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.

Perspective: Two great essays

Here are two excellent essays that place our current economic tug of war - Wall Street vs. The American Taxpayer - into an interesting, pre-historical perspective.

Always on the lookout for a glimpse of what historians might one day say about us, I find each of these stories interesting in different ways, for different reasons.

The first essay places our anger and defiance into a historical perspective before it has (likely) even reached its peak. The second discusses the 'why' behind the fact that Clinton seemed so strangely like each of his Republican predecessors; and perhaps explains why Democrats have completely forgotten their traditional party platform.

From Talking Points Memo: Robert Reich discusses angry populism:

The Almost-Done Deal, and the Era of Angry Populism, by Robert Reich:

Angry populism has always been a potent force in American politics. And now, with wages dropping, jobs insecure, fuel and food and health-insurance costs soaring, and millions of homes in jeopardy -- and what's perceived to be a massive tax-payer bailout of some of the richest people in the land -- angry populism is about to explode. McCain has already tried to cast himself as an angry populist, even though he still wants to give the very rich a bigger tax cut than George W. gave them, and cut taxes on big corporations (oil companies alone would reap $1.2 billion a year under McCain's plan). Barack Obama, whose plans for middle-class tax relief and affordable health care will genuinely help America's middle and working classes, has been expressing more indignation lately on behalf of them. But anger doesn't come as easily to Obama as it does to McCain -- even though McCain seems quite ready to aim his anger anywhere and everywhere.

Democrats should be angry populists, given their traditional role of protecting and championing the underdogs in American politics, and especially considering the absurdly wide gap that's opened up between the rich and everyone else. But in recent years Democrats have ceded the mantle to Republicans, who now mimic the faux populism of Sean Hannity and other right-wing talk show demagogues. (The recent maneuvering in the House over the bailout bill is really over this. House Democrats are getting the same angry mail that House Republicans are receiving, and don't want to be seen as lending their support to this ugly bill without Republicans signing on.)

Continued...

And in this excellent commentary in McClatchy News, by Michael D. MacDonald, we are introduced the 'Neoliberal Era;' just in time to watch it crash and burn:

Commentary: Government by Goldman Sachs comes to end

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — As we watch market values plummet and politicians debate — at last — the proper relationship between government and finance, an era in American history is ending. It wasn't understood as an era during its time, and it never had a name. Its name, though, was on the tip of our tongues: It was the Neoliberal Era.

Neoliberalism began with Ronald Reagan and continued for 27 years through George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, and it rested on one fundamental principle: Financial markets, which are knowing, efficient and flexible, should have more power to decide public policy than democratic governments do.

Neoliberals disagree with one another on numerous issues. They even differ on the particulars of the role that government should play in making public policy. But they agree on the primacy of financial power over government.

Continued...

Joe Galloway: How dare they rip up the Fourth Amendment?

Posting a link to an excellent essay... true, and terribly poignant this week.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to celebrate Independence every year, as more and more of our rights are bargained away in Congressional back rooms. Or right out in the open; as though we're not even here. As though we are of no consequence.

We are here, aren't we? We are paying attention... aren't we?

Time for a little vigilance on our part. Our forefathers counted on us - we the people - to be paying attention to our rights, and to hold our representatives feet over the fire if they deviated from true representation of our basic rights as citizens.

From Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers:

Early next week the US Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle - not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties - intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

Read the rest here...

Vast Enron-like fraud probe abandoned by DOJ

Well isn't this fishy. And what a shock -- it appears the DoJ was involved:

US Dropped Enron-Like Fraud Probe
By Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

Monday 23 July 2007

Prosecutor who built case against Virginia insurer was replaced.

Two years into a fraud investigation, veteran federal prosecutor David Maguire told colleagues he'd uncovered one of the biggest cases of his career.

Maguire described crimes "far worse" than those of Arthur Andersen, the accounting giant that collapsed in the wake of the Enron scandal. Among those in his sights: executives from a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, the investment empire overseen by billionaire Warren Buffett.

In May 2006, he felt strongly enough about his case that he prepared a draft indictment accusing executives from a Virginia insurer, Reciprocal of America, of concocting a series of secret deals to hide its losses from regulators. Although he didn't name anyone from Berkshire Hathaway's subsidiary, he described the company as a participant in the scheme.

But Maguire never brought those charges.

Months after preparing the draft, he was removed as the lead prosecutor on the case and reassigned.

(What would we do without McClatchy? I mean -- who else is covering this? Did you see it on the news tonight? Cronkite would have run it... but those days are long over.)

It appears the Enron scandal scared the neocons and their business backers more than just a little bit. Nowadays, they keep close watch on 'real' prosecutors. If they step out of line (by trying to prosecute high profile criminals) they just 'reassign' them and pad the system with guys who won't do the work; won't prosecute the big fish.

Because surely, if this has been fully prosecuted, it would have been a WHALE of a story. (I know, I know... whales aren't fish. Let me off the hook this time.)

OK... a shark. Not as big, but more appropriate. And no insult to sharks intended... but these guys are definitely predators.

Even some within the DoJ were suspicious. After spending a cool two million bucks on the investigation, why would the government decline to prosecute? Some of DoJ insiders believed that Maguire 'overreached and had been knocked down.' Another story was that the government needed 'resources for terrorism investigations.' Heh, right. When you need an excuse for anything these days, pull out the terrorism card.

In the Reciprocal of America case, the fallout was clear. More than 80,000 lawyers, doctors and hospitals in 30 states lost their malpractice coverage. As they couldn't expect new insurers to cover them for past cases, some who were sued have claimed losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That's right; people lost money, lost coverage... were cheated. People suffered.

But surely that's just peachy as long as the big fish are never made to pay. There were even guilty pleas in this case; the CEO & Executive Vice President of Reciprocal of America were jailed on charges of fraud. Maguire was going after the parent companies for their involvement... and that apparently wasn't allowed.

Not by the DoJ.

The DoJ is of course declining to comment, because of course -- they can't remember. The corporation's lawyers insist the parent companies had no part in the crimes. So really there is no story here. And that is undoubtedly why none of the major media corporations covered it. Crazy McClatchy and their dedication to fringe news... the news American journalists don't want to report.

Tom Gober, an independent fraud analyst suggested that Maguire's supervisors were urging him to drop the case against General Reinsurance shortly before he was reassigned:

[He] concluded that the Justice Department had buckled under pressure from defense lawyers. Shortly before Maguire was removed, his supervisors were urging him to drop the case against General Reinsurance... Gober's suspicions were fanned by allegations of politicization in the Justice Department after nine U.S. attorneys were fired. He took his complaints to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department misconduct.

"It just stinks," he said. "You don't come in out of nowhere and in no time kill three years of sophisticated effort."

Even the FBI was urging additional prosecution; both the FBI and the Assistant U.S. Attorney attested that there was plenty of evidence against the parent corporations. Only the DoJ stood between justice and the 'big fish.'

Only the DoJ...

And isn't that becoming the familiar story... and I'm sure we'll hear it over and over and over again within the next year and a half, as the Democrats refuse to prosecute (anyone for anything) in their attempt to cruise right into a landslide 2008 victory. I wonder when it will occur to Democrats that we'd like substance -- not just a bland, inept alternative to criminality?

Read the entire article. I can't post the entire thing here, although I'd like to. I'm still reeling. This stinks worse than a salmon in a trash can on a hot and humid day.