Jon Stewart: About that speech...

I meant to post these last night -- good stuff.

I too was a bit distracted by the way Nancy Pelosi kept popping out of her chair after every complete sentence. My husband and I finally decided that Joe (Biden) had secretly installed an ejector cushion on her seat, and was entertaining himself during the speech by launching Nancy into the air, higher and higher, perhaps to see if she would eventually stick to the ceiling (I'm relieved to say that she did not.)

First, President Obama's speech to Congress (complete with a cameo by Jimmy Stewart)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Optimist Prime

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Secondly, the GOP's Mr. Roberts retorts:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bobby Jindal's Republican Response

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Finally: Questioning the idea of 'Unitary Executive'

I have been waiting for someone to ask this question in a presidential debate:

Will you roll back the unprecedented 'Unitary Executive' powers that have been claimed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney; restoring both our constitutional rights as citizens, and the pre-existing balance of power between the three branches of our Federal Government?

Since it doesn't appear that anyone plans to ask this question directly, I was at least encouraged that Dana Nelson of the LA Times brought the subject up in an essay on Alternet.

One of the more interesting points she made was that this power grab has been ongoing, across party lines, going back to the Reagan Administration:

Plenty of presidents have worked to increase presidential power over the years, but the theory of the unitary executive, first proposed under President Reagan, has been expanded since then by every president, Democrat and Republican alike. Reagan's notion was that only a strong president would be able to dramatically limit big government. Perhaps drawing on a model for unitary corporate leadership in which the CEO also serves as chairman of the board, the so-called unitary executive promised undivided presidential control of the executive branch and its agencies, expanded unilateral powers and avowedly adversarial relations with Congress.

In the years that followed, Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society conservatives worked to provide a constitutional cover for this theory, producing thousands of pages in the 1990s claiming -- often erroneously and misleadingly -- that the framers themselves had intended this model for the office of the presidency.

Of course the framers wanted nothing of the sort. For example, the words of our very first president, George Washington:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. -- George Washington

And of course, James Madison:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Of course, 'We the People' have never advocated for expanding presidential powers. However our presidents thought it was a terrific idea. In the chaos following 9/11, W simply ran off with whatever power hadn't already been taken by his predecessors. And he took his power with the blessing of a nervous, shell-shocked congress; still recovering from the anthrax attacks that - amazingly - occurred while the Patriot Act was still being debated on the floor.

Each president since 1980 has used the theory to seize more and more power. Reagan used expanded unilateral powers to launch an era of deregulation. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush all used the legislative signing statement -- the written text they are allowed to give when signing a bill into law in order to explain their position -- not simply to offer warnings and legal interpretations but to make unilateral determinations about the validity of the provisions of particular statutes. The American Bar Assn. denounced this practice in 2006 as presenting "grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

If we had a president with the integrity of one George Washington, he would hand back that which does not rightfully belong to him and restore the balance of power that has guaranteed our democracy - our freedom - for over 200 years.

Washington himself set the precedent for limiting presidential terms of office by stepping down voluntarily after two. Perhaps a President Obama (should he get elected -- and we know McCain would never do this) would find it within his character to make a similar move, and dismantle the Unitary Executive once and for all.

If people have found Bush's exercise of executive power alarming, they should not only begin questioning presidential candidates about it, they should make it clear to their congressional representatives that they want these excess powers checked. Barack Obama has already promised that he will continue using signing statements, though he will not act as if they have the force of law. Interestingly enough, John McCain has suggested he will end the practice. These slim indicators deserve more pressure and scrutiny.

AIG parties on the taxpayer tab

From CNN:

Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown.

AIG sent its executives to the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles, California, even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy.

The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I'm guessing that the majority of American citizens aren't the slightest bit surprised. You just took our tax money to bail out these creeps - against our will - and you express surprise that they behave in exactly the same fashion that they've always behaved?

Wrong, wrong, WRONG.

From McClatchy, unbelievably.

I take serious issue with both the headline and the assumption that our 'system worked.' If the system did not represent the people - in a 'government of the people' - then the system DID NOT WORK.

Congress looked ugly on bailout bill, but system worked
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: October 04, 2008 05:38:19 PM

WASHNGTON _ Everything America hates about Congress was on vivid display these last few weeks as members struggled to pass the $700 billion financial rescue plan.

Yet experts argue that in the end the system worked, as members acted rapidly to try to ease what may be the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.

“Democracy is messy,” explained Carl Pinkele, professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University.

But has it become too messy? How did a three-page Bush administration request balloon into a 450-page goodie bag brimming with tax breaks for NASCAR racetracks and children’s wooden arrow makers, among others? Why did 58 House members who voted against the bill Monday vote yes Friday, after those sweeteners were added?

Congress clearly has an image problem, one that drove its already tiny approval rating down to 15 percent in a CBS News poll taken Sept. 27-30, in the midst of the bailout battle.

Will the bailout bill chaos prod the system to function more smoothly?

Probably not, said Jack Pitney, professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Congress simply has an 'image problem?'

Surely you jest.

Congress has betrayed us. Repeatedly. They haven't done anything we sent them there to accomplish. They haven't ended the war in Iraq or held the Bush Administration accountable for any of its crimes. They didn't defend our Constitution (which they swore to uphold and defend,) or us from illegal wiretapping. They never opposed Bush at all - the most unpopular president in history. They couldn't even get Rove to appear when subpoenaed!

House Democrats even overturned a 25 year old moratorium on offshore drilling, simply because our oil man president and his oil man vice jacked up the price of oil at the pump, and Gingrich started a catchy little 'drill here, drill now' jingle.

Now there is some backbone on display.

It takes much more than an 'image problem' to warrant a %15 approval rating - don't you think? That is lower than George W. Bush's presidential approval rating; and his is the lowest of any president in history (lower than Nixon's after Watergate, back in the days when crimes had consequences.)

I see you quote the professor when he admits that the bailout 'won't even prod the system to work more smoothly.'

So why the rush? Why the rush? Why aren't you asking that question?

Why wasn't there anything in the bill for the struggling citizens of this nation - the taxpayers who will shoulder this debt? Why were only Paulson's buddies bailed out -- and after they caused this disaster in the first place?

This is hogwash. And here I thought McClatchy was free of White House talking papers.

“This is how Congress usually works, and whenever people have the opportunity to watch it, they think less of the institution,” he said.

I watch Congress all the time; its broken, and anyone who watches knows that it has been broken ever since lobbyists invaded Washington D.C. to the tune of a 3000-1 ratio (lobbyists to representatives.)

Adding to the ugliness was a Republican schism that’s been building for years.

This writer is seriously confused, and obviously doesn't grasp what is really going on, either in our government or in the Republican party.

This 'Republican schism' is our best hope for continued Democracy. These Republicans are rebelling against the fascist Neocon stranglehold on their party. How can this be 'ugly?'

These Republicans actually represented us. The Democrats, for the most part, rolled over. Again. And that... was ugly.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, also said he was “uncomfortable with the degree of government intrusion,” but he voted yes partly because of the improved Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. protection on consumer bank deposits.

“A former minister in home church used to say that. ‘Sometimes you have to put aside your principles and do what’s right,'" Thornberry said. “I believe at this extraordinary time passing this flawed bill is the right thing to do.”

What??

"Sometimes you have to put aside your principles and do what's right?" That makes absolutely no sense at all -- no wonder these boneheads couldn't craft a better bill. The only way putting aside one's principles to do what is right makes any sense, is in a context where someone has no principles in the first place. In that case voting for what is right would definitely be against one's principles. (Logic. So hard to find these days.)

And this in no way addresses the fact that this bill was NOT RIGHT if the taxpayers were against it. Period. Congress was elected by us, to represent us... not fat cat bankers and lobbyists.

“Everyone knew something had to be done, but they didn’t want to be hit if everything blew up,” said Dennis Goldford, professor of politics at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. “They all knew how terribly unpopular this was.”

And it never occurred to these elected boneheads - these failed representatives - that it was their job to stay in Washington and craft a bill that represented their constituents?

If the bill is terribly unpopular among your voting constituents - the people who sent you to Washington - then you vote against it! THAT is how the system is supposed to work.

So enacting a historic bailout bill in a matter of weeks is almost a demonstration that an unruly system can be tamed. The drama probably won’t boost Congress’ approval numbers, but that’s democracy, Capitol Hill-style.

It was enacted in one week - literally shoved down the throat of Congress and the taxpayers who voiced loud opposition in an election year - and the voters were ignored in favor of lobbyists and bankers. Tell me again how the system 'worked?' What a bunch of conceited, ignorant BS.

McClatchy - please - don't sink to this level. You can do better than this.

Lou Dobbs: Earmarks with bailout

Bailout: Indiana roll call

INDIANA

Democrats:

• Carson, YES
• Donnelly, YES
• Ellsworth, YES
• Hill, NO
• Visclosky, NO

Republicans:

• Burton, NO
• Buyer, NO
• Pence, NO
• Souder, YES

My congressman voted no. As promised, he has my vote.

It does appear that I have a new dilemma: I may not be casting a vote for president this year. Both candidates have just proven that they put banks ahead of voters. Neither was willing to take the time to do this right.

Perhaps I'll write in Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul.

Pin the tale on the donkey... and the elephant

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.

- Abraham Lincoln

While the media trumpets the passing of this 'historic legislation -- and the taxpaying public, their children, and their grandchildren are left to pay the bill -- here is a little background that McClatchy was kind enough to print:

Lax oversight? Maybe $64 million for D.C. pols explains it

The Wall Street financiers and firms whose problems have prompted a $700 billion federal bailout are no strangers to Capitol Hill or to politics.

Since 2001, eight of the most troubled firms have donated $64.2 million to congressional candidates, presidential candidates and the Republican and Democratic parties, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The donors include investment bankers Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, insurer American International Group and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since March, with the exception of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, all of these companies have been bailed out by the government, sold to other companies at deeply discounted prices or simply failed.

Both political parties have become beholden to Wall Street.

Legislators failed in several instances to conduct oversight hearings or to raise concerns as the Bush administration adopted rules that fed the mortgage frenzy and set Wall Street on the route to disaster.

For instance, in 2004 when the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a major rule change that freed investment banks to plunge tens of billions of dollars in borrowed money into subprime mortgages and other risky plays, congressional banking committees held no oversight hearings.

Congressional inaction also allowed mortgage agents to earn high fees for peddling loans to unqualified homebuyers and prevented states from toughening regulations on predatory lending practices.

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who ran unsuccessfully for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, has received nearly $1.3 million from employees of the eight troubled firms since 2001.

Dodd didn't respond to repeated requests for comment. His office said he's unaffected by campaign contributions and stressed that he was the first to "sound the alarm about the subprime crisis," shortly after assuming the chairmanship in 2007.

In the House of Representatives, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, has collected about $78,000. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken the least cash of the four House and Senate banking chairmen of recent years.

He said that's probably because he "fought like hell'' against administration limits on state predatory lending laws, but had limited influence until Democrats won the House majority and he became chairman in 2007. He said he'd just become the panel's ranking Democrat in 2004 when the SEC rule was adopted, and "I don't remember that issue coming before us."

Former Ohio Rep. Michael Oxley, who was the Republican chairman of the financial services committee in 2004, when the SEC rule was adopted, received more than $260,000 from the eight banks before he left Congress in 2007. Oxley last year was named vice chairman of the tech-heavy Nasdaq stock exchange. He couldn't be reached for comment.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who was the banking committee chairman when the SEC rule was adopted, received more than $152,000 in donations. Jonathan Graffeo, a spokesman for Shelby, said that campaign donations "are not a factor in Sen. Shelby's decision-making."

Shelby said that Democrats blocked his attempts to rein in the roles of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his push for a closer review of the SEC's regulation of investment banks. He said the SEC rule left a staff of fewer than 20 overseeing trillions of dollars in assets.

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, have received a combined total of $3.1 million. A small portion went to their Senate campaigns.

Indeed, it's impossible to say what, if anything, Wall Street bought with its $64 million. Politicians and political parties take money from a wide variety of sources, many of them with competing interests and opinions, but experts interviewed by McClatchy said that inaction by the Congress helped set the stage for the current crisis.

Some state regulators, recognizing early signs of trouble in housing markets, sought help from Congress when the Bush administration adopted rules barring states from enforcing tough laws targeting predatory lending — the practices that were enabling unqualified applicants to obtain subprime mortgages.

With Wall Street serving a key role in buying, bundling and reselling subprime mortgages, state officials couldn't get Congress to intervene, said John Ryan, the executive vice president of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

Read the rest...

'Campaign donations' are not a factor in decision-making... please. I see that line over and over in the above story. What a joke. I'm sure the banks always make donations out of kindness and respect, with no strings attached. Perhaps they simply like you guys, shucks.

We've been sold out.

Even the Wall Street Journal - and you have to admit the irony there - ran with the following story:

Bank Lobbyists Regained Clout After Vote in House

WASHINGTON -- After defeat of the financial rescue bill in the House this week, Washington sought advice and ideas from lobbyists of the same industries blamed for creating the mess.

In White House meetings and phone calls Thursday, President George W. Bush and top advisers pleaded with industry groups to help save the $700 billion financial bailout plan, following its defeat Monday in the House of Representatives.

Members of Congress also opened their doors after largely shutting out industry lobbyists earlier.

Read the rest...

I have nothing else to say. Sadly, this was predictable. So is the coming crash of the economy and subsequent collapse of the dollar.

"B Day" in the House of Representatives

Question of the day... will our allies in the House cave to pressure from the Senate 'Millionaire's Club,' or will they take the time to do this right?

Our future depends on this answer, and we don't have long to wait.

I'm sure most of us weren't terribly surprised when the Senate voted 74-25 vote to bail out Wall Street with only a few superficial changes (supposedly to pacify angry American taxpayers.) The Senate is stuffed with millionaires; most of them painfully out of touch with the struggles of mainstream America.

It frightens me to see that both of our presidential candidates voted in favor. This leads me to believe that nothing will really change after this election - not unless we get this right... and get it right before the election. This is probably our only chance to participate in our government, which is our right as American citizens. Somewhere out there, our forefathers are watching us.

Today the bailout mess falls back on the House of Representatives, where we still have some influence (all members of the House are up for re-election in November.)

From all accounts, corporate lobbyists are working around the clock to switch 13 votes from 'No' to 'Yes.' They have apparently been successful in changing 7: Jim Ramstad (R-MN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and John Lewis (D-GA) will probably now vote in favor of this bill.

Other possible switches include Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), John Yarmouth (D-KY), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). I don't see any changes from my representatives in Indiana; and I'm proud of them for demanding other options.

While some representatives are switching their vote and will now favor the Senate bill, still others may actually change their vote from Yes to No; including Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Spencer Bachus (R-AL).

Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, called Paulson's plan "crazy" and "lunacy" with potentially "awful" consequences for the world's largest economy. Strong words... from someone who should know. Many of our nation's best economists agree with O'Neill.

Paulson's strongest supporters admit that it will not raise stock prices or boost the economy as we sink further into a recession. Why should we rush through a bailout plan - one that everyone agrees will be ineffective - that gives $700 - $850 billion of our tax dollars to Wall Street?

I found it interesting that Joe Lieberman mentioned on FOX that this government bailout will be "good for John McCain." No mention of what is best for America; best for generations of American citizens who will inherit this debt. But then again... we're talking about Joe Lieberman, so this can't really come as much of a shock.

Our entire financial future - as a nation - is hanging in the balance. Congress should stay in session for as long as necessary to craft a better and cheaper plan; because there are definitely other options. One alternative, called the 'No Bailouts Plan' has already been proposed by Pete DeFazio (D-OR). The DeFazio bill is designed to fix the banking system by providing insolvency relief instead of a bailout.

Another bill currently in the works by Rep. David Scott and Rep. Doggett - with the aid of economist James K. Galbraith - plans to help ordinary people by creating a modern version of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC). This will address the mortgage crisis on Mainstreet by taking over mortgages and keeping people in their homes with reasonable serviceable mortgages.

Taking pieces from each of these bills and crafting something that works for all of America is the job facing the House today.

They can fold their tent and walk away, leaving this disastrous government bailout intact; or they can craft something much better. Each of these alternative bills fails to address all of the issues facing our economy. Patched together by a determined and responsible congress, they could form the foundation of a sound and humane solution to financial and economic meltdown facing our entire economy -- not simply Wall Street.

Congress undoubtedly wants to go home so Friday; passing the existing Senate plan would be the easy way out. It is up to us to demand otherwise and stop this $850 billion disaster in its tracks.

Abraham's thought for today

I had been told I was on the road to hell, but I had no idea it was just a mile down the road with a dome on it.

- Abraham Lincoln

Open letter to my Representatives

To my senators and representative:

As a constituent - a socially progressive/fiscally conservative Independent (if you can wrap your mind around that -- we're the ones who fall through the cracks;) I have taken my share of personal hits during the Bush administration.

We're struggling through these tough financial times and have been for some time. There are few of us left these days who aren't struggling. People are losing their houses and their jobs. Its a mess out here.

After Katrina, I started really paying attention. I saw what happened to New Orleans, the lies that led us into the Iraq war fiasco (and who benefited from it, financially.) I saw that contractors in Iraq where making millions of dollars, as were the oil companies... while billions of our treasury dollars were vanishing into thin air. The government - executive and congress - that took this nation to war obviously wasn't funding body armor for our troops, and it wasn't paying to take care of them when they returned home injured. But there was more than enough cash lying around (and disappearing) to create an entire boom industry of war profiteers.

Yes, I started paying attention... and frankly am amazed that congress ever let this looting party go on for 8 years without any intervention. Are they simply asleep at the wheel? Or serving lobbyist interests over the interests of the nation as a whole?

I have now seen enough. Our government is in the hands of robber barons holding a gun in our face and emptying our wallets. Unless you plan to do something for the taxpayers this time instead of simply bowing to lobbyist interests, I literally won't vote for you. I know when I'm being represented... and when I'm being thrown to the dogs.

There is a reason that congress polls lower even than Bush; and his poll numbers are the lowest in history. We expected you to do something about these wild excesses and overreaches of power. Most of you stood by and did nothing. Worse than that, you collaborated. Pelosi is the poster child for collaboration and betrayal. Betrayal upon betrayal.

I laugh when I see the surprise among pundits and the media, when confronted with the rage out here. Until an election year, no one was paying attention. We've been on 'ignore' for a long, long time.

Eight years ago there was a surplus and a balanced budget. Now everything is falling apart; nationally and locally (and don't even get me started about climate change -- I saw neighboring towns entirely under water this summer! Even conservative Hoosiers know something is drastically wrong with the weather.)

We're fed up. What you are seeing is the tipping point... Democrat and Republican alike, fed up. Masses of us have left our previous (but unrecognizable) parties and have become angry Independents.

I am thus writing to request that you vote NO to a Wall Street bailout and support a fair deal for Main Street - and that includes actually protecting us from these robbers, not handing over whatever they want and then asking us to foot the bill. This disaster happened because of their recklessness and rampant greed. A band-aid isn't going to fix that.

Economists all seem to agree that this bailout will be disastrous for our economy in the long run... and those of us who live in this country will have to live in that 'long run.' We don't have our money safely ensconced in Dubai.

The legislation should include these five points:

1. Reform Bankruptcy Laws - fix it for everyone! We can't consume if we're homeless and jobless. The leading cause of bankruptcy in this country is health care costs. FIX IT. Fix the root cause for a change. Isn't that why you're there?

2. Provide a Stimulus for Main Street –Aid to the Real Economy, because that trickle down thing isn't happening. Instead we're seeing a 'trickle out of the country' effect. The elite of this country don't want wealth 'trickling down' to us. They want absolute power - and power is consolidated wealth. That is now obvious to nearly everyone; thus the rage.

3. Make Wall Street Speculators Pay for the Bailout – no more debt dumped on the taxpayers. Our nation is in hoc to China for this stupid Iraq war... and speculators made a killing on that one financially, did they not? Halliburton... now headquartered in Dubai. It was all a giant money laundering operation.

4. Shut down the Casino: Rein in the Unregulated Financial Sector. Yes regulation. Obviously they can't and won't regulate themselves... it goes against human nature, even if it looks great on paper. These people are too greedy to regulate themselves and they're destroying our country in their rampage.

5. Provide Limits on CEO Pay and Prohibitions on Profiteering from the Bailout -- because you know Paulson won't do it. These are his friends.

Should the bailout, or "rescue plan" fail to embrace these points, vote “NO” on the bailout legislation until it is fixed. This is supposed to be a representative government. Prove that you remember that.

The House stood up to the pressure in the first round... stand firm! We can't afford any caving now; not until this is hashed out so that everyone is represented and the dollar is protected. Surely this is important enough that you can take the time to do it right!

I am very angry about any potential free ride for greedy bankers. I am also very worried that any bailout - and this would lead to many bailouts, not just one - will cause the dollar to collapse. This is a very real danger, expressed by the brightest economists in our country. I am sure Bush has his cash safely banked offshore, perhaps in yen... but we don't, and generations of Americans will pay for whatever you do today, and whatever effect your actions have on our struggling economy.

Haste is the enemy. Fear (the favorite tactic of the Bush administration) is getting old and bitter. That wolf has been cried so many times now we're just not afraid anymore. We're done with this.

Someone has to fight for our country and if you won't do it, this country will fall into a depression to dwarf the Great Depression of the 1930s. Have we no leaders left in this country? Leaders that put nation first?

The anger out here is very, very real; and it is growing. It is also increasingly bipartisan, in spite of the corporate media. We've realized that we're all suffering together. And that is the kind of real common ground that eclipses outdated party mantras.

I will express my response in the ballot box should the bailout for Wall Street pass without a fair deal for taxpayers footing the bill. And believe me... you have no idea how many Independents like myself view this as the final and ultimate betrayal by a government that has completely forgotten about the people of this country.

Thank you.

To those of you in the House, from Indiana... I was very proud. Please don't cave.

I am counting on Republicans to remember what it once meant to be Republican: let the market work as intended. I am also counting on the Democrats to remember the needs of the masses -- people... not just corporations.

Jon yells at nearly everyone

Indiana congressmen vote 6-3 against bailout bill

Indiana congressmen voted 6-3 yesterday - across party lines - against the bailout plan.

Voting in favor of the bill were Joe Donnelly(D), Brad Ellsworth(D) and Mark Souder(R).

The following Indiana congressmen voted against the bill: Andre Carson(D), Baron Hill(D), Pete Visclosky(D), Dan Burton(R), Steve Buyer(R) and Mike Pence(R).

In their own words:

Voted NO: "It is now imperative that Congress come together and develop a response to the crisis facing our financial markets that reflects the American people's belief in personal responsibility and fiscal discipline." -- Rep. Mike Pence, Republican.


Voted NO: "I have been rushed to judgment by the Bush Administration before. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money." -- Rep. Baron Hill, Democrat.


Voted NO: "We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out." -- Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat.


Voted NO: "I am bothered that Secretary Paulson offered an immediate government solution rather than taking the time to explore effective private sector and market based solutions. The Paulson plan was an unprecedented infusion of government power into the private financial sector." -- Rep. Steve Buyer, Republican.


Voted YES: "When there are serious people discussing the possibility of another economic depression, it is time to act. The rescue plan was not perfect, but it was necessary. And while no one took any pleasure in voting for it, the alternative -- doing nothing -- is potentially disastrous and therefore unacceptable." -- Rep. Joe Donnelly, Democrat.


Voted NO: "I believe this particular bill would be devastating to the economy and create an inflationary nightmare. We must also ensure that we are not inadvertently purchasing bad debt from China or other countries." -- Rep. Dan Burton, Republican.


Voted YES: "Ultimately this is about that worker in Vincennes who is wondering if his pension will be there in the future; the single mother in Greencastle who dreams of sending her children to college; or the small business owner in Boonville who is trying to meet payroll. These are the Americans that have everything to lose if Congress fails to act." -- Rep. Brad Ellsworth

Kucinich tells it like it is

Bail out Mainstreet, not Wall Street

Excellent Essay: The Power of 'No'

An excellent essay, "The Power of No," has been posted to Common Dreams by Dave Lindorff. Without any more yapping from me (I've ranted enough today,) here is an excerpt:

As Nobelist economist Joseph Stiglitz has written of this outrageous rip-off, there are four problems facing the financial system, and the bailout proposal only addresses one--getting the toxic mortgages off the banks' books and onto taxpayers' hands. Left unsolved is the gaping hole in banks' balance sheets in the form of loans made to people and companies which cannot be repaid, which will mean they still won't start lending money again. Left unaddressed too is the continuing collapse of housing prices, which will inevitably lead to more bank collapses even after the bailout. Finally, Stiglitz says there is the general loss of faith in the financial system--a major crisis which the bailout will also not solve.

Stiglitz doesn't even address a fifth problem which is that this trillion-plus-dollar boondoggle (and when you add in the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, the multiple mega-bank failures and the pending auto-industry bailout, you're already talking $1.5 trillion and counting), all of it with borrowed money, the stage is being set for a collapse in the US dollar, with consequences that will reverberate through the economy. Consider: if the dollar collapses, as many experts say is almost inevitable with this kind of huge addition to the national debt, oil prices (which are set in dollars) will soar to compensate, the price of all the other goods that Americans import--more than half of everything we use in daily life thanks to the decimation of American manufacturing--will rise dramatically, and ultimately, in an effort to stem the bleeding, interest rates will have to be raised, thus bringing what's left of the economy to a grinding halt.

All of this is readily predictable--and indeed a group of over 200 prominent economists has written Congress joining Stiglitz in opposing the bailout plan--but that doesn't matter to the proponents of the bailout in Washington. What they want is to get past Election Day, and the bailout may do that, unless the public gets really aroused.

The tsunami of calls and emails to Congress, and last week's nationwide demonstrations against the bailout suggest that the public is waking up to this looming disaster and to the fact that they are being sold a bill of goods.

Ron Paul mentioned (quite heatedly) the impending collapse of the dollar. Lindorff goes into much greater detail about the fallout of such a collapse, in our manufacturing-free US economy. Think the price of gas is high right now? Imagine struggling even to afford food.

And yet good ol Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were up there on the stage again last night, grinning and hugging each other (and that jackal Paulson;) as though they had just saved the world. Once again, to no one's surprise, they sold us out to the Neocons. (It is my fondest wish for our nation that they both find themselves without jobs after election day this November. Traitors... both of them. Its not like they need the employment; they can each live out their days in luxury on their lobbyist kickbacks alone.)

Could it really be true, that this time... congress is actually listening to us?

Ron Paul: Corporatism not Free Market

Ron Paul, today on the House floor

The bailout plan and the roll call

Inquiring minds want to know:

The actual text of the Government Bail Out Plan -- by the way I just tried to open this file, as linked from The New York Times, and received the message "the file is damaged and cannot be repaired." Needless to say I burst out laughing. Apparently the file and the bill have a lot in common!

The congressional roll call (the tally of votes and how your representative voted.) I noticed that both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were listed in the 'Nays' column, along with my own representative. If Kucinich and Paul together are against it - and Bush actually liked it - I know all I need to know about it's ramifications for the taxpayer, our economy and for democracy.

Good coverage in the New York Times:

House leaders pushing for the package kept the voting period open for some 40 minutes past the allotted time, trying to convert “no” votes to “yes” votes by pointing to damage being done to the markets, but to no avail.

Supporters of the bill had argued that it was necessary to avoid a collapse of the economic system, a calamity that would drag down not just Wall Street investment houses but possibly the savings and portfolios of millions of Americans. Opponents said the bill was cobbled together in too much haste and might amount to throwing good money from taxpayers after bad investments from Wall Street gamblers.

I am starting to wonder if my interest in this drama is based solely on financial (and democratic) considerations, or because it is history-in-the-making. A peculiar side effect of being a history buff: the ongoing fascination, even when the ship is sinking (and you're on it.)

House rejects $700B bailout plan

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

House rejects $700B bailout plan

P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON -- The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

Stocks started plummeting on Wall Street even before 228-205 to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.Voting no were 132 Republicans and 66 Democrats. Voting yes were 141 Democrats and 94 Republicans.

Even as the electronic roll call began, Democratic and Republican leaders were uncertain about having enough votes to pass the politically unpopular plan. It's the most sweeping government intervention in markets since the Great Depression.

... and now for a little blackmail

CNN Breaking News:

-- Dow industrials fall more than 600 on fears bailout package vote will fail.

I have the strongest mental image: Wall Street holding congress upside down by its feet outside an office window - 30 floors above the street - and shaking until money falls out of its pockets, saying "If you don't pass that bill, I'll drop you."

Taxation without representation

From the New York Times:

Treasury Would Emerge With Vast New Power

During its weeklong deliberations, Congress made many changes to the Bush administration’s original proposal to bail out the financial industry, but one overarching aspect of the initial plan that remains is the vast discretion it gives to the Treasury secretary.

The unelected Treasury secretary.

The draft legislation, which will be put to a House vote on Monday, gives Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and his successor extraordinary power to decide how the $700 billion bailout fund is spent. For example, if he thinks it wise, he may buy not only mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but any other financial instrument.

Without any input - whatsoever - from the generations of taxpayers footing the bill. This amounts to taxation without representation. Care to see what our forefathers thought of this idea?

Spurred by Patrick Henry, the Virginia Assembly passed a set of resolutions denouncing taxation without representation as a threat to colonial liberties. A few days later, the Massachusetts House invited all the colonies to appoint delegates to a Congress in New York to consider the Stamp Act menace. This Congress, held in October 1765, was the first intercolonial meeting ever summoned on American initiative. Twenty-seven men from nine colonies seized the opportunity to mobilize colonial opinion against parliamentary interference in American affairs. After much debate, the Congress adopted a set of resolutions asserting that "no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures" and that the Stamp Act had a "manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists."

For a full breakdown of the vast new powers congress is bestowing on this unelected Treasurer, keep reading.

There is brief mention of 'congressional oversight.' Hopefully this is a serious attempt to keep the robber barons in check.

From what I've seen in the past... pardon me if I am feeling zero trust right now.