Dean Baker: Bush sought to provoke financial panic

This excellent essay by Dean Baker accuses Bush of deliberately creating financial panic to push through legislation. Naomi Klein calls this 'Shock Doctrine.' Whatever you call it, Congress fell for it once again. Then the rats all fled the sinking ship.

Perhaps the day will come when Americans are too poor to even pay taxes. There are so many of us... what if the economy goes belly up and the dollar collapses? I wonder what our dear representative government will do to collect on this enormous debt they have assigned to us against our will? Put us all in debter's prison? Assign us all jobs in a massive national work house?

This will likely go down as one of the greatest - if not the greatest - betrayal in our nation's history. I had the impression that my congressman grasped that fact (and thus refused to vote for it, along with most of the other Hoosier congressmen.)

Somehow our aging Senator Lugar - a nice man - missed the historical significance. Perhaps he was simply afraid. It is unfortunately that history will damn him along with the rest of the millionaire's club. Our children's children won't know anything about him other than that he signed this bill -- and it will stick to his name and reputation like the stink of a skunk.

Dean Baker's essay assigns the biggest blame to Bush. Is this the legacy Bush plans to leave -- bankrupting an entire nation? He says that he truly believes history will vindicate him. Is he actually hoping that there won't be anyone left to read it?

If Lincoln's ghost really does haunt the White House, I have a theory about why Bush spends so much time on vacation, away from the place. If I were Lincoln, I'd be howling "TRAITOR!" over W's bed, every single night.

Statement on Congressional Approval of Bailout

by: Dean Baker, The Center for Economic and Policy Research

Friday 03 October 2008

This is the first time in the history of the United States that the president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political strategy, it marks yet another low point in American politics.

It was incredibly irresponsible for President Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

It was even more irresponsible for him to seize on the decline in the stock market five days later as evidence that his bailout was needed for the economy. President Bush must surely understand, as all economists know, that the daily swings in the stock market are driven by mass psychology and have almost nothing to do with the underlying strength in the economy.

The scare tactics of President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke created sufficient panic, so that by the time of the vote, much of the public believed that the defeat of the bailout may actually have had serious consequences for the economy. Millions of people have changed their behavior because of this fear, with many pulling money out of bank and money market accounts, and in other ways adjusting their financial plans.

This effort to promote panic is especially striking since the country's dire economic situation is almost entirely the result of the Bush Administration's policy failures. First and foremost, the decision of Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke (and previously Alan Greenspan) to ignore the housing bubble, allowed for the growth of an $8 trillion bubble, which is now collapsing.

It is the collapse of this bubble, which has already destroyed more than $4 trillion in housing wealth, and is likely to destroy another $4 trillion over the next year, that is at the root of the economy's problems. While competent economists were warning of the bubble and the dire consequences of its collapse, the top officials in the Bush administration were celebrating the rise in homeownership rates.

The Bush administration made the crisis even worse by deregulating Wall Street. This led to the huge over-leveraging of financial institutions, which has vastly complicated the country's economic policies. It is especially disturbing that Secretary Paulson personally profited from these policies, earning hundreds of millions in compensation from Goldman Sachs during his years there as its CEO.

The collapse of the housing bubble, while falling short of the magnitude of the Great Depression, is likely to lead to the worst recession since World War II. Repairing the damage caused by this bubble will be a long and difficult process. Cleaning up the damage to the political system from President Bush's unprecedented fear campaign may prove to be even more difficult.

Difficult or impossible.

Likely the next guy to take office will remember how well fear worked - and how unwilling congress was to stand up to it - and ram all sorts of horrors down our throats. McCain certainly will. Obama is still a mystery.

Obama voted for it; but perhaps naively believes he can undo it. I honestly have no idea. I wonder if he still wants to be president of this imploding empire?

Righteous talk

Kucinich. I've often thought this guy would make an excellent president, if only he didn't look so unelectable.

Oh I'm not saying that I wouldn't vote for him. He's righteous on the real issues. But I'm not a very good example of the general populace.

I spend my time actually reading - about the issues - and almost never watch the television pundits who crown the 'acceptable' candidates for popular consumption. I've never watched 'Survivor,' 'American Idol,' or even 'Seinfeld.' Its true! And I never, ever, for any reason - other than my daily baseball fix - ever watch Fox.

The idea of 'Fox' and 'news' in the same sentence makes me giggle. I'd sooner get my news from the cartoon channel; I believe I'd have a statistically better chance of finding accurate news on the cartoon channel. Besides... would Bugs Bunny ever lie to me? I think not.

So admittedly, I'm not the best person to ask. But I've heard it said that 'Dennis Kucinich cannot get elected' - because he doesn't look presidential.

I am still waiting for a good definition of the truly 'presidential look.' I'm guessing that John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton had it - whatever 'it' is.

I also hear that - ultimately - Giuliani will be on the ropes because he's often been seen wearing dresses (but then, so has Hillary, so perhaps this is OK.) I have seen it written that Chuck Hagel 'doesn't have a happy face.'

Apparently, and despite much better reasons for questioning his merit (such as waffling,) McCain is now 'too old.' Meanwhile, Obama-the-rock-star may look too young - but hey, in this business, that rock star aura can only help. I'm sure its driving Hillary buggy, if nothing else.

Oh yes, and then there is Hillary. Hillary has Bill (the keeper of the 'presidential look,') the name Clinton... and has raised more money than the Vatican. I doubt anyone in the media is going to question her right to non-stop, continual coverage, in spite of her waffling on major issues, a lack of any honest platform, charisma, charm or plan to end the war.

I suspect the best way to gauge the 'presidential look' mystique is to track which candidates get national media coverage - and which do not. If your candidate isn't drawing any national coverage at all, take a closer look. He or she may not look the part.

And so again, I have returned to that same, odd thought: if Dennis Kucinich is unelectable... imagine how unelectable Abraham Lincoln would be today. Are you kidding? Take a good, hard look at a photo of Abe Lincoln and tell me - would this man last 10 minutes on a television screen?

Even in his own time, the cartoonists had a field day. Lincoln once said: "If I were two faced, would I be wearing this one?" Touche. What Lincoln brought to the people of his time were ideas. Issues.

If we can't somehow find our way back to 'issue platforms' in our time, we're doomed to suffer through an endless stream of stylish, designer, and morally bankrupt politicians in our White House. We need leadership, not hairstyles. If you ever doubt my words, notice how often the television pundits comment on the fact that 'Gore is now too overweight to run for president.'

Yes, the same old 'we've completely missed the boat' media has struck again. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000; retired from politics and taught college (rather than become a lobbyist or 'cash in' with business ventures;) spent years traveling around the world with a modest slide show, preaching the approaching peril of climate change; helped to turn that slide show message into a world-changing documentary, won an Oscar - and was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Talk about spending your time on something that really matters, instead of 'politics as usual.' The media - as always - remains unimpressed. You gotta wonder what the guy has gotta do to earn a little respect from these clowns. Then again, respect from snakes...? Perhaps a waste of time (no disrespect to snakes intended.)

Yes - its sad to say, that in the end, the only thing our corporate media pundits had to say... was that Al Gore, the man, is overweight.

And we wonder why we don't have a viable health care system, why we're mired in an illegal war, are losing Constitutional rights by the day, are hated globally and our jobs are going overseas...

We like our presidents to look like movie stars (which begs the question: how George W. Bush.... oh never mind.)

Truly, both parties are stuffed to the rafters with chiseled, blow-dried politicians -while real leaders are few and far between. That said, there are still a few courageous leaders in Washington (they can be found in both parties.) But they may not look the part.

Then again, neither did that unusually tall, thin man with the high, reedy voice and the stovepipe hat.

Kucinich may not look like Clint Eastwood in 'Pale Rider,' or John Wayne riding in on a white horse - but his words ring of truth. He isn't afraid to tell it like it is. He apparently not only sees, but seems willing to actually address the rampaging elephant in the middle of the room.

"Hey guys... I hate to bring this up... but do you see that elephant over there, snacking on the Bill of Rights? Um... do you think we should maybe do something about that?"

Kucinich may not seem the most likely of lawmakers to finally broach the 'I word' on the House floor... but thank heavens he did. I hope he managed to slip around Pelosi and set it 'on the table' before he sat himself back down.

Words that shook the House:

"This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.

"The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

"The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.

"Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

"This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.

"Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."

Thanks Dennis. We'd have done this ourselves, but frankly, we're not allowed to talk in the House anymore (we can't even send a retired, highly decorated colonial in there without watching her leave in handcuffs.) We needed someone - like you - to finally stand up and speak our minds.

Published on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 by The Nation
Kucinich: “I'm Talking About Impeachment”
by John Nichols

Nancy Pelosi's attempt to keep impeachment off the table has already been upset outside the District of Columbia, as grassroots campaigns in states across the country have begun raising the prospect of Constitutionally sanctioning President Bush, Vice President Cheney and members of their administration. More than three dozen Vermont town meetings endorsed impeachment resolutions in early March, and legislators in Vermont, Washington state and New Mexico have mustered efforts to dispatch articles of impeachment from state Capitols to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now, Pelosi's moves to silence this discussion in the Congress are being upset by a fellow Democrat, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Last week, after meeting with pro-impeachment activists, Kucinich delivered a speech on the House floor in which he said:

This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.

The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.

Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.

Now, Kucinich, a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nod, has begun contacting supporters to ask if he should embrace impeachment as a candidate and an active member of Congress.

"For four years I have been working to end this war, including leading the effort to cut off continued funding for the war. There is enough money to bring our troops home and we should do that. But the Bush administration, with the help of some in Congress, wants to pour more money into this war. Worse than that, the Bush administration now is signaling its intention to wage war with Iran. We cannot allow that to happen," writes Kucinich.

"So I'm asking you: Do you think it's time?" he adds. "I'm talking about time for impeachment."

Noting that "we are now have a condition in this country where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran," Kucinich concludes: "This situation calls for us to reconsider very deeply the moment that we're in –- where our Constitution is being trashed, where international law is being violated, where our hopes and dreams for the education of our children, for the health of our people, for housing, for our veterans, are being set aside as we go deeper and deeper into war."

Kucinich's analysis is right. Impeachment is an appropriate tool, not only for sanctioning Bush for past wrongs, but also as a threat to prevent the president from engaging in new wrongs.

There will be those who suggest that, as a long-shot presidential contender, the former mayor of Cleveland and veteran peace activist is the wrong messenger. But the initial champions of impeachment are often political outsiders: like the abolitionist Whigs – including a young Abraham Lincoln and an old John Quincy Adams -- who sought to sanction pro-slavery Presidents John Tyler and James K. Polk in the 1840s.

"Radical" foes of the Vietnam War, such as New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug and Father Robert Drinan, a congressman from Massachusetts, were among the first to call for impeaching Richard Nixon. They were eventually joined by a Republican, California Congressman Pete McCloskey, who had mounted an quixotic anti-war primary challenge to Nixon in 1972.

The first members of Congress who dare raise the subject of impeaching any errant executive are invariably dismissed as premature and intemperate. But history tends to view them kindly, just as it tends to view poorly the subjects of their proposed sanctions.

The bottom line is that Kucinich is right when he says: "This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power." The congressman deserves credit for recognizing that "impeachment may well be the only remedy" for the Constitutional crisis Bush has created, and for the crises he now schemes to create. And if his fellow anti-war Democrats in Congress are honest with themselves, they will recognize that it is time for the House to start talking about impeachment.

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

© 2007 The Nation

Why Lincoln?

I believe that Abraham Lincoln speaks to us today. One has only to read his writings, his speeches, or simply his quotations to see the innate wisdom, thoughtfulness and humility of the man. That, and his dedication to democracy.

Once again, we are engaged in a war. Not a civil war; but once again, war is ripping at the fabric of our country. Hostilities between the 'right' and the 'left' grow more tempestuous every day. The country is once again divided, this time into 'red' and 'blue,' and it seems like only yesterday we were all united with fellow humans all across the planet, dancing and singing in the dawning of a new Millennium. What a happy night that was! How things have changed since that magical day. We have squandered the great hope for a harmonious new century.

We have fallen back into our old habits of greed, hatred, judgment, partisanship - and of course war. I can't help but wonder... where is our Lincoln?

So, what about our generation of Americans? Isn't it about time we had a truly great president? Are we just too confused, too distracted to elect one? Do we lean too heavily on our media, and spend too little time searching out candidates based on issues - rather than rock star aura? Do we now confuse presidential elections with American Idol?

We desperately need a strong, moral leader at this crossroads in our history. We have 'made due' with mediocrity -- or in the case of this damaging administration, barely hung on -- long enough. Where is our Lincoln? Where is our Roosevelt or our Eisenhower? Ike spoke the truth. He even tried to warn us about the rise of the Military Industrial Complex. I can't imagine that sort of blunt, conscientious honesty coming out of the White House today, from either party. Never happen. I also can't imagine that a backwoods, country lawyer like Abraham Lincoln could even raise the money to run a modern day campaign, let alone get any corporate media coverage. In our age, those with the bucks, buy the presidency. Sure, we go out and vote... and apparently, if the 2007 election is any indication, we can still throw a few punches. But notice how - once in office - these 'representatives' quickly forget those who sent them to Washington.

So there we have it. Who will lead us out of this corrupt, corporate morass that is our broken Federal government? How can we win back our reputation as a world leader, redeem our own sense of ethics, and pull out of this national 'fall from grace?'

Lincoln still speaks to us today. He speaks across the centuries, cries out from the pages of countless books, letters and speeches. He speaks of morality, of honor, and of compromise. Lincoln was a wise and reasonable man. I can't help but believe that he is watching us today, egging us forward, begging us to remember that sacrifices were made - that a debt was paid in blood - for our democracy. And after all... who else in our history had such a personal stake in our survival as a nation?

Conversation with Abraham: A poem

He’s pacing now, his hands behind his back
His shoulders hunched, his agitation, clear;
"Our Constitution tossed aside – and why?”
Dark eyes, deep pools of agony, of grief;
In quiet desperation search my face;

And I, reminded of the ponderous price;
The heavy weight he bore to keep us free
And will not - cannot shed, even in death;
To save the Union, serve the Bill of Rights.
(Do they still teach it in our schools today?)

“Democracy bequeathed to you at birth
Exists to serve the people’s will and need;
Do you no longer want this precious gift?
Of what are you so fearful now - of whom?
Of shadows that perhaps may come to pass?

This is the strongest nation on the earth!
The biggest danger, always, was your fear;
And used against you, it has made you slaves;
Would you return at last to slavery?
Indenture unto corporate masters now?

This is your government! It’s yours!
And those who tell you 'no,' have robbed you blind;
Defend it now, and stand while there is time!
Your freedom on this earth is in your hands;
For no one else can save you from your fate.

The time and place to serve your nation’s need
Is now; right here, and in this darkest hour.
Speak out, stand up, refuse the bitter pill
Of passive servitude and fearful doubt!
How can let your independence lapse?

You drain all meaning from their noble deaths;
The generations who before you fought
To keep the flame of liberty alight;
And now, their sacrifice - no consequence?
And this - from simple fear and ignorance?

And you - your education guaranteed;
Whereas, I learned to read by mine own will
And burning drive to know, then change my world.
Perhaps it is too easy for you now...
You have no concept of the price we paid.

Has too much time elapsed, that you forget?
You cannot see the armies, nor recall;
We faced the largest monarchy on earth!
With fierce desire for freedom we held on,
To live here free! To work this land in peace.

The story of our forefathers remains
In history books, available to all;
Thus any child of liberty can learn
Our nation's lineage and path to 'now.'
If only you would seek to learn your past!

Democracy will pass into decay;
I would this fate had passed our children by.
This land, this government designed to last
Into eternity; and all we asked
Our children yet unborn, was vigilance.

We did not ask you light the fire yourselves;
But merely tend the flame lest it burn out,
or worse, be snuffed by malice and deceit.
For all bequeathed to you – for all we gave;
We died for you that you might know true peace.

Adversity is always at the door;
Alas, true character is forged in fire,
And thus, is often lost as embers cool.
The child that knows not of the father’s pain,
Embraces war; and all must bleed anew."

- Maire

Lincoln warns of 'corporations enthroned'

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

- letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.