Town Hall Meeting

Don’t all these appointments kinda make you ill? Why don’t they pick someone new? Such as for treasury, someone who has won a nobel prize for economics, like Joseph Stiglitz, or how about James
Galbraith? Obama doesn’t even seem to be trying to make his administration look like change. All this talk of hope is for a good reason, its all we have left!

…
Sic Transit: The Honeymoon is Looking a Bit Wan
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Two years without a single leak and suddenly, last week, Obama’s operation was like a sieve. That’s what happens when you pick up the phone and call one of the Clintons. Or, to put it another way, that’s what happens when someone claims you, the president elect, picked up the phone and called Mrs Clinton to ask whether she’d like to be secretary of state.

Out the window goes the sense of purposeful strides towards a new-look Administration. In comes a dreadful feeling that somehow we’ve slipped a dimension in the space-time continuum and are heading back into the Clinton era. A couple of more weeks and the Republicans will be calling for a special prosecutor.

I’ve had people try to explain to me the political logic of Obama offering his erstwhile Democratic rival a top position in his cabinet. Better to have her inside the tent. Send her off on bouts of futile shuttle diplomacy, like Condoleezza Rice.

It still doesn’t add up. Why march back briskly into Clintontime? Besides, she’d make a lousy Secretary of State. Mrs Clinton has never displayed any talent for negotiation, nor even any conspicuous appetite to find out what is going on in the world, let alone come up
with a new vision of America’s role in the 21st century. She’s an interventionist by instinct, her finger twitching over the Bomb Release lever. She voted yes on the Iraq war. She was an ardent
advocate of NATO’s onslaught on Yugoslavia. If we do get Hillary at State we may get Madeleine Albright as one of her sidekicks – the woman who said in the late 1990s that starving half a million Iraqi children was “worth it”, probably the line that the 9/11 al Qaeda hijackers were muttering to themselves when they sped on their mission of revenge towards the Twin Towers. This is change?

The answer of course is that there has to be a good deal of similarity between the Clinton and Obama administrations, because Obama is a neoliberal interventionist like Bill, and because the 45 and 50-year
old veterans of the two Clinton administrations who have been cooling their heels in law firms and think tanks for eight years make up a high percentage of those in the hiring line, particularly those who placed an early bet on Obama. To round off the symmetry he new White House counsel will be Greg Craig, who defended Clinton during his impeachment.

The young people who worked for Obama and who voted for him have been feeling wan this week, amid all the retro talk about the Clintons. And the cabinet members Obama has announced or who are being bandied about are not inspiring. They’re dull like former Democratic senator Tom Daschle getting Health and Human Services. Howard Dean, who was a doctor and who had hands-on time grappling with health insurance when he was governor of Vermont, would have been a much better choice. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona governor slated to be head of Homeland Security, horrified labor organizers at one meeting earlier this year listening to her boasting about kicking migrant workers back into Mexico. One nominee headed towards a Republican roasting in his hearings is Eric Holder, named to be Attorney General. As number 2 in Clinton’s Justice Department, Holder played a grimy role in one of the most scandalous affairs of Clinton-time, the last minute pardon by Clinton of billionaire trader and denizen of the FBI’s most wanted list, Marc Rich. (See Jeffrey St. Clair’s account of the pardons for Holder’s central role in the affair.)

Other possible appointments are not demonstrative of a resolute change of pace. The talk is of keeping Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary, although Gates has made no significant mark on the vast pork barrel beside the Potomac. The conversion of this mucky schemer of yesteryear into revered emblem of sound governance is one of the many marvels of our age. Somewhere down the road we’ll probably end up with another slimy fellow, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who counts among his regular roosts CSIS and the Center for A New American Security, also decorated by the odious Robert Kaplan and Dr John Nagl.

The most significant appointment will be Treasury Secretary. On current form Obama will play it safe with the top nominees to run this Department. The trouble here is that there is no safe option and the
usual suspects will have the usual limited perspective. He’d better get this one right. A conventional appointee could doom his administration right from the start.

In sum, this looks like a standard issue, business-as-usual cabinet in the making, about as exciting as looking at one of the regular network panel shows on a Sunday morning. Can’t they find anyone under 40 who looks like they might want to do things different and shake things up?

The Golden Age of Eating was….

But first a quotation from Paul Craig Roberts:

The Korean War ended 55 years ago, and the US still has troops in Korea.

Germany was defeated in 1945, and the US still has troops in Germany.

A country that must go hat in hand to its creditors must first look to where costs can be cut. Annual military spending of $700 billion is certainly a good place to start.

But the US government has far more hubris than intelligence and is on its way to being a failed state that has to print money to pay its bills.

It is not too late for the US to save itself and the dollar standard, but it would require a rapid transition from arrogance to humility. The rest of the world can bring America down by not lending to us, in which case neither the trade nor budget deficits could be financed.

I’m really disappointed that people think that a law meant to help poor people own their homes is the cause of this systemic financial crisis. I want to lay out why this is not only wrong according to all data out there, but is reprehensible to even bring up. And I know that this is a right wing talking point lately, so it must be addressed.

The Community Reinvestment Act (created in 1977 and updated in 1995) is not the problem here. Other than just being racist code for saying blacks can’t pay their bills, its flat out wrong. THE DATA IS VERY CLEAR ON THIS.

Here is one link that may just explain it all. It actually has data and links to data, so I’m not sure if people who believe this stuff will actually read it, but here it is: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

The main quote from this article: “Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.”

Here is a quote from an interview on Bill Moyers show that dealt with this right wing talking point…

[Using sub-prime borrowers and minorities] as a wedge issue to make people who pay their mortgages believe that the people who are getting the benefit of the 700 billion dollars, that we’re being asked to pay, are poor, minority people who caused the crisis.

This is unconscionable. This problem is not a problem that was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act. The data is very clear that the Community Reinvestment Act loans were being offered in a way to people that were much more responsible and had none of the characteristics of
default that are being attributed in this discussion. And what this does is to say, this problem is a problem that was caused by black people.

And it means that it gives an opportunity to bring up that old wedge. But I think the people in the country are smarter today. I just don’t think it’s going to fly. I think that people understand that the enemy is not a person who got a home loan and was tricked into getting that loan by a fast-talking broker who originated the loan but that the problem was the securitization process, the high leveraging that Wall Street was doing, the lack of regulation.

Watch the whole interview here. The discussion on the Community Reinvestment Act starts 8 minutes in.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, passed in 1999, was a huge part of this whole crisis. It is the main reason that banks are failing, because it allowed real banks, subject to regulation, to combine with unregulated investment banks. The problem with that is the investment bank side of the business can become so toxic that it can take down the normal bank part of the conglomerate. The risky, unregulated companies are the ones going down: Lehman, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, etc. The regulated ones that are still mainly just banks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, are still standing, for now. The deal, made in the Glass-Steagall Act passed in 1933, was that if you are a bank and want to be FDIC insured, you must follow regulations. One of which is you must maintain a minimum amount of capital in order to be able to pay back your customers. The ratio was 8 to 1, I think. Gramm of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, is the Phil Gramm who was chief economic advisor to McCain until he made his “whiners” and “mental recession” comments. He ran UBS bank which is now going down in flames. He was McCain’s front runner for Sec. of Treasury and may still have been until this whole financial crisis blew up.

Some of what they say about the Democrats is true. Obama does have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems. Bill Moyers (once again did the leg work on this) shows how both our beloved Presidential saviors have their hands dirty…

Obama is second among members of Congress in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s employees and political action committees, even though he’s only been in the Senate since 2005. The former chairman of Fannie Mae originally led Obama’s vice presidential search committee but had to step down in a controversy over favorable loans he received, while at Fannie, from a company doing business with Fannie. Among Obama’s contributors are three directors and one senior vice president of the two companies. Furthermore, Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress have long been enablers of both corporations.

And what about John McCain? His entire campaign team stepped right out of a predator’s ball. His confidante and top adviser lobbied several years for Freddie Mac. His deputy fundraiser lobbied Fannie Mae, and his campaign manager (Rick Davis) lobbied for both of them, leading a coalition of beltway insiders whose goal was to “stave off regulations” that might have short circuited this nightmare. One wealthy member of Freddie Mac’s board has contributed more than $70,000 to McCain and Republican Party members working for McCain’s election. Even the guy who vetted John McCain’s vice presidential options is a former lobbyist for Fannie Mae.

Obama also has Robert Rubin and Larry Summers on his team, and they supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Clinton signed that terrible bill at their request. Republican Alan Greenspan also pushed hard for that bill. Democrats are not guilt free in this. Dodd was a part of it too, and so is Barney Frank. But I would say 40-50% of Democrats are complicit, while 90% of Republicans are complicit.

THE REAL PROBLEM: “A housing bubble, a mortgage bubble, an equity bubble, a bond bubble, a credit bubble, a commodity bubble, a private equity bubble, a hedge funds bubble are all now bursting at once in the biggest real sector and financial sector de-leveraging since the Great Depression” (quote from NYU professor Roubini). In housing, greedy companies gave out all these crappy loans so they could make their $2000 commission (called closing costs). Note that the higher the price of the house, the higher the commission, so high prices were in their favor too. They also didn’t care if the loan was even paid back because Wall Street had created a new thing in the 80’s where home loans could be bought from the primary lenders and sold as securities in bundles. The bundles sounded great because when you pool all these loans together, the risk is spread. So lots of folks bought these things on the promise they were “safe,” such as the School Boards in Kansas and pension funds in Iceland. Wall Street in the meantime made billions on commissions for selling these stupid things, again, whether or not anyone defaulted on their loan. So the problem is a lack of regulation, it is so blatantly clear. Go research the funding of US regulatory bodies, such as the SEC. Their budgets are amazingly small, even after the debacle of Enron and others just 7 years ago. THESE ASSHOLES JUST WANT TO BLAME POOR BLACK PEOPLE.

If you want the whole housing thing explained in cartoon form, see this.

I watched the entire debate last night and rated it for freepress.net, then watched about 3 hours of post debate coverage on TV. NO ONE brought up McCain’s plan to create a “league of democracies.” He has brought this up as far back as May 2007, and brought it up again during last night’s debate. This is an extremely radical idea, and must be discussed. Would this plan include the democracy of Venezuela, which McCain and even Obama claim is a “rogue state?” And by the way, isn’t “rogue state” a reserved word for a nation that does not participate in the Non Proliferation Treaty? McCain’s “league of democracies” should bring up tons of questions…Who would it include and not include?…Do you care about it’s impact on the UN and how badly it would undermine the UN’s purpose?…Hamas was democratically elected, would Palestine be included? This idea is so radical and reckless it can’t be allowed to go on without question. I feel so-so about Obama on foreign policy, but compared to McCain Obama is a saint. Please, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, SOMEONE, investigate this and explain to the American voter what McCain’s plan is.

Just a reminder to McCain and any “league of democracy” fan out there: the U.N. is there to prevent war and get countries who disagree with each other to engage peacefully in one place. Do you really think you can top that? Just admit it, this is about expanding your empire.

Again, quietly, on a Friday after the stock market is closed and all the cable news networks are running repeats, another bank is shut down

http://www.newsday.com/business/nationworld/ats-ap-bank-closure-silver-statesep05,0,7776187.story

Note that McCain’s son was on the board of this bank and was a member of their accounting committee until 1 month ago. And perhaps more significantly, it appears Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are going to be taken over by we the people by Monday…all $5 trillion in loans they have outstanding.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080906/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_giants_crisis

I think that our representatives in Washington campaign 100% of the time now. They don’t represent we the people, they represent anyone who can come up with the most dough. And we all know the ones with the dough are about 1% of us. I think that’s why we have seen Obama move to the right since he won the Democratic nomination. The ones with the money don’t want anything to change substantially, they are fat and happy. I don’t mean to rag on Obama specifically, but I’m worried people will stop fighting for their cause, believing he will solve it for us. I think that is a huge mistake, and a very common one. The news media’s constant election coverage is a huge reason why this is. Remember that most of the campaign contributions go straight into the pockets of these giant media companies via those campaign advertisements, so they have all the reason to keep you watching. One would think that with all the coverage we would get more informed, but they focus on trivialities and the horse race…how many points is Obama up this week?!!…how could Obama throw one gutter ball on camera?!! Who gives a crap!

Here’s a cartoon that shows just how looney this campaign is.

More on Obama and where he gets his money…

“Who Owns Obama?”:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/pham150708.html

Obama Reality Check:
http://counterpunch.org/whitney07212008.html

Bush’s 3rd Term, even WSJ gushing over Obama:
http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121495450490321133.html

There may be one presidential candidate that actually will fight for you, even after an electoral victory, and that’s Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party.

Thanks Laura and G for the links!

PS: Did you notice 2 more banks quietly failed again late last Friday? I see a pattern here.

Greatest Democracy on earth, right?

“Study: Of Over 2,000 Sunday Talk Show Questions to Candidates, Only Three on Global Warming

“A new study by the League of Conservation Voters found that the five major Sunday morning political shows asked the presidential candidates well over 2,000 questions in 2007. Just three of the questions mentioned global warming.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/10/study_of_over_2_000_sunday

This is the main reason why I don’t think we have a democracy…generally people have no clue what the candidates stand for. Unless people make rational decisions based on full information, we can’t have elections that make things any better. We just know how likeable they are, how smart, trustworthy, etc. Only personality traits. This is why people end up voting against their own best interest. The reason the candidates do this is pretty clear: if we know what their actual policies are, we would never vote for them.

Check out the video that fleshes out just what these talk shows are about:

I think this is a very good idea because it gives you an easy way to figure out who you agree with on very important policy issues. When you finish the quiz (it takes about 5 minutes), all Dem and Rep candidates are ranked by who has policies closest to how you answered.

Check it out here: http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

This survey was created by Minnesota Public Radio and all their surveys can be found here.

In case you are wondering, my number one is Kucinch with 55 points, and the media appointed “frontrunners” Clinton (5th place with 38 pts) and Giuliani (10th place with 24 pts) were far behind. How about that! Don’t worry, I’m not surprised either.

From an article titled “A Blood Pressure Lowering Guide to the Democratic Party and Democrats” in MRZine:

“While the web page of the DNC advertises itself as “The Democratic Party,” there is no way to join. You can give money, but you cannot join.”

“The Democratic Party does not exist. At least not as an organized structure with members, solid principles, and discipline for those who violate its rules. Instead, it is a cauldron of constantly shifting groups, factions, and personalities often working at the same ends, sometimes working at contradictory ends…. The primary means to influence in the existing structure is cash money, and the more the merrier. The Democratic Party offers to supporters a degree of influence commensurate with the size of your financial contributions.”

Read the full article here: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/townsend240807.html

Thanks G for the link!

This blog was started two years ago in the wake of the George Bush victory**. We held a phone call with about 25 people from around the country to figure out why on earth that happened. Well, this election turned out the way we believed it should have in 2004: with those who are liars and for this debacle in Iraq voted out of office. Of course there is a long way to go. Who knows if the Dems really will have the courage to stand up to the real power of America, big business. I believe the takeover of Congress is a postive step. Cheers to all you voters out there and volunteers who helped make this whole thing happen.

**I know he barely won, if at all due to the cheating in Ohio, but it shouldn’t have even been that close as far was we are concerned.

I would like to summarize a thought put forward by Noam Chomsky recently that I think is highly relevant today. When watching or reading non-Iraqi people debate whether or not America should withdraw, consider his words.

When asked whether or not the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq immediately, Chomsky said that invading armies have no rights whatsoever. In fact, they have two responsibilities: (1) heed the will of the victims of the war (2) pay war reparations. And so in terms of withdrawal, his answer is that his opinion does not matter, so long as the Iraqi people want America out, as they overwhelmingly do. The reporter then asked him what about the concern that Iraq will turn into chaos and civil war. Chomsky replied that Germany could have said the same about France during WWII (and that in fact when the Germans pulled out of France, perhaps 10,000 people were killed as collaborators), and Japan could have said the same about the Asian countries it occupied, and the Soviet Union about the Russian satellite countries it occupied.

I just wanted to put this point on the blog for the record because daily I hear these debates between presumably well-meaning people, about how the U.S. has a responsibility to stay in Iraq. I strongly agree with Chomsky’s assertion that the U.S. has a responsibility to adhere to what the victims want from us. Coincidentally, isn’t that how democracy works anyway?

Kathy found this video defining what fascism is (about 2 minutes) and alluding to what the U.S. government has been doing that falls under the definition.

Listen to this speech given in 1988 (about 3 minutes) by a Democrat who won the state of Michigan by 55% to 28% in that years primary. Democratic leaders today should listen and know that this is what popular Democrats used to stand for. The speech is taken from the documentary by Pacifica called A Passel Of Pomp & A Circus Of Circumstance.