello Bloggers - I would like to speak directly to my Republican friends, especially those of you who continue to blame the credit and mortgage crisis on the Democrats - which are pretty much all of you.

No matter how you spin it, it's BS! Every serious community improvement law passed by Congress since the sixties (and supported by some Republicans) has included protections for investment and mortgage companies. The reason was easy; neither party wanted to be responsible for harming the US housing market. I worked for a time at the National Association of Home Builders in DC, so I know a little about the issue. Federal institutions and agencies have always been responsible for making sure things stay healthy, and are supposed to make sure something like today's crisis DOES NOT HAPPEN.

So, it's NOT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE LAWS, it's the BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN NEGLECT that caused the problems. If you want to read more, visit a few good resources:

• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System FRB
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FDIC
• Officer of the Comptroller of Currency OCC
• Office of Thrift Supervision OTS

So please stop defiling perfectly reasonable legislation with your absurd spin. As usual, you are not telling the whole truth. Then again, it's hard for you guys, isn't it? Perhaps you should ask Mr. Bush, Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke why they didn't do more to follow the law. It would be a lot more productive than spinning around and screaming into the political wind.

Monday's Political Rant #2 - Michael

Political News: Why Do People Still Vote Republican?

Hello Bloggers - It's one of my favorite questions, so I'll ask it again: why do people still vote Republican (what they like to call conservative) after such horribly mismanaged governance?

Gawker.com (http://gawker.com/5052329/scientists-explain-why-people-vote-for-republicans) and the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-sci-politics19-2008sep19,0,3434467.story) chime in on the possibilities.

The Gawker article is research from Rice University that asks questions like "why are conservatives scared a lot" and "why do they refuse to believe facts." The LA Times article is derived from research conducted at many universities, and includes lots of data about the differences between liberals and conservatives. They are both interesting. Enjoy!

Monday's Political News #2 - Michael

Political Comment: Senator Bernie Sanders on the Wall Street Bailout: The Middle Class Must Not Be Forced to Bail Out Wall Street Greed

For years, as a member of the House Banking Committee and now as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have heard the Bush administration tell us how "robust" our economy was and how strong the "fundamentals" were. That was until a few days ago. Now, we are being told that if Congress does not act immediately and approve the $700 billion Wall Street bailout proposal these "free marketers" have just written up, there will be an unprecedented economic meltdown in the United States and an unraveling of the global economy.

This proposal as presented is an unacceptable attempt to force middle income families (and our children) to pick up the cost of fixing the horrendous economic mess that is the product of the Bush administration's deregulatory fever and Wall Street's insatiable greed. If the potential danger to our economy was not so dire, this blatant effort to essentially transfer $700 billion up the income ladder to those at the top would be laughable.

Let us be clear. If the economy is on the edge of collapse we need to act. But rescuing the economy does not mean we have to just give away $700 billion of taxpayer money to the banks. (In truth, it could be much more than $700 billion. The bill only says the government is limited to having $700 billion outstanding at any time. By selling the mortgage backed assets it acquires -- even at staggering losses -- the government will be able to buy even more resulting is a virtually limitless financial exposure on the part of taxpayers.) Any proposal must protect middle income and working families from bearing the burden of this bailout.

I have proposed a four part plan to accomplish that goal which includes a five-year, 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples; a requirement that the price the government pays for any mortgage assets are discounted appropriately so that government can recover the amount it paid for them; and, finally, the government should receive equity in the companies it bails out so that when the stock of these companies rises after the bailout, taxpayers also have the opportunity to share in the resulting windfall. Taken together, these measures would provide the best guarantee that at the end of five years, the government will have gotten back the money it put out.

Second, in addition to protecting the average American from being saddled with the cost, any serious proposal has to include reforms so that we end the type of behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. Much of this activity can be traced to specific legislation that broke down regulatory safety walls in the financial sector and allowed banks and others to engage in new types of risky transactions that are at the heart of this crisis. That deregulation needs to be repealed. Wall Street has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. We need to reinstate a strong regulatory system that protects our economy.

Third, we need to address the needs of working families in this country who are today facing very difficult times. If we can bail out Wall Street, we need to respond with equal vigor to their plight. That means, for example, creating millions of jobs through major investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a new renewable energy system. We must also make certain that the most vulnerable Americans don't freeze in the winter or die because they lack access to primary health care.

Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up. Otherwise, the American taxpayer will continue to be on the financial hook for the risky behavior, the mismanagement, and even the illegal conduct of these companies' executives.

These are the last days of the Bush administration, the most dishonest and incompetent in modern American history. It is imperative that, at this important moment, Congress stand up for the middle class and for fiscal integrity. The future of our country is at stake.

(Reprinted from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-middle-class-must-not_b_128046.html)

For the record, we at Our Rants & Raves agree with the Great Senator from the State of Vermont. He is an Independent, and America's Senator in many ways. We admire his great work.

Monday's Political Comment #1: A Rants & Raves Contributor

Political News: Potential for 10 Million Votes to be Stolen in November

Hello Bloggers - A new follow-up report by Common Cause and the Century Foundation points out potential fraud in November that could involve as many as 10 million votes stolen by Republican election operatives.

The report, “Voting in 2008: Ten Swing States,” assesses how much progress has been made in the past two years to improve the voting process after massive voter theft in 2000 and 2004. It identifies real problems that have not been fixed, and made worse in some cases. The 2008 general election will be historic, with election officials expecting record-breaking turnouts. Unfortunately, we may experience a repeat of the last two presidential elections, where objective state officials in Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and Maryland, to name just a few, have since proven massive voter fraud.

The report states that "significant problems in the basic functions of America’s election administration system persist — and in a few cases, have even worsened over the past few years."

Little has been done in the following key areas:

• long lines at polling places


• inadequately trained poll workers


• voter registration problems


• disenfranchisement due to voter identification laws and/or their poor implementation

In addition, observers are still nervous about the problems reported with electronic voting machines, where theft is hard to catch and prove. Many fundamental issues persist, including "decentralization and a lack of accountability," the report concludes. "In most of the areas much of the authority to specify election administration procedure is delegated to localities, resulting in an extremely disparate set of election administration systems. In this patchwork of systems, accountability measures for decisions made throughout each state are also very weak."

The report focuses on ten battleground states: Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. After examining laws and policies regarding voter registration, electronic voting, statewide databases, voter identification, challenge laws, deceptive practices, provisional ballots, and allocation of voting machines, it concludes that there are many concerns for potential voter fraud this November.

(Read the whole report at: http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/VOTINGIN2008REPORT.PDF)

Everyone who cares about this nation, and who cares about truth and justice for the American voter, needs to go to the polls this November and vote for Barack Obama - especially if we need to overcome a potential theft of 10 million votes due to corrupt Republican election officials. We recommend that you check to see if you're registered to vote by visiting http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php to find out - and register.

Monday's Political News #1 - A Rants & Raves Contributor

Political Rant: Bush's and the Republican's Outrageous Waste!

Good Morning Bloggers - I know I seem pretty negative sometimes pointing out all the horrible waste and injustice, but since the corporate media is not responsible in that area I believe it's a role that bloggers must play.

So, in the area of waste, I would like to point out the wonderful article posted by Think Progress this morning that lists just a few of the large financial screw-ups of the Bush Administration and the Republicans. Do you really want to vote for McCain and risk another eight years of this nightmare?

A Small Snapshot of the Bush Administration's Legacy of WASTE! according to a few Reputable Sources

- $700 billion minimum - Yesterday, President Bush announced his $700 billion plan to buy out troubled financial institutions. As proposed Bush's plan places no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress. Incredibly, Bush and Paulson propose outsourcing much of the work to their Wall Street buddies. It needs to be adjusted to protect against Bush and his gang of thieves.

-$142 million wasted on reconstruction projects that were either terminated or canceled. [Special Inspector General for Iraq, 07-28-08]

-“Significant” amount of U.S. funds for Iraq funneled to Sunni and Shiite militias. [GAO Comptroller, 03-11-08]

-$180 million payed to construction company Bechtel for projects it never finished. [Federal audit, 07-25-07]

-$5.1 billion in expenses for Iraq reconstruction charged without documentation. [Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report, 03-19-07]

-$10 billion in spending on Iraq reconstruction was wasteful or poorly tracked. [GAO, 02-15-07]

-Halliburton overcharged the government $100 million for one day’s work in 2004. [Project on Government Oversight, 10-08-04]

KATRINA

-Millions wasted on four no-bid contracts, including paying $20 million for an unusable camp for evacuees. [Homeland Security Department Inspector General, 09-10-08]

-$2.4 billion in contracts doled out by FEMA that guaranteed profits for big companies. [Center for Public Integrity investigation, 06-25-07]

-An estimated $2 billion in fraud and waste — nearly 11 percent of the $19 billion spent by FEMA on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as of mid-June. [New York Times tally, 06-27-06]

-“Widespread” waste and mismanagement on millions for Katrina recovery, including at least $3 million for 4,000 beds that were never used. [GAO, 03-16-06]

DEFENSE CONTRACTS

-A $50 million Air Force contract awarded to a company with close ties to senior Air Force officers, in a process “fraught with improper influence, irregular procedures, glaring conflicts of interest.” [Project on Government Oversight, 04-18-08]

-$1.7 billion in excessive fees and waste paid by the Pentagon to the Interior Department to manage federal lands. [Defense Department and Interior Department Inspectors General audit, 12-25-06]

-$1 trillion unaccounted for by the Pentagon, including 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. [GAO, 05-18-03]

(To read their article, visit http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/21/bush-legacy-taxpayer-funds/)

So, for all you Republicans who like to claim that Democrats tax and spend, and mostly spend, then I challenge you to provide a list of government waste that can out do the one provided here. Can you? I doubt it. It is clear that George Bush and his Republican supporters have wasted billions and possibly trillions on projects that in the end hurt the American people.

I can't believe it when I read that list - and to think it's only a small percentage of the waste. If Democrats had done damage even close to this I suspect the Republicans would have found a way to destroy the party or ignited a civil war. It's inexcusable incompetence. It's beyond corruption - it's stupidity and negligence to the point of immorality.

I suggest that you Republicans who are continuing to support your party take a long hard look at the damages, and rethink your absurd loyalty. Just ask yourself, why should you trust your Republican leadership? I wouldn't trust my Democratic ones if they had done the same. You need to see them for who they are: incompetent, immoral, corrupt, deceitful, thieves.

Monday's Political Rant # 1 - Michael