Thoughts provoked by an old house in need of renovation, its garden, a marriage lived within its walls, and of a retired Thoroughbred race horse named Fibs and Flannel.
"Well -- uh --, yes, yes, I have to admit, it's fun being a billionaire." -- Sir Allen Stanford
Hey! I saw this guy on a news program while we were away skiing. They were looking for him to arrest him, and here he is, right on national television, enjoying himself and being a billionaire!
The most talked-about journalism of this week wasn't produced in the New York Times, CNN, Newsweek or NPR. It was Jon Stewart's epic, eight-minute takedown on Wednesday night's Daily Show of CNBC's clueless, in-the-tank reporting of inflatable bubbles and blowhard CEOs as the U.S. and world economies slowly slid into a meltdown. You can quibble about Stewart's motives in undertaking the piece -- after he was spurned for an interview by CNBC's faux populist ranter Rick Santelli -- but you can't argue with the results.
The piece wasn't just the laugh-out-loud funniest thing on TV all week (and this was a week in which NBC rebroadcast the SNL "more cowbell" sketch, so that's saying a lot) but it was exquisitely reported, insightful, and it tapped into America's real anger about the financial crisis in a way that mainstream journalism has found so elusive all these months, in a time when we all need to be tearing down myths. As one commenter on the Romenesko blog noted, "it's simply pathetic that one has to watch a comedy show to see things like this."
But that's not all. The Stewart piece also got the kind of eyeballs that most newsrooms would kill for in this digital age -- planted atop many, many major political, media and business Web sites -- and the kind of water-cooler chatter that journalists would crave in any age. In a time when newspapers are flat-out dying if not dealing with bankruptcy or massive job losses, while other types of news orgs aren't faring much better, the journalistic success of a comedy show rant shouldn't be viewed as a stick in the eye -- but a teachable moment. Why be a curmudgeon about kids today getting all their news from a comedy show, when it's not really that hard to join Stewart in his own idol-smashing game?
Here's how:
1) Great research trumps good access to the powerful: The Stewart piece makes this controversial but critical point in two different ways. For one thing, the story shows how access to the nation's most powerful CEOs -- supposedly the big advantage of a journalistic enterprise like CNBC -- isn't worth a warm bucket of spit when it results in slo-pitch softball questions, for fear of offending the rich and powerful. And so we see Ford's CEO grilled about Kid Rock's performance at the auto show, Ponzi scammer (later revealed) Alan Stanford quizzed on whether it's fun to be a billionaire, and Maria "Money Honey" Bartiromo gushing at how corporate chiefs were still telling her that their companies were doing great, even as the massive iceberg was casting its shadow over the hull of the American economy.
Jon Stewart's act of journalism -- reported, of course, by his ace team of writers -- worked because there were no interviews at all. It all hung instead on meticulous research, dredging up lethal quips of CNBC's stock pumping hosts to hang them with their own undeniable words -- Jim Cramer's "buy buy buy" when the Dow was roughly double what it is today, his touting of Bear Stearns' and Bank of America's doomed stocks. The kind of research that's so hard for most newspapers to do anymore, with downsized staffs and ever-looming deadlines, but which can so often belies the spin from our "accessible" sources.
2) The American public is mad as hell right now, so why isn't the mainstream media? Balanced reporting is important, but a balanced, modulated tone of voice? Not now, not when millions are hurting from lost jobs and under-water mortgages, and many millions more are living in fear of the same fate. People need information but what they so desperately want an outlet that shares their passion -- and, yes, that rage -- and so Jon Stewart gave people what they weren't getting anywhere else.
3) Tear down this wall... of pretending that the media itself isn't a major player in American society, and isn't a factor in most big stories. Sure, there were greedy bankers and their pocketed politicians working in unintended tandem to take the Dow from 14,000 down to 6,600, but these popular TV pundits were there every step of the way, as The Daily Show revealed, and their contribution was consequential. Mainstream media, after all these years, has a hard time understanding that one of the major political forces in this country is mainstream media, something the audience knows all too well.
4) The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not being funny, or not being passionate. I don't know about you, if you actually watched the piece, but I feel like I learned something important -- confirming the cheerleading nature of the nation's most-watched source for business news, even in a moment of oncoming disaster -- but I also busted my gut laughing as I did. And there's nothing wrong with that, informing and entertaining at the same time -- isn't that what newspapers are charging people 75 cents for?.
You know, sometimes people do some crazy stuff when they realize their days are numbered. I don't have the answers to problems facing American journalism -- not my own newsroom, mired in Chapter 11, nor the others that face a possible death sentence. But fighting for life will mean living each day like it was your last, with passion, anger and laughter, the way The Daily Showshined a light on a crevice of the nation's battered economy on Wednesday night.
Oh, and all of us, over here? Those of us not in the United States? We're just great -- those of us whose spouses work for the public health care system, anyway --, so what's Peter Goodman talking about in today's poor, beleaguered New York Times?
A Rising Dollar Lifts the U.S. but Adds to the Crisis Abroad
Oh, right, the panic over the financial crisis that everyone and her brother is talking about. That financial crisis.
As the world is seized with anxiety in the face of a spreading financial crisis, the one place having a considerably easier time attracting money is, perversely enough, the same place that started much of the trouble: the United States.
Try Googling today's world newspapers and let me know what you come up with. They're having a lot of fun.
Can we hear from the disappointed, bitter decent Republicans who feel like, "This is not my Republican party! My God!... what have I done?" Now that all the money's gone.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
During the campaign, I wondered if the GOP would rise up, rise up and toss the lunatic fringe overboard, reclaim their party for the fiscally conservative, socially tolerant among you -- there must be some there, no? -- and make the other ones go form their own party, like Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National in France. A radical, racist, socially conservative, anti-immigration nationalist party merely capable of splintering an election result, not taking over a country as the neocons did for 8 years.
Same as it ever was.
Trust me, George IV did more to make sure that won't happen in France any time soon than Le Pen could dreamed have accomplishing, although he did manage to do a number on those who flirted with fire, showing their frustration with criminality and unemployment by voting for him in round one against Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who should have been in the second round against Chirac.
Perhaps you could take an idea from this country of the Enlightenment philosophy that spawned The United States of America (if you believe it wasn't purely economically motivated; when Enlightenment sheep lie down with the lions of commerce, a great democracy is born) with more than a smidgen of hubris. Ahem.
Believe your principles of social justice, honor your rule of law that protects every citizen from another, maintain a separation of church and state and keep your main political parties aligned with the axis of your constitution and towards the center of the bell-curve of society, rather than out at its screaming extremes.
What's that? The gays are the extreme? When they are asking to marry and raise a family, not have a quickie in the men's room at Minneapolis St.Paul International Airport?
Nah, think again.
Hey, let's look at this together again... then, pst! Do something... sign the petition and send it along before Valentine's Day...
Stick rather, Barack (sorry, we were classmates, so it's hard to get used to calling you "Mr. President" and "President Obama"), to your sense of what is right and wrong and, as Jericho said, talk not to the politicians, but to those who vote for them. Talk straight from your principles, using your considerable oratorical power to reach them. Tell them why what is uncomfortable is yet right, why what is cause of fear is yet worth finding a little courage for. Be a leader and continue to lead us to a better society, a better country, a finer hour in history like you did throughout the campaign. This is no time for compromise when we are on the threshold of a transformation in our society, and you could be the one to lead it, not to betray it in compromise. You don't need to be afraid. We are your lieutenants (unless you betray too many of us, my gay friends and family members on the top of that list).
We've got your back.
I've got to say, while I am on the subject again, Barack, that I don't agree with Frank Schaeffer when he says that you were right to invite to have Rick Warren to pray at your inauguration. I could start with saying that there is no place for public prayer in government, but tokenism is always wrong. That's like saying, "You were right, Mr. President, for nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the bench. A little tokenism can't hurt. Might mollify the colored people." You fell there. You never promised equality to gays, but you didn't have to put a man up in front of the nation at the moment of your investiture, and have him pray for their damned, craven souls.
You might have been right in a highly qualified sense to indulge in a little tokenism praying, but led by a person who publicly condemns none.
I want to know, from those who are its members but do not consider themselves at ease with either of these factions of the Republican party, who are cast adrift whether you care, how you identify yourselves right now, what it means to you and what you want. I'd be furious if it were my party, and I don't know if it would be enough for me to content myself with voting with the Democrats and calling myself an Independent.
Are we heading to a real three party system, with the Independents picking up the phlogiston of the Republican conflagration?
Are we going to see the extremes in the Republican party lose their hold in the subsequent congressional and senate election cycles with a host of Independents who feel themselves to be Republicans of a pre-Nixon era taking back their party?
Or, are we going to see a continued rise in the Democratic party as it expresses it principles and aims for the nation in this time?
I think there are a couple tiny mistakes in the first couple paragraphs, but you get the idea...
Dear President Obama: I know that from time to time you read Huffington Post because you've written for it. As a Huffington Post reader you'll know that no one on this web site has more faithfully supported your candidacy and now your presidency than me. As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)
*The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were right to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.
As someone who appeared numerous times on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, as someone for whom Jerry Falwell used to send his private jet to bring me to speak at his college, as an author who had James Dobson giveaway 150,000 copies of my one of my fundamentalist "books" allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican "center" for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes.
The Religious Right supply the kind of people who at McCain and Palin rallies were yelling things such as "kill him" about you. That's the constituency to which your hand was extended when looking for compromise on your financial bailout bill.
There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.
The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're talking to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God because I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover" because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.
What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their rabid core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of perpetual warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no friends.
The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.
The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.
As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.
Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback.
And I really like this notion. I really, really do --
Taking Stock in America, or the American Stockholder
America’s horror of “nationalization” could be defused by handing out shares to all American households. President Bush used to talk about building an “ownership society.” Well, giving shares in big banks to all American households would be a terrific way to do that.
I just have to include this from Kristof today, too. Thank you, Sir:
Yes, troubled banks might lose good people to hedge funds that can pay more because they’re not bound by these curbs. But that upsets me less than the idea of single mothers working multiple jobs so that their tax dollars can underwrite million-dollar bonuses at companies getting taxpayer assistance.
But, keep those single mothers out of those hedge funds, for everyone's sake.
So, why not look to Sweden for their bank bail-out model, and to France for national health care?
Why not, America? We weren't exactly screaming, "But that's not American, it's French!" when we were borrowing their philosophical principles for our constitution and relying on their military and financial support to get the job done.
Why not, indeed.
....
once in a lifetime
And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack And you may find yourself in another part of the world And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful Wife And you may ask yourself-well...how did I get here?
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/after the moneys gone Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.
And you may ask yourself How do I work this? And you may ask yourself Where is that large automobile? And you may tell yourself This is not my beautiful house! And you may tell yourself This is not my beautiful wife!
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/after the moneys gone Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Water dissolving...and water removing There is water at the bottom of the ocean Carry the water at the bottom of the ocean Remove the water at the bottom of the ocean!
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/in the silent water Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/after the moneys gone Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.
And you may ask yourself What is that beautiful house? And you may ask yourself Where does that highway go? And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done?
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/in the silent water Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.
Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down Letting the days go by/water flowing underground Into the blue again/after the moneys gone Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
I am a little embarrassed about this post (Dolores Palin, Sarah Umbridge) because somehow I had no idea others (including, it seems, although I can't find any video online to prove it, besides his mentioning the name of Dolores Umbridge yesterday, Keith Olbermann) had also thought of the Umbridge/Palin parallel way back in the first week of September. Just Google "sarah palin dolores umbridge" and start reading. It's okay, though, because I am merely chronicling now for myself. You are welcome to read along.
As (you pick the adjective) as Sarah Palin is, it shocked me more that a political party thought she is a politically viable choice to advance their ticket to govern The United States of America.
It said to me how very, very far things have gone, and how very, very closely reality can resemble the invented world of stories because -- well-written or not, sophisticated or simple, for children or adults, literature or pulp for the grand public -- they tell the story of the human heart, and it's not always a Hallmark Valentine.
I thought if Palin sounds so very much like Dolores Umbridge, then who is John McCain. Voldemort was the easy answer, but it didn't fit because he is not the source, he is not the one they serve. He is a servant in the system of emptiness and evil. He is not a mastermind. He is the interesting character, in a way. His was a special brand of snake oil. Someone recently said that maybe his truest desire is to destroy, the Republican party by failing, to smash it to bits. If that is true, why? Did he or did he not serve it? Did he or did he not act as they did? Almost everything you can think of to say about his claims can be turned upside down and inside out when you do a little digging, from earmarks, to lobbyists to service. How much of John McCain was a projection of what John McCain wished and not what John McCain would, much less did. No, he's not Voldemort.
I reserved that for Rove. Rove has been acting in the Republican political establishment since his college days. I don't know Rove as a child. I don't know the inside of his heart and mind, but I do know that he was born politically in the midst of Watergate, from the inside the Nixon machine. I cam across the footage from the CBS Evening News that is in the middle of the page. Be patient. You will see him, not yet bloated. He is a subject for the biographers.
While Keith Olbermann is comparing Palin to Addie Polk, the 90-year-old who shot herself in the chest when they tried to evict her from her Akron home after her mortgage was foreclosed after 38 years, saying that both are caught up in something bigger than they are, over their heads,
"In much the same way we, America, in the corporate persona of Fannie Mae, have forgiven poor Addie Polk of Akron, Ohio, we, America, also need to forgive poor Sarah Palin of Wasilla, Alaska. They are both in situations that are beyond their ability to cope, they are both stuck in a crucible caused by forces they cannot comprehend, they are both unable to understand what they are doing."
He's right. We do not need so much to be afraid of telegenic, winkin', Golly-gee-whillikers Sarah Palin; there are tens of thousands of her out there. We need to face who put her there, who picked her out of a crowd of Sarah Palins and made her the TV face for their social and economic political agenda. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that in reality, there is not one villain, there is not one Voldemort with his helpers that the hero and his helpers can confront and eliminate. In fact, literature even seems to recognize that one story told is prelude to others to come. That is the way it is.
My early education taught me, inadvertently, I imagine now, to believe that the US having defeated the uber-villain, who did monstrous things through his rise to power in Germany, was the great hero. That evil vanquished was vanquished. That humans everywhere had to understand this as an aberration of the human spirit that could not happen again. I now believe that it is as universal and present as any part of good in humans, and that the Republicans have long understood this. They used it, and in channeling the visceral power of fear and control, rather than courage and cooperative action, they have brought it to America.
I read the other day that the original definition of fascism is a relationship between corporations and government, and that this was fascism as Mussolini practiced it, but that in 1968, the definition changed in the dictionaries.
Not having a good English dictionary at my disposal here (gift idea), I resort to Dictionary.com. Here is the definition the American Heritage Dictionary gives:
fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) n.
1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, provides this discussion:
fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]
A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.
Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.
Note this last.
The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition makes reference to the historic associations of fascism with socioeconomic control -- the Dictionary.com Unabridged version 1.1 makes it clearer in their definition:
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism -- suppression of opposition through censorship and controls, and a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism, but today, it is "loosely" understood as nothing more than "military dictatorships".
It strikes me that the neutering of the term fascism to make it a meme for something that appears impossible in US democracy has been a ruse of genius. Fascism has been unbundled for an American sensibility, the association with commerce, with social control -- that was what the Soviet Union did, not the United States government --, racism and nationalism stripped away from the bundle.
Our military, we say, fights wars for its people; it is great and good; its soldiers are just and honorable; our wars the more so. We made ourselves infallible in our eyes, and in those of an older generation of world citizens who still remember the USA for D-day and the liberation of Europe from fascism, but in the 60 years since, other eyes have opened on the fascism that has been nutured in the USA, as racists fumed against the advancement of colored people (I am thinking of the mission of the NAACP), as the controllers of the nation's great wealth on Wall Street and in the corporate boardrooms of the US sought political advantage to deregulate their businesses and allow them access to even more spectacular profits, handed in out in astronomical CEO salaries and year-end bonuses, safe from taxation in the off-shore accounts for which the US Tax Code provided with a nudge and a wink.
Power concentrated in the hands of ever fewer, ever more fearful of a population that would rage if it bothered to finally understand in what it had been complicit.
And not everyone agrees that the Jews did not "deserve" what "they got", nor that Muslims do not deserve the same. The right has been sure to keep those coals stirred. Sarah Palin's Christianity decries mine, and those of more ecumenical pastors and priests. Fundamentalist extremism carries many passports, including that of the United States of America.
It's possible to get too close to the evil, to spend too much time thinking about it. I had a nightmare. I dreamed that my hair salon was closed. In its place was an array of cubicles with low-walls, filled with banks of communications equipment, dials and screens. Everything was black and white. No one sat at those desks. The few people at the reception desk would say nothing. I felt panic. What had happened? Where had it gone? There were other women and men asking the same, but no one would answer. There was no face to tell us.
"But what a terrible thing, and Bonne Marché just across the street? What will happen?"
Don't ask it to make sense. It is a dream. It's our job to make sense of it. I am overdue for a hair cut and color, so of course I have that on the brain, but it is also expensive, a luxury. So is everything sold inside Bonne Marché. Creative people who drive Vespas covered with stickers from world cities and have fascinating tattoos, jewelry and points of view work inside, alongside people from just about every rung of society, from the shampoo boys and girls, to the receptionists, to the hipper stylists who work in that salon. It is a sort of luxury crossroads, and it was gone.
That's my fear talking in my dream. Luxury and individual expression -- the luxury of individual expression? -- gone, replaced by listening and recording equipment, while we are so powerless as to only discover that and feel shock.
Our world changed between appointments.
Look at the contortions through which our society has gone, from Civil Rights to Voting Rights and Women's Rights. Anger and fear were born of those movements on the part of those who felt threatened enough to kill its leaders. It is a cultural war. It isn't over. A half black, half white child of that time has come of age to ask to lead us as our president, and the majority of us desire this. We are ready. We asked for those changes in society, we supported them, some organized and fought for them. Others fought against them. While bills were signed into law by LBJ, the right prepared to fight the only way left to them, to confound and constrain those who would attempt to benefit by that rule of law.
They have worked around the law, in contempt of the law, and still, we haven't acted. We say, "Let us elect Senator Obama, and then there will be time to identify the criminals and punish them." What, put Bush and Cheney and Rove in jail? I doubt it.
They say, "Let us pass this emergency bail-out legislation to save our economy, and then there will be time for the hearings to identify the wrong-doers and punish them." What, put Wall Street, corporate America and Congress in jail? I don't see it.
What will get in the way of doing the right thing next? This economic crisis that was the child of the great Republican (mostly) power and money grab? You betcha'.
Our country is full Americans chanting "YOU ESS-AY!! YOU ESS-AY!!" -- at home and abroad -- and sporting their flag pins and bumper stickers.
The right is full of fascists yelling "Communists!" at the left during Palin rallies.
It never made sense, and it still doesn't now. Hitler first justified the murder of Jews for their communist, or leftist, anti-commerce ideas, or just another way of framing racist German social nationalism in her hour of post World War I humiliation to make it more palatable -- and yet the Jews were historically persecuted in Europe for their wealth and "sinfulness", stemming from their understanding and development of international finance, having been given that role by a Church that told its adherents that to profit from the exchange of money was sinful, and so, therefore, the Jews were sinners, whose wealth must be confiscated for the good of society. This is why it is frowned upon to focus on the making of money and talk about one's salary in certain upper circles, descended from the deposed aristocracy in Europe. They don't even realize why.
We're still fighting the same war.
But as these huge banks go down, their directors and CEOs asking for the salvation of the state to shore up the caving cliff of America's former economic might, undermined by their greed, their chosen political leaders' wars for a greater share of control of the world's oil, the whipping up of anti-Islamic sentiment to gain support from Christian fundamentalists so inclined to go their way, and American's passion for acquisition that has resulted in an unprecedented individual debt, what are the executives doing?
You're asking the fox to watch over the hen house, my friends in Congress, unless you mean it when you promise hearings and punishments. They seek to make fools of those who still believe in Great Principles.
"What he lacked in experience, he's made up in fight." from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Where, oh where, is Mr. Smith in America's hour of need? We stand for peace, we stand for social justice, we stand for the protection of sustainable capitalism and renewable energy, we stand with Obama, and they throw us Palin, the ruin of the global economy, and, if you listen to the whispers, perhaps the North American Union Army to quell post-election civil unrest in the event the Republicans declare victory and martial law.
And so it goes.
Ah, Kurt, ya died too soon.
I am going to rejoin my fellow supporters of democracy watching the Obama sign and out for freedom of expression for all of us. ....
So, I found this video this afternoon, looking for something entirely different (video of Sarah Palin's Pensacola, Florida rally October 6th). It is an echo of a conversation I had with Cowtown and some others this morning on CHAOS. Actually, it was a conversation that turned into my performing a rant, which turned out to be me expressing my inner Paul Krugman.
I guess I have been listening to him more carefully than I imagined, to have been able to get so many of his points.
This should encourage us all to give up our lives and becomes student of politics and economics. We might actually eventually learn enough to grasp what the pundits are saying, before they say it.
If you don't believe me, ask Cow.
The following is a transcript of Krugman's answers, for you cut and paste pleasure.
Rachel Maddow began by asking if the the bailout worked. Would it have been worse with it, or without it. Krugman laughed wryly and said, "Both." He went on to say:
Krugman: A lot of people are looking at the Dow, and it gets them really scared, but the professionals are lookng at the credit markets and that has them even more scared. The truth is what happened to the stock market is not that important. It's just kind of an imperfect reflection of the platonic truth of what is happening in the credit markets, which is really bad. They are completely frozen. The passing of the bailout didn't do anything.
Maddow then asks what are the indicators that we non ecnomists should be looking at to determine how things are going.
Krugman: Well, you know, there are, it's getting a little, ah, we're all kind of scrambling now beause it's hard, we are not used to tracking this stuff. I look at a lot of the interest rates on short term US government debt, 1 month, 3 month Treasury bills, the lower they are the worse things are. If people are piling into these things because nothing else looks safe to them, then this is a bad sign, and they are very low, they are about as low as they were in the worst of the crisis last week, so that's really, really bad. You kook at, I'm going to get too technical here, but there are a bunch of indicators, and they all failed to improve after the bailout was passed, so I thought we would be back to the drawing board in a couple of months, and now I am wondering if that's more like a couple of weeks, or maybe a couple of days.
Maddow then asked, "Should the bailout have given more confidence to the credit market? Should it have worked better?"
Krugman: Well the trouble with the bailout plan was it never really made sense, and they never really explained why it would work but the story was, "Trust us, this will work, and people will believe in it, and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy," and none of that happned. Um, Some kind of bailout is needed. I think what they really need to do is go back to the drawing board. But, uh, this is a bad scheme and, erf [he actually shivered], it, I'm pretty angry because it was clear from day one, when this thing started being discussed, that they did not have a clear view of why this thing was supposed to help, and they stuck us with it, and it would have been very dangerous not to pass it in on Friday because who woud have known what would have happened?
How, Maddow asked, would the next bill be different:
Krugman: Well, this grant, this was "We're going to buy some of this toxic waste off the banks, and that's somehow going to solve the problem", and it wasn't clear why that would help. Uh, what we really need is, we need, well, capital, we need to put money in the system and, in effect, what always happens in a financial crisis is a partial nationalization, partial and temporary nationalization of the financial system, and that is, I, you know, I predict with almost 100% confidence that is how it will end, ah, but the Paulsen Treasury wasn't willing to talk about that. So that, something which puts money in, something where the US government is providing cash and taking partial ownership shares in return, is the wasy it's going to have to go, and the question is how long before they are willing to do that, and at the rate things are going, it might not be very long.
Maddow finished by asking how long it will be before political reality catches up with economic historical reality.
So here I got it a little wrong. I said Obama would essentially govern, from immediately after the election, through the congress; Krugman sees his team moving right into the treasury. I'm good with that:
Krugman: You know, I am having fantasies right now [so am I! so are we all!] that as soon as the election is over, we can't wait until January 20th, we might have to have, in effect, the incoming Obama team move into the Treasury and start coordinating the rescue because this is going to be a very bad transition if we don't do anything until we have a new administration.
From the sage's mouth.
Maddow wasn't down off the ceiling, but it helped a little to hear about a new team in the Treasury. ....
Update: OK, so if the international financial markets are any indication of the success of the US Congress' bailout of the US financial king pins, maybe I wasn't so wrong to listen to the economists, good, bad and worse. My succinct opinion? Congress tried to save itself more than the international financial markets, but not for want of caring. That they did, but it's been too late for a $700 billion band-aid applied by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and company for a long, long time. The horses have long been out of the barn, and the damage runs much deeper into the world's pockets, wallets and portfolios.
Here's a little video from the MSM's NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, and for congress's poll numbers, click here are scroll down to the last video. Good for Biden, good for Obama, terrible for Palin, terrible for McCain, and Nancy Pelosi might need to think about career counseling for herself.
Want to know what's wrong with the United States?
Just watch this (if you feel ill before the end, please stop play):
attacked by another American pitbull, Fox's Bill O'Reilly (I can't bring myself to say "news" after Fox)
I was watching it as my husband came through the door. He leaned over my shoulder, so riveted that he forgot to kiss me hello (and I even took the time for a shower today before rushing to the CHAOS room and the House debate on CNN).
"Who is that guy?" he asked. Lucky him; he's French and doesn't know Bill O'Reilly. I explained.
"C'est le plus grand connard de tous les temps, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, ou comme on aime bien le dire, Faux News. Tu vois bien qu'on sait parler trés bien en français aux States." [Does anyone needs a trans? Pdp (pas de problème): it's the biggest jerk ever, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, or as we like to say, Faux News. You see? We speak excellent French in the States.]
"He doesn't let that other guy --"
"Le député Barney Frank, la tête du comité des Services Financiers du congrès, celui qui est résponsable du projet de loi du bailout."
"Ah bon, il ne le laisse pas parler." I love France.
"Il est toujours comme ça. De plus, Frank est gai et tout le monde le sait depuis des années, mais O'connard vient de l'accuser de ne pas être assez un homme pour admettre son échec." [trans: He's always like that. What's more, Frank is gay and everyone has known it for years, and O'jerk just accused him of not being "man enough" to admit he failed.]
"Mais ça n'est pas néssesaire. C'est dégueulasse." Dégueulasse is slang for "disgusting". The rest, I think you can work out.
....
How a bill becomes a law
The bailout
So, yesterday I was against the bailout.
I determined to use my time with CHAOS to watch the House debate the bailout bill. I also watched Obama's speech in Abington, PA. He was on fire today. The debate last night did him a world of good (I'd love to see Palin have to debate him, ha!)
I was worried that they had not had the time to work out the things, chiefly that as was the case with the Bush proposition, the bill was basically giving the thief the keys to the safe deposit box.
If you read me yesterday, you know that I, like most people, tend to listen to the news after the vote and feel inadequate to judge whether harm or some good was done. So today, like some fellow sign watchers, including a Dutch guy who is more knowledgeable of US domestic and foreign politics and Capitol Hill than Sarah Palin -- no! wait, that is hardly paying the compliment he deserves. He really amazes me. He was the one who sent the link as he settled in to watch it himself. How could I not?
I wish the video was already up on YouTube. You'll have to rely on my descriptions and look for the video yourself later. You know me, I'll come back and post what I can find, and what I most want to find is Frank's comments after his bill passed the US House of Representatives, with half as many Republicans as Democrats supporting the bill.
I also apologize for not knowing who all the representatives were I watched speak.
So, here are the things I learned watching the House debate:
The first is the one that made me crow with delight. I just knew Jon back at X Capital Management would get his one day, and that day appears to be dawning. I can only hope his share values plummeted and left his off-shore accounts as empty as his party is of values and sense -- the bill now includes a provision to close a $25 billion loophole that permitted hedge-fund managers to shelter their income in places like the Caymans.
I am so very, very happy to hear that, Jon.
And, then, I learned that...
In September of 2008, 159,000 jobs were lost. Even if some were created, who cares? There was a huge net loss, the largest in 5 years. This brings us to a total of 760,000 jobs lost this year in comparison with a comparable period (whatever that means precisely) 8 years ago, when 8 million jobs were created.
This equals a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. I know, I should go look at that in other economic periods, whether the jobs created were sustainable, but y'know, it's still a lot of jobs lost without being able to talk about jobs created. They haven't been in more than 8 years. Downward employment cycle in this gardening, once-architect mother and wife's eyes. Unemployment is bad. Ask me about it, I've been through it as a single mother.
Another congressman told me that this bill reaches out to minorities and small businesses, thanks to Representatives Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who focused on this issue.
He told me that it is a plan to buy up bad loans and that taxpayers will be the first to profit if and when loan values rise again. He quoted uber-investor Warren Buffet, who said something like, "If they do it right, and I think they'll do it reasonably right, if we do that, we'll make a lot of money, we being the taxpayers of America." Being a skeptical sort of person, I wondered just how we would get the money we'll make on this gamble. He went on to ask for me.
"How?" He had my attention.
The financial community will be obligated to pay the taxpayers back. Good. An obligation. I like obligations when we are talking about my money going to someone for a risky business.
But, if that financial community doesn't get all better, then what? Will my money, and the money of all the rest of us it will take to get to $700 billion, be divided up between the sharks on Wall Street (I was specifically thinking of guys like my old friend Jon. I am reasonably certain that he is already ruined) to use to go off and sail around the Caymans, sipping Dom Perignon?
He had a reply to quell my concerns -- this bill will ensure restricted CEO compensation and eliminate golden parachutes; no huge salaries or free-rides payed for by the taxpayer. I am a friend to the rich, but not that good. This helps.
He also told me that home owners will receive renegotiated mortgages to prevent the potential flood of foreclosures. This is not only good for those homeowners who need the stability and peace of mind that comes from knowing they can remain in their homes, but for their communities, whose tax revenues have disappeared like wolves in Palin's Alaska.
The FDIC, he continued, was raised Monday to $250,000, which he admitted could be argued "on both sides of the question, but ought to stabilize local banks."
Then, he got to the addition of those "several tax cuts" -- sausage, with which he disagrees because "the senate chose to finance them with debt." I believe I am with him there, especially in light of Pelosi's promised mantra, "No deficit spending." He spoke of the "dangers of fiscal recklessness," saying "debt does indeed matter, a lesson the senate has chosen to ignore," adding that this situation requires compromise because "if we don't accept the things we do not like, we won't have the money for the things we do like."
With that said, he "[urged] all of us to pass and to vote for legislation," recognizing that not all of his colleagues in the House would feel that they could, saying "I respect their judgment. We have a difference of opinion."
On Monday, he told us, Americans were deeply divided, and their representative body, not surprisingly, was as well, but since Monday, "Americans have reflected on the consequences of inaction, and while not of universal thought [I think he meant opinion] we must pass this bill, we must rely on the people's house to act in a way that will protect their interests and their dreams."
He sounded sincere to my ears. I listened to others use their time, including Representative John Baynor (R-OH), who told us that the bill "had been done in bipartisan way, members of both sides came together to build a product that they thought would help" the American and global markets find their footing on these dangerous high seas. "The consequences of not acting," he warned, "are overwhelming."
He spoke of doing this bill on behalf of Americans, and to do this bill "in the middle of an election is complicated enough." Representatives, Republicans most certainly, approached him, he said, asking how this will affect their re-election, and he told us that he looked at them and said, "You have to go home and defend it, and that's a lot easier to do if you just do what you think is right."
He's right.
The time for debate over, the remarks closed, it was for House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to speak.
Speaker Pelosi told us, with a smile of satisfaction -- and probably relief (gas?) to have arrived at this point -- , that the bill was "much improved, with an eye to the future." She, too, sought to reassure the American people that the legislation will "lead to reforms", and that it will "ferret out abuses," once President Obama occupies the White House.
No, she didn't say that last part about President Obama. She just thought it really, really loudly. You heard it, too, if you were listening today.
She told those of us listening that the urgency is clear, and she "calls for legislation to avoid "economic catastrophe," repeating "catastrophe", in case anyone didn't get it. She told us that governors from across the country, including her own (that would be Arnold Schwarzenegger, and how pleased indeed I am to be able to mention him in the pages of my blog, for surely he would never have come up, not ever, had he not become the (fairly and surprisingly decent) governor of California), Democratic and Republican to urge the House to take action, "We are addressing real pain felt by Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Main Street," she told us.
She, like many before her, told us about ourselves, the seniors watching their savings dwindle, their pensions evaporate, entrepreneurs turned away form credit, people who can't get a car loan, those selling cars who can't get one to purchase inventory, people wondering if the money they have worked to put in savings for college for their kids will still be there.
She told us about the jobs lost, too.
And, she said that the original bill Bush submitted was unacceptable. It asked to commit $700 billion "with few strings and no safeguards," and it was rejected in a bipartisan way and changes were demanded in a bipartisan way, too, such as:
protection for the taxpayer,
over-site and accountability,
make sure, as Treasury Secretary Paulsen talked about investment capital, that the bad paper bought will profit the American taxpayer. She mentioned Rep. Bachus' question why not just invest the capital directly in the companies -- here she made a mention of Tanner of Tennessee -- and if it doesn't pay for itself, if there is a shortfall, then the taxpayer will be paid back from fees imposed on the companies that benefit,
reformed CEO compensation and the elimination of the "golden parachute", "the party's over. If you drive your business into the ground, then you won't pick up your golden parachute and save yourself paid for by the taxpayer",
mortgage renegotiations, thanks to the efforts of Maxine Waters,
a benefit to middle income families in the form of a $1000 state and local property tax deduction for those who do not itemize,
the tax cut for clean and renewable energy to save jobs that "did not survive the senate, is now become part of the legislation -- it is paid for, it is paid for", and
thanks to the efforts of David Wellstone, son of Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, after 12 years the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act of 2008 became law in this bill.
Where's the mention of wooden arrows and development credits for American Samoa? I Guess there are some things even the House Speaker is too embarrassed to mention.
Bundling of bills. Not my cup of tea. As Speaker Pelosi put it, the bailout bill "turned out to be the vehicle" (piggyback) for these bills that should have passed on their own but "couldn't make it though the senate, but now [do]."
"We were dealt a mighty bad hand," said Speaker Pelosi, "but this is that start to solve it," to protect the future of the American people.
"We have seen," she said, "things we never before thought we would see," and "we have broken new ground on how we deal with this crisis, but we will not leave it broken," she vowed.
There will be hearings held by Barney Frank and the members of the Financial Services Committee to determine the origins of the crisis, and "we must look ahead, protect America from unsavory lending practices... we must keep in mind our commitment to fiscal discipline, not increasing the deficit... will it work? We'll see what it does do, and if it doesn't, fees will be there to cover [the $700 billion]. We can't put out all this money, heap a mountain of debt on our children, unless there are protections. No new deficit spending must be our mantra... the economic security of our people.... it is important to vote, a difficult vote, but we must win it for the American people, the Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Main Street."
The bill passed, 263 - 171.
President Bush appeared on television, thanking Speaker Pelosi and both parties in the House, and pledged to sign the bill as soon as it arrives on his desk.
Tonight, I go to bed and think on it in my sleep.
Tomorrow, I do some more reading (link to H.R. 1424 eas at bottom), and I decide further whether I am right to be assuaged by the bill and all the sausage.
Yesterday, I said this was no reason to call out the NYFD. Today, a black woman representative, from California argued in impassioned and stern terms that she agreed with Senator Barack Obama; we must act. The house is on fire. You don't say, well, they were irresponsible, you help them put out the fire, and then you determine fault. This fire, she said, must be put out to calm the fears of Americans and the global financial markets, show them that the United States of America will tend to its problems, and then we'll hold the hearings and people accountable.
Enshallah.
From a friend... " So if you want to read about the "extension of economic development credits for American Samoa," the "exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children," the "provisions related to film and television productions," etc., etc., you'll have to go to the GPO website GPO - Congressional Bills Main Page, search for "H. R. 1424" and download the eas version."
And I saw the evening sun touching the field and the reeds in the fish basin, the watering can, and the hose trailing off to the bottom garden, where I had been watering my new hydrangea border the other evening,
and, I saw that it was good.
The sign was safe with its watchers, happy in one another's company, and I was free to go clean the car.
Maybe I'll add my own hand-made sign, tonttuu and hirvi. I have the birds. No oravas, though.
They're down the street in Méricourt.
Except, that it didn't start. Battery dead.
Who was supposed to be watching the battery? Hunh? Audouin had a micro-crise when I got home from the grocery store and told him. He always does.
"It's that stupid system, that stupid thing, that -- button that -- never works; you know, that button --"
"You're supposed to learn to work the lights and stuff."
"Yeah, but it's, --"
"Stupid?"
"Poorly conceived." He says that every time. Every time.
"Yes, but you love that car. Now learn how to work it."
"But, it's --"
All together now, stu-pid.
My neighbor en face had even stopped his car and backed up toward me, seeing that I was hurrying up the street past where he was heading. I saw the backing lights come on, and laughed. The car stopped. The window slid down and his head stuck out.
"T'es si gentil, Jean-François, mais tu ne dois pas!"
"Je t'ai vu, et je me suis dit que tu allais à ta voiture, mais je ne la voyais pas." [Trans: I saw you, and I thought you were going to your car, but I didn't see it.]
"Mais non! Vas y. Elle n'est qu'à la mairie." [Trans: No! Go ahead. It's just up at the town hall.]
Chivalry carried the day. I was driven the 50 meters.
It was the first time in two days I had left my laptop, unshowered, dressed in gym clothes that hadn't seen the gym since Saturday, but clothes me every day since. I have no pride. It takes no vanity to watch the sign, to wath over the 1st amendment from my home half a world away from Teach and SignKid Fosback in Portland, Oregon. My new friends, the fellow watchers of CHAOS are cutting their showers short, too. We can no longer leave one another. We laugh until we cry, we hunt trolls, we meet and greet, we explain the sign and what it -- and we -- mean to democracy.
We talk, about politics and policy. Yesterday, the senate version of the bail-out. StillHARDRock had just gone to find a copy online and came back stunned, announcing that it was some 467 pages long, while it had been not more than somewhat over 100 in the congress. How, he wondered, could they have done that? I suggested they had tacked some other bills on, and he said, "It looks like there is a lot on the environment, and at the end, there's alternative tax relief."
"100 pages of bailout and 350 on the environment and tax relief for the upper middle class and wealthy," I scoffed. I am starting to get the hand of this congress thing.
The discussion:
StillHARDRock: Renewable energy, @ page 113 StillHARDRock: looking StillHARDRock: well, on page 150 it talks about carbon mitigation and coal -- sheesh StillHARDRock: page 181 starts in on biofuels StillHARDRock: page 190 refers to plug-in electric cars Merrycricket: ok, what does all the renewable energy stuff have to do with the bailout? martel: nothing. SuzyCHAOS: they want to pass that legislation before the election, as well. fleur_de_paris: that's exactly what I was saying. StillHARDRock: I am at page 250 andSTILL about the energy stuff SuzyCHAOS: supposedly constituents are calling and asking for a "Boone Pickens" deal AlaskaLiberal: makes dems happy to to think about getting off oil, makes companies/repubs happy with tax break martel: as usual, everyone has to get their piece of legislation attached to the bill fleur_de_paris: take it all and get it done before the electionm with the usual intelligent consideration fleur_de_paris: I told you SHR, it's 350 pags of environment and tax breaks for the wealthy added to the same language as before!!! StillHARDRock: okay, the renewable stuff goes from page 113 to page 261 fleur_de_paris: "But you voted against the environment," they'll screamwhen the bailout gets voted down in the senate martel: Pickens ads StillHARDRock: and then page 261 starts in with alternative tax relief SuzyCHAOS: hm... I think they are very effective, and like that big-eared old man who ran as an independent... what was his name... little squeaky guy... StillHARDRock: so basically the senate bill added 3 pages to the house version of the bailout and then tacked on 2 other bills at the end StillHARDRock: and part of the 3 pages would be the header SuzyCHAOS: Ross Perot!! StillHARDRock: and then I guess the wording for raising the FDIC ceiling martel: RP, who could ever foget him? fleur_de_paris: I told you SHR! I am getting good at politics-as-usual SuzyCHAOS: I nailed him in my description though StillHARDRock: or if you are a real bailout buff -- here is the senate language of the bailout bill: http:/senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/ayo0832_xml.pdf Swedishlady: even more scary stuff StillHARDRock: the senate merely added 2 other bills (about 350 new pages that had nothing to do with the bailout) StillHARDRock: just to mix it up Swedishlady: why do they always do that? StillHARDRock: good question fleur_de_paris: can we make our own country for thinking Americans? StillHARDRock: hahahaha StillHARDRock: yeah, that would be something, wouldn't it? Swedishlady: an I be an honorary American? StillHARDRock: sure thing fleur_de_paris: sure, Swede Swedishlady: yay! fleur_de_paris: you already are more than many StillHARDRock: ooooo StillHARDRock: we went [lost transmission of live streaming video of the sign, joewinkle and the gnome, and the Obama rocks] Zvezda-3349: off air? Swedishlady: I love America StillHARDRock: those dang papparazzi FilterSkateinCO: what happened FilterSkateinCO: whose watching the sign now? Zvezda-3349: not me, says "off air" SuzyCHAOS: this must be the default photo for them Zvezda-3349: there it goes SuzyCHAOS: whew!! FilterSkateinCO: sign still there
....
Other better opinions exist they say
September 26, 2008
"The administration is once again holding a gun at our head, saying, "My way or the highway." We have been bamboozled before by this tactic. We should not let it happen to us again. There are alternatives." -- Professor Jospeh E. Stiglitz, "A Better Bailout"
Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for research on the economics of information. Most recently, he is the co-author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict. more...
A Bailout We Don't Need
By James K. Galbraith
Thursday, September 25, 2008; Page A19
"No country in this situation is broke, or insolvent, or even in much trouble. For once, Wall Street's own markets speak the truth. The financially challenged customer isn't Uncle Sam. He's up on Wall Street, where deregulation, greed and fraud ran wild." -- James K. Galbraith, "A Bailout We Don't Need"
James K. Galbraith is the author of "The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too."
Economists' open letter to congress
http://tinyurl.com/53ypbc
I know, I know, there are names we don't like much here. We'll worry over their agendas later.
The letter:
We, the undersigned economists, write to strongly advise against the proposed \$700 billion bailout of the financial services sector as a response to current trends in the market. Granting the Treasury broad authority to purchase troubled assets from private entities poses a significant threat to taxpayers while failing to address fundamental problems that have created a bloated, over-leveraged financial services sector.
Such a large government intervention would create changes whose effects will linger long into the future. The Treasury plan would fundamentally alter the workings of the market, transferring the burden of risk to the taxpayer. At the same time, the \$700 billion proposal does not offer fundamental reforms required to avoid a repeat of the current problem. Many of the troubles in today’s market are the result of past government policies (especially in the housing sector) exacerbated by loose monetary policy. Congress has been reluctant to reform the government sponsored enterprises that lie at the heart of today’s troubled markets, and there is little to suggest the necessary reforms will be implemented in the wake of a bailout. Taxpayers should be wary of such an approach.
In addition to the moral hazard inherent in the proposal, the plan makes it difficult to move resources to more highly valued uses. Successful firms that may have been in a position to acquire troubled firms would no longer have a market advantage allowing them to do so; instead, entities that were struggling would now be shored up and competing on equal footing with their more efficient competitors.
Although it is clear that the financial sector has entered turbulent times, it is by no means evident that providing the U.S. Treasury with \$700 billion to purchase troubled assets will resolve the crisis. It is clear, however, that the federal government will be facing substantially higher deficits and taxpayers will be exposed to a significant new burden just as the looming crisis in entitlement spending appears on the horizon.
For these reasons, we find the proposed \$700 billion bailout an improper response to the current financial crisis.
Sincerely,
Dick Armey, FreedomWorks Foundation Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks Foundation Alan C. Stockman, University of Rochester Ambassador Alberto Piedra, Institute of World Politics Arthur A. Fleisher III, Denver Metropolitan State College of Denver Bryan Caplan, George Mason University Burt Abrams, University of Delaware Cecil E. Bohanan, Ball State University Charles N. Steele, Hillsdale College Charles W. Baird, California State University East Bay D. Eric Shansberg, Indiana University Southeast Donald L. Alexander, Western Michigan University Douglas K Adie, Ohio University E.S. Savas, Baruch College/CUNY Ed Stringham, Trinity College Erik Gartzke, University of California, San Diego Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield George Selgin, West Virginia University Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University Ivan Pongracic, Jr., Hillsdale College James L. Huffman, Clark University James McClure, Ball State University Joe Pomykala, Towson University John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver Kirk Dameron, George Mason University Kishore G. Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver Lawrence H. White, University of Missouri-St. Louis M. Northrup Buechner, St. John’s University Melvin Hinich, University of Texas, Austin Nikolai G. Wenzel, Hillsdale College Norman Bailey, Institute of World Politics Paul Evans, Ohio State University Randall Holcombe, Florida State University Richard W. Rahn, Institute for Global Economic Growth Robert Heidt, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington Robert Stanley Herren, North Dakota State University Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University Roy Cordato, John Locke Foundation Samuel Bostaph, University of Dallas Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University Soheila Fardanesh, Towson University Stephen Shmanske, California State University, East Bay, T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans William Barnett, II, Loyola University New Orleans William F. Shughart, II, University of Mississippi William Niskanen, Cato Institute
200 Economists September 24, 2008
"For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come. "
(This letter was sent to Congress on Wed Sept 24 2008 regarding the Treasury plan as outlined on that date. It does not reflect all signatories views on subesquent plans or modifications of the bill)
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Signed (updated at 9/27/2008 6:00PM CT)
For signatories and additional references supporting this point of view, see link.
....
And then, I received this email
A few minutes ago, the Senate, in the form of a 451 page substitute for an old pending House bill (a legislative maneuver making it in order to consider a bill which has never been referred to a committee of the body voting on the bill), passed a Christmas Tree bill to (1) address the credit crisis, (2) enact the most progressive mental health parity provision ever to pass the Senate, (3) enact solar and other renewables tax credit extensions galore, and (4) finally deal with the Alternative Minimum (Income) Tax biting on middle-class taxpayers.
To give you some idea of the cacophony surrounding this bill, the massive title containing renewable energy tax credits is not even listed in the frontmost table of contents. It is listed separately on page 115 of the bill as "Division [legal section] B - Renewable Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008."
The solar energy tax credits due to expire December 31, 2008 have been renewed through December 31, 2016, but the wind energy credits were extended only 1 year, through December 31, 2009.
Folks reading this post now have an interesting choice: you can support the renewables provisions, which are much more than we had a right to expect after the collapse of G-10/G-20 negotiations September 19, and in so doing support the massive if now strengthened Wall Street bailout, or you can oppose both.
It is clear to me that that was exactly the intention of Sens. Dodd and others to gain more liberal Dem and also conservative Repub support.
With mixed feelings, I am going to call my Rep (Cummings, D-MD) tomorrow to ask him to switch from 'nay' to 'yea.'
The bill as passed is available for download through C-SPAN and other sites; it is not yet up on GPO or Thomas.
I say, no, no, no.I say no.
It's time for change in the way we pass legislation and do business on Capitol Hill, and I'm talking about things far more important than scapegoated earmarks; I am talking about the separation of legislative bills.
They had this bill waiting around.
No more legislation under Bush. No deals. No throwing out bones in the form of environmental and tax appeasement in a rush to throw money to Wall Street. Lehman didn't fail in a weekend. Wachovia's share value didn't collapse in an afternoon two weeks ago. This was no surprise requiring the NYFD and the White House and the congress to rush in.
No more.
Author's note: This is an exploration. I am trying to work through my gut reaction with what I am told on the various sides of the issue. I assemble this information and draw my own feeble conclusions.
) 
Articles
