A Controversial and/or Informative Site [Archive] - Page 28

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 10:17 AM

:: :: ::
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By
RON FOURNIER
and
TREVOR TOMPSON
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, (Go on-site to view graph and results)conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
——— Associated Press writers Nancy Benac, Julie Carr Smyth, Philip Elliot, Julie Pace and Sonya Ross contributed to this story.———
On the Net: (Go on-site to view data graph.)

ELECTION08 POLITICAL PULSE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YAHOO! NEWS POLL
http://www.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=AuYrY_cFqP.lOJw2GN_E2dJ2KY54

Polling site: http://news.yahoo.com/polls :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 11:26 AM

..... ..... .....The Russian bear in America's backyard
Bernd Debusmann
Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:10am EDT
Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist.
The opinions expressed are his own.

By
Bernd Debusmann
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As insults to national pride go, it was a classic -- the American response to Russian plans to send a nuclear battle cruiser and other ships to the Caribbean for exercises with the navy of U.S. enemy Hugo Chavez.

"We'll see if they actually make it there," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a news conference questioner.

"Somebody told me they had a tugboat accompanying them in case they break down along the way ... It was very interesting that they found some ships that could actually make it that far down to Venezuela."

Public diplomacy at its finest? It was in line with the Bush administration's generally dismissive attitude towards Russia and conjured up images of ageing rust buckets, not the flagship of Russia's Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great), which entered service 10 years ago.

It would be the first time since the Cold War that Russian vessels enter the Caribbean, traditionally part of the U.S backyard. They are scheduled to arrive in November, a week after Americans elect a new president.

Their presence might help the president-elect focus on how to deal with Russia more effectively than President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, his tutor on Russian affairs, first as national security adviser and later as secretary of state.

Rice has a doctorate in Soviet studies and speaks fluent Russian but judging from the way U.S.-Russian relations have deteriorated over the past 7-1/2 years, that gave her no more insight into the Kremlin than Bush. He famously said, after his first meeting with Vladimir Putin in 2001, that he had looked him in the eye and "was able to get a sense of his soul."

His soul, perhaps, but not a ruthless mind set on restoring Russia, a country with a 1,000-year history, to the status of a Great Power, an ambition Washington did not take particularly seriously. "The United States has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the government paralyzed," according to George Friedman, head of the private intelligence service Stratfor.

Or, as President Dmitry Medvedev put it to a meeting of political scientists this month: "In the 1990s ... we were weak and sickly."

Russia recovered, its economy boosted by oil, its military slowly rebuilt. The new Russia made its debut on the world stage on August 8, with a massive counter-attack in response to an attempt by Georgia, Washington's closest ally in the Caucasus, to seize control of the pro-Russian breakaway province of South Ossetia.

The Russian thrust extended well into Georgia and in the Washington version of events, this was an unprovoked attack by big bad Russia on poor little Georgia.

A RUSSIAN MONROE DOCTRINE
Since then, Medvedev has spelt out what amounts to a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th century U.S. assertion that European powers must not interfere in the Americas. Russia, Medvedev said, "has regions where it has privileged interests." In other words: you stay out of our region, we stay out of yours. If you stage naval maneuvers in the Baltic, we can do so in the Caribbean.

The United States has moved steadily into Russia's sphere of influence since the Soviet Union collapsed, breaking a promise by two American presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, not to expand NATO into the territory of the former Soviet Union.

Today, St. Petersburg is 60 miles from NATO member Estonia. Under the Soviets, the nearest NATO member was more than 1,000 miles away. The word "paranoia" regularly crops up in inside-the-beltway conversations about Russia but it is not difficult to see why the Russians feel encircled. Six former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and three former Soviet republics are now members of NATO.

Enter Venezuela, and the opportunity for Russia to poke Uncle Sam in the eye. Chavez has courted the Kremlin assiduously, paying six visits to Moscow (without a single corresponding return visit), buying $4 billion worth of Russian arms, trying to enlist Moscow's support for his "Bolivarian revolution" of 21st century socialism. The response has been lukewarm.

Chavez terms Russia a "strategic ally" but the Caracas-Moscow relationship is a far cry from the Havana-Moscow axis that brought the Soviet Union and the United States to the brink of nuclear war in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. For one, the ideological confrontation between communism and capitalism that then pitted the Soviet empire against the West is gone.

Perhaps more importantly, the Russians appear to be wary of the unpredictable Chavez and see him as a useful tool rather than a Western Hemispheric cornerstone of Russian foreign policy. The Latin leader's unconventional behavior during some of his Moscow visits has widened what one diplomat delicately described as a "considerable culture gap."

Among Chavez visit anecdotes: an occasion when the Russian air force scrambled fighter jets because the visitor had failed to communicate that he and his entourage were arriving in three planes, not the two previously agreed; a solemn wreath-laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier when the Venezuelans forgot the wreath; and the time Chavez issued a Kung Fu cry and jumped at a stony-faced Putin.

But while Chavez and the Kremlin have little in common, they share the belief that America's days as the world's dominant power are coming to an end. That is an idea many Americans find difficult to embrace.

You can contact the author at:

Debusmann@Reuters.com

Editing by Sean Maguire
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Go on-site to gain access to this article:http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService4/idUSLH39192920080917Reader comments:
Posted by ajeh2063
September 17, 2008 8:56 PM
jmre5357:The fact that the US sacrificed her citizens lives (and a great deal of money and material) in the Second world war and even her actions during the cold war can hardly be used as an excuse for the US's current mishandling of its foreign policy. You appear to be Ignoring the fact that Russia lost much more than any other nation during the second world war and did not benefit from the reconstruction loans the US made to the rest of Europe, but lets set that aside.

Russia is currently in a very dangerous place, she has the potential to regain much of the status she lost in the last 50 years, her economy should do well based on the resources available to her and with that comes the potential for Russia to rebuild relationships with the rest of the world. The west, led by the US, in its reaction to the caucuses war, its position on the Missile shield in Eastern Europe, the expansion of NATO, and in all its comments with regard to Russia show a striking disregard to what should be a potentially great ally.

Russia is currently taking defensive positions, positions that directly conflict with perceived US interests precisely because Russia is being sidelined and its interests and wishes are ignored. Worst of all is the apparent double standard seen in the press and in the language of Western governments toward Russia, how can the US hope to justify the 'Bush doctrine' but deny that right to others? How can the US claim that Russia is in breach of international law at a time when it is engaged in two questionable wars, operates a rendition program, openly admits to using torture and still supports repressive regimes in various parts of the globe? I am not saying that Russia is innocent of all criticism, indeed much of it is probably fair, it just seems foolish for the US to try to claim the moral high ground, a position it does not occupy and has not for some time.

As to the US's position as a superpower, well obviously the US spent more money on military hardware than anyone else, the US economy is, or at least was, the strongest in the world, as such the US is unlikely to lose its superpower status. But the US, even as a superpower is not able to pick fights at will, nor can it afford conflict with another nation, especially not with Russia.

What concerns me most is whether the next US administration, (especially if the Republican party win) will do to address the situation. I can easily see the US trying to take a harder line, continue to arm Georgia, continue to attempt to expand NATO and continue with its other misguided actions. If it does and continues to ignore Russia the chances of an incident that could act as a precursor to conflict are very real, especially if Russia continues to rebuild its military and use it to project its power abroad and exercise with its new found allies. I really would rather not see a new bi-polar (or more likely multi-polar world) arise with the US on one side and Russia, China, possibly Europe and parts of Latin America on the other. Especially not if the US is under the leadership of either a temper prone John McCain, (or even an ultra-religious Sarah Palin) or a newly arrived Barrak Obama, both needing to show strength to their electorates.

In short the US needs to think about how their actions impact on Russia and work with Russia to avoid friction rather than raise the tension by being intentionally antagonistic.Recommend (20)
Posted by jmre5357
Report Abuse September 17, 2008 5:27 PM Correction to my previous post. I was all fired up about how many do not seem to appreciate what the U.S. has done in the past and continues to do in terms of charitable work. They bash the U.S. and then apply for U.S. immigration and citizenship papers. I saw this same thing where I was born - - the Philippines. I meant to say that the world had better hope the U.S. DOESN'T cease to be a super power.Recommend (0)
Posted by jmre5357
Report Abuse September 17, 2008 5:23 PM Let's see, considering America sacrificed its citizens' lives to defend France in both World Wars, China and other Asian countries in World War II, and it was willing to fight the Soviets to defend Europe, the world had better hope America ceases to become a Super Power. It's apparent not many other nations, including some of the European ones have the stomach to fight evil. The U.S. continues to deal with a Communist Cuba, thanks in part to Europeans supporting its tourism industry, so a Loud-mouthed Chavez (who looks more like a bully than President Bush) frankly doesn't scare me as a citizen. Chavez acts tough, but if push came to shove, if it were just him and us, I would bet all I have on us. He accuses the U.S. of interfering in the affairs of others and at the same time he is making himself into some self-appointed "ruler" of the Latin American world.Recommend (0).........................

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 12:01 PM

* * * * *Singers for Obama release “Yes We Can” album

You’ve heard them at the Obama campaign rallies and speeches for months, and now all those Stevie Wonder, Sheryl Crow, John Mayer and Los Lonely Boys songs that warm up the Democratic Party crowds have been put together on one album.

Billed as the first-ever presidential campaign compilation, the 18-song disc “Yes We Can: Voices of a Grassroots Movement” also includes excerpts from speeches given by Barack Obama and goes on sale exclusively on the campaign’s official Web site on Friday.

All proceeds from digital downloads ($24.99) and the old-fashioned CD ($30) will go to the Obama-Biden campaign, said Hidden Beach Recordings, which is behind the project.

Hidden Beach CEO Steve McKeever said the diverse artists contributing “underscores how deeply inspiring this campaign has been across boundaries.”

The recording includes Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered”, Mayer’s “Waiting on the World To Change,” and Los Lonely Boys’ “Make It Better”, as well as new material by Lionel Richie and John Legend.

Absent from the list however is Barbra Streisand, one of Obama’s biggest singing supporters.

Presumably “The Way We Were” doesn’t have the right vibe for “Change We Can Believe In.”
***Tags: Fan Fare, Barack Obama, Barbra Streisand, Presidential campaign, Sheryl Crow, stevie wonder* * *September 19th, 2008
10:49 pm GMT I just bought the CD and downloaded it from

http://www.barackobama.com/music

What impressed me was the player you can preview the tracks thru. I haven’t seen anything like it before. By the way, what is MagNet?

- Posted by Andrei McQuillan
Post a comment on-site http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/09/19/singers-for-obama-release-yes-we-can-album/ * * *

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 12:32 PM

:: :: ::
Buffett's "time bomb" goes off on Wall Street
By
James B. Kelleher
Analysis
Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:42pm EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - On Main Street, insurance protects people from the effects of catastrophes.

But on Wall Street, specialized insurance known as a credit default swaps are turning a bad situation into a catastrophe.

When historians write about the current crisis, much of the blame will go to the slump in the housing and mortgage markets, which triggered the losses, layoffs and liquidations sweeping the financial industry.

But credit default swaps -- complex derivatives originally designed to protect banks from deadbeat borrowers -- are adding to the turmoil.

"This was supposedly a way to hedge risk," says Ellen Brown, the author of the book "Web of Debt."

"I'm sure their predictive models were right as far as the risk of the things they were insuring against. But what they didn't factor in was the risk that the sellers of this protection wouldn't pay ... That's what we're seeing now."

Brown is hardly alone in her criticism of the derivatives. Five years ago, billionaire investor Warren Buffett called them a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction" and directed the insurance arm of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to exit the business.

LINKED TO MORTGAGES
Recent events suggest Buffett was right. The collapse of Bear Stearns. The fire sale of Merrill Lynch & Co Inc (MER.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). The meltdown at American International Group Inc (AIG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). In each case, credit default swaps played a role in the fall of these financial giants.

The latest victim is insurer AIG, which received an emergency $85 billion loan from the U.S. Federal Reserve late on Tuesday to stave off a bankruptcy.

Over the last three quarters, AIG suffered $18 billion of losses tied to guarantees it wrote on mortgage-linked derivatives.

Its struggles intensified in recent weeks as losses in its own investments led to cuts in its credit ratings. Those cuts triggered clauses in the policies AIG had written that forced it to put up billions of dollars in extra collateral -- billions it did not have and could not raise.

EASY MONEY
When the credit default market began back in the mid-1990s, the transactions were simpler, more transparent affairs. Not all the sellers were insurance companies like AIG -- most were not. But the protection buyer usually knew the protection seller.

As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed.

An over-the-counter market grew up and some of the most active players became asset managers, including hedge fund managers, who bought and sold the policies like any other investment.

And in those deals, they sold protection as often as they bought it -- although they rarely set aside the reserves they would need if the obligation ever had to be paid.

In one notorious case, a small hedge fund agreed to insure UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the Swiss banking giant, from losses related to defaults on $1.3 billion of subprime mortgages for an annual premium of about $2 million.

The trouble was, the hedge fund set up a subsidiary to stand behind the guarantee -- and capitalized it with just $4.6 million. As long as the loans performed, the fund made a killing, raking in an annualized return of nearly 44 percent.

But in the summer of 2007, as home owners began to default, things got ugly. UBS demanded the hedge fund put up additional collateral. The fund balked. UBS sued.

The dispute is hardly unique. Both Wachovia Corp (WB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) are involved in similar litigation with firms that promised to step up and act like insurers -- but were not actually insurers.

"Insurance companies have armies of actuaries and deep pools of policyholders and the financial wherewithal to pay claims," says Mike Barry, a spokesman at the Insurance Information Institute.

"SLOPPY"
Another problem: As hedge funds and others bought and sold these protection policies, they did not always get prior written consent from the people they were supposed to be insuring. Patrick Parkinson, the deputy director of the Fed's research and statistic arm, calls the practice "sloppy."

As a result, some protection buyers had trouble figuring out who was standing behind the insurance they bought. And it put investors into webs of relationships they did not understand.

"This is the derivative nightmare that everyone has been warning about," says Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific Capital at the author of "Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse."

"They booked all these derivatives assuming bad things would never happen. It was like writing fire insurance, assuming no one is ever going to have a fire, only now they're turning around and watching as the whole town burns down."

(Editing by Andre Grenon)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN1837154020080918 :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 12:59 PM

When al Qaida destroyed the Twin Towers September 11, I felt such a sense of despair and had the thought, and was saying, "The Barbarians are at the gates".

The problems, however, were and are, it was our ownselves we had to fear. We just didn't realize it; that it would be our ownselves destroying our way of life. It would be us destroying our own country, and it had started well before September 11th. had even happened.

It began fullbore with the Supreme Court appointing these interlopers, Cheney and Bush. They were the ones who ended up shoving us all off of the precipice, just to fulfill their own agenda. It was allowed to happen, it was allowed to go on. We, the American people as well let it happen, to our never ending shame, we let it go on. Our downfall wasn't engineered by a foreign country, a foreign people, or a foreign radical group who would do us harm. No. It was we, the American people, and our elected officials as well, who, out of power games, greed and fear, allowed these terrible days to come about.

A lot of us fought against times such as these being able to come about, but they happened anyway, and I, for one, resent those who didn't have the foresight or the wherewithall to delve a bit deeper, to have an open mind, to inform themselves as to the type of people who were, and are, in control; starting at the top.

I resent being dragged down by and with them. It's more than just a little disheartening, disconcerting, and it brings out anger as well. We, in a combined effort could have stopped them, or so I believe, but and this is the crux of the matter, too many of us were all too willing to lap up the spin put out by the administration and those seeking their own agenda. They certainly didn't have our own best interests at heart, not the American peoples best interest. No way, no how, as Hillary said.

I still see where a few diehards believe Cheney is a good guy. 73% think nothing ill of him, so there's a 27% fringe out there who just don't get it; even with numbers so low, it's a disgusting figure to learn of. So, with all the news and the revelations in it, a lot of someone's out there aren't capable of rational thought.

We've, by our apathy, by our not being informed, by our willingness to be led by the goat, caused our own demise, which has come about with the war, and the economy with it's collapse. By the way, who's crying the loudest?

Borys_Pomianek

September 21st, 2008, 01:40 PM

Saundra:

The states are still young but in their mid-age crisis in my opinion.

I never been there but always had its culture around me and always wanted to live there until i became an adult and decided that i can't afford to for a lot of reasons.

When i think more closely, the situation is not bad for you guys there. The momentum have simply died out, the hopes for something that nobody really visualized are now almost gone and you as a nation realize which of the "good things" that you wanted for yourself will not happen.

Maybe USA is somewhat imploding under its own weight but i just think that its strengths are no longer as significant as they used to be.

It will never be young and dynamic again, it might try to have a new youth many times like my own home country but i believe that this is somewhat deemed to fail although it does provide a new perspective on things and a never ending set of goals for its people to think about.

For me, everything is connected to art so i view it from this particular hill.

I think that, at many time-points lately, the leaders of USA made a big miscalculation when it comes to potential, same miscalculation that the average person made when supporting them.

The last few years i think is sadly filled with cruel realizations about that potential.

I must say that it makes me sad. Certainly if born at a different time i would be there, living the american dream in the 60ties, right in the vortex and then exploring new territories after the wave have finally broken in the 70ties.

You need some fresh momentum there, loads of it.

Cheers,
BP

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 01:52 PM

Saundra:

The states are still young but in their mid-age crisis in my opinion.

I never been there but always had its culture around me and always wanted to live there until i became an adult and decided that i can't afford to for a lot of reasons.

When i think more closely, the situation is not bad for you guys there. The momentum have simply died out, the hopes for something that nobody really visualized are now almost gone and you as a nation realize which of the "good things" that you wanted for yourself will not happen.

Maybe USA is somewhat imploding under its own weight but i just think that its strengths are no longer as significant as they used to be.

It will never be young and dynamic again, it might try to have a new youth many times like my own home country but i believe that this is somewhat deemed to fail although it does provide a new perspective on things and a never ending set of goals for its people to think about.

For me, everything is connected to art so i view it from this particular hill.

I think that, at many time-points lately, the leaders of USA made a big miscalculation when it comes to potential, same miscalculation that the average person made when supporting them.

The last few years i think is sadly filled with cruel realizations about that potential.

I've always been an optimist, too much so others say, but I can't help but believe it's a good way to be, however, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the turn of events with the "War on Terror", our foreign policy, post Katrina aid, our infrastructure being ignored, and now, this latest event with the economy; our economy collapsing, it being allowed to happen when those in the know warned and warned Cheney and Bush and their appointee's; warning all of us as to where their policies were going to take the country and thus us. It's happened, and now there's this Palin woman, Mooselini some call her. She's not anyone I would ever want anywhere near a shiny desk in any government office, regardless of where; Alaska or Washington DC. This is who sinks any optimism, any I might still have. Just the thought of her being in power is where my optimism sinks. If she should hold federal office, whew! She is a scary thought.

Borys_Pomianek

September 21st, 2008, 02:05 PM

I've always been an optimist, too much so others say, but I can't help but believe it's a good way to be, however, I'm thoroughly disgusted with the turn of events with the "War on Terror", our foreign policy, post Katrina aid, our infrastructure being ignored, and now, this latest event with the economy; our economy collapsing, it being allowed to happen when those in the know warned and warned Cheney and Bush and their appointee's; warning all of us as to where their policies were going to take the country and thus us. It's happened, and now there's this Palin woman, Mooselini some call her. She's not anyone I would ever want anywhere near a shiny desk in any government office, regardless of where; Alaska or Washington DC. This is who sinks any optimism I might still have, where my optimism sinks, if she should hold federal office, whew! She is a scary thought.

Yeah but those things did not happen yesterday.

Only that there was other stuff to catch peoples imagination that did not make the outlook so bad.

Imagine that USA would be in the process of colonizing a new planet.

That would change the outlook.

Saundra Hummer

September 21st, 2008, 05:08 PM

Yeah but those things did not happen yesterday.

Only that there was other stuff to catch peoples imagination that did not make the outlook so bad.

Imagine that USA would be in the process of colonizing a new planet.

That would change the outlook.

Or we could just live in our real world, "The Twilight Zone". Remember that old TV show with Rod Searling?

We're living in such odd times; so odd it's sureal.

Here's another take on the "Road to 'The Bridge to Nowhere'".

The Road to the Bridge to NowhereBy David Knowles
Sep 21st 2008 4:34PM
Filed Under:
John McCain,
Breaking News,
Sarah Palin

Sticking with the motor vehicle theme for a moment. There's news out of Alaska about that Bridge to Nowhere, you know, the one that Sarah Palin was for building before it became a national disgrace. The money, as we now know, was not sent back to U.S. taxpayers, but kept by Palin's government. What did they do with it? Well, part of it was spent to build the road to the bridge to nowhere. And now that road is finished.

From the Associated Press:

JUNEAU, Alaska - Alaska now has a Road to Nowhere going to what would have been the Bridge to Nowhere.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's transportation department completed a $25 million gravel road leading to the site of the bridge that Palin, as John McCain's vice presidential candidate, now boasts that she stopped so as to save taxpayers money. The road was built with federal tax dollars.

If you're scratching your head about now, and asking, what purpose will this new $25 million dollar gravel road serve if it doesn't link up with the fabled bridge, here's your answer:

Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein said the 3.2 mie road will be useful for road races, hunters and possible future development. But with no bridge to serve it, that's probably about it.

"I think it will be good for recreational things like a 5K and a 10K," Weinstein said. "And instead of people walking through brush, it may be used for hunting in the area."

Ah, good. I'm glad $25 million of our federal tax dollars didn't go to support some useless earmark pork. Cue the Talking Heads.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/21/the-road-to-the-bridge-to-nowhere/

::: ::: :::

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 09:57 AM

............... Can you trust a Wall Street veteran with a Wall Street bailout?
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today's financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department.

Back then, Bush saw Paulson's Wall Street experience as a plus. "Hank will follow in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and other distinguished Treasury secretaries who used their talents and wisdom to strengthen our financial markets and expand the reach of the American Dream," Bush said at the time.

But with Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn't come with enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to approve the administration's draft legislation that would leave to Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to hire to help him do so.

"If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight," said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barrack Obama. "Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check."

In recent days, there've been few outward expressions of distrust of Paulson in particular. In fact, many said his long reign on Wall Street make him uniquely qualified to deal with today's problems.

"Hank is the right guy," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made his millions providing information to Wall Street traders, told NBC's Meet the Press. "If I had to have one person at the helm today I would pick Hank Paulson."

But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like collapse of several parts of the global financial market. And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those that receive a bailout.

In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman's most senior executives, to join him as an adviser on what to about problems in the U.S. and global banking sector.

Paulson's former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to become head of Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that has hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.

The administration's draft law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity.

"The Treasury's ability to, without oversight, determine (that) a financial institution (is) an agent of the government seems like it could be used to serve several purposes, including limiting the potential liabilities of an institution or its executives," he wrote in a note to investors late Sunday.

The Treasury proposal sent to Congress also offers no process to hire asset managers in an open and competitive process. That's particularly questionable given that Wall Street players are now hiring Wall Street players, Rosner said.

"This seems to invite a risk of collusion between sellers and buyers to the detriment of the taxpayer," he wrote.

At a minimum, there's irony in Paulson being in charge of so large a bailout.

In the last annual report at Goldman that Paulson signed off on in November 2005, a year in which he received $38 million in compensation, investors were clearly told that the federal government wouldn't be there to save them from bad investments.

"Goldman Sachs, as a participant in the securities and commodities and futures and options industries, is subject to extensive regulation in the United States and elsewhere," the report said.

But those regulations are designed to protect the interests of clients in the market, it said. "They are not . . . charged with protecting the interest of Goldman Sachs shareholders or creditors," it said.

That's a different tune from the one Paulson was singing Sunday.

"Last week there were times when the capital markets or credit markets were frozen," Paulson said on NBC's Meet the press. "American companies weren't able to raise financing. That has very serious consequences. So what we need to do right now is stabilize the markets, and this is for the, for the benefit of the taxpayers we're doing this, the American public. Then, once we get behind this and get this stabilized, there's a lot we can talk about in terms of reform."

What Paulson didn't say is that the excesses that led to the frozen credit markets couldn't have happened without Wall Street. Lenders weakened their standards because loans were sold to investment banks, which didn't much care about the loan quality since they then pooled the loans with thousands of other loans and sold them as bonds to investors. If the whole thing collapsed, it would be the investors who lost out.

Those bonds, called mortgage-backed securities, are precisely the bad assets taxpayers will now be buying back from Paulson's colleagues on Wall Street.

During Paulson's tenure, Goldman was not as big a player in issuing mortgage bonds as two other investment banks that have gone under this year, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

But the 2005 annual report shows that Goldman was still a significant player. Its trading division, which included the mortgage bonds and complex financial instruments called derivatives, reported pre-tax earnings of more than $6.2 billion, up sharply from $3.5 billion in 2003.

The report also shows that Goldman benefited greatly from the wave that is now being deemed a wave of excess.

Goldman's pre-tax earnings rose from $4.4 billion in 2003 to almost $8.3 billion in 2005. Similarly, its investment banking division had pre-tax earnings leap from $207 million to $413 million.

Paulson's personal fortunes also zoomed in those years.

In 2002, Paulson received $12.1 million in compensation, including a $6.3 million bonus — an improvement over the previous three years when Wall Street accounting scandals unsettled investment banks, including a $1.5 billion settlement Goldman and other banks paid for issuing overly bullish research reports that promoted deals the banks themselves were involved in.

Published reports said Paulson received $30 million in compensation and salary in 2003.

After Paulson left Goldman and mortgage bonds began losing money, the investment bank erased those loses and then some by betting against the very products it had sold, Fortune magazine reported last year.

Fortune Magazine article on Goldman's sub-prime business

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Treasury Secretary Paulson earns praise for calming markets

Who is Henry Paulson?

A Q and A with Henry Paulson

McClatchy Newspapers 2008
More on this Story
Story | Taxpayer relief is flashpoint in bailout debate
Story | $700 billion loan bailout could include non-mortgage assets
Story | Financial uncertainty goes beyond home loans
Story | Federal billions for Wall Street will handcuff next president
Story | Bank of America chief: half of banks won't exist in 5 years
Story | Will latest bailout plan work? No one actually knows
Story | Congress' fiscal conservatives declare free market 'dead'
Story | Wall Street crisis is culmination of 28 years of deregulation
Video | ABC's interview with Henry Paulson and Michael Bloomburg
PDF | Goldman Sachs 10-K
On the Web | NBC's Meet the Press with Henry Paulson and Michael Bloomburg
On the Web | The Economy in Turmoil Go on-site to gain access to links to view more of this storyhttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/52856.html?mi_email=McClatchy%20Washington%20Burea u_DC+Newsletter...........................

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 02:34 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE MORNING BUZZ
September 21, 2008
Frank Rich: "But McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it."

The Crucial Debates: "The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday."

Buy or Contribute to the BuzzFlash September Fund Drive. For Eight 1/2 Years, You Have Made BuzzFlash a Leader in the Development of the New Progressive Media. Keep the Dream of Non-Corporate Journalism Alive!

Taxpayer-Financed Bailout Out of Wall Street Would Give Paulson Economic "Dictatorial" Powers to Spend Our Money
Joe Klein: Following the lead of his buddy, and probable Secretary of the Treasury, Phil Gramm, McCain has been a vehement deregulator. Here is the deathless quote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
______________________________________
Truthiness Stages a Comeback
By FRANK RICH
Op-Ed ColumnistSeptember 21, 2008
NOT until 2004 could the 9/11 commission at last reveal the title of the intelligence briefing President Bush ignored on Aug. 6, 2001, in Crawford: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” No wonder John McCain called for a new “9/11 commission” to “get to the bottom” of 9/14, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers set off another kind of blood bath in Lower Manhattan. Put a slo-mo Beltway panel in charge, and Election Day will be ancient history before we get to the bottom of just how little he and the president did to defend America against a devastating new threat on their watch.

For better or worse, the candidacy of Barack Obama, a senator-come-lately, must be evaluated on his judgment, ideas and potential to lead. McCain, by contrast, has been chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, where he claims to have overseen “every part of our economy.” He didn’t, thank heavens, but he does have a long and relevant economic record that begins with the Keating Five scandal of 1989 and extends to this campaign, where his fiscal policies bear the fingerprints of Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina. It’s not the résumé that a presidential candidate wants to advertise as America faces its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That’s why the main thrust of the McCain campaign has been to cover up his history of economic malpractice.

McCain has largely pulled it off so far, under the guidance of Steve Schmidt, a Karl Rove protégé. A Rovian political strategy by definition means all slime, all the time. But the more crucial Rove game plan is to envelop the entire presidential race in a thick fog of truthiness. All campaigns, Obama’s included, engage in false attacks. But McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it.

When a McCain spokesman told Politico a week ago that “we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say” about the campaign’s incessant fictions, he was channeling a famous Bush dictum of 2003: “Somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter.” In Bush’s case, the lies lobbed over the heads of the press were to sell the war in Iraq. That propaganda blitz, devised by a secret White House Iraq Group that included Rove, was a triumph. In mere months, Americans came to believe that Saddam Hussein had aided the 9/11 attacks and even that Iraqis were among the hijackers. A largely cowed press failed to set the record straight.

Just as the Bushies once flogged uranium from Africa, so Palin ceaselessly repeats her discredited claim that she said “no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. Nothing is too small or sacred for the McCain campaign to lie about. It was even caught (by The Christian Science Monitor) peddling an imaginary encounter between Cindy McCain and Mother Teresa when McCain was adopting her daughter in Bangladesh.

If you doubt that the big lies are sticking, look at the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. Half of voters now believe in the daily McCain refrain that Obama will raise their taxes. In fact, Obama proposes raising taxes only on the 1.9 percent of households that make more than $250,000 a year and cutting them for nearly everyone else.

You know the press is impotent at unmasking this truthiness when the hardest-hitting interrogation McCain has yet faced on television came on “The View.” Barbara Walters and Joy Behar called him on several falsehoods, including his endlessly repeated fantasy that Palin opposed earmarks for Alaska. Behar used the word “lies” to his face. The McCains are so used to deference from “the filter” that Cindy McCain later complained that “The View” picked “our bones clean.” In our news culture, Behar, a stand-up comic by profession, looms as the new Edward R. Murrow.

Network news, with its dwindling handful of investigative reporters, has barely mentioned, let alone advanced, major new print revelations about Cindy McCain’s drug-addiction history (in The Washington Post) and the rampant cronyism and secrecy in Palin’s governance of Alaska (in last Sunday’s New York Times). At least the networks repeatedly fact-check the low-hanging fruit among the countless Palin lies, but John McCain’s past usually remains off limits.

That’s strange since the indisputable historical antecedent for our current crisis is the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the go-go 1980s. When Charles Keating’s bank went belly up because of risky, unregulated investments, it wiped out its depositors’ savings and cost taxpayers more than $3 billion. More than 1,000 other S.&L. institutions capsized nationwide.

It was ugly for the McCains. He had received more than $100,000 in Keating campaign contributions, and both McCains had repeatedly hopped on Keating’s corporate jet. Cindy McCain and her beer-magnate father had invested nearly $360,000 in a Keating shopping center a year before her husband joined four senators in inappropriate meetings with regulators charged with S.&L. oversight.

After Congressional hearings, McCain was reprimanded for “poor judgment.” He had committed no crime and had not intervened to protect Keating from ruin. Yet he, like many deregulators in his party, was guilty of bankrupt policy-making before disaster struck. He was among the sponsors of a House resolution calling for the delay of regulations intended to deter risky investments just like those that brought down Lincoln and its ilk.

Ever since, McCain has publicly thrashed himself for his mistakes back then — and boasted of the lessons he learned. He embraced campaign finance reform to rebrand himself as a “maverick.” But whatever lessons he learned are now forgotten.

For all his fiery calls last week for a Wall Street crackdown, McCain opposed the very regulations that might have helped avert the current catastrophe. In 1999, he supported a law co-authored by Gramm (and ultimately signed by Bill Clinton) that revoked the New Deal reforms intended to prevent commercial banks, insurance companies and investment banks from mingling their businesses. Equally laughable is the McCain-Palin ticket’s born-again outrage over the greed of Wall Street C.E.O.’s. When McCain’s chief financial surrogate, Fiorina, was fired as Hewlett-Packard’s chief executive after a 50 percent drop in shareholders’ value and 20,000 pink slips, she took home a package worth $42 million.

The McCain campaign canceled Fiorina’s television appearances last week after she inadvertently admitted that Palin was unqualified to run a corporation. But that doesn’t mean Fiorina is gone. Gramm, too, was ostentatiously exiled after he blamed the economic meltdown on our “nation of whiners” and “mental recession,” but he remains in the McCain loop.

The corporate jets, lobbyists and sleazes that gravitated around McCain in the Keating era have also reappeared in new incarnations. The Nation’s Web site recently unearthed a photo of the resolutely anticelebrity McCain being greeted by the con man Raffaello Follieri and his then girlfriend, the Hollywood actress Anne Hathaway, as McCain celebrated his 70th birthday on Follieri’s rented yacht in Montenegro in August 2006. It’s the perfect bookend to the old pictures of McCain in a funny hat partying with Keating in the Bahamas.

Whatever blanks are yet to be filled in on Obama, we at least know his economic plans and the known quantities who are shaping them (Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker). McCain has reversed himself on every single economic issue this year, often within a 24-hour period, whether he’s judging the strength of the economy’s fundamentals or the wisdom of the government bailout of A.I.G. He once promised that he’d run every decision past Alan Greenspan — and even have him write a new tax code — but Greenspan has jumped ship rather than support McCain’s biggest flip-flop, his expansion of the Bush tax cuts. McCain’s official chief economic adviser is now Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who last week declared that McCain had “helped create” the BlackBerry.

But Holtz-Eakin’s most telling statement was about McCain’s economic plans — namely, that the details are irrelevant. “I don’t think it’s imperative at this moment to write down what the plan should be,” he said. “The real issue here is a leadership issue.” This, too, is a Rove-Bush replay. We want a tough guy who will “fix” things with his own two hands — let’s take out the S.E.C. chairman! — instead of wimpy Frenchified Democrats who just “talk.” The fine print of policy is superfluous if there’s a quick-draw decider in the White House.

The twin-pronged strategy of truculence and propaganda that sold Bush and his war could yet work for McCain. Even now his campaign has kept the “filter” from learning the very basics about his fitness to serve as president — his finances and his health. The McCain multihousehold’s multimillion-dollar mother lode is buried in Cindy McCain’s still-unreleased complete tax returns. John McCain’s full medical records, our sole index to the odds of an imminent Palin presidency, also remain locked away. The McCain campaign instead invited 20 chosen reporters to speed-read through 1,173 pages of medical history for a mere three hours on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. No photocopying was permitted.

This is the same tactic of selective document release that the Bush White House used to bamboozle Congress and the press about Saddam’s nonexistent W.M.D. As truthiness repeats itself, so may history, and not as farce.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
An eyeopener into the inner workings of what is wrong with our country. SRH________________________________
Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama SparBy
PATRICK HEALY
September 21, 2008
The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties’ conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates.

A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late Saturday morning. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates.

McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin’s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense.

While the debates between presidential nominees are traditionally the main events in the fall election season, the public interest in Ms. Palin has proved extraordinary, and a large audience is expected for her national debate debut.

Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Ms. Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Mr. Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate.

The negotiations for the three 90-minute debates between the men at the top of the tickets were largely free of brinksmanship. Neither side threatened to pull out, and concerns about camera angles and stagecraft were minor.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee for president, and Mr. McCain did not intercede personally to settle any disputes. They agreed to one substantive change to the format originally proposed by the debate commission, giving them two minutes apiece to make a statement at the beginning of each segment on a new topic.

Mr. Obama successfully sought to flip the proposed topics for the first and third debates, so foreign policy is now coming first and economic and other domestic issues come last. There is a second debate, in the format of a town hall meeting, in which the candidates will sit on director’s chairs and take questions from the audience and Internet users on any topic.

The debate commission had proposed that the first debate be on economic issues and the third on foreign policy — in part, people involved in the process said, because the first debate is usually the most watched, and many voters rank the economy as their top concern.

Mr. Obama wanted foreign policy first to show viewers that he could provide depth, strength and intelligence on those issues, his advisers said, given that Mr. McCain consistently wins higher ratings in opinion polls as a potential commander in chief.

Mr. Obama wanted domestic issues to come last; advisers said that they believed even before the start of the financial crisis that the election was most likely to turn on the state of the economy and that he wanted the final televised exchange to focus on those concerns. He has argued that Mr. McCain would continue the economic policies of President Bush.

Mr. McCain also wanted foreign policy topics to come first in the debates, his aides said, in the hope of capitalizing on his positive reputation on national security issues across party lines.

He wanted limits on the original format for the first and third debates, which had been nine topics with nine minutes of free-flowing debate on each one. Mr. Obama went along, though his aides did insist that at least several minutes of open-ended debate occur in each block of questioning, because they believe he does well in that format.

Now the candidates will be asked a question, each will give an answer of two minutes or less, and then they will mix it up for five additional minutes before moving on to the next question in the same format.

Obama aides also agreed to use lecterns at the first event, which Mr. McCain preferred; at the third debate, the two men will be seated at a round table, in the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions, with the moderator at 6 o’clock.

McCain aides said that they were conscious of the fact that Mr. McCain has a prominent scar on one side of his face, and that they could not predict how prominent it would appear with the camera angles, lighting and make-up.

The debate formats were negotiated by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, representing the McCain campaign, and Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, for the Obama camp. A handful of aides from both camps were also involved, hammering out issues between themselves and then holding conference calls with members of the commission to reach final agreements, people involved in the process said.

Mr. Obama plans to begin debate camp on Tuesday with a tight circle of advisers at a site in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, his aides say, with a prominent Democratic lawyer, Greg Craig, playing the part of Mr. McCain in mock debates.

The Obama campaign has been studying Mr. McCain’s debate performances from the Republican primary as well as in his 2000 race for president. Each debate has been rated and scored, with briefing points and highlights sent to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama’s advisers have been studying in particular Mr. McCain’s temperament and mood and looking for potential flash points of anger.

Mr. McCain, his advisers say, has yet to spend much time watching the dozens of primary debate performances of Mr. Obama over the last two years. But they said that a small staff of aides had been reviewing them and that Mr. McCain would see some highlights next week.

McCain aides refused to say when his debate camp would be or where, or who was playing Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. (Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, Democrat of Michigan, is playing Ms. Palin for Mr. Biden’s preparations.)

Mr. Obama plans to sequester himself and a few advisers at his debate camp. The attendance is limited to a small group of foreign policy advisers, each rotating in for separate sessions with Mr. Obama and Mr. Craig.

The choice of Florida, particularly the politically critical region near Tampa, was selected with a dual purpose in mind. While Mr. Obama will have few public events from Tuesday through Friday, aides said, his presence could draw considerable local news media attention in a state where he hopes to fiercely challenge Mr. McCain.

While the intense portion of debate training begins on Tuesday, Mr. Obama has been preparing for weeks, in part by drawing upon his experience debating Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic primaries. His aides have been studying those debate performances to address one of his biggest shortcomings: his ability to deliver a tight answer. Already, his campaign is trying to diminish expectations for Mr. Obama’s performance.

“Despite the fact that we got the chance to do this a lot during the primaries, these debates are not by any stretch of the imagination his strong suit,” said Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist to Mr. Obama. “He likes to talk about a problem, give some examples that addresses some solutions and oftentimes that doesn’t fit into the moderator’s allotted time.”

The campaigns had no say over the choice of moderators — Jim Lehrer of PBS, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Bob Schieffer of CBS for the presidential debates, and Gwen Ifill of PBS for the vice-presidential debate.

“Everything matters and issues can always come up, such as the size of podiums — like for Carter and Ford in 1976 — to the timer lights if the candidate doesn’t like them,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who advised Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. “There hasn’t really been a ‘debate about the debates’ this year, but that can change in a minute.”

Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Miami.__________________________________________. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Treasury Seeks Authority to Buy $700 Billion Assets (Update1)
By
Alison Fitzgerald and John Brinsley
Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration asked Congress for unchecked power to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from U.S. financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

The plan, designed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is aimed at averting a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and economic growth to a standstill. The bill would bar courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.

``It sounds like Paulson is asking to be a financial dictator, for a limited period of time,'' said historian John Steele Gordon, author of ``Hamilton's Blessing,'' a chronicle of the national debt. ``This is a much-needed declaration of power for the Treasury secretary. We can't wait until the next administration in January.''

As congressional aides and officials scrutinized the proposal, the Treasury late today clarified the types of assets it would purchase. Paulson would have authority to buy home loans, mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-related assets and, after consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, ``other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,'' the Treasury said in a statement.

The Treasury would also have discretion, after discussions with the Fed, to make non-U.S. financial institutions eligible under the program.

Bigger Than Pentagon
The plan would raise the ceiling on the national debt and spend as much as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. Paulson is asking for the power to hire asset managers and award contracts to private companies. Most provisions of the proposal expire after two years from the date of enactment.

A failure by the government to support the U.S. financial system could lead to ``a depression,'' Senator Charles Schumer told reporters in New York. ``To do nothing is to risk the kind of economic downturn this country hasn't seen in 60 years.''

The Treasury is seeking authority to step in as buyer of last resort for mortgage-linked assets that few other financial institutions in the world want to buy, following government takeovers of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer American International Group Inc.

``Democrats will work with the administration to ensure that our response to events in the financial markets is swift,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

Fast Track
The majority party will seek to reduce mortgage foreclosures and create ``fast-track authority'' for an overhaul of financial regulation, Pelosi said. Democrats will ensure ``the government is accountable to the taxpayers in any future actions under this broad grant of authority, implementing strong oversight mechanisms.''

The proposal will include curbs on executive pay for the companies whose assets the government will be buying, Steve Adamske, a spokesman for Representative Barney Frank, said today in an interview.

Democrats also will include a plan to stem foreclosures, which may involve tapping the loan-modification abilities of the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Adamske said. Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

``The consequences of inaction could be catastrophic,'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement.

`Serious Issues'
``While the Bush proposal raises some serious issues, we need to resolve them quickly,'' he said. ``I am confident that, working together, we will.''

House minority leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said today he is reviewing the proposal but didn't say whether he was inclined to support it.

``The American people are furious that we're in this situation, and so am I,'' Boehner said in a statement. ``We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.''

Congress, which may pass legislation as soon as Friday, needs to ``make sure there are protections built in for taxpayers,'' said Schumer, a New York Democrat on the banking committee. Lawmakers should ensure ``taxpayers who gave the money will be put ahead of the stockholders, bondholders and others.''

Paulson is seeking an expansion of federal influence over markets that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, said Charles Geisst, author of ``100 Years of Wall Street'' and a finance professor at Manhattan College in New York.

Hoover Era
Geisst likened the plan to the Reconstruction Finance Corp., which was chartered by Herbert Hoover in 1932 with the goal of boosting economic activity by lending money after credit markets seized up.

President George W. Bush said he called leaders in both houses of Congress and ``found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how necessary it is to get something done quickly.''

``This is going to be a big package because it's a big problem,'' Bush said following a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at the White House. ``We need to get this done quickly, and the cleaner the better.''

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said in a radio address that he ``fully supports'' Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's efforts to stabilize the financial system. The plan, however, should benefit both main street and Wall Street, he said.

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain ``looks forward'' to reviewing the proposal while focusing at least in part on ``minimizing the burden on the taxpayer,'' said Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for the McCain campaign.

Ban Legal Challenges
The ban on legal challenges of actions by Treasury is ``distasteful, it's unfortunate and it's bad precedent, but this is an emergency and you have to act,'' said Jerry Markham, a law professor at Florida State University and author of ``A Financial History of the United States.''

``What you don't want happen is to have lawsuits that will slow things down and cause problems,'' he said.

The proposal would raise the nation's debt ceiling to $11.315 trillion from $10.615 trillion and require the Treasury secretary to report back to Congress three months after Treasury first uses its new powers, and then semiannually after that.

Paulson would gain discretion to act as he ``deems necessary'' to hire people, enter into contracts and issue regulations related to a revival of U.S. mortgage finance, according to a three-page proposal. The Treasury would ``take into consideration'' protecting taxpayers and promoting market stability.

Hiring Authority
The Treasury plans to hire managers to purchase the assets through so-called reverse auctions, seeking the lowest prices, a person briefed on the proposal said yesterday. The document specifies that Treasury may buy only assets from U.S.-based financial institutions issued or originated on or before Sept. 17.

The House will pass legislation to implement the plan by the end of next week, and the Senate will act soon after, Frank said yesterday in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''

Bush today said he's unconcerned that the price tag on the package may seem high.

``I'm sure there are some of my friends out there that are saying, I thought this guy was a market guy, what happened to him,'' the president said. ``My first instinct was to let the market work, until I realized, while being briefed by the experts, how significant this problem became.''

The Bush administration seeks ``dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis,'' said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. ``We are taking a huge leap of faith.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washingtont ; John Brinsley in Washington at jbrinsley@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 20, 2008 21:14 EDT
__________________________________________________ ______________

The Truth Will OutPosted by
Joe Klein
September 20, 2008 10:50

Let it be recorded, as Paul Krugman and Josh Marshall have noted, that John McCain's various camouflages, smokescreens and flummeries regarding the subject of government regulation have been exposed in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Association Academy of Actuaries. Following the lead of his buddy, and probable Secretary of the Treasury, Phil Gramm, McCain has been a vehement deregulator. Here is the deathless quote:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Now, I believe politicians--and journalists, for that matter--should be allowed to change their positions, given new circumstances. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. But when a politician does change his or her position, the statement should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of a previous mistake: "I used to believe in the deregulation of banking and health care, but I was wrong about that." (This applies to Barack Obama on Iraq: "I was right to oppose the war and to favor a timetable for withdrawal of our troops, but I was wrong about the effect that counterinsurgency tactics would have on violence in Baghdad.")

One of the big differences between the old John McCain and the current edition is that the old one (1) would admit error and (2) would admit there were things he didn't know. That was a good part of his charm. The current edition--a parody of the worst sort of political flim-flam artist--not only lies about his own positions, but attempts to camouflage those lies by mischaracterizing his opponent's positions. It is appropriate, then, that the American Association Academy of Actuaries--a group devoted to the precise calculation of death rates--has exposed McCain's extravagant fraudulence of the past week for what it was.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_truth_will_out.html

http://www.buzzflash.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 03:01 PM

. . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles Times Editorial Says Election Should Not Be About Abortion, Other Issues Important To 'Values' Voters
22 Sep 2008
The "electorate would be the loser" if issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and the relationship between church and state "play as significant a role this year as they have in recent presidential races," a Los Angeles Times editorial says. According to the Times, the most "significant" difference between Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on social issues is on abortion rights -- McCain likely would appoint Supreme Court justices who "would rein in, or even reverse, Roe v. Wade," while Obama would "do the opposite."

McCain "energized" attendees of the Values Voters Summit -- an annual meeting of religious conservatives in Washington, D.C. -- by selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who opposes abortion rights "even in cases of rape and incest," as his vice presidential running mate, the editorial says. However, emphasizing abortion as a voting issue could be a "risky focus for McCain" that could "hurt his prospects by flaunting his pro-life position because many of the centrist women whose votes he covets are pro-choice," according to the Times.

Some of the attendees at the Values Voters Summit "hope that the 2008 election will be a referendum on 'values'-- as defined by them," the editorial says, adding, "We hope they're wrong. ... Decades of arguing about abortion, an issue that turns on matters of personal faith, have produced only tiny shifts in policy. Can we talk about something else this time?" (Los Angeles Times, 9/18).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/122272.php . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 03:32 PM

IIIIIIIIIII
Party Favors: Land Handouts Are a Gas
A late-term ploy by the Bush team and its consultants is giving oil and gas developers right-of-way on millions of acres of public land."

Keith Kloor
September 02 2008

"I just want you to know that I'm not here representing blm," archaeologist Blaine Miller reminds me as we drive along the coarsely graded road through central Utah's Nine Mile Canyon. Nestled into the rugged, sparsely populated Tavaputs Plateau, the canyon is a virtual museum of prehistoric art, with an estimated 10,000 images pecked and painted on its towering sandstone walls. I've come to view the dazzling millennium-old renderings of hunters, shamans, and animals before, as Miller fears, they vanish under a coating of dust and grime, thanks to decisions made by his superiors at the Bureau of Land Management, the Interior Department division that oversees some 262 million acres of federal land.

Miller has been with the bureau 33 years, but he hasn't worked on Nine Mile issues since 2004, the year he publicly griped that his bosses wouldn't let him adequately investigate a proposed gas-drilling project. Four years and some 200 wells later, this once-serene canyon has become an industrial corridor, and Miller, who wears large aviator glasses and speaks in a lazy cadence, is up in arms over a new blm-approved plan that would bring 600 more gas wells and up to 1,000 truck trips a day through Nine Mile. Although he's an expert on the canyon's history and the sole archaeologist in the bureau's local field office, Miller wasn't able to view his office's environmental impact statement for the drilling expansion prior to its public release in February, something Kevin Jones, Utah's state archaeologist, calls "incredible."

But Miller has agreed to meet with me as a "private citizen," and so we spend the day scrambling up to cliff ledges and examining art panels 100 feet above the valley floor—several as clear as the day they were etched, others barely recognizable. "I know this one is fading from all the dust, because I've seen it hundreds of times since 1982," Miller says, pointing to a faint image of figures with splayed hands, triangular bodies, and hunting bows. While his superiors discount his observations as "anecdotal," a recent blm-commissioned study concluded that dust raised by the trucks is indeed damaging the rock art. The Environmental Protection Agency also has raised concerns about the "physical integrity" of the art due to dust and unchecked ozone pollution in the canyon.

But what incenses Miller most is his office's new Tavaputs Plateau resource management plan, the master blueprint that dictates how the bureau will oversee the area for the next 15 to 20 years. Normally, these "rmps" take years to complete as myriad competing interests weigh in, but Interior has stamped as "time sensitive" nearly a dozen such plans in six resource-rich Western states—Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, and Alaska—and is rushing to finalize them before Bush leaves office.

Foes of the fast-tracking say it's a ploy to open federal lands to energy firms in a way the next president won't be able to undo. "There are so many deficiencies—the cultural resources get such short shrift—that the only viable alternative is to go back and start over," says archaeologist Jerry Spangler, who heads an antiquities preservation group in Utah.

Federal law stipulates that the blm thoughtfully balance land uses including recreation, grazing, environmental protection, and historic preservation. But the new, hastily completed plans stray far from this mandate. In Vernal, Utah, for example, the bureau knew it could save large swaths of prime habitat in the ecologically rich Uintah Basin by scaling back a proposed gas-drilling project from 6,342 wells to 6,117. "They had the science, all the info, to show that a 3 to 4 percent reduction would provide the most benefit to wildlife," says Wilderness Society lawyer Nada Culver. But the bureau went with the marginally bigger development.

Utah's six new rmps, covering more than 11 million acres, designate 16,000 miles of new roads for all-terrain vehicles, a change that could unleash atvs on seldom-traveled areas containing sensitive riparian corridors and archaeological sites. And, notes David Alberswerth, an adviser to the Wilderness Society, "Some of these plans make over 95 percent of the lands available for oil and gas development." The bureau is already on an energy binge: This spring in Wyoming, where studies blame expanded gas drilling for plummeting wildlife populations, it sold new drilling leases covering some 630,000 acres, a move conservationists say will destroy some of the state's last and richest sagebrush habitat. More sales are expected.

blm staffers attribute the problems, in part, to outsourcing. All of Utah's resource plans were researched by consultants—Tavaputs' and another plan for Colorado's Little Snake River region went to Booz Allen Hamilton, a gop-connected firm that also does intelligence work. Traditionally, rmps had been researched in-house, since field staffers are experts on local land issues, but the Bush Interior Department has farmed out dozens in energy-rich Western states. This worries Steve Madsen, a blm wildlife biologist based in Salt Lake City—especially, he points out, since the bureau determined several years ago that "some of the contractors weren't up to the task of doing a real analysis."

In Colorado, the blm's White River field office even let oil and gas companies pay for creation of an rmp "amendment" that paves the way for about 22,000 new gas wells. "That's a little weird," admits Archie Reeve, a wildlife biologist the bureau often hires for energy-related work. "That private interests would pay for it is really unusual. It would beg the question whether there is a conflict of interest." blm field office manager Kent Walter defends the deal. "If you look at the way the [agreement] is written, you'll see that we took extra lengths to make sure that industry has no special treatment," he says.

He'd be hard pressed to make that claim in Utah, where the outsourcing has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in consulting fees, and wildlife groups are preparing to take the bureau to court. "If they go forward as is," cautions Kristen Brengel, a Wilderness Society lobbyist, "these six plans will be money down the drain."

Keith Kloor teaches magazine writing at New York University. http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-party-favors.htmlAnd still no impeachment? Why not for heaven's sake? Too much work? Or is it that they fear losing funding from their main contributors? A whole lot of both I believe!

We need rid of Cheney and Bush once and for all. We can't afford any less.

They are a blight on all they come in contact with, that is all except their pet projects, a few of which are: Oil and Energy: Arms and Munnitions.

I find it unbelievable that there isn't a march on every state capital in the country, as well as on Washington D.C., with all of us demanding Cheney and Bush be impeached. That it didn't happen during the first term, is mind boggling, as they started their balogny even before 9/11. Remember the phony energy crisis? To let them finish out their terms without every law available to us being used to rid ourselves of them and to punish them is totally disgusting and not something I find easy to swallow.

To let this administration continue as they have and as they plan to, is utter insanity, if for no other reason it will errode any faith we might still have in our country. I keep looking for a reason to still believe in it, and it's becoming harder and harder with each passing day. Think promises of better things to come will stand a chance with Cheney and Bush still in power? With them not having suffered the consequences?

I don't care if it is only a hundred days or so that they have left, their are so destructive that we know the damage they're capable of in just the blink of an eye. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 03:33 PM

IIIIIIIIIII
Party Favors: Land Handouts Are a Gas
A late-term ploy by the Bush team and its consultants is giving oil and gas developers right-of-way on millions of acres of public land."

Keith Kloor
September 02 2008

"I just want you to know that I'm not here representing blm," archaeologist Blaine Miller reminds me as we drive along the coarsely graded road through central Utah's Nine Mile Canyon. Nestled into the rugged, sparsely populated Tavaputs Plateau, the canyon is a virtual museum of prehistoric art, with an estimated 10,000 images pecked and painted on its towering sandstone walls. I've come to view the dazzling millennium-old renderings of hunters, shamans, and animals before, as Miller fears, they vanish under a coating of dust and grime, thanks to decisions made by his superiors at the Bureau of Land Management, the Interior Department division that oversees some 262 million acres of federal land.

Miller has been with the bureau 33 years, but he hasn't worked on Nine Mile issues since 2004, the year he publicly griped that his bosses wouldn't let him adequately investigate a proposed gas-drilling project. Four years and some 200 wells later, this once-serene canyon has become an industrial corridor, and Miller, who wears large aviator glasses and speaks in a lazy cadence, is up in arms over a new blm-approved plan that would bring 600 more gas wells and up to 1,000 truck trips a day through Nine Mile. Although he's an expert on the canyon's history and the sole archaeologist in the bureau's local field office, Miller wasn't able to view his office's environmental impact statement for the drilling expansion prior to its public release in February, something Kevin Jones, Utah's state archaeologist, calls "incredible."

But Miller has agreed to meet with me as a "private citizen," and so we spend the day scrambling up to cliff ledges and examining art panels 100 feet above the valley floor—several as clear as the day they were etched, others barely recognizable. "I know this one is fading from all the dust, because I've seen it hundreds of times since 1982," Miller says, pointing to a faint image of figures with splayed hands, triangular bodies, and hunting bows. While his superiors discount his observations as "anecdotal," a recent blm-commissioned study concluded that dust raised by the trucks is indeed damaging the rock art. The Environmental Protection Agency also has raised concerns about the "physical integrity" of the art due to dust and unchecked ozone pollution in the canyon.

But what incenses Miller most is his office's new Tavaputs Plateau resource management plan, the master blueprint that dictates how the bureau will oversee the area for the next 15 to 20 years. Normally, these "rmps" take years to complete as myriad competing interests weigh in, but Interior has stamped as "time sensitive" nearly a dozen such plans in six resource-rich Western states—Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, and Alaska—and is rushing to finalize them before Bush leaves office.

Foes of the fast-tracking say it's a ploy to open federal lands to energy firms in a way the next president won't be able to undo. "There are so many deficiencies—the cultural resources get such short shrift—that the only viable alternative is to go back and start over," says archaeologist Jerry Spangler, who heads an antiquities preservation group in Utah.

Federal law stipulates that the blm thoughtfully balance land uses including recreation, grazing, environmental protection, and historic preservation. But the new, hastily completed plans stray far from this mandate. In Vernal, Utah, for example, the bureau knew it could save large swaths of prime habitat in the ecologically rich Uintah Basin by scaling back a proposed gas-drilling project from 6,342 wells to 6,117. "They had the science, all the info, to show that a 3 to 4 percent reduction would provide the most benefit to wildlife," says Wilderness Society lawyer Nada Culver. But the bureau went with the marginally bigger development.

Utah's six new rmps, covering more than 11 million acres, designate 16,000 miles of new roads for all-terrain vehicles, a change that could unleash atvs on seldom-traveled areas containing sensitive riparian corridors and archaeological sites. And, notes David Alberswerth, an adviser to the Wilderness Society, "Some of these plans make over 95 percent of the lands available for oil and gas development." The bureau is already on an energy binge: This spring in Wyoming, where studies blame expanded gas drilling for plummeting wildlife populations, it sold new drilling leases covering some 630,000 acres, a move conservationists say will destroy some of the state's last and richest sagebrush habitat. More sales are expected.

blm staffers attribute the problems, in part, to outsourcing. All of Utah's resource plans were researched by consultants—Tavaputs' and another plan for Colorado's Little Snake River region went to Booz Allen Hamilton, a gop-connected firm that also does intelligence work. Traditionally, rmps had been researched in-house, since field staffers are experts on local land issues, but the Bush Interior Department has farmed out dozens in energy-rich Western states. This worries Steve Madsen, a blm wildlife biologist based in Salt Lake City—especially, he points out, since the bureau determined several years ago that "some of the contractors weren't up to the task of doing a real analysis."

In Colorado, the blm's White River field office even let oil and gas companies pay for creation of an rmp "amendment" that paves the way for about 22,000 new gas wells. "That's a little weird," admits Archie Reeve, a wildlife biologist the bureau often hires for energy-related work. "That private interests would pay for it is really unusual. It would beg the question whether there is a conflict of interest." blm field office manager Kent Walter defends the deal. "If you look at the way the [agreement] is written, you'll see that we took extra lengths to make sure that industry has no special treatment," he says.

He'd be hard pressed to make that claim in Utah, where the outsourcing has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in consulting fees, and wildlife groups are preparing to take the bureau to court. "If they go forward as is," cautions Kristen Brengel, a Wilderness Society lobbyist, "these six plans will be money down the drain."

Keith Kloor teaches magazine writing at New York University. http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-party-favors.htmlAnd still no impeachment? Why not for heaven's sake? Too much work? Or is it that they fear losing funding from their main contributors? A whole lot of both I believe!

We need rid of Cheney and Bush once and for all. We can't afford any less.

They are a blight on all they come in contact with, that is all except their pet projects, a few of which are: Oil and Energy: Arms and Munitions.

I find it unbelievable that there isn't a march on every state capital in the country, as well as on Washington D.C., with all of us demanding Cheney and Bush be impeached. That it didn't happen during the first term, is mind boggling, as they started their balogny even before 9/11. Remember the phony energy crisis? To let them finish out their terms without every law available to us being used to rid ourselves of them and to punish them is totally disgusting and not something I find easy to swallow.

To let this administration continue as they have and as they plan to, is utter insanity, if for no other reason it will errode any faith we might still have in our country. I keep looking for a reason to still believe in it, and it's becoming harder and harder with each passing day. Think promises of better things to come will stand a chance with Cheney and Bush still in power? With them not having suffered the consequences?

I don't care if it is only a hundred days or so that they have left, they're so destructive that we know the damage they're capable of in just the blink of an eye. SRH IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 04:00 PM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mushroom Cloud over Wall Street By
Mike Whitney
"One bank to rule them all;
One bank to bind them..."
. . . . . . . .
21/090/08 "ICH " -- - These are dark times. While you were sleeping the cockroaches were busy about their work, rummaging through the US Constitution, and putting the finishing touches on a scheme to assert absolute power over the nation's financial markets and the country's economic future. Industry representative Henry Paulson has submitted legislation to congress that will finally end the pretense that Bush controls anything more than reading the lines from a 4' by 6' teleprompter situated just inches from his lifeless pupils. Paulson is in charge now, and the coronation is set for sometime early next week. He rose to power in a stealthily-executed Bankster's Coup in which he, and his coterie of dodgy friends, declared martial law on the US economy while elevating himself to supreme leader.

"All Hail Caesar!" The days of the republic are over.

Section 8 of the proposed legislation says it all:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Right; "non-reviewable" supremacy.

Congress, of course, is more than eager to abdicate whatever little authority they have left. They're infinitely grateful for their purely ceremonial role, the equivalent of Caligula's horse, albeit, with considerably less dignity. Has even one senator spoken out against this madness, which--according to informal internet polls--is resoundingly rejected by the voters? Does it concern the members of congress at all, that the present financial crisis was brought on by the proliferation and sale of trillions of dollars of mortgage-banked garbage which were fraudulently represented as Triple A rated bonds by the very same people who now claim to need unprecedented and dictatorial powers to fix the problem? Or are they more worried that the steady torrent of contributions which flows from Wall Street to congressional campaign coffers will be inconveniently disrupted if they fail to ratify this latest assault on democratic governance? The House of Representatives is one big steaming dungheap that should be leveled and turned into an amusement park instead of a taxpayer-funded knocking shop. What a pathetic collection of cowards and scumbags.

Bloomberg News: "

"The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets. Through his plan, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson aims to avert a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and the world's largest economy to a standstill. The bill would prevent courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.

"He's asking for a huge amount of power,'' said Nouriel Roubini an economist at New York University. ``He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy." (Bloomberg)

The banksters own this country, always have; only now they've decided to strip away the curtain and reveal the ghoulish visage of the puppet-master. It ain't pretty.

Paulson decided that the financial markets needed an emergency trillion dollar face-lift just weeks before his former business partners at G-Sax were dragged off to the chopping block. Was that the reason? Everyone on Wall Street knew that the bulls-eye had already been ripped from Lehman's bloody back and was about to be fastened on Goldman's. Now, it looks like they will escape their day of reckoning due to Paulson's eleventh-hour reprieve. Nice touch, eh?

From the proposed legislation: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY
TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

"(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them."

Market Ticker's Karl Denninger summed this up best:

"This is the de facto nationalization of the entire banking, insurance and related financial system..That's right - every bank and other financial institution in the United States has just become a de-facto organ of the United States Government, if Hank Paulson thinks they should be, and he may order them to do virtually anything that he claims is in furtherance of this act.....The bill gives Paulson the ability to nationalize unlimited amount of private debt and force you and your children to pay for it."

Denninger again:

"The claim is that this is intended to 'promote confidence and stability' in the financial markets.
It will do no such thing. It will instead strike terror into the hearts of investors worldwide who hold any sort of paper, whether it be preferred stock, common stock or debt, in any financial entity that happens to be domiciled in the United States, never mind the potential impact on Treasury yields and the United States sovereign credit rating.

I predict that if this passes it will precipitate the mother and father of all financial panics." (Market Ticker)

Amen. The transformation from a free market to a centralized, Soviet-style economy run by men whose judgment and credibility is already greatly in doubt; does not auger well for the markets or the country. Anyone with a lick of sense would cash in their chips first thing Monday and look for capital's Elysium Fields overseas or as far as possible from the circus sideshow now run by G-Sax ringleader, Colonel Klink.

Paulson's Chicken Little routine might might have soiled a few senatorial undergarments, but let's hope the American people are made of sterner stuff and will reject this charade. The conversation should be shifted from conceding more authority to hucksters in pin-stripes to indictments for securities fraud. Even the most economically-challenged nation ought to be able to afford a few sets of leg-irons and a couple hundred jail cells. That's all it will take. That, and a couple brisk dunks on the waterboard. Glub, glub.

Paulson's plan to revive the banking system by buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of illiquid mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and other equally poisonous debt-instruments; ignores the fact these complex bonds have already been "marked to market" in the recent firesale by Merrill Lynch. Just weeks ago, Merrill sold $31 billion of these CDOs for roughly $.20 on the dollar and provided 75 percent of the financing, which means that the CDOs were really worth approximately $.06 on the dollar. If this is the settlement that Paulson has in mind, than the taxpayer will be well served. But this will not recapitalize the banks balance sheets or mop up the ocean of red ink which is flooding the financial system. No, Paulson intends to hand out lavish treats to his banker buddies, while interest rates soar, pension funds collapse, the housing market crashes, and the dollar does a last, looping swan-dive into a pool of molten lava. Thanks, Hank.

Economist and author Henry Liu summarized the current maneuvering like this: "The Fed is merely trying to inject money to keep prices not supported by fundamentals from falling. It is a prescription for hyperinflation. The only way to keep price of worthless assets high is to lower the value of money. And that appears to be the Fed unspoken strategy."

Indeed. The Fed and Treasury have decided to backstop the entire global financial system (foreign banks can access the Fed's facilities, too!) with paper money which is rapidly losing its value. Watch the greenback tumble tomorrow in currency trading.

Congress is getting steamrolled and the American people are getting snookered. Consumer confidence--already at historic lows--is headed for the wood-chipper feet-first. Something has got to give.

One minute everything is hunky-dory; the subprime meltdown is "contained" and "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".(Paulson) And, less than a week later, congress is forced to surrender their constitutionally-mandated right to oversee spending in order to forestall economic Armageddon. Which is it? Or is the real objective just to keep the country on an emotional teeter-totter long enough for all state-power to be subsumed by the Wall Street Politburo?

No one knows what will happen next. We are in uncharted waters. And no one knows what the political landscape will look like after the dust settles from this outrageous power grab. According to Paulson, things are so dire, the entire nation will be reduced to smoldering rubble and twisted iron. But can we trust him this time after his long litany of lies?

Isn't it about time to send the cockroaches scuttling back to their hideouts and bring in the cleaning crew to hose the whole place down? It sounds like a job for Ralph Nader, a man of vision and unshakable integrity. Give Ralph a badge and let him deploy his Raiders to Wall Street armed with bullwhips and tasers. Let them post a guard in every CEOs and CFOs office and every boardroom on the Street---and if even one decimal is accidentally moved to the right or left on the corporate ledger; clap them in leg-irons and drag them off squealing to Guantanamo. That's how you clean up Wall Street!

Don't let the prospect of a national crisis trick you into giving up your freedom, America. The people behind this scam are the same landsharks and flim-flam men who polluted the global marketplace with their snake oil and toxic sludge. These are the fraudsters who manufactured the crisis to begin with. This is just the latest installment of the Shock Doctrine; engineer a crisis, and then, steal whatever is left behind. Same sh**, different day. Be resolute. Don't budge. Our economic foundations may be crumbling, but or determination is not. This is our country, not Goldman Sach's. The people who destroyed America must be held to account. Their time is coming. Justice first. Go on-site to gain access to this article by clicking on the following URL"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
IIIIIIIII

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 04:10 PM

~~~~~~~
"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget. "

Arundhati Roy
~~~
"The chains of military despotism once fastened upon a nation, ages might pass away before they could be shaken off."

William Henry Harrison
American 9th US president (1841)
1773-1841
~~~
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . 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."

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln
Nov. 21, 1864 -
Letter to Col. William F. Elkins
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia
Archer H. Shaw
Macmillan, 1950, NY
~~~
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience... therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal
1950 [I]~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 04:47 PM

~~~
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "

1,267,401"http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html~~~~~~~
Number of U.S. MilitaryPersonnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged)
In America'sWar On Iraq 4,168
http://icasualties.org/oif/ ~~~~~~~The War And Occupation Of Iraq Costs

$556,108,244,812
~~~
See the cost in your community
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
~~~~~~~ "The chains of military despotism once fastened upon a nation, ages might pass away before they could be shaken off."

William Henry Harrison
American 9th US president
1841). 1773-1841 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4971.htm . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 22nd, 2008, 07:09 PM

. . . . . . . . . . .
Read The Seattle Times editorial endorsing Obama
The Seatle Times on Sunday became the first major U.S. paper to endorse Barack Obama for president. Read what the paper had to say.
:clap: :thewave :clap:
Barack Obama
Sunday, September 21, 2008 - Page updated at 09:44 AM
Barack Obama for president
An economic Katrina is shattering the confidence of hardworking, middle-class Americans. The war that should never have been in Iraq is dragging on too long. At a time of huge challenge, the candidate with the intelligence, temperament and judgment to lead our nation to a better place is Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama should be the next president of the United States because he is the most qualified change agent. Obama is a little young, but also brilliant. If he sometimes seems brainy and professorial, that's OK. We need the leader of the free world to think things through, carefully. We have seen the sorry results of shooting from the hip.

As our country lurches from one financial or energy crisis to the next, American taxpayers remain burdened with the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan — to the tune of $12 billion a month.

Consider the banking and financial morass. Neither Obama nor his opponent, Sen. John McCain, offers a perfect solution. But McCain is all over the map, veering from statements such as "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" to the more obvious "Wall Street is threatened by greed."

McCain is at heart a deregulator. But it is the hands-off and ineffective federal regulatory system that allowed this mess to fester. Obama offered a more coherent approach months ago when he called for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds and streamlining overlapping regulatory agencies.

Our country is on the wrong track. Average, middle-class citizens have lost confidence that if they work hard, they can improve their lives, afford to send their kids to college and not be tossed out of their homes.

American optimism has been wracked by President George Bush and a previous Republican Congress. If you want change, you do not keep what is essentially the same team in power. You try something different. You vote for the stronger matchup, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, a smart and steady hand on foreign policy and other matters.

On the issues:

• The economy: The Good Ship America is listing in turbulent waters. Sinking mortgage and banking institutions are wreaking havoc at home and abroad. The problem is in the private sector, but it has been made worse by a federal policy favoring big corporations. The Bush administration has not regulated these companies effectively or done what it takes to curb their wants.

Obama understands this better than McCain and makes clear he would do more to correct it. Obama's assistance to the middle class in the form of tax cuts and college-tuition breaks is a centerpiece of his campaign.

• Energy: The energy crisis is zapping our economic well-being. What does McCain want to do? "Drill, baby, drill," to quote the mindless chant at the Republican National Convention. That is not an energy policy. It is a cheap, shortsighted slogan.

Obama has a coherent plan that includes some drilling, as a stopgap, but he looks to a mix of renewable resources. He is more likely to move America off its dependence on foreign oil. McCain has been in office for 26 years and done little to change this dynamic.

• The Iraq war: Many Americans will cast their vote on this one issue alone. Past performance is the best indicator of future conduct. Obama opposed the war, McCain supported it full-bore. Obama has a plan for moving the troops out; McCain seeks "victory," whatever that actually means. The net effect will be more time and money wasted in a country that did not participate in 9/11.

Afghanistan harbors the key culprits, and the situation there is worse than it has been in eight years. Afghanistan is where our bigger effort should be, as Obama has articulated.

• Education: Obama is more practical than ideological on education. He wants merit pay for good teachers and extra training or firing for lousy ones. He wants to double federal funding for charter schools, but not in a way that cuts into the heart of public schools. Obama recently gave a major speech on education. McCain is too low-key on an important issue.

On numerous other issues, from media consolidation to health care, Obama has the stronger take. He makes up for a thin résumé with integrity, judgment and fresh ideas. Obama can get America moving forward again.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.mcclatchy.com
:clap: . . . :clap: . . . :clap: . . . :clap: . . . :clap:

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 10:55 AM

............. Hammering Home the Keating Five Message
By
David Sirota
9/23/08

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093923/hammering-home-keating-five-message
Campaign for America's Future,
I went on Fox News on Monday to discuss the financial meltdown. After
taking a sober look at the bipartisan nature of Wall Street
deregulation, I forced the discussion to focus on John McCain's
Keating Five past. It was actually a pretty incredible debate. You
can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9tHEUJOyn4Both the Fox News anchor and the GOP spokesman basically freaked out in a desperate attempt to hide the undebatable fact that McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for intimidating regulators on
behalf of one of his biggest campaign donors, Charles Keating.

Just for historical reference, here is the CBS News on 3/23/08:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/politics/main3964240.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3964240
"In his early days as a freshman senator, McCain was known for
accepting contributions from Charles Keating Jr., flying to the
banker's home in the Bahamas on company planes and taking up
Keating's cause with U.S. financial regulators as they investigated
him...Keating and his associates raised $1.3 million combined for the
campaigns and political causes of all five. McCain's campaigns
received $112,000. The investigation ended in early 1991 with a
rebuke that McCain 'exercised poor judgment in intervening with the
regulators.'"

Now it's true, the Ethics committee didn't go farther than that. But
to try to deny that McCain's formative economic experience was
intimidating banking regulators - and that he was rebuked for doing
that - is trying to perpetrate a fraud on the American people.

Judging by the reaction of both the Fox News anchor and the GOP
spokesperson, the conservative Establishment sees the Keating Five
issue as a major weak point, which is one of the reasons I hammered
it home (the other being that McCain's behavior during the S&L crisis
is very important considering the current crisis is very similar). As
you can see, I didn't relent on making sure that the facts got out in
this interview, and I've been pounding away at the issue everywhere I
can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX78DQaU0_o
I hope every branch of the progressive movement similarly forces the
issue into the presidential debate.

To update your preferences visit
http://davidsirota.com/list/?p=preferences&uid=6ae828830b19248dd8387e94fe93fddc
To forward this message to a friend visit
http://davidsirota.com/list/?p=forward&uid=6ae828830b19248dd8387e94fe93fddc&mid=1662
...................

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 01:34 PM

$$$$$$$
Gingrich urges vote against 'stupid' Paulson plan By
Sam Youngman
Posted: 09/23/08
01:47 PM [ET]
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that any lawmaker who votes for the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout package, which he called a “dead loser,” will face defeat in November.
Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he thinks Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is trying to scare lawmakers into passing the bailout plan quickly and without thorough study.

“I think what Paulson hopes to do is say, ‘If you don’t do exactly what I want you to do, the whole world’s going to collapse on Tuesday’,” Gingrich said.

The former Speaker, talking to reporters at a lunch, added that he expects Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) to back the plan. He predicted that, if Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) ends up opposing the administration proposal, there will be an overnight “emergence of a McCain/reform wing of the Republican Party.”

Gingrich said that occurrence would turn the election on its head, with Republicans running ads that feature Obama with President Bush on the same team in pushing for a “nightmare” bailout plan.

The former Speaker said that by November, the flaws in the plan will be apparent, and voters will “break against anyone who votes for it.”

Gingrich said he came out against Paulson's plan after looking at the absence of specifics and the focus the plan puts on giving such an enormous amount of money to the federal bureaucracy.

“I thought if [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin had written that, I’d understand it,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich predicted that, if the plan does not pass through Congress by Friday night, it will fail because the weekend will give Republican lawmakers and voters enough time to look at the plan that they will come to oppose it.http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gingrich-urges-vote-against-stupid-paulson-plan-2008-09-23.html
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 04:24 PM

.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 Things You Should Know About Bush's Trillion Dollar Fleecing Plan
By
AlterNet Staff,
AlterNet
Posted on September 23, 2008,
Printed on September 23, 2008
[INDENT]http://www.alternet.org/story/99876/
The Bush administration's proposal to bail out some of Wall Street's biggest players with an unprecedented transfer of public wealth to the private sector sent shock-waves throughout the nation.

Already deep in deficit, the administration wants to borrow $700 billion dollars -- in addition to the $900 billion already spent this year to prop up troubled lending institutions and deal with the fall-out from the housing crisis -- and entrust it to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, fresh from a long run on Wall Street himself. He'd then buy up worthless paper from struggling banks.

Who would get the money? Nobody knows. Paulson says he wants to hire Wall Street firms to oversee the process.

Under Bush's plan, the taxpayer would get little, if anything, in return. The whole thing would happen without Congressional oversight, save for a semi-annual report on the process, and Paulson's actions would be beyond challenge in the courts.

It is an economic coup d'etat in the making. And people are talking about little else. Here's 10 things that have been on our radars ...

1. Shock Doctrine: Profiting from Crisis

Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future invokes Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine in asking whether we're going to "get fleeced in this crisis" ...

Call it extortion. Every American is told to ante up $2,000--an estimated $700 billion in all--to bail out the banks from their bad bets, or they'll bring down the entire economy.

In a speculative frenzy that allowed the Masters of the Universe to pocket millions personally, the banks filled their coffers with toxic paper that no one wants to buy. Now they sensibly don't want to lend money to each other, since no one knows if the other is solvent. So they go on strike, and threaten to trigger a global depression, if they don't get rescued.

The bailout will happen simply to avoid that depression. But depressions have some salutary effects - the scoundrels go belly up, the weakest get purged, and in the wake of the disaster, people demand strict regulation of the money lenders to keep their greed and predatory behavior in check, and government spends money on the real economy to put people back to work.

2. Has a "Consensus" Really Formed Around the Idea That Something Must Be Done?

Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press reports that "economists" -- implying, troublingly, all economists -- see the Bush Bailout as "Necessary."

But Atrios -- economist Duncan Black's blog handle -- has some questions about how everyone got on the same page so quickly ...

It's fascinating to watch how easily consensus is manufactured. A few days ago elite opinion seemed to be cheering Paulson's "no bailout" line, and now they're cheering a trillion bucks thrown down the crapper ...

It's unrealistic to imagine that I'd be able to really get enough honest information to have an informed opinion, but I spent some time thinking about what question all the Very Serious People should, at a minimum, want answered before they start cheering on [any] plans. This is what I came up with:

What changed between Monday and Friday? What new information did you have at the end of the week that you did not have at the beginning of the week which caused you to go from $0 to $1 trillion?

And, no, tumbling stock prices or babble about "deteriorating credit conditions" don't count.

3. Is This Even Legal?

The Constitutionality of the plan is being hotly debated, according to Frank James, writing on the Chicago Trib's blog:

Troubling to many critics is the breathtaking extraconstitutionality of the proposal which would give the Treasury secretary unusual powers that couldn't be countermanded by Congress or the courts.

That appears on its face to violate the Constitution's assertion of a balance of powers where no one branch is unchecked by the others.

James goes on to quote Alan Blinder, "former Federal Reserve vice chair and normally a mild-mannered, live-and-let-live Princeton University economics professor," who said Paulson should be booted out of office for his proposal ...

"I'm speaking now as one of the earliest advocates of creating an institution like this, many, many months ago. And it's a crying shame to see the way the Treasury has written this. I think the secretary of the Treasury should be dismissed, frankly. ... Asking for the authority to buy anything, with no review, with no court review, with no limits practically as to quantity or scope, with almost no congressional oversight. We have something more precious at stake than our precious financial system and that's our precious Constitution. And frankly, if I were a member of Congress, having advocated for this for nine or ten months, I would vote against this unless it's changed, dramatically..."

What's Blinder talking about? Section 8 of the draft legislation released on Saturday reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sounds pretty like some pretty unbalanced powers to us.

And who'd be the new Emperor of the U.S. economy? McClatchy's Kevin Hall explains:

Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today's financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department.

With Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn't come with enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to approve the administration's draft legislation that would leave to Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to hire to help him do so.

4. Some Lawmakers Are Angry

The reality is that there's less than a consensus that the "Paulson" plan is the way to go. Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller quotes an angry but (safely) anonymous Democratic Representative venting some spleen ...

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

5. Opposition Across the Political Spectrum

And the New York Times' Paul Krugman's not sure if it'll work ...

So, here's my problem: what we have now are a bunch of financial institutions in trouble, because they're highly leveraged, and have mortgage-related assets on their books. And they can't raise cash because nobody wants to buy those assets. The Paulson plan will in effect create a market for toxic paper, thereby supposedly unfreezing the markets.

But what if the institutions are fundamentally broke, even if the liquidity squeeze is relieved? ...

...Suppose that Hank Paulson does his reverse auction, and it turns out that the Treasury's price for toxic waste is 40 cents on the dollar. Even so, still underwater. So what does Treasury do then?

One answer, I suppose, is that we think that there aren't too many firms in that position -- and that those that will still fail, even with the Paulson Plan, aren't going to disrupt the markets too much when they go down. But do we know that?

In a subsequent column, Krugman says that he agrees that doing something to prop up the financial sector is necessary, but he opposes the "blank check" -- the lack of oversight built into the plan. In a rare instance, William Kristol agrees with Krugman. After saying that this is no time for ideological devotion to the "free markets," Kristol asks ...

...is the administration's proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for -- or even promises of -- disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I've been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I've spoken with who aren't at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right -- or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

6. Do Joe and Jane Tax-Payer Really Have to Foot the Bill?

There's lot's of talk about how the legislation can be improved if it is passed. The WaPo's Sebastian Mallaby thinks it unnecessary to use public dollars to boost ailing banks' liquidity:

Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.

7. What Would a More Progressive Bailout Look Like?

Economist Dean Baker offers up some "Progressive Conditions for a Bailout" at TPM:

Principles to Guide the Bailout

1) Financial institutions should be forced to endure the bulk of the losses with taxpayer funds only used where absolutely necessary to sustain the orderly operation of the financial system.

2) The bailout must be designed to minimize the opportunity for gaming.

3) The bailout should be designed to minimize moral hazard.

4) In the case of delinquent mortgages that come into the government's possession, there should be an effort to work out an arrangement that allows the homeowner to remain in her house as owner. If this proves impossible, then former homeowners should be allowed to remain in their homes as renters paying the market rent. This should be done even if it leads to losses to the government.

5) There should be serious efforts to severely restrict executive compensation at any companies that directly benefit from the bailout.
He also offers up some ideas for restructuring the financial system so, as they say, read the rest.

8. Could the Plan Get Better Through Negotiation?

It appears to us that the first draft of the bill was so extreme, that it veered so far towards Mussolini's definition of fascism -- a perfect blend of state and corporate power -- that it was intended as a starting point from which the administration could offer its opponents some concessions and still end up with something that's terrible for Main Street.

Along those lines, the Wall Street Journal reports ...

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Monday, "we will not simply hand over a $700-billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome." But we've heard that before ... we'll see.

Of course, there is a chance that a wave of resistance coming from across the political spectrum could stop the deal, or that it might get mired in partisan bickering -- sometimes "gridlock" is good.

[B]9. Foreign Banks Can Cash in Too

Or perhaps the fact that U.S. tax-payers look like they might also end up bailing out foreign banks will end up being a fly in the ointment.

Now, the U.S. bailout looks as if it is going global, too, a move that could raise its cost and intensify scrutiny by Congress and critics.

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic U.S. mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as U.S. banks.

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson indicated in a series of appearances on TV talk shows that an original proposal introduced Saturday had been widened. "It's a distinction without a difference whether it's a foreign or a U.S. one," he said in an interview with Fox News.

He's right, in a way. There are no U.S. or foreign mega-banks -- just multinational financial institutions with headquarters at home or somewhere abroad. If one accepts the logic of the plan at all, it might as well extend to multinationals with foreign-sounding names. The rabbit hole is only so deep, and we're already way down it.

10. Is This Signaling a Decline in American Power?
According to Reuters, this all seems to be making the Chinese think that a A Different World is Possible ...

Threatened by a "financial tsunami," the world must consider building a financial order no longer depend
ent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday.

The commentary in the overseas edition of the People's Daily said the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., "may augur an even larger impending global 'financial tsunami'."

"The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States' financial oversight and supervision," writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun.

"The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States."

Also, the Markets Reaction ...

A lot of people expected the markets to respond positively to the bailout plan, at least over the short-run, but they, too had a thing or two to say on Monday ...

Stock prices and the dollar plunged today -- and oil and other commodities soared -- on growing anxiety about the effect of the government's proposed $700-billion rescue of the financial system.

The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 372.75 points, or 3.3%, to 11,015.69, erasing the index's 368-point gain Friday. The Standard & Poor's 500 index lost 3.8%, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 4.2%.

It was the Dow's sixth triple-digit increase or decrease in a row, and its fifth 350-point-plus move in six trading days.

Some investors who pulled money out of stocks poured it into commodities.

Oil futures shot up $16.37 a barrel to settle at $120.92 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after spiking as high as $130 in the last hour of trading. An index of 19 major commodities soared 3.9%.

The dollar posted its biggest decline on record against the nearly decade-old euro, and yields on Treasury bonds rose over concerns about the large amount of new debt that the government could take on to fund the bailout plan.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute.
All rights reserved.
View this story online at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/99876/
[INDENT]Go onsite to view any links if provided and to access other topical issues. There's even a campaign button or two. They can't keep the Polar Bears for Obama/Biden in stock, they keep selling out. SRH
http://www.buzzflash.com~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 04:42 PM

~~~~~~~
"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . .. by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :

From Milton Mayer
They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1938-45
(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
1955)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11845.htm
~~~
"Our real enemies are the people who make us feel so good that we are slowly, but inexorably, pulled down into the quicksand of smugness and self-satisfaction."

Sydney Harris ~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 07:34 PM

. . . . . . . . . Mother Jones
DEBATE BINGO
We know what Mother Jones would ask if we were running the debate on Friday.
Join us
Follow along as we live blog the debate on Friday and provide the kind of commentary and questions that will keep you informed (and even entertained).

Play along at home with Mother Jones Debate '08 Buzzword Bingo. We know what questions we'd like to hear at the debate but here's a list of what we're more likely to hear. Play along: if we're right then bottoms up. If we're wrong, well maybe we've won a bigger prize.
Join us for the debate - click here! (I believe you have to buy into this event. SRH)
https://secure.ga3.org/03/WS08D1A
Mother Jones

DEBATES
Greetings,

In a few short days, McCain and Obama will face off in the first debate of the presidential campaign. The question is...well, the questions.

Will the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, ask the two Senators the hard questions? Like, "Should we really be sending troops into Pakistan without authorization?" Or, "If you could kill one major weapons system, what would it be?"

Asking the hard questions of our candidates this year is pretty damn critical. Will Jim Lehrer do the job? It's anyone's guess. What I can tell you is that I WILL ask the hard questions, just as Mother Jones has been doing for more than 30 years. And I'll be doing it live on our blog on the 26th beginning at 6:00 PM (PDT). For those of you who'd like to play along at home, we've put together the Mother Jones Debate '08 Buzzword Bingo. Print it out and play to win!

I'm doing all of this for two reasons: First, it's my job. Second, I'm kicking off a campaign for Mother Jones that will last through debate season. Because when it comes to asking questions of our leaders every day—not just during the election—you can count on Mother Jones.

And Mother Jones counts on you. Especially right now, when we're producing in-depth, up-to-the-minute coverage of the elections with investigative stories you'll find nowhere else. Real independent journalism ain't cheap, and we need your support to keep it up.

You see, unless you're, say, People, subscriptions just don't keep a publication like ours afloat. You do. Your contributions to Mother Jones are the fuel that keeps the lights on, the blogs live, the journalists digging, and the questions asked. And that's never been more important than it is right now. As a journalist covering politics daily, the role of the media just can't be overestimated this year. And in particular, the role of a publication that is as brave and unrelenting as Mother Jones has never been more important. I'm proud to work here.

So join us for blogs, bingo, and the debate this Friday.

https://secure.ga3.org/03/WS08D1A

You can wait 'til then to make your contribution if you like, but why? Every single day matters, and every little bit helps. Thank you in advance. See you Friday.

Sincerely,

Kevin Drum
Mother Jones
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 23rd, 2008, 07:50 PM

IIIIIII IIIIIIIPoll: Voters prefer McCain on security, Obama on economySteven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: September 23, 2008 08:34:23 PM
WASHINGTON — John McCain approaches his first debate with Barack Obama with a decided advantage among voters on the issues of national security and foreign policy, the subjects of their showdown Friday night, according to a new Ipsos-McClatchy poll.

McCain is at a disadvantage with voters, however, on the issues of jobs and the economy, where Obama is viewed as stronger. With the country's financial system in crisis, those concerns are dominating voters' minds by a large margin, the poll found.

Yet neither candidate had an advantage on the crisis in the mortgage and financial system; voters split almost evenly over which one was best suited to manage the mess. Neither had majority support. McCain was judged "qualified" to resolve the crisis by 46 percent of registered voters and Obama by 45 percent.

The net effect: The two men remain neck and neck for the third week in a row. Obama was supported by 44 percent of registered voters, McCain by 43 percent. The poll of registered voters had an error margin of 3.2 percentage points. It was taken from Thursday through Monday.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr each were supported by 2 percent. Another 5 percent supported none of the four, and 4 percent said they didn't know whom they supported.

"Republicans have historically done better on the issues of national security and foreign policy," said Clifford Young, a senior vice president at Ipsos Public Affairs, which conducted the poll of 923 registered voters nationwide.

"But the key issue, the 1,000-pound gorilla in the room, is the economy. And Obama is trending better on that. That could be indicative of things to come."

The poll was conducted days before McCain and Obama face off for the first of three one-on-one debates. Friday's event, a 90-minute debate devoted to foreign policy and national security, will be at the University of Mississippi and televised nationally starting at 9 p.m. EDT.

Their second debate, on Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., will be a town-hall format covering domestic and foreign-policy questions.

The third, on Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., will focus on domestic issues and the economy.

The only vice-presidential debate will be Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis.

Overall, 36 percent of voters ranked jobs and the economy their top concern, followed by 16 percent saying national security, 12 percent leadership, 9 percent change, 8 percent health care, 8 percent family values, 5 percent foreign policy and 2 percent taxes.

Voters preferred McCain over Obama on national security by 60-32 percent. They preferred McCain over Obama on foreign policy by 53-39 percent, and they give McCain the nod on leadership by 50-42 percent.

Voters said their top issue now is jobs and the economy, however, and they preferred Obama over McCain to handle that by 48-40 percent.

Subgroups that were more likely to side with Obama as stronger on jobs and the economy include 18- to 34-year-olds, who break 59-31 percent for Obama over McCain; those in households that make less than $25,000 a year, who break 56-34 percent for Obama over McCain; Hispanics, who break 64-28 percent in Obama's favor; and non-Hispanic blacks, who tilt to Obama by 88-9 percent on this issue.

McCain is seen as stronger than Obama on jobs and the economy by Southerners, 49-41 percent, and non-Hispanic whites, by 48-39 percent.

Overall, registered voters see Obama as representing change more than McCain by 57-32. And they prefer Obama over McCain to handle health care by 50-36 percent.

In a bit of a surprise, voters say Obama is stronger than McCain on taxes by 47-41 percent. Obama would cut taxes for most taxpayers in part by extending the Bush tax cuts for most people, but he'd raise taxes for those who make more than $200,000. McCain would make the expiring Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers.

METHODOLOGY
These are some of the findings of an Ipsos poll conducted Thursday through Monday. For the survey, Ipsos interviewed a nationally representative, randomly selected sample of 1,068 adults across the United States. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would've been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled. Within this sample, Ipsos interviewed 923 respondents who identified themselves as registered voters. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. All numbers in the news story reflect the survey of registered voters only. The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the U.S. population according to U.S. Census figures. Interviews were conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish.

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY Go on-site to gain access to "MORE". Just click on the URL.
Obama concedes bailout costs may force him to adjust plans

McCain, Obama health vetting the result of Eagleton fiasco

Poll: Obama, McCain supporters agree on alternative energy

Check out McClatchy's expanded politics coverage

McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/52984.html
Had John F. Kennedy listened to his military and other seasoned advisors the Cuban missile crisis could have exploded into a full blown war. Truly.

Frankly, a country which is strong economically, one led by those with a country's best interests at heart, not by front men for the worlds largest corporations, is safer and more secure. My belief anyway. Finances are key it's said. That, and a level head; a love of country, not all puffed up with their own overwhelming hubris.

The game playing and unbridled greed by those in seats of power have put us in a precarious position and whomever wins this election had best be prepared to do our work; working for the betterment of our country and it's people, not just their crony's in the back rooms. If they don't, we all will suffer enormously.

We should take up the old flag and it's saying: "Don't Tread on Me". We've just about had all we can take. Our tolerance is wearing thin. SRH IIIIIIIIIII

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 10:02 AM

^^^^^^^^^
McCain Loses His Head
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; A21

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)

By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

georgewill@washpost.com

Go on-site to gain access to the numerous links within this article.

http://www.buzzflash.com ^^^^^^^^^^^

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 10:17 AM

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: Ben Stein almost lets out the Big Secret
by
Inky99
Tue Sep 23, 2008
10:48:49 AM PDT
Ben Stein, a man whose character and politics I find to be despicable, has a column today that I noticed on Yahoo Finance. A good buddy of mine, who stays closely abreast of these kinds of financial shenanigans, told me the other day that Ben Stein, in spite of his character flaws, had some really astute observations on this whole mess. So out of curiosity today, I clicked on the link.

And I have to admit, I am astounded by what he said. And even more by what he didn't say. The Big Question he leaves unanswered. It's seriously mind-blowing.

Inky99's diary :: ::
Here is the article:
Everything You Wanted to Know About the Credit Crisis But Were Afraid to Ask And here is the meat of his article, which leads to the huge gaping hole which he leaves unfilled:

The crisis occurred (to greatly oversimplify) because the financial system allowed entities to place bets on whether or not those mortgages would ever be paid. You didn't have to own a mortgage to make the bets. These bets, called Credit Default Swaps, are complex. But in a nutshell, they allow someone to profit immensely - staggeringly - if large numbers of subprime mortgages are not paid off and go into default.

The profit can be wildly out of proportion to the real amount of defaults, because speculators can push down the price of instruments tied to the subprime mortgages far beyond what the real rates of loss have been. As I said, the profits here can be beyond imagining. (In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...)

These Credit Default Swaps have been written (as insurance is written) as private contracts. There is nil government regulation of them. Who writes these policies? Banks. Investment banks. Insurance companies. They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.

Did you see that bolded section?

In fact, they can be so large that one might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse...
Many of us have already said that, including a LOT of prominent economists like Michael Hudson. These people knew the loans they were making were bad loans. They knew the money wouldn't be paid back. Which has always bothered me -- why did they make bad loans on purpose? For short term gain? Well, yes, at least as far as some of the people involved go, like mortage agents in banks who worked on commission. But the people in charge were letting them make these loans. Why?

Now that is what leads to the real meat of what he's saying, the "Elephant in the Room", That Which Shall Remain Unspoken:

They now owe the buyers of these Credit Default Swaps on junk mortgage debt trillions of dollars. It is this liability that is the bottomless pit of liability for the financial institutions of America.
Somebody, somewhere, is blackmailing the economy. Because somebody, somewhere, is owed these TRILLIONS of dollars. And it is THEY who are holding a gun to the economy and demanding payment, and all of Wall Street, and even the Fed, cannot pay this debt.

So WHO is this Tony Soprano-like world figure? Who are these people? Why are we not identifying them, and talking to them, and negotiating with THEM, whoever they are, to keep from bankrupting the American economy in their favor?

Somebody, somewhere, is blackmailing the entire United States economy. Somebody, somewhere, has a gun to our head. And to the head of the American government.

I want to know who they are. I want them identified.

Who are they? And why are we willing to bankrupt the entire country in order to pay them off?

Somebody, somewhere, has way more power than they should have. Who?
http://www.buzzflash.com

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/23/133349/153/556/607628 :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 10:29 AM

:: :: :: :: ::
I'm An Exceptional Thief!
by
DarkSyde
Wed Sep 24, 2008
07:54:58 AM PDT
Are you old enough to remember the iconic Bruce Willis film Die Hard? In one famous line, bad guy Hans Gruber, played by the always brilliant Alan Rickman, is accused of being a common thief. Gruber replies hotly something to the effect of, "but I'm an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane. I'm stealing 640 million dollars ... and since I'm moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite." As ambitious a thief as the fictional Gruber was, he was a piker compared to all too real TreasSec Henry Paulson who spent yesterday jacking the American taxpayer for $700 billion, and seemed to be moving up to extortion. But as Barb pointed out yesterday, the man who would be King tipped his hand a little to far with this whopper:

VIDEO
Go on-site for video: http://www.dailykos.com/
Get that folks? When Paulson wrote in the three page bailout plan, "Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." What he really meant was "I believe these actions should be completely transparent and open to review as is the role of Congress, and it would be presumptuous of me to presume otherwise!"

Over the weekend, Paulson could have been portrayed as an exceptional thief. Yesterday, he is revealed as the most common, archtypical conservative liar: the kind who lies through his teeth to the entire nation without shame or remorse, even though his own words completely expose his lie. Will Congress play the sleazy yuppie who tries to sell out his peers only to be whacked an example?

Permalink :: Discuss (292 comments)
http://www.dailykos.com/ :: :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 10:53 AM

))))))0((((((
Saving the wealthy with socialism, conservative-styleThomas F. Schaller
September 23, 2008
Like it or not, we're all socialists now. You can thank those free-market conservatives and their deregulatory idol, George W. Bush, for that.

Conservatives love to wield the word socialism like some all-purpose, liberal-slaying sword. Redistribution to the poor, the right to unionize and affirmative action are decried as anti-market, unfair advantages for filthy socialists who can't compete and fail to appreciate the almighty, equalizing power of self-determination and an unfettered market.

To social conservatives, Darwinism is merely an unproven "theory" about how our species evolved. But "social Darwinism" is an ineluctable fact: The smart and hardworking prosper, while the stupid and lazy fail.

Yet notice how those same chest-thumping capitalists of talk radio and at the corporate-funded think tanks often fall silent in the face of fixed markets, no-bid contracts, bailouts and subsidies for the very corporations that demand less government oversight when things are going well, then turn to Washington when things go horribly wrong.

PHOTO:
Thomas F. Schaller Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
The hypocrisies abound.

If unionized teachers were given 15 percent annual raises, regardless of performance, that would be socialist. But when easily repaired military equipment in Iraq is discarded so no-bid defense contractors can charge the automatic 15 percent overhead for replacements (watch Iraq for Sale, a documentary exposing Defense Department contracting), that's the cost of doing business during wartime.

If Congress proposes legislation to extend leniency to Americans who, because of unexpected medical expenses or a job recently shipped overseas, go bankrupt, Republicans fret about governmental dependency. But when Chrysler, insurance giant AIG or the airlines after 9/11 take Beltway bailouts, executives such as Lee A. Iacocca are still esteemed as corporate masters of the universe.

If affirmative action provides a minority or female applicant the inside track for a job or college admission, conservatives lecture us about the power of competition. But when the pharmaceutical companies and the Bush administration collude in passing a Medicare Part D prescription drug bill that expressly prohibits the government from using its competitive buying power to negotiate the best price for those taxpayer-funded drugs, Fox News cues the video for the latest Paris Hilton scandal.

Propose a national health care program to cover everyone, or invest a mere $7 billion per year over five years to expand the children's health insurance program? Sounds like "each according to need" Marxism. But spend several times that amount to bail out AIG, the nation's largest insurance company? That's, um, market stabilization.

While we're debunking myths, now is a good time to revisit those free-market, tax-cutting promises that economic conservatives have been feeding us for years.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average recently dropped to the level it was back in summer 2001, when Mr. Bush signed the first of his four income-tax cuts. That means that if you put $5,000 into blue chip stocks seven years ago, and rolled another $5,000 into sweat socks and hid them under your mattress, your socks and your stocks would have about the same value today.

And you may have to break those socks out now, because the government's proposed $700 billion bailout of the mortgage and finance industries will translate into $4,000 from the pocket of every employed American. (Plus interest, since the money is all borrowed, and Mr. Bush will soon retire as the fifth straight Republican president to leave office without submitting a single balanced budget.)

Meanwhile, rising unemployment means those who are working will continue to shoulder a larger share of our mounting national debt.

The U.S. economy must generate about 150,000 net new jobs each month just to employ Americans entering the work force from high school, college or the military; in a seven-year period, that requires 12.6 million new jobs just to keep pace. The Bush administration's job creation record these past seven years: 4.7 million.

Those of us who work hard and pay our taxes are getting screwed. Our Christmas bonus this year? The privilege of covering the tab for greedy executives in the deregulated insurance and mortgage industries who scoff at safety nets for you but demand a safety trapeze for themselves.

As I said, we're all socialists now. Too bad all that filthy, pinko socialist redistribution is moving up, rather than down, the economic food chain.

Thomas F. Schaller teaches political science at UMBC. His column appears regularly in The Sun. His e-mail is schaller67@gmail.com.
http://www.buzzflash.com )))))))o(((((((

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 11:39 AM

IIIIIII
We Can Stop Paulson's Plunder
By
David Swanson
24 September, 2008
Countercurrents.org

There does not seem to be any way we are going to avoid shelling out a major amount of money to save banks from the unregulated greed of bankers. Dean Baker and Doug Henwood and every person with any economic expertise whom I find credible predicts disaster if we don't.

But, as Baker pointed out on Democracy Now! this morning, the bailout can punish those responsible rather than rewarding them. It can also be done without creating new dictatorial powers for the executive branch of our government.

Congress must reject Paulson's Plunder and enact a plan with these progressive principles from the Backbone Campaign:

A. The people who caused the problem or profited most should pay for it
1. Highly compensated executives total compensation should be capped or taxed heavily as a condition for being bailed out.

2. Tobin tax on all transactions in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate including currency transactions.

3. Government takes an equity stake, proportionate to the size of the bailout

4. Tax hedge fund managers' income

5. Accountability - fire executives of failed companies as done in the UK, and abrogate their severance packages.

6. Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers.

B. Re-regulate to prevent this from happening again
1. Direct the Federal Reserve to intervene to prevent asset bubbles.

2. Extend reserve requirements to new security categories

3. Regulate the packaging of loans so they can be evaluated, rated, and priced rationally.

4. Regulate hedge funds and private equity funds in a way comparable to banks

C. Include Main Street in the bailout and invest in a new productive economy 1. Establish a moratorium on foreclosures, renegotiating mortgages or institute a rent-to-own plan to keep people in homes.

2. Create a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages, in productive jobs that add value to homes and communities.

3. Invest the taxes on speculation, executive compensation, and the surtax on the wealthy in clean energy, infrastructure, education, and health care.

Go gain access to this article just click on the following URL:
http://www.countercurrents.org/swanson240908.htm . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You can send this proposal to Congress by clicking here:
http://democrats.com/stop-paulsons-plunder IIIIIIIIIIIII

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 02:18 PM

This just in, SRH:

Breaking News from The Hill:
McCain suspending campaign, wants to postpone debate - By Sam Youngman

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Wednesday he is suspending his campaign, and he is asking Democratic rival Barack Obama to join him in trying to postpone Friday night's debate so that both candidates and both parties can focus on a solution to the Wall Street crisis.

> Read More
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-suspending-campaign-wants-to-postpone-debate-2008-09-24.html
~~~~~
.
Paris Says: No Pardons!
Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stand accused of 39 grave and impeachable offenses.
Most of these offenses, including war crimes, are felonies for which Bush and Cheney can be criminally prosecuted after they leave office, even if they are not impeached by Congress.

Obviously Bush and Cheney do not want to be prosecuted. So to protect themselves, George Bush's last official act will likely be pardons for himself, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and everyone else who committed crimes as part of the Bush Administration.

While most lawyers assume pardons cannot precede convictions, Gerald Ford set a powerful precedent by pardoning Richard Nixon in 1972 before he was even indicted, let alone convicted. If Ford could legally pardon Nixon, then George Bush can legally pardon himself.

So there is only one way to stop George Bush from pre-emptively pardoning himself, Cheney, and everyone else in his administration: Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney before Bush can issue such pardons.

The Founding Fathers clearly anticipated a corrupt President might pardon his co-conspirators, and specified impeachment as the remedy.

George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights (1791-2002), argued at the Constitutional Convention that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution (1788-2007), added that "if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter [pardon] him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty."

As your constituent, I urge you to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney before they pardon themselves.

Thank you for participating in Democrats.com, the largest independent community of Democratic Party activists, with over 500,000 members.

Democrats.com is the home of the Aggressive Progressives and we have led the fight against George W. Bush since he stole the White House in 2000.

We rely on the generous contributions of members like you to stop George Bush and the radical right-wing Republicans. We gratefully accept contributions of any amount!

We encourage you to use our simple Web forms to tell your Senators and Representative how you feel on these questions:

.Stop Paulson's Plunder
.Impeach Bush to Stop Pardons
.Impeach Bush for Iraq Lies
.Support Rep. Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush
Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture
.Tell Congress to Begin Cheney Impeachment Hearings
.No More Funds for Iraq
.Join the 70 90 House Democrats who will only support Iraq funding for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before Bush leaves office.
.Stop Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping
.Take the Iraq Vote Pledge
.Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
.Tell Congress to Impeach Cheney First
.Don't Attack Iran
.Tell Congress to Require Paper Ballots
.
We also invite you to sign our most recent petitions:

Top Petition Referrers
suzystar@ 98 -- onlytry@ 64 -- cpellett@ 50 -- galloglas@ 49 -- elizabethmiller@ 38 -- Art4Peace 34 -- CitizenKahn 32 -- om_goetzl@ 31 -- blueswordangel@ 30 -- AnnCKeirns 30
More
When you sign our petitions, you can also forward them to your friends, and we count your friends who sign them. Above are the top petition referrers. Check your own referrals here. Go on-site to gain access to this function
What's Hot --Replace Bush Democrats!
1,407 donors = $64,915
Let's Escrow Our Money to Keep Obama Progressive --773 pledges = $113,840
-- t Progressive Democrats

Out of Iraq - Not Another Penny!
Join our Facebook Group

Local: connect with Democrats.com members in your State, County, and Congressional District
Are you really registered to vote? "Google" your voter registration to find out
Register to vote -- Paulson's Plunder
Stop Paulson's Plunder
Goal: 100,000
Now: 27,350

Sign Here
Ten Reasons to Impeach Bush & Cheney
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
Goal: 250,000
Now: 157,679

Sign Here
Paris Says: No Pardons!
Impeach Bush To Stop Pardons
Goal: 100,000
Now: 942

Sign Here
Out of Iraq Petition
No More Funds for Iraq
Goal: 100,000
Now: 82,540
Sign Here
Forums

MCCAINS VICE PRES. PICK
Stand up to the media -- Nationalize oil refineries -- My worst fears confirmed -- Political Change --Who's an elitist? -- PBS poll rigging brought to you by Carl Rove --
Bush "Doctrine" #2: Screw The People As Often As Possible
Obama should argue that the Sunni Awakening and ethnic cleansing, not the surge, are the main reasons violence is down in Iraq
A vote for McCain is a no-bid contract with the Devil!Poll
Should Congress Give Paulson $700 Billion Blank Check?
Yes -- 0%
AfterDowningStreet.org http://www.democrats.com/organize

jazz_man

September 24th, 2008, 02:52 PM

They Want Mama To Make It All Better (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/they-want-mama-to-make-it-all-better.html)

Inquiring minds are listening to Rep. Marcy Kaptur D-Ohio 9th District Toledo. It is one of the best rants you will ever hear in your life.

Please Play It. I promise you will not be disappointed.

Click Here To Play They Want Mama To Make It All Better (http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE)

Here is a partial transcript:
Taxpayers did not get their fair share of the upside, but they are getting all of the downside and a huge IOU. While Wall Street is made whole, the folks on Main Street are getting the bill. What has mama given us here? Are Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson giving them any bet on the upside? They're not even helping them on the downside.

I feel sorry for our country, I feel sorry for this Congress, that we can't do a better job of standing up for the people today. Where's the Federal Reserve, Where's the Treasury?

Why do they only help the rich people? What about the rest of the people who have to work for a living?

Wake Up America. Wake Up America. Contact your member of Congress.

Contact Your Member Of Congress

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 03:13 PM

XXX
Old-growth Sierra junipers felled amid warming debate
By
Tom Knudson -
- tknudson@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT
Sunday, September 21, 2008

ALTURAS – Moments after he saw the centuries-old junipers on the ground, Glenn Fair felt sick to his stomach.

A 60-year-old fishing guide from rural Lassen County, Fair has nothing against thinning forests to protect them from fire and disease. But the barren, dusty swath of stumps and downed junipers logged from public land last year and the adjacent house-high pile of wood chips was not that kind of cut.

Not only were trees mowed down across nearly 300 acres, they were leveled under a banner of ecological restoration, energy independence and climate-friendly power. It was portrayed as a win-win by the federal government, which was paying for the removal to undo the legacy of poor land management.

But to Fair, burning old-growth junipers in a wood-fired power plant to battle global warming just doesn't make sense.

"These trees are our carbon collectors," he said. "It's no different than if you went into a rain forest and cut it down."

The government's so-called "stewardship project" here in rugged, remote northeast California is a lens through which to view the changing nature of forestry. No longer is managing woodlands in California just about balancing jobs and the environment. These days, carbon, climate and restoration are part of the equation.

Juggling that mix is no easy task.

"There are no simple, formulaic answers," said Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust, which manages North Coast redwoods for lumber and carbon. "Climate change is challenging us to think more quickly and deeply at the same time."

Even government officials acknowledge that the Modoc County job – designed to restore the land to its more open, range-like pre-settlement condition – was botched.

"That cut was heavier than we wanted," said Peter Hall, a forester with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. "We're learning from our mistakes and moving on."

New plan covers 1.2 million acres
This spring, the bureau and the U.S. Forest Service announced plans to dramatically expand the scope of the cutting. According to a more than 500-page environmental impact statement, the two agencies propose to use cutting and burning to eradicate junipers across 1.2 million acres – an area more than 11,000 times larger than Arco Arena and its parking lots.

The reason for such dramatic action, they say, is to address historic land management mistakes, including heavy livestock grazing and fire suppression, that have allowed juniper woodlands to expand. That expansion has choked out grass and brush that support wildlife such as mule deer and sage grouse.

"We're all in favor of forests," said Tim Burke, manager of the Bureau of Land Management's field office in Alturas. "However, what's happening here is not natural."

Others question the wisdom of cutting so many trees on the arid Modoc plateau at a time when rising global temperatures are increasing the risk of desertification – the spread of desert-like conditions.

"Almost anywhere else in the semi-arid world, forest cover of any density is viewed as an environmental asset," said Ronald Lanner, a retired Utah State University forestry professor who lives in Placerville.

What's more, some scientists say restoring the terrain to conditions that existed during the cooler 19th century – before global warming began to push temperatures higher – might not work.

"As a generalization, you really can't go back to the way it was," said John Helms, a retired University of California, Berkeley, forestry professor and former president of the Society of American Foresters. "In restoration, one should identify what vegetation best suits the land and society today, and ... the future, rather than 100 years ago."

Even within the Forest Service, not everyone agrees with the project's premise. Connie Millar, a research scientist with the agency's Sierra Nevada Research Center, said junipers are proliferating partly because of higher temperatures.

"I do believe there is a climate aspect," she wrote in an e-mail. And if that's the case, she added, trying to weed them out will prove costly, perhaps futile. "Removal may be a defensible socially desired goal. Nonetheless, I believe that it will take increasing effort, time, money. Eventually this may become a 'paddling upstream' practice.

"I find a similar situation in Yosemite where the park service continues to remove lodgepole pine seedlings from Tuolumne Meadows as fast as they colonize," she continued. "Every time the meadow is cleared (i.e., clear-cut) of the young pines, they re-seed rapidly."

Western junipers' proud history
Junipers might bounce back for another reason, too.

"We are talking about trees that are regenerated by seeds dispersed by animals, by birds that eat the fruits and excrete the seeds and also by coyotes," said Lanner, author of "Conifers of California" and an authority on junipers.

"So as long as you have junipers around, you are going to have a source of seed. And unless you eradicate the animals, you are going to get junipers back again."

Jade-green, burlier than a sumo wrestler and 15 to 60 feet tall, western junipers thrive in the arid reaches of Nevada, eastern Oregon, northeast California and parts of the Sierra Nevada.

They are known for their hardiness and longevity – some live to be 2,000 years old. Near Carson Pass, junipers flourish "in great beauty and luxuriance," John Muir once wrote, adding:

"Two of the largest, growing at the head of Hope Valley, measured 29 feet, 3 inches and 25 feet, 6 inches in circumference, four feet from the ground. The bark is of a bright cinnamon color, beautifully braided and reticulated, flaking off in thin, lustrous ribbons that are sometimes used by Indians for tent-matting. Its fine color and odd picturesqueness always catch an artist's eye."

According to a 1996 article in the Journal of Range Management, their expansion across the region over the last century is hardly unique.

Thousands of years ago, "the range of western juniper expanded and contracted several times in response to increasingly (wet and dry) conditions," the article states. "Western juniper therefore should not be referred to as an invasive weed that is threatening natural communities."

Some see 'juniper desert'
Nonetheless, that is much the way federal officials see it. Bouncing down a gravel road in a government vehicle, Edith Asrow looked out at a stand of younger junipers and did not appreciate the verdant view.

"I see a sort of wasteland," said Asrow, an ecosystem staff officer for the Modoc National Forest. "As the junipers thicken, we lose all the grasses and flowering plants. So all you have left is one species. It's a juniper desert."

Up ahead was a stand of junipers that had been heavily cut for firewood, leaving a snarl of rust-colored branches, stumps and other woody debris.

"Seeing this to me is beautiful because we are on the path of balancing an ecosystem," Asrow said. "I look at this as my kid in braces. In other words … this is a temporary state."

Lanner scoffed at her assessment. "Junipers are part of our biodiversity, as much as sagebrush," he said.

Like all trees, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as carbon, helping combat global warming. Nationwide, forests sequester 200 to 280 million tons of carbon per year, offsetting up to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The wholesale removal of trees can only result in the loss of a lot of carbon sequestration capacity," Lanner said.

Federal officials disagree, saying grass and sagebrush actually store more. "For us to trade off an intellectual concept about carbon sequestration … and leave juniper trees to turn into a monoculture doesn't make any sort of prudent sense to me," Asrow said.

Such carbon quarrels are bound to become more common as California scrambles to shrink greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – as mandated by its 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act.

"For every ton of wood consumed to make power, you have at least a 1-ton net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to natural gas," said Steve Brink, vice president of public resources with the California Forestry Association.

Turning wood into megawatts
Two years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the executive order requiring that 20 percent of renewable energy purchased by public utilities be generated by "biomass" – a catch-all term for trees, sawmill waste, construction debris and so on. Currently, California gets just 1 percent of its power – 550 megawatts – from such sources.

In a state blanketed with crowded, unhealthy forests, many say turning spindly fire-prone conifers into kilowatts makes sense.

"If we can produce domestic energy and restore an ecosystem and stabilize a local economy all at the same time, that could be a win, win, win," said Sean Curtis, a resource analyst for Modoc County.

One thing on which all sides agree is that old-growth trees should not be a part of the mix. But on the cut near Bayley Reservoir in Modoc County, they were toppled anyway.

A contract for the job, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states that only younger junipers were to be harvested. "Junipers containing … old-growth characteristics will not be cut," it says.

When Hall – the government forester and contract officer – toured the area this spring, he discovered that instruction had not been followed. "When cutters finished … the project, there were no old growth left," he wrote in his project diary.

"There was a break in the communication between the contractor and the cutters," Hall told The Bee. "It's definitely a black mark on his record."

No fine was assessed because the contract had no teeth, Hall said. In fact, the government paid the contractor $76,000 to cut the area, a common practice for forest products with low economic value.

Today, Hall said, new contracts contain penalty clauses.

"We really don't want to cut any old growth juniper," he said.

Many remain skeptical, including Glenn Fair's 84-year-old father and fishing partner, Jay, who said: "If we're not careful we're going to do everything we can to get energy and just destroy the planet."

I read somewhere, that Oregon has the largest Juniper forest outside of the Holy Land. The US Forestry Department is in the process of thining them out, and at one time we were told they were going to cut them all down. They were saying they aren't native, that they had taken over the grass lands, and so they are getting rid of them.

We prefer it for firewood. We rely on firewood for most of our heating during the year, and to keep expenses down and to make sure we get what we want, we go out and get it ourselves. The past couple of years the goverment's been cutting down large swaths of it, and letting it age a year or so and then letting the public go in with a paid for permit which allows a few cords for personal use only. The problem is, they've been cutting on such steep hill sides it's almost impossible to get to some of it safely. They also have a commercial permit; it costs a bit more, but it allows you to sell what you cut. This year, they were asking for us not to cut down the old growth junipers, stating that they're around 1000 years old. So how is it that they aren't natural to our area? Those are old trees, so how is it that they are an import? Did they come across with the first immigrants from Asia?

The eco system is dependent on these trees, and with them gone, the winds here will be like living in Kansas. Without them as a buffer, we will be blown away. I believe what they're doing is a big mistake. SRHhttp://www.sacbee.com/sierrawarming/v-print/story/1253187.html
XXXXX

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 03:55 PM

They Want Mama To Make It All Better (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/09/they-want-mama-to-make-it-all-better.html)

Inquiring minds are listening to Rep. Marcy Kaptur D-Ohio 9th District Toledo. It is one of the best rants you will ever hear in your life.

Please Play It. I promise you will not be disappointed.

Click Here To Play They Want Mama To Make It All Better (http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE)

Here is a partial transcript:

Contact Your Member Of Congress

Wish I could. still haven't hooked up the audio.

I just remember how a lot of us were saying the same, "Wake up People", "Wake up America", and we were told we were un-American, traitors, and pessimists. Say what? What are we being called now? Visionary's? No, but still we warned everyone and no one wanted to believe us, instead they thought the worst of all of us "naysayers", it was a pathetic waste of our time, our trying to make a difference, as their name calling and insults were endless.

We can stand back today and say "We told you so", but that's no comfort, not at all; other than us realizing we weren't so easily fooled, nor so easily led.

It didn't take a brainiack to see what lay ahead, we were just the ones who took the time to find out what was in store; judging our future by past history and new facts.

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 04:17 PM

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 05:24 PM

I I I I ICODEPINKACTION
PEACEROOM2008

September 24, 2008

Dear Saundra R.,

Doesn't it seem all too familiar? Last time, it was a terrorist attack that was used to push through the Patriot Act and to launch an illegal and immoral war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Now the Bush Administration announces that we are on the verge of a financial meltdown and the only solution is to fork over $700 billion-with no oversight, no accountability, no transparency, no nothing-to the very people and institutions who got us into this mess. And who is going to foot the bill for this experiment? The American taxpayer. We know this bailout is bull sh*t-- we need accountability and transparency NOW.

Congress needs to feel the heat from people in the streets, not Wall Street-join or create an emergency rally against the bailout in your community tomorrow, Thursday, September 25th. In NYC, we've been working with a coalition of peace and justice groups and will create an enormous pile of junk down by the Wall Street "Bull" and demand "Bail Out my JUNK too!"

>>To find a local action click here or create your own click here

>>Call your Senators and take to the streets tomorrow to say NO to corporate welfare at the expense of our communities.
Tell them: No more blank checks for war. No blank check for Wall Street. Ask them: What about an emergency tax on the wealthy for the bailout and a citizen commission to oversee the bailout? What about an ongoing tax, where every Wall Street transaction gets taxed? The future of our country-our environment, our health care, our education, our roads and bridges-depends on your action NOW. Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

CODEPINK was in Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing declaring "No welfare for the wealthy" and "Stop bailing out billionaires and bail out our troops!"- and we will continue to raise a ruckus to protest this economic highway robbery.

Thank you for standing up and calling "bull" sh*t when you see it! Let's take the bull by the horns together!
Dana, Deidra, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Medea, Nancy, and Rae

P.S. This Saturday, September 27th, join tens of thousands of Americans to stand up for REAL solutions to our military, climate, and economic crisis by joining a Green for All event. Find an action near you or plan one! It's as simple as taking a photo in your community with a sign that says "I'm Ready for Green Jobs" to show the candidates, the Congress, and the public that America is ready for Green Jobs Now. Full details at www.greenjobsnow.com

ACTION ALERT
Attend an emergency rally against the bailout Thursday
http://truemajority.wiredforchange.com/o/8/t/107/event/search.jsp?distributed_event_KEY=5

Call your Senators NOW and tomorrow at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to oppose the Bush bailout and No cash for trash!

I I I I I I I I I I I I

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 05:37 PM

.
~~~~~~~

"For in a Republic, who is 'the country?' Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them."

Mark Twain
[Samuel Langhornne Clemens]
1835-1910
~~~
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

Lysander Spooner
1808-1887
Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: The Constitution of No Authority
Boston: 1870, p. 28.
~~~

"Confronted with such a tight regulation, can man pretend to be free because the tyranny he is subjected to derives from the law? Of course, the legal power is not called "tyranny" since it appears to be established by the general will in the common interest, and since, in any event, occurrences of arbitrary power are infrequent. But a master's equity does not mean that his subjects are not slaves. ... And when their servitude lasts and their thoughts follow their behavior, the state becomes totalitarian and subjection is complete. Since it is legal servitude, the regime is still said to be democratic. Such is the hypocrisy of political language."

Georges Ripert
- Source:
Le Déclin du Droit.
Etude sur la législation contemporaine
(Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence,
1949), p. 69 ~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 05:43 PM

^^^
Goldman Sachs Socialism

By William Greider
24/09/08 "The Nation" -- -Wall Street put a gun to the head of the politicians and said, Give us the money--right now--or take the blame for whatever follows. The audacity of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's bailout proposal is reflected in what it refuses to say: no explanations of how the bailout will work, no demands on the bankers in exchange for the public's money. The Treasury's opaque, three-page summary of plan includes this chilling statement:

"Section 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." In other words, no lawsuits allowed by aggrieved investors or American taxpayers. No complaints later from ignorant pols who didn't know what they voted for. Take it or leave it, suckers.

Both political parties may submit to this extortion because they don't have a clue what else to do and bending over for Wall Street instruction, their usual posture, seems less risky than taking responsibility. Paulson and Bernanke evoked intimidating pressure for two reasons. The previous efforts to restore investor confidence had all failed as their slapdash interventions worsened the global panic. Besides, the Federal Reserve was running out of money. Nearly three-fifths of the Fed's $800 billion portfolio is now loaded down with junk--the mortgage securities and other rotten assets it took off Wall Street balance sheets. The imperious central bank is fast approaching its own historic disgrace--potentially as discredited as it was after the 1929 crash.

Despite its size, the gargantuan bailout is still designed for the narrow purpose of relieving the major banks and investment houses of their grief, then hoping this restores regular order to economic life. There are lots of reasons to think it may fail. The big boys are acting, as usual, in self-interested ways since the government allows them to do so. Washington's money might pull firms back from the brink--at least the leaders of the Wall Street Club--but that does not guarantee the banks will resume normal lending, much less capital investing. The financial guys may well hunker down, scavenge the wreckage for cheap profits and wait for the real economy to get well. Likewise, global investors--China, Japan and other major creditors--have been burned and may step back from pumping more capital in the wobbly house of US finance.

Secrecy and opacity are crucial to achieve Wall Street's purposes. It could allow Paulson to overpay his old pals for near-worthless assets and slyly recapitalize the damaged banks while telling public and politicians the money is to save the system. To achieve this, Wall Street needs to keep control of the process whoever is elected president (the Wall Street Journal recommends John Thain, ex-chief of the New York Stock Exchange to succeed Paulson). Not everyone will be saved, of course, but high on the list of endangered nameplates is Goldman Sachs, Paulson's old firm. The high-flying investment house looks doomed by these events. The Fed quickly agreed to convert Goldman and Morgan Stanley into banks. Think of Paulson's solution as Goldman Sachs socialism.

The most hopeful comment I heard from an astute economist was by Nouriel Roubini of NYU, who has been darkly prescient during this crisis. The bailout should help, he told the Times. "The recession train has left the station, but it's going to be 18 months, instead of five years," he said. Hope he's right, but voters are unlikely to regard this as fair return on their $700 billion. The bandits will be back in business and partying, while the victims are still gasping for air.

If Paulson's gamble fails--just as possible--then maybe government will finally undertake forceful intervention rather than friendly solicitude for Wall Street. Washington should literally take control of the banking and finance sector and employ its emergency powers to oversee and direct these private, profit-making enterprises. If any bankers do not wish to play, cut them off from any public assistance (and wish them good luck). Then government can exercise temporary supervisory powers that force banking to cooperate with economic recovery by sustaining lending and investment to the real economy. Washington can put profit on hold.

Order full stop to the many financial gimmicks and accounting illusions that led to inflated lending and falsified asset valuations. Unwind the complicated time bombs known as credit derivatives and shut down this lucrative line of business. Meanwhile, instead of throwing millions of homeowners and debtors out of their homes and into bankruptcy, hold them harmless temporarily so people can work out reasonable terms for recovery. Finally, force-feed new life into the real economy with government spending on public projects and capital formation. How much spending? Rescuing America from irresponsible Wall Street is worth whatever it costs to save the bloodied bankers.

National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and--due out in February from Rodale--Come Home, America.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation Go on-site for links within this article.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20853.htm^^^^^

Saundra Hummer

September 24th, 2008, 06:05 PM

$$$$$$$$$$$
Half a Trillion Bailout For The Creators of the Market Crisis
US Mortgage bailout at half a trillion, Loss of confidence means end of credibility in the markets. Phony wars, phony values in real estate will cost all of you, financial companies bought out, power consolidated in financial markets, Gold on the rise, stock markets as volatile as a drunken sailor, why are the markets rallying after the big bailout
By
Bob Chapman
http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly
24/09/08 "International Forecaster" -- - We recoil in disgust at the way these arrogant sociopaths, the henchmen of the Illuminati at the Fed and in our Treasury Department, led by Bernanke and Paulson, respectively, are taking the toxic waste losses of the Wall Street fraudsters and dumping them on the taxpayer sheople, while short-squeezing savvy investors by selectively prohibiting and prosecuting shorts of any kind for the stocks of about 800 financial institutions through early October, which all deserve to be shorted. Between the Byzantine dollar rally, the Saudi crude oil assassination, the peppering of precious metals by pernicious paper-hangers (wasn't Adolf Hitler a paper-hanger at one time?) and the short-squeeze on financials, we wonder how many more hedge funds are going to go under, and take everyone else with them in the process, as Lehman gets cannibalized just in time to rack up mark-to-market losses for the sheople to eat in the latest bailout bonanza for the fraudsters, soon to be revealed as the Resolution Trust Company II solution?

Bailing out the toxic mortgages found among the half of US real estate mortgages held or guaranteed by Phonie and Fraudie, some 5+ trillion worth, was not enough for them. Now, they want to pawn the rest of the toxins from the other half of US mortgages, which they estimate will be about a half a trillion. Gee, didn't they tell us the Iran War would cost 60 to 200 billion, only to find out later that when you add in future costs for veteran's disabilities and pensions, the cost could top 3 trillion? And didn't Bernanke tell us that the fallout from the subprime situation was contained? Of course, that was before we saw fraudsters around the world eat $350 billion and counting. And didn't all the fraudster CEO's keep telling us that their walking dead zombie companies were sound and liquid right up to the time that their shareholders got vaporized? Aren't you starting to get a little tired of all the lies? Can we trust even a single word spoken by anyone from Wall Street, the Fed or our "beloved" Treasury Department anymore? The Street, the Fed and our government now have ZERO credibility. This loss of confidence is going to take the markets down no matter what these reprobate and sociopath elitists do.

You will eat multiple trillions of dollars from each of the following: (1) The phony War on Terror; (2) the loss in real estate values caused by record inventories that will be created by defaults and foreclosures resulting from rampant unemployment, loan fraud, over-leveraged consumers and ARM and Option ARM resets; (3) the combined bailout of Fannie's and Freddie's share of the toxic waste contained in the approximately half of all US mortgages which these cess pools have made or insured, plus the losses from the Resolution Trust Company II bailout of the toxic waste from the remaining half of US mortgages; (4) the shortage in the FDIC's insurance reserves that will be generated by losses incurred on account of what will be anywhere from 1,000 bank failures, as suggested by billionaire Wilber Ross, to perhaps as many as half of all banks in the US, as recently suggested by Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America; (5) the PBGC's funding shortage to cover losses suffered by pension plan beneficiaries on account of pension under-funding caused by what will be the loss of as much as half of the value of all US equity shares; (6) the bailouts likely to occur when the credit default swaps and interest rate swaps, along with the entire bond market, go under in what will be the greatest bear market of all time in both bonds and derivatives, which are guaranteed to occur based on the hyperinflation that will be caused by all the other bailouts just listed, as well as by our continually burgeoning budget and trade deficits, the resulting double digit interest rates which will become necessary in order to combat inflation and to properly reward risks, which are about to escalate in astronomical fashion, and to attract foreign investment, which will soon drop to nil based on negative rates of return; (7) the loss in purchasing power due to hyperinflation generated by 1 through 6 above; and (8) the new wars for profit that will be started in order to restart our vaporized economy in the wake of the death and destruction caused by 1 through 7, above, and you can also add in the costs associated with potential social unrest and revolution that are almost certain to occur. When number 6 above comes to fruition, the entire world economy will implode and go into deep depression. None will escape the coming juggernaut of losses when the glowing, quadrillion dollar Derivative Death-Star goes supernova. The entire world economy will get sucked into the resulting financial black hole.

The Resolution Trust Company II will be rammed down the throats of Congress, just like (1) the Federal Reserve Act that has been used to inflate the middle class out of its wealth by imposing a stealth tax which is used to fund profligate government spending and enrich private banker's with their debt-based fractional reserve system of banking; (2) the passage of the US Income Tax, which is used to enslave and impoverish US citizens and to ensure payment of the US Treasury's debt to the Federal Reserve on its treasury paper; (3) the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act, which is what paved the way for the speculation, fraud and conflicts of interest that always arise when commercial banks and investment banks are allowed to be merged under one entity, as we just saw happen with Bank of America when it bought out Merrill Lynch, and this poisonous piece of legislation is what allowed the Illuminist bankers to pawn off the toxic waste which their investment banking division created for its investment banking clients, after getting fraudulent AAA ratings from the ratings agencies, on their hapless, sucker-dupe commercial banking clients; (4) the passage of the toxic Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which freed the then fledgling OTC derivatives market, including credit default swaps and interest rate swaps, from the regulatory power of both the SEC or the CFTC, leading to an out-of-control, unregulated, under-collateralized, quadrillion dollar volcano of smoldering, molten risk that no one understands in terms of its scope, its interrelationships and its counterparty risks, and now these financial weapons of mass destruction threaten the worldwide financial system; (5) the passage of the Iran War resolution based on Bush Administration lies regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction and involvement in 911, which has led us into yet another bloody war for profit under the guise of security, democracy and freedom, and which has resulted in the killing of millions of Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers (move over Hitler, Mao and Stalin, the Illuminati and their neocon henchmen are just getting warmed up as they take their shenanigans to the Balkans); (6) the approval of both Patriot Acts to help us fight the evil Osama Bin Laden and the phony "War on Terror" while dismantling our Constitutional rights; (7) the approval of the Military Commissions Act which makes all dissenters into "enemy combatants" and takes away their right to habeas corpus; (8) the passage of the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, which repeals Posse Comitatus, meaning that our military forces can now be used against our own citizens for the first time in our history, and contrary to our Constitution; and (9) the Fannie and Freddie bailout, which was just authorized so the fraudsters can dump their slime on taxpayers in a futile attempt to save their precious system of Ponzi-schemes and insider trading which is becoming unraveled right before their eyes. This is why all incumbents, except for Ron Paul, must be voted out in November.

The House Finance Committee, headed by Rep. Barney Frank, and the Senate Finance Committee, headed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, will give it their usual Boo-Boo, response: "I don't know, Yogi," in order to give the clueless sheople the appearance that they are going to protect taxpayers from the slimy bankers, when the reality is, it is already a done deal and has been planned long in advance, probably for many months, if not years, just like the Patriot Acts. What you are seeing happen right before your eyes is the revenge of the Illuminati for the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act. Not only have they repealed that act, but now they have reverted our system back to the way it was when the Stock Market Crash of 1929 occurred. This is why Bank of America jumped all over Merrill Lynch, and why you are hearing continual overtures for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to do the same, with claims that their business models are flawed. The fane-stream media now tells us that we need such combinations to give our financial institutions greater strength and staying power in the face of a crisis, when it is such combinations that are responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. This is the classic Hegelian Dialectic on steroids: first create the crisis, and then propose the predetermined solutions, stuffing them down everyone's throats, if necessary. If you want to see institutions that will automatically be deemed to be too big to fail the next time they defraud the public, just check out the gargantuan financial behemoths that will emerge out of the current crisis!

Note how this was all set up. First, all the legislation was put into place. Then the system is brought into a crisis situation, which was easily accomplished through deregulation, in order to propel us into a situation where the Illuminists are allowed to consolidate their power with the full blessing of the dopey sheople. Note how Bear Stearns was assassinated just before the Fed opened up its Primary Dealer Credit Facility and its Term Securities Lending Facility, which could have saved BS. They arranged to have BS's clients abandon them and withdrew BS liquidity and credit, and down they went, payback for not helping in the LTCM bailout and for not joining the Illuminist club. Then they string out all the other big commercial and investment banks, to see which ones would turn out to be the keepers, because the carnage was so bad and so widely spread that no one could tell which of the big commercial and investment banks might survive, if any. They needed time to figure out who the survivors would be. Hence, all the desperate bailouts dripping with moral hazard were made to keep them all afloat while they were attempting to make this determination. They decide to let Lehman fail because their condition is irredeemable and it looks like criminal charges may come up at some point due to shenanigans that management committed against their employee's pension money, making them a hot potato. They pair up Bank of America with Merrill Lynch, and we see JP Morgan Chase and possibly Wachovia pairing up with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, respectively. Wachovia and Morgan Stanley are already in talks for a merger. AIG is being preserved to see if they can be fit into the consolidation scheme once all their problems have been sorted out.

To support the survivors, they then announce the Resolution Trust Company II bailout, kill all shorting of over 800 financial companies, and then spew out money and credit throughout the international banking system in amounts that are nothing short of spectacular. This is an outrageous, unbelievable, unprecedented consolidation of power, which flies in the face of free markets and paves the way for an ever-burgeoning corporatist, fascist police state. Hanky Panky wants to give the Fed sweeping regulatory power over this new group of behemoths who will control everything, while occasionally allowing crumbs to fall off their table for the little guys to gobble up. And there will be far fewer of the little guys to worry about after the carnage in the banking sector has finally ceased.

This is not a sure thing for them. The fraudsters remaining, even the big guys, could still fail, that is how bad this situation has become. The Illuminati are quaking with terror that they have overdone things and that they could end up destroying the whole system irreparably. That is why we are having all these bailouts stuffed down our throats.

Gold and silver went on a moon shot this week, with gold setting a new all-time record for a one-day increase in value. That is what happens when you keep pressing on the lid of a pressure cooker, trying to keep boiling, molten precious metals from escaping. Aiding gold and silver was the unraveling of longs in the USDX futures market, who were forced to cover because they had pushed the dollar up as far as it could go. Suddenly, the 93,701 contracts of open interest on Tuesday were reduced to 52,872, being cut virtually in half. That means the dollar rally is over and the ever more desperate bailouts are going to undermine confidence in the dollar. Soon, all these trillions in bailouts may lead to a downgrade of our treasuries, as our debt load will soon reach unsustainable levels, no matter how much the PPT tries to manipulate the markets. The stupidest dolt should be able to figure out that much.

The stock markets are shooting up and down with unprecedented volatility, bobbing and weaving like a drunken sailor as the PPT tries to fight the gravity created by the financial black hole created by the collapse of the Bailout Death-Star and the total lack of confidence of market players who are finally starting to realize that CEO's, Treasury Secretaries and Fed Chairmen are little more than pathological liars, and that the markets are rigged in ways that make China and Russia green with envy. Look at the condition of the Russian and Chinese stock markets, which are being vaporized, compared to ours, which has been placed in a state of suspended animation by the PPT anti-gravity machine. Hey Russia, and China, take some notes. We'll show you what it means to be a died-in-the-wool Marxist/Communist state! And we lead by example, so pay attention. Remember, the satanic trillionaires that run our command economy from behind the scenes are the ones who set you up and financed you. They are the true masters of Communism and Marxism! You guys are amateurs!!!

Do you really think the markets are rallying because everyone is impressed with the new string of bailouts? All the pros know where this is leading us, and they are de-leveraging. If you want to know why the markets are rallying, besides tens of billions of dollars being unleashed from the repo pool for insidious and in-your-face manipulations, check out the yen. At 9 am on the 16th, it was super yen, at 103.650 yen per dollar and 147.592 yen per euro. Now suddenly, despite the dollar crash, the yen has wimped out, and as of 2:25 pm on Friday, it stood at 107.065 against the dollar, and at 154.653 against the euro. Rally mystery solved. Let's get ready to rumble!!!

The members of Pink Floyd become prophets for America. Thanks to all the Illuminist lies the sheople have been injected with, the Goldilocks Matrix remains in tact. Yes indeed, you have all become "comfortably numb.

"O.K.
Just a little pinprick.

There'll be no more aaaaaaaaah! But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up? I do believe it's working, good. That'll keep you going through the show

Come on it's time to go.

There is no pain you are receding

A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.

You are only coming through in waves.

Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.

When I was a child

I caught a fleeting glimpse

Out of the corner of my eye.

I turned to look but it was gone

I cannot put my finger on it now

The child is grown,

The dream is gone.

I have become comfortably numb."

Group: Pink Floyd; Album: The Wall; Song: Comfortably Numb
We hope and pray that the dream is not yet gone, and that Americans get a fleeting glimpse of our former glory and greatness, and that they wake up and stop allowing these scum-bags to have their way with them.
RIP Richard Wright
$ $ $ $ $

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 11:09 AM

)))))o(((((
Has Deregulation Sired Fascism?
By Paul Craig Roberts
24/09/08 "ICH" -- - -- Remember the good old days when the economic threat was mere recession? The Federal Reserve would encourage the economy with low interest rates until the economy overheated. Prices would rise, and unions would strike for higher benefits. Then the Fed would put on the brakes by raising interest rates. Money supply growth would fall. Inventories would grow, and layoffs would result. When the economy cooled down, the cycle would start over.

The nice thing about 20th century recessions was that the jobs returned when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates and consumer demand increased. In the 21st century, the jobs that have been moved offshore do not come back. More than three million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost while Bush was in the White House. Those jobs represent consumer income and career opportunities that America will never see again.

In the 21st century the US economy has produced net new jobs only in low paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, hospital orderlies, and retail clerks. The kind of jobs that provided ladders of upward mobility into the middle class are being exported abroad or filled by foreigners brought in on work visas. Today when you purchase an American name brand, you are supporting economic growth and consumer incomes in China and Indonesia, not in Detroit and Cincinnati.

In the 20th century, economic growth resulted from improved technologies, new investment, and increases in labor productivity, which raised consumers’ incomes and purchasing power. In contrast, in the 21st century, economic growth has resulted from debt expansion.

Most Americans have experienced little, if any, income growth in the 21st century. Instead, consumers have kept the economy going by maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their mortgages in order to consume the equity in their homes.

The income gains of the 21st century have gone to corporate chief executives, shareholders of offshoring corporations, and financial corporations.

By replacing $20 an hour U.S. labor with $1 an hour Chinese labor, the profits of U.S. offshoring corporations have boomed, thus driving up share prices and “performance” bonuses for corporate CEOs. With Bush/Cheney, the Republicans have resurrected their policy of favoring the rich over the poor. John McCain captured today’s high income class with his quip that you are middle class if you have an annual income less than $5 million.

Financial companies have made enormous profits by securitizing income flows from unknown risks and selling asset backed securities to pension funds and investors at home and abroad.

Today recession is only a small part of the threat that we face. Financial deregulation, Alan Greenspan’s low interest rates, and the belief that the market was the best regulator of risks, have created a highly leveraged pyramid of risk without adequate capital or collateral to back the risk. Consequently, a wide variety of financial institutions are threatened with insolvency, threatening a collapse comparable to the bank failures that shrank the supply of money and credit and produced the Great Depression.

Washington has been slow to recognize the current problem. A millstone around the neck of every financial institution is the mark-to-market rule, an ill-advised “reform” from a previous crisis that was blamed on fraudulent accounting that over-valued assets on the books. As a result, today institutions have to value their assets at current market value.

In the current crisis the rule has turned out to be a curse. Asset backed securities, such as collateralized mortgage obligations, faced their first market pricing in panicked circumstances. The owner of a bond backed by 1,000 mortgages doesn’t know how many of the mortgages are good and how many are bad. The uncertainty erodes the value of the bond.

If significant amounts of such untested securities are on the balance sheet, insolvency rears its ugly head. The bonds get dumped in order to realize some part of their value. Merrill Lynch sold its asset backed securities for twenty cents on the dollar, although it is
unlikely that 80 percent of the instruments were worthless.

The mark to market rule, together with the suspect values of the asset backed securities and collateral debt obligations and swaps, allowed short sellers to make fortunes by driving down the share prices of the investment banks, thus worsening the crisis. With their capitalization shrinking, the investment banks could no longer borrow. The authorities took their time in halting short-selling, and short-selling is set to resume on October 3 or thereabout.

If the mark to market rule had been suspended and short-selling prohibited, the crisis would have been mitigated. Instead, the crisis intensified, provoking the US Treasury to propose to take responsibility for $700 billion more in troubled financial instruments in addition to the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG bailouts. Treasury guarantees are also apparently being extended to money market funds.

All of this makes sense at a certain level. But what if the $700 billion doesn’t stem the tide and another $700 billion is needed? At what point does the Treasury’s assumption of liabilities erode its own credit standing?

This crisis comes at the worst possible time. Gratuitous wars and military spending in pursuit of US world hegemony have inflated the federal budget deficit, which recession is further enlarging. Massive trade deficits, magnified by the offshoring of goods and services, cannot be eliminated by US export capability.

These large deficits are financed by foreigners, and foreign unease has resulted in a decline in the US dollar’s value compared to other tradable currencies, precious metals, and oil.

The US Treasury does not have $700 billion on hand with which to buy the troubled assets from the troubled institutions. The Treasury will have to borrow the $700 billion from abroad.

The dependency of Treasury Secretary Paulson’s bailout scheme on foreign willingness to absorb more Treasury paper in order that the Treasury has the money to bail out the troubled institutions is heavy proof that the US is in a financially dependent position that is inconsistent with that of America’s “superpower” status.

The US is not a superpower. The US is a financially dependent country that foreign lenders can close down at will.

Washington still hasn’t learned this. American hubris can lead the administration and Congress into a bailout solution that the rest of the world, which has to finance it, might not accept.

Currently, the fight between the administration and Congress over the bailout is whether the bailout will include the Democrats’ poor constituencies as well as the Republicans’ rich ones. The Republicans, for the most part, and their media shills are doing their best to exclude the ordinary American from the rescue plan.

A less appreciated feature of Paulson’s bailout plan is his demand for freedom from accountability. Congress balked at Paulson’s demand that the executive branch’s conduct of the bailout be non-reviewable by Congress or the courts: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion.” However, Congress substituted for its own authority a “board” that possibly will consist of the bailed out parties, by which I mean Republican and Democratic constituencies. The control over the financial system that the bailout would give to the executive branch would mean, in effect, state capitalism or fascism.

If we add state capitalism to the Bush administration’s success in eroding both the US Constitution and the power of Congress, we may be witnessing the final death of accountable constitutional government.

The US might also be on the verge of a decision by foreign lenders to cease financing a country that claims to be a hegemonic power with the right and the virtue to impose its will on the rest of the world. The US is able to be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is able to pick fights with Iran, Pakistan and Russia, because the Chinese, the Japanese and the sovereign wealth funds of the oil kingdoms finance America’s wars and military budgets. Aside from nuclear weapons, which are also in the hands of other countries, the US has no assets of its own with which to pursue its control over the world.

The US cannot be a hegemonic power without foreign financing. All indications are that the rest of the world is tiring of US arrogance.

If the US Treasury’s assumption of bailout responsibilities becomes excessive, the US dollar will lose its reserve currency role. The minute that occurs, foreign financing of America’s twin deficits will cease, as will the bailout. The US government would have to turn to the printing of paper money as did Weimar Germany.

For now this pending problem is hidden from view, because in times of panic, the tradition is to flee into “safety,” that is, into US Treasury debt obligations. The safety of Treasuries will be revealed by the extent of the bailout.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at:

PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
)))))))0(((((((

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 04:38 PM

........FACTCHECK.ORG ANNERNBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK The Whoppers of 2008
September 25, 2008Where McCain and Obama have misled voters. A partial tally. Summary
Normally we post a "Whoppers" compilation the week before Election Day. This time we've already seen such a large number of twisted facts, misleading claims and outright falsehoods that we are doing that now.

It's not just Sarah Palin's claim about killing the bridge project that she had supported until it became a national laughingstock and Congress turned against it. That's just the whopper that got the attention of many news orgaizations earlier this month. There have been lots of others.

McCain has made multiple false representations of Obama's tax proposals. Obama has made false claims about McCain's stance on Social Security. Both McCain and Obama have traded some whoppers about their energy policies, about Iraq, and about Iran, and about supporting troops.

For our full sampler of the campaign distortions we've seen so far, please read on to our Analysis section. There we provide summaries and links to extensive articles on each. This is a partial tally. We still have more than five weeks to go before Nov. 4.
Analysis
Both candidates are flinging rather a lot of political poppycock, and some serious deceptions, too. We've gone after them in our regular articles and also in our new feature, The FactCheck Wire. Here are the lowlights – thus far.

McCain: Obama will raise your taxes.
It's a pretty standard Republican theme: "Democrat X favors higher taxes and wasteful spending." But the McCain-Palin campaign has repeatedly pushed this line far beyond what the facts will support. Among the whoppers: that Sen. Barack Obama has voted to raise taxes on families earning as little as $32,000 per year, that Obama wants to tax your electricity and your heating oil, that he has voted for "higher" taxes 94 times, and that he will raise taxes for 23 million small-business owners. Each of these claims is false. Sen. John McCain also claims Obama will raise taxes on your investments, which is untrue for all but those at the top of the income scale.

Obama has not proposed new taxes for electricity or for home heating oil. McCain likes to point to a budget resolution for which Obama voted, which would have raised the marginal tax rate on a single individual earning $41,500 per year or a couple earning $83,000 per year. But that isn't part of Obama's tax plan, which would raise rates (including capital gains and dividend rates) only for couples earning at least $250,000 per year, or singles earning $200,000 or more. Any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k) plans or other tax-deferred retirement accounts would remain just that, tax-deferred. Nor would Obama's plans affect 23 million small-business owners; most, in fact, would see a tax cut. At most, a few hundred thousand of the most affluent business owners would see rates go up. And those 94 votes for "higher" taxes? We count 23 that would not have raised taxes at all, but were merely votes against tax cuts. Seven of them would have lowered taxes for many. As for Obama's actual plan: The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that 81.3 percent of all American workers and families would see a tax cut.

Tax Tally Trickery July 3

The $32,000 Question July 8

McCain's Small-Business Bunk July 14

More Tax Deceptions August 12

A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern September 2

There He Goes Again September 18

Obama: McCain will cut your Social Security.
Democrats aren't without a classic theme of their own: "Republican Y wants to cut Social Security benefits for our seniors." John Kerry used something like that against George W. Bush in 2004. It wasn't true then and it hasn't gotten any more true in the past four years. But that hasn't stopped Obama from claiming that McCain wants to cut benefits in half.

McCain did support Bush's Social Security plan. But that plan would not have cut benefits at all. Everybody who gets a check now, or who is nearing retirement, would have remained in the current system. For younger workers who retire in the future, Bush proposed to slow the rate at which benefits grow – keeping pace with the rise of prices but not with the faster rise in wages, as is now the case. Compared with what today's retirees get, that's a smaller increase, not a reduction.

Obama also claimed that if McCain had his way, "millions" who rely on Social Security would have seen their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Balderdash. The Bush plan, which McCain embraced, would not have allowed anybody born before 1950 to have private accounts, so nobody retired on Social Security today could possibly be relying on private accounts for even a small portion of his or her benefit check. For younger workers, the accounts would have been voluntary anyway.

Scaring Seniors September 19

Obama's Social Security Whopper September 20

The "Bridge to Nowhere"
Both McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have portrayed Palin's supposed opposition to that infamous Bridge to Nowhere as a major feather in her cap. The claim that Palin told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" on the bridge is a serious distortion of the record. In fact, Palin supported the Gravina Access Project (the formal name of the Bridge to Nowhere) during her run for governor, even as McCain was denouncing it repeatedly as pork-barrel spending. When she finally changed her position in 2007, it was only after Congress had removed the earmark. She complained at the time that there was too little money for the bridge and griped about "inaccurate portrayals." She didn't say who was making these portrayals, but the portrayer-in-chief was, well, you know who. As for saying "no thanks," Palin still received all of the funds originally earmarked for building the bridge but was free to spend them as she wished.

GOP Convention Spin, Part II September 4

One Bridge, Two Bridge September 12

What's the full story on the Bridge to Nowhere? September 22

McCain's Energy Errors
McCain has puffed up his own energy plan while offering a few falsehoods about Obama's. Economists from across the political spectrum scoffed at McCain's claim that a summer-long "gas tax holiday" would save motorists money. And McCain has released several ads promising support for renewable energy. His energy plan, however, contains a number of provisions for expanded oil drilling, "clean coal" and nuclear power, while his proposal for supporting renewable energy is limited to re-shuffling existing tax credits in some yet-to-be-specified way. McCain also claims that Obama doesn't support "the electric car" or nuclear power. In fact, Obama proposes lots of new spending on alternative energy and vehicles, and says, at least, that he's open to building new nuclear plants if safety issues are addressed. Then there's McCain's July ad that preposterously claims that Obama is personally responsible for higher gas prices, even though McCain himself has said that the problem was "30 years in the making."

Gas Price Fixes that Won't May 2

McCain's Power Outage June 20

Distorting Obama June 26

A Full Tank of Nonsense July 22

Wind Power Puffery August 8

Obama's Energy Errors
Obama has committed his share of energy-related misleads, too. In July, we caught him saying that his plan will "fast track alternatives" to imported oil. In reality, Obama's offers a 10-year research and development fund, which doesn't sound all that "fast" to us. Obama also claimed that if Americans properly inflated their tires, we could save as much oil as offshore drilling would produce. That's true in the very short term, but not over the long haul. And Obama, too, has distorted McCain's energy claims. He accused McCain of receiving $2 billion from the oil and gas industry; that figure was $700 million too high at the time. And Obama continues to claim that McCain will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies. But these tax cuts are the result of an across-the-board decrease in corporate tax rates, which would also benefit companies that provide alternative energy.

Straining a Point July 17

Obama's Overstatement August 4

The Truth About Tire Pressure August 14

McCain: Obama doesn't take Iran seriously.
McCain has launched two different deceptive attacks on Obama's Iran policy. Back in June, McCain implied that Obama did not support naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. And more recently, McCain blasted Obama for saying that Iran was "tiny" and "didn't pose a serious threat." Both claims are seriously misleading. It's true that Obama voted against an amendment that would have named the IRGC a terrorist organization. But Obama opposed the bill for other reasons and had earlier cosponsored a different bill that would have named the IRGC a terrorist group. And as for Obama's assessment of the Iranian threat: He actually said that Iran is tiny compared with the Soviet Union and doesn't pose a serious threat the way the Soviet Union and its thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles did. McCain left that qualifier out.

Soft on Iran June 5

Context Included: Obama on Iran August 27

Obama: McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
We first caught the DNC distorting McCain's remarks all the way back in February. But that didn't stop the DNC or the Obama campaign from continuing to say that McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. In fact, McCain is referring to a peacetime presence in Iraq, as the full context of McCain's remarks makes clear. Here's what McCain actually said, in a Jan. 3 town hall meeting:
McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

Smear or Be Smeared February 8

DNC vs. McCain April 29

He's Against the Troops
We've caught both candidates distorting their opponent's record on support for military personnel and veterans:

.In July, McCain released an ad saying that Obama "made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops" when the Pentagon "wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." Although the individual claims are all true, the implication is false. Obama had previously visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and in Baghdad – both without cameras in tow. He did cancel a visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany after the Pentagon told him that Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Jonathan Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser, would not be permitted to accompany him. Obama said afterward that he had "a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political."

Snubbing Wounded Troops July 28
.McCain released a July ad accusing Obama of "voting against funding our troops." The ad refers to a single 2007 vote against a war funding bill. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. President Bush vetoed it. (McCain supported that veto, but didn't call it "vetoing support for our troops.") What Obama voted against was the same bill without withdrawal language. And he had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote.

The Truth on Troop Support July 22
.In his convention acceptance speech, Obama twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he had recently called for more troops there himself.

FactChecking Obama August 29

.In May, McCain claimed that Obama is the chair of a subcommittee with oversight over the war in Afghanistan but has failed to hold a single hearing on the subject. But while Obama's subcommittee does have jurisdiction over NATO, which is supplying about half of the troops in Afghanistan, his subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan proper.

Does Obama Chair a Senate subcommittee that oversees the war in Afghanistan? June 20

.In September, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden accused McCain of calling a GI Bill McCain voted against "too generous." Biden's line was similar to an earlier AFL-CIO ad that accused McCain of voting against increasing health care benefits for veterans. McCain actually voted for an increase in health care funding for vets, though the version he supported contained smaller increases than some Democratic-sponsored alternatives. And McCain did refer to Sen. Jim Webb's proposed GI Bill as "more generous" than the version he supported, but "more generous" is not the same as "too generous."

AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain July 10
Stretching with Biden September 18

More Misleads and Factual Fumbles
.McCain and Palin have both falsely claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply and/or 20 percent of the U.S. domestic oil and natural gas supply. Both claims are false. Alaska produces about 3.5 percent of the U.S. domestic energy supply and about 7.4 percent of the U.S. domestic oil and gas supply.

.McCain released an ad claiming that Obama's "one accomplishment" in education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." That's false. The bill was hardly Obama's accomplishment as he was not even a cosponsor, and in any case, the bill didn't make it out of the state Senate.

Obama quotes McCain as saying he wants to apply "Wall Street deregulation" to health care. That's a distortion of McCain's words. McCain actually limited his comparison just to the idea of allowing people to purchase health care policies across state lines.

.McCain claims that U.S. oil imports send $700 billion per year to countries that don't like us very much. That's an exaggeration. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need, and one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

.Obama has misrepresented some of McCain's votes on school funding as votes for cutting education spending. In fact, of the five votes the Obama ad lists, one was for an increase in school funding (just a smaller one than Democrats wanted) and four others were against increases and not for spending cuts.

.McCain has promised that he will balance the budget by 2013. That's unlikely. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that without serious spending cuts, McCain's tax proposals will actually increase the size of the debt between $5.1 trillion and $7.4 trillion over the next 10 years. So balancing the budget would require cutting federal spending by 25 percent. McCain, however, has proposed very few specific spending cuts.
Go on-site for the numerous links within this article, just click on the following URL:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html
– by Joe Miller, with the staff of FactCheck.org

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 06:33 PM

^^^^^^^

From Brewster's Millions to Paulson's Billions
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093925/how-brewsters-millions-and-star-wars-explain-700-billion-bailout
By
David Sirota
Campaign for America's Future, 9/25/08
Just to get our heads around how absurd this bailout proposal is, let's use movies as our metaphor.

First, is the metaphor of Brewster's Millions (which, incidentally, I discussed in a recent newspaper column about political movies, and whose original story was - unsurprisingly - written during the Gilded Age). That film was hilarious because Montgomery Brewster was asked to spend $30 million in one month without accruing a single asset of value.

Now, the political and media elite would have us believe it is possible to responsibly spend $700 billion dollars not in a month like Montgomery Brewster, but in one week, potentially without accruing a single (mortgage-backed) asset or equity stake of value. Incredibly, we are expected not to laugh hysterically, but actually think this is a serious idea. We've gone from Brewsters Millions to Bush's Billions. Here's a graphic that you can send around to your friends to lampoon this bailout travesty:

http://tinyurl.com/3fc7nd
Just on this basis alone, how can any legislator vote for this? Do you really believe Congress can craft a bill responsibly spending $700 billion in five days? I've worked in Congress - these people can't spend that much money responsibly in a 12-month budget process. And now we are expected to believe that the smartest and shrewdest way to avert a crisis - rather than exacerbate one - is to spend $700 billion in one week? I don't care what kind of weak "oversight" or executive pay language is in there - taking less than a week to authorize the spending of 5 percent of our entire GDP is criminally
irresponsible.

Brewsters Millions was funny because it was fiction. This isn't funny at all. Anyone who votes for this bill in its current fashion is engaging in gross economic negligence that drove us into the crisis. Wall Street speculators got themselves into a mess by betting big and losing. Now political speculators in Washington are betting 5 percent of our entire economy on one spin of the roulette wheel - and will charge the loss to average taxpayers.

Yet, Congress, the presidential campaigns and the national media are all espousing what we might call the Princess Leia message from Star Wars. "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope," Leia pleaded - and its the same thing our ruling class is saying. Help us taxpayers, bailing us out with no strings attached is the economy's only hope.

But is it? Last I checked, the Treasury Department pushing the plan is on the record acknowledging that it made up the $700 billion number, not basing it on any data or substantive plan at all. In fact, the only substantive plan I've seen is the one put forward by James Galbraith, one of the most respected economists in the country.

Under the heading "A Bailout We Don't Need," the University of Texas
professor takes to the Washington Post today to outline an alternative economic rescue package - one that doesn't involve handing over almost a trillion dollars to the corporate campaign contributors who created this crisis in the first place.

Here are some excerpts:

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear
the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by buying preferred shares if necessary...Review the situation in three months, when Congress comes
back... could be resolved in three years, rather than 10, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished. Set it up like a draft board in each community, under federal guidelines, and get to work...

Reenact Richard Nixon's great idea: federal revenue sharing. States and localities should get the funds to plug their revenue gaps and maintain real public spending, per capita, for the next three to five years. Also, enact the National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital improvements... Here's another problem: the wealth loss to near-retirees and the elderly from a declining stock market as things shake out. How about taking care of this, with rough justice, through a supplement to Social Security? If you need a revenue source, impose a turnover tax
on stocks.

A while back, Barack Obama listed Galbraith as one of his economic advisers. Sadly, Galbraith was left out of the emergency meeting Obama convened about the crisis. Evidently, the Illinois senator believed it was more important to have people who created the crisis like Citigroup's Bob Rubin nearby than an expert like Galbraith who has been sounding the alarm for years - and who has a rational plan to get us out of this mess.

But just in case you actually believed Washington's Princess Leia message of desperation - that the $700 billion bailout is our only hope - think again. There are plenty of other ways to address this challenge.

The problem, of course, is that this isn't about the American economy. It's about disaster capitalism and enriching the people who engineered this crisis to begin with. Bush is the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the shock doctrine, both parties in Congress who are helping him push this bailout are akin to Darth Vader - and the circle is now complete. When those legislators capitulated to him on the Patriot Act and the Iraq War back in the post-9/11 fearmongering days, they were but the learner. Now sadly, they are the master.

http://www.ebondi.com.au/starwars/sounds/master.mp3

http://www.davidsirota.com . . . . . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 07:37 PM

Exposing Corruption Exploring SolutionsProject on Government Oversight
Dear Saundra,

Last week, POGO released a report on the Department of Interior's (DOI) controversial Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) program. In our report, we detailed the cozy relationship between officials at DOI's Minerals Management Service (MMS) and employees of the oil and gas industry, and we recommended phasing out the RIK program, which has evidently been set up to benefit industry rather than taxpayers.

Now some Members of Congress have also decided that enough is enough. This week, Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Nelson (D-FL) introduced legislation to provide much-needed reforms to the RIK program. The Integrity in Offshore Energy Resources Act (S. 3543) would ban MMS employees from accepting gifts from the oil and gas industry, and would suspend the RIK program until MMS conducts a comprehensive review to certify that it has been accurately collecting oil and gas royalties.

I've included the letter, SRH.

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Robert Menendez
317 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: 202.228.2197

The Honor Bill Nelson
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202.228.2183

Dear Senators Menendez and Nelson,

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) strongly supports every effort to promote ethical conduct and accountability in the management of the taxpayers' natural resources, which is why we wish to express our gratitude to for your hard work on S. 3543.

Oil and gas royalty collections from drilling on federal lands and waters are the second largest source of revenue for the federal government.1 Investigations conducted by the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Inspector General (IG) and POGO revealed gross misconduct in DOI’s Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) program. Instances of misconduct included reports of RIK personnel receiving inappropriate gifts from industry and performing outside work that clearly conflicted with the ethical performance of their duties for the RIK program. POGO is pleased that S. 3543 addresses these problems by establishing clear provisions that prohibit the acceptance of these gifts, and that more clearly defines what outside work presents a conflict of interest. Most importantly, by making violations of the gifts provision a felony, this bill clearly establishes the accountability desperately needed in the RIK program.

In POGO’s most recent report, Drilling the Taxpayer: Department of Interior’s Royalty-In-Kind Program, POGO tracked the history of the program to demonstrate how it was industry-created, industry-supported, and industry corrupted. In the report, POGO points to how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly found that the RIK program cannot prove that it benefits taxpayers. Additionally, DOI IG Devaney recently told the House Natural Resources committee that he also could not verify the profitability of the program, since RIK contracts were “unauditable” by the IG’s forensic accountants. Given these significant failures to verify the most basic effectiveness of this program, POGO applauds S. 3543 for suspending the RIK program until DOI conducts a comprehensive review that certifies to Congress that the program is accurately measuring the royalty amounts owed to taxpayers.

Finally, auditing is one of the most basic tools for financial accountability. POGO and others have frequently criticized the RIK program for being overly reliant on superficial oversight through “compliance reviews” in lieu of audits. POGO believes that by clearly prohibiting DOI from using compliance reviews instead of audits, S. 3543 takes a significant step toward restoring fiscal responsibility to the RIK Program.

There are too many concerns and too much money at stake to allow DOI to expand RIK as a method for collecting billions of dollars owed to taxpayers. POGO urges the House and Senate to support S. 3543 to restore accountability and ethics to the collection of the taxpayers’ royalties.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service. Interim Report on the History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern Louisiana . July 2004. p. 30. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/studies/2004/2004-049.pdf
. . . . . . . . . . .
As Members of Congress weigh the pros and cons of the Treasury Department's plan to spend up to $700 billion absorbing troubled mortgage-based assets from private firms, POGO has joined a coalition of over 50 organizations from across the political spectrum in opposing certain sections of the plan that would allow the Treasury Secretary to make sweeping decisions while hiding behind a veil of secrecy.

I've included the letter. SRH:
September 23, 2008

Any Federal Financial Industry Rescue Package Must Be Transparent
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd The Honorable Richard Shelby
Chairman Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Banking, Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Housing and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building 534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby:
We the undersigned, as advocates for open and transparent government, strongly oppose section 2(b)(2) and section 8 of the Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets. While we hold many different views on the causes of and remedies for the current turmoil in financial markets, we are united in the belief that the legislation confers unacceptably broad powers upon the Treasury to conduct activities without transparency and accountability to the public. As written, the proposal would make any decisions by the Secretary non-reviewable by courts or administrative agencies – a certain prescription for the very kind of opacity that has contributed to the financial policy woes we face today. Equally troubling, public contracts associated with the proposal could be created outside of existing laws normally governing such actions.
Few proposals in the 110th Congress can match this one for its impact on the American people. For the sake of democratic discourse, citizens deserve vigorous, timely, and accessible disclosure of all details surrounding any government decisions in response to financial market problems. Congress should respect this vital civil right by rejecting section 2(b)(2) and section 8 of the proposal now before you.
At a minimum, any credible solution must address one of the current crisis’ fundamental causes – corruption and other abuses of power sustained by secrecy. Otherwise, the taxpayers could end up giving $700 billion more to repeat the same disasters. Congress must prove it has learned this lesson. Any genuine solution must be grounded in transparency, with all relevant records publicly available and best practice whistleblower protection for all employees connected with the new law. Secrecy worsened this crisis, and taxpayers will not accept a law for secret solutions. What happens to our money is our business.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions, please contact Patrice McDermott, OpenTheGovernment.org, at 202 332 6736, or Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union, at 703-683-5700.
Sincerely,
Access Info Europe
Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington

to read the coalition letter, which was sent to the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. And be sure to check out our web alert to learn more. . . . . .
Last week, POGO's Scott Amey testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight. His testimony focused on long-term management and contracting problems at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency that is notorious for wasting taxpayer dollars. The Subcommittee has calculated approximately $15 billion worth of waste in 11 DHS programs, which probably represents a mere fraction of the cost of failed homeland security contracts.

Click here to read Scott's testimony, or click below to to watch an archived video of the hearing/

Print transcript:

http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ht-080917-dhsspending.html

VIDEO:

http://homeland.edgeboss.net/wmedia/homeland/chs/failed.wvx

Warm regards,

Danielle Brian
Executive Director
Project On Government Oversight
. . . . .
Click here to view our most recent press alerts.

http://www.pogo.org/p/x/pressroomarchives.html

Follow the link below to tell your friends about POGO.
Tell-a-friend!

Be sure to check out their blog post to learn more. (I've included it as well. SRH)
BLOG POST:
EEOICP Under Scrutiny...Again! | Main | DoD Doesn't Spend All $$ Available, and Congress Says, "How Dare You!" »

POGO Urges Congress to Pass S. 3543
Yesterday, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced legislation to provide much-needed reforms to the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) Program (S. 3543). Today, POGO released a letter in support of the legislation.

In addition to providing much-needed ethical reforms to prevent Greg Smith-style conflicts of interest from happening in the future, the bill also calls for the suspension of the expansion of the RIK Program until DOI conducts a comprehensive review that certifies to Congress that the program is accurately measuring the royalty amounts owed to taxpayers.

This bill acknowledges that the problems in RIK are more than just sex and drugs. This program has systemic resource management issues, particularly in its poor use of auditing, the most basic financial accounting tool available to the government. Under S. 3543, unauditable oil and natural gas drilling leases end, since MMS can no longer use superficial compliance reviews in place of audits. POGO is hopeful that this bill--which recognizes the need to give reforms teeth through provisions like making an illegal gratuity a felony punishable by 2 years in prison--will begin to restore ethical conduct and accountability to resource management.

-- Mandy Smithberger
.....

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 08:16 PM

~~~~~~~
"We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, will be known only as Americans."

Martin Kelly
~~~
"They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. That is too much, even for a joke. ... Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder... And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles."

Eugene Victor Debs
~~~
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

Arthur Miller playwright
~~~
"For most Americans the Constitution had become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions but forgotten in the daily transactions of life."

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
1888-1965
~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 08:53 PM

lllllllllllll
Israel Asked US for Green Light to Bomb Nuclear Sites in Iran
llllllllllllllllllllll
US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian
By Jonathan Steele
25/09/08 "The Guardian" -- - Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.

The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.

The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.

Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.

The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack. Some western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon's Shia movement Hizbollah to strike at the US.

"It's over ten years since Hizbollah's last terror strike outside Israel, when it hit an Argentine-Israel association building in Buenos Aires [killing 85 people]", said one official. "There is a large Lebanese diaspora in Canada which must include some Hizbollah supporters. They could slip into the United States and take action".

Even if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission.

"The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of an uranium enrichment plant.

In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US.

Several high-level Israeli officials have hinted over the last two years that Israel might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans.

Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis.

Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear programme in the dying weeks of Bush's term.

During Saddam Hussein's rule in 1981, Israeli aircraft successfully destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was due to start operating.

Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.

In contrast, Iran's nuclear facilities, which are officially described as intended only for civilian purposes, are dispersed around the country and some are in fortified bunkers underground.

In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded. In a speech to the Knesset the following day he confined himself to telling Israel's parliament: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests".

Three weeks after Bush's red light, on June 2, Israel mounted a massive air exercise covering several hundred miles in the eastern Mediterranean. It involved dozens of warplanes, including F-15s, F-16s and aerial refueling tankers.

The size and scope of the exercise ensured that the US and other nations in the region saw it, said a US official, who estimated the distance was about the same as from Israel to Natanz.

A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme."

The exercise and Mofaz's comments may have been designed to boost the Israeli government and military's own morale as well, perhaps, to persuade Bush to reconsider his veto. Last week Mofaz narrowly lost a primary within the ruling Kadima party to become Israel's next prime minister. Tzipi Livni, who won the contest, takes a less hawkish position.

The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option.

The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters.

Map showing nuclear activity in IranClick on "comments" below to read or post comments

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
. . . . . . .

So if GW Bush isn't going to back Israeli air strikes, why on Gods earth did he sell them 1000 Bunker Busters? One thousand "BUNKER BUSTER BOMBS" were sold to them just a few days ago.

What was the administration expecting? That the bombs were only for display in a May Day type parade?

The elections are almost upon us, and look at the mess they've shoved us into and I don't see it getting any better.

Now they're training our own troops for crowd control, to be used against us in the event we finally revolt. Where will Blackwater be in this scenario?

What a crew the packed Supreme court has foisted on us, and it just continued on with yet another election being stolen.

What is it that they'll be doing this election? Dreadful to contemplate isn't it? SRH llllllllllllllllllll

Saundra Hummer

September 25th, 2008, 09:38 PM

I I I I I
When Ignorance Meets Arrogance
Palin on Iran’s Ahmadinejad: ‘He Must Be Stopped’
(Full Text of Planned Remarks)

In a speech prepared for the Jewish sponsored Anti-Iran rally during Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN on September 22 2208, Palin promised that she would do everything possible to “stop” the danger of a nuclear Iran — even beyond sanctions

By
Sarah Palin
The New York Sun

25/09/08 --- - 22/09/08 -- I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a “Final Solution” — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.” Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the “Iranian nation would not retreat one iota” from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world’s most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran’s desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran’s official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government’s threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad’s rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the “One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws.” The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women’s rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of “propaganda against the system.” After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to “only” 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime’s dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran’s behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran’s allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran’s refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran’s economic influence.

We must target the regime’s assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran’s Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel’s enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain’s promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

WWW.JOHNPILGER.COM

From
'Information Clearing House

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20858.htm ~ ~ ~
It's as if Sarah Palin is rabidly inviting the end of times as we know them. Does she know that the "Rapture" is a somewhat rather recent belief?

One thing we do know is that war is hell and with radiation loaded bombs the PNAC have on the table, a war can end up being hell for the victor as well as the defeated. I know, I had a great friend who was near Bikini on a US Navy ship when they bombed Bikini. He suffered for years.

We know from tests that a radio-active cloud can reach all the way around the world and we know full well radiations harmful effects and the damage it does, especially to children. Is this what we all want for all of our children? Not just our own? All of our children?

With Israel, or us, using radio active bunker busters which will end up contaminating all of us, we risk our own health. The weapons they plan on using have the potential to harm us all, depending on which way the winds blow. We know where the jet stream goes and we are right in it's path. We even get coal contamination all the way from China, and it isn't nearly as insidious as radio active microscopic dust.

Now we learn Pakistan is firing on our helicopters, as we, the U.S. States, invade Pakistans sovereign air space; actually firing on suspected terrorists in al Qaida strongholds.

When push comes to shove, who will the victor be? None of us it seems, as there is so much involved. The whole world is turning into a tinder box due to a lack of diplomacy; a ready to explode tinder box, due to the saber rattling that educated men, and this ambitious woman are partaking in.

What a fine mess we're all in due to their power struggles, their unbridled greed, and their total lack of common sense. SRH I I I I I I I

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 12:56 PM

* * * * * * *
Kissinger Instructs Palin On Finer Points Of Clandestine Carpet Bombing

September 24, 2008 | Issue 44•39 WASHINGTON—In preparation for her debate with Sen. Joe Biden next week, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin met with seasoned statesman and Nobel Peace Prize–winner Henry Kissinger yesterday to take advantage of his extensive foreign policy knowledge and expertise in carpet-bombing innocent civilians in nations with which the U.S. is not officially at war.

"Dr. Kissinger has given Gov. Palin thorough instructions for launching deadly covert military operations in tiny Southeast Asian countries in blatant disregard for human life and international law," said McCain campaign spokesperson Tracey Schmitt of Palin's brief consultation with the Nixon and Ford administrations' former secretary of state and national security adviser. "In addition, the governor now feels completely confident that, if she is ever required to step in for Sen. McCain to mastermind the toppling of a democratically elected but left-leaning South American government without congressional consent, she will be fully prepared."

Sources close to the campaign said that Palin's meeting with Vice President Cheney about how to claim executive supremacy for the purpose of bypassing constitutional limits on torture has been canceled since advisers feel she already has enough personal experience with the subject.

More News Briefs
« Local Extension Cord Blasted For...
(September 24, 2008)
Nation Secretly Hoping 9/11 Becomes A... »
(September 25, 2008)
Print This

Related Articles
Palin Unveils 9/11 Firefighter Cousin, Reformed Lesbian Niece, Naturalized Mexican Half Brother
September 16, 2008
Iraq War Memorial Planners Forced To Revise Length Again
April 9, 2008
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/kissinger_instructs_palin
* * * * *

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 04:44 PM

* * * * * * *
p*liticalticker...
Palin should step down, conservative commentator says

September 26, 2008
Posted: 06:20 PM E*
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Palin was in New York City Thursday.
Go on-site for photo.

(CNN) – Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

The criticism in Parker's Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.

It was fun while it lasted," Parker writes. "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league."

Palin's interview with Couric drew criticism when the Alaska governor was unable to provide an example of when John McCain had pushed for more regulation of Wall Street during his Senate career. Palin also took heat for defending her foreign policy credentials by suggesting Russian leaders enter Alaska airspace when they come to America. Palin was also criticized last week for appearing not to know what the Bush Doctrine is during an interview with Charlie Gibson.

“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself," Parker also writes. "If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

Parker, who praised McCain's "keen judgment" for picking Palin earlier this month and wrote the Alaska governor is a "perfect storm of God, Mom and apple pie," now says Palin should step down from the ticket.

“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves," Parker writes. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Parker's comments follow those by prominent conservatives David Brooks, George Will, and David Frum who have all publicly questioned Palin's readiness to be vice president.

"Sarah Palin has many virtues," Brooks wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
http://www.buzzflash.com * * * * *

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 05:03 PM

. . . . . . .Exclusive September 26, 2008
Sources say Alberto Gonzales now claims that President Bush personally directed him to John Ashcroft's hospital room in the infamous wiretap renewal incident—and that in another instance the President asked him to fabricate fictitious notes

by
Murray Waas

What Did Bush Tell Gonzales?

In March 2004, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a now-famous late-night visit to the hospital room of Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking to get Ashcroft to sign a certification stating that the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was legal. According to people familiar with statements recently made by Gonzales to federal investigators, Gonzales is now saying that George Bush personally directed him to make that hospital visit.

The hospital visit is already central to many contemporaneous historical accounts of the Bush presidency. At the time of the visit, Ashcroft had been in intensive care for six days, was heavily medicated, and was recovering from emergency surgery to remove his gall bladder. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey has said that he believes that Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who accompanied Gonzales to Ashcroft’s hospital room, were trying to take advantage of Ashcroft’s grievously ill state—pressing him to sign the certification possibly without even comprehending what he was doing—and in the process authorize a government surveillance program which both Ashcroft and the Justice Department had concluded was of questionable legality.

Gonzales has also told Justice Department investigators that President Bush played a more central and active role than was previously known in devising a strategy to have Congress enable the continuation of the surveillance program when questions about its legality were raised by the Justice Department, as well as devising other ways to circumvent the Justice Department’s legal concerns about the program, according to people who have read Gonzales’s interviews with investigators. The White House declined to comment for this story. An attorney for Gonzales, George J. Terwilliger III, himself a former deputy attorney general, declined to comment as well.

Although this president is famously known for rarely becoming immersed in the details—even on the issues he cares the most about—Gonzales has painted a picture of Bush as being very much involved when it came to his administration’s surveillance program.

In describing Bush as having pressed him to engage in some of the more controversial actions regarding the warrantless surveillance program, Gonzales and his legal team are apparently attempting to lessen his own legal jeopardy. The Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) is investigating whether Gonzales lied to Congress when he was questioned under oath about the surveillance program. And the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is separately investigating whether Gonzales and other Justice Department attorneys acted within the law in authorizing and overseeing the surveillance program. Neither the IG nor OPR can bring criminal charges, but if, during the course of their own investigations, they believe they have uncovered evidence of a possible crime, they can seek to make a criminal referral to those who can.

In portraying President Bush as directly involved in making some of the more controversial decisions about his administration’s surveillance program, Gonzales may, intentionally or unintentionally, be drawing greater legal scrutiny to the actions of President Bush and other White House officials. And what began as investigations narrowly focused on Gonzales’s conduct could easily morph into broader investigations leading into the White House, and possibly leading to the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and professor at Columbia Law School, told me that Gonzales appears to be attempting to walk the thin line of taking himself out of harm’s way while at the same time protecting the president, a strategy that very well could work: “I think he is serving his own purposes and the White House’s purposes,” Richman says.

According to Richman, by invoking Bush’s name and authority, Gonzales and his legal team are making it more difficult for investigators to seek a criminal investigation of his actions, or for other investigators to later bring criminal charges against him: “The clearer it is that Gonzales did what he did at the behest of the president of the United States, the safer that he [Gonzales] is legally,” says Richman. At the same time, by saying that he is advising the president, Gonzales also makes it easier for those at the White House to claim executive privilege if they do indeed become embroiled in the probe.

Moreover, according to one senior Justice Department official, Gonzales, his legal team, and the White House also know that Justice’s IG and OPR are unlikely to press senior White House officials, let alone the president, to answer their questions.

But this legal strategy could also backfire.

One scenario feared by the White House is that the IG or OPR could send a public report to Congress concluding that Gonzales or some other official may have committed a crime. At a minimum, that would make the conduct of Gonzales, or of any other official deemed to be under suspicion, the subject of a criminal investigation.

If the report also raised unanswered questions about possible misconduct by other senior administration officials, or even the president, that could lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor. Some consider this unlikely; Attorney General Mike Mukasey has said that he is not an advocate of special prosecutors, and his critics in Congress have said that Mukasey tends to use his position for the political benefit of the White House. But in the hands of congressional Democrats, a public report accusing Gonzales and other administration officials of misconduct could make it difficult for Mukasey to resist their calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Inside the White House, this is what is called the “nightmare scenario.” White House Counsel Fred Fielding, who served in the Nixon White House during Watergate and as a White House counsel during the Reagan administration, has told others in the White House that although he does not consider this a likelihood, it should not be ruled out, and Bush and his staff should be ready for such a contingency. In addition to the Justice Department’s IG and OPR investigations regarding the surveillance program, Gonzales is also under investigation by the IG as to whether he lied to Congress about the politicized firings of nine U.S. attorneys. Fielding has told White House colleagues that there is an outside possibility that a special prosecutor could be appointed to conduct a broader investigation.

In the meantime, however, it will be increasingly difficult for the president to claim he was detached from the major decisions regarding his surveillance program. One fiction that has been set aside is that the regrettable incident in Ashcroft’s hospital room was the work of overzealous or insensitive staff.

The narrative of a detached Bush delegating to his staff and to his vice president continues to be the predominant one. Gonzales and Vice President Cheney have been only too happy to serve as lightning rods for criticism of the administration, drawing fire away from many of President Bush’s most controversial decisions on national-security policy.

Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman’s recently published book on Cheney, The Angler, once again implies that it was Cheney who was running the show. An excerpt published in The Washington Post about the president’s role in pressing for the surveillance program was headlined “Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis.” The article was also summarized as follows on the newspaper’s Web site: “President was nowhere in the picture as Cheney fought to keep surveillance program on track.”

But seemingly contrary to the book’s broader conclusions was a story corroborating Gonzales’s account to investigators that Bush ordered him and Card to go visit Ashcroft in the hospital. Indeed, if Gellman is correct, Gonzales and Card would never have been admitted to Ashcroft’s hospital room without the president’s intercession in the first place. Gellman wrote:

The phone started ringing in the makeshift command center next to John Ashcroft’s hospital room. Janet Ashcroft had been at her husband’s side for six days. He was in intensive care, sedated, recovering from emergency surgery to remove his gallbladder. Mrs. Ashcroft’s orders were unequivocal: no calls, from anyone, for any reason. According to two people who saw the FBI’s handwritten logs, the White House operator—on behalf of Gonzales or Card, it was unclear which—asked to be connected to the attorney general. The hospital switchboard, following orders, declined.

That evening, the FBI logged a call from the president of the United States. No one had the nerve to refuse him. The phone rang at Ashcroft’s bedside. Bush told his ailing cabinet chief that Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card were on their way.

Tipped off by Ashcroft’s chief of staff, Acting Attorney General Comey and other Justice Department officials raced to the hospital so they would be there when Gonzales and Card arrived. It will never be known whether Ashcroft would have been competent to understand what they were telling him and whether they would have persuaded him to sign.

Had he gone ahead and done so, he would be have been signing a document facilitating a program that he and his top aides had only recently concluded was of questionable legality.

As Gonzales and Ashcroft made their way to the George Washington University Medical Center, where Ashcroft was recovering from surgery, an upset Mrs. Ashcroft called her husband’s chief of staff to tell him that Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital. He in turn called Comey.

Comey’s account of what transpired next is now well known. Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Jack Goldsmith, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose office had recently written a legal opinion concluding that the surveillance program was of questionable legality, have all testified about what transpired just before and during the showdown in Aschcroft’s hospital room. But it bears some repeating, if only to show what we now know President Bush set in motion.

Comey was on his way home the evening of March 10, 2004, when he received the call. He ordered his security detail to get him to the hospital immediately.

Comey later told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that.”

Careening down Constitution Avenue at high speed and with sirens blaring, Comey arrived only minutes before Gonzales and Card did. Similarly alerted, Goldsmith had also raced to the hospital and run up the steps to arrive, out of breath, at Ashcroft’s bedside.

On the way, Comey had frantically called FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller was so concerned about what Gonzales and Card were attempting to do, according to Comey, that he instructed FBI agents who constituted Ashcroft’s and Comey’s security details that Comey was not “to be removed from the room under any circumstance.”

Within minutes after Comey and Goldsmith reached Ashcroft’s bedside, Gonzales and Card also arrived. Comey would later recall to Congress that Gonzales was “carrying an envelope” with him. The envelope contained the certification that President Bush so badly wanted him to sign.

"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

Gonzales, in an attempt to persuade Ashcroft to sign the certification, simply misled Ashcroft. Gonzales told Ashcroft he had met earlier that day with congressional leaders who, he claimed, supported the continuation of the program without Department of Justice approval, and were determined to find a legislative remedy that would address the legal concerns of Comey and others. Several of the legislative leaders who had been at that meeting with Gonzales and Vice President Cheney say that Gonzales’s account of what transpired was simply not true.

In response to Gonzales’s and Card’s gambits, Ashcroft, according to Comey, “stunned me … lifted his head off the pillow,” and then told Gonzales and Card, “I’m not the attorney general.” Mustering all the energy he had left, he pointed toward Comey and resolutely said, “There is the attorney general.”

Even in the face of Ashcroft’s refusal to certify the program as being within the law, President Bush initially reauthorized the surveillance program on his own. In The Angler, Barton Gellman suggests that this move “may have been the nearest thing to a claim of unlimited power ever made by an American president, all the more radical for having been issued in secret. Not only would the will of Congress be flouted, but if the White House had its way, Congress would never know.”

Learning of the reauthorization, Ashcroft, Comey, and more than a dozen officials at the highest levels of government became concerned that if the surveillance program was allowed to continue on as it had been, the government could be engaging in an illegal activity at the direction of the president, and they quietly spoke of resigning en masse.

The mass resignation of so many senior officials of the government would have been all but unprecedented in modern American political history.

One former Justice Department official personally involved in the events said that the only historical precedent would have been the Saturday Night Massacre, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned rather than carry out an order from President Nixon to fire the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. With Richardson out of the way, Nixon ordered the new acting attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned as well. The next in line for succession as acting attorney general was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who finally fired Cox and ordered the FBI to seal and seize Cox’s office.

The former Justice Department official says that the Saturday Night Massacre would have “been nothing compared to what almost came to be … I mean, it would have been poof! and the attorney general would have been gone. The deputy attorney general would have been gone. Goldsmith—he would have been gone. The FBI director would have resigned.”

If all those men had resigned, top aides to each of them would have resigned as well. Ashcroft’s chief of staff and two deputy chiefs of staff said they would go with their boss. Comey’s top aides would have resigned with him. The general counsels of the CIA and FBI said they were going to resign as well.

Adding to this constitutional spectacle would have been the fact that the administration’s warrantless surveillance program was considered one of the most closely held national-security secrets in government at the time. There would have been no immediate explanation of why a portion of the government just up and resigned at once.

Ultimately, confronted with the possible resignations of his own top aides, Bush backed down. The president agreed to address the concerns of the Justice Department and to make significant changes in the program so that it would be conducted within the law. But the president did not do so without first defiantly telling Comey, “I decide what the law is for the executive branch.”

Bush’s change of heart apparently had little to do with the rule of law, but rather more to do with political pragmatism and his fear that the entire affair might become public.

Before Gonzales and Card met with Ashcroft in the hospital, Gonzales and Cheney met with congressional leaders so as to enlist their possible aid in finding a legislative means for continuing the eavesdropping program if Comey and others continued to disagree about its legality. Bush personally instructed Gonzales to write notes of what was said at the meeting, according to a report released on September 2, 2008, by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The disclosure came because the IG was investigating whether Gonzales had mishandled classified information while attorney general.

A single sentence in the report says: “Gonzales told the OIG [Office of Inspector General] that President Bush directed him to memorialize the March 10, 2004 meeting.”

Among those present at the meeting besides Gonzales and Cheney, according to the IG report, were National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the House minority leader, the Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

Regarding the notes that Gonzales made about the meeting, the IG report went on to say:

Gonzales stated that he drafted notes about the meeting in a spiral notebook in his White House Counsel’s Office within a few days of the meeting, probably on the weekend immediately following the meeting. Gonzales stated that he wrote the notes in a single sitting except for one line, which he told us he wrote within the next day.

A congressional source familiar with the meeting said in an interview that he believed it was significant that Bush personally directed Gonzales to write notes as to what occurred at the meeting. Ordinarily members of Congress don’t take notes at briefings concerning such highly classified issues. Very likely, Gonzales’s notes are the only ones that exist. [The Justice Department is investigating whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales created a set of fictitious notes so that President Bush would have a rationale for reauthorizing his warrantless eavesdropping program. For that story click here. . . .Go on site with URL at bottom of article]
The September 2 report by the IG narrowly focused on the question of whether Gonzales “mishandled classified documents” during his tenure as attorney general. The report concluded that Gonzales “violated Department security requirements and procedures” in handling 18 documents, classified as Top Secret or higher. Several were marked as SCI, or “sensitive compartmented information,” a category for the most highly classified records in government.

Among the most sensitive of those documents mishandled were the notes that Gonzales made of his March 10, 2004, meeting with congressional leaders.

It is unclear, based on what Gonzales wrote in his notes, what exactly he was told by the congressional leaders during the White House’s meeting with them.

But on July 24, 2007, when questioned before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the events of March 10, 2004, Gonzales testified that the members of Congress he met with that day had told him that “despite the recommendation of the deputy attorney general,” the government should still “go forward with very important intelligence activities.”

Several of the members of Congress who were at the March 10 meeting—House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle among them—have said they said no such thing.

Shortly before Gonzales resigned from office in August 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, wrote to inform Congress that he was investigating whether statements made by Gonzales under oath during congressional testimony were “intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate.”

Among the statements that Fine is apparently investigating is one in which Gonzales claimed that the congressional leaders had wanted him to move forward with the program despite Comey’s refusal to certify it as legal.

Gonzales is also in legal jeopardy for having earlier told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there had never been any “serious disagreement” about the legality of the administration’s surveillance program: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program the president has confirmed,” he testified in February 2006.

At the time Gonzales made that statement, the public had no idea about his late-night hospital-room visit with John Ashcroft—and he apparently had no expectation that it would ever come to light.

In one additional instance, President Bush was the person responsible for a controversial decision regarding his surveillance program.

This involved an effort to prevent his very own Justice Department from investigating the surveillance program in the first place. During 2006 and 2007, I wrote a series of stories for National Journal about how the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility wanted to investigate the administration’s surveillance program, but was unable to because its investigators were being denied security clearances to do their work. (Those articles can be found here, here, and here.) Over time, it was revealed that Gonzales had denied those security clearances, and later that Bush himself had made the decision disallowing them.

The story that I wrote for the March 15, 2007, edition of National Journal began as follows:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry—to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility—would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.

At the time the story was published, Gonzales was fighting for his political life. Republicans in Congress had joined Democrats in sharply criticizing Gonzales for his role in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. A whole new controversy might make his resignation from office imminent.

Gonzales immediately fought back. On March 22, 2007, a senior Justice Department official wrote Congress on his behalf, saying not only that it was President Bush who had made the decision to deny security clearances to the OPR investigators, but also that Gonzales had advised the president that the investigation should be allowed to move forward, and that Bush had overruled that advice.

A senior Justice Department official told me that the letter was approved in advance by the White House: “It was decided that in this instance the attorney general could no longer take the heat for the president … This time the president was going to take responsibility and deflect criticism for [his attorney general] instead of the other way around.”

At the time, it appeared that the president had halted the Justice Department’s probe in order to protect his attorney general, whose conduct was going to be a central focus for investigators. But as more information continues to come to light, the president’s denial of the security clearances raises an important question: Were the president’s actions designed to protect his attorney general—or himself?

The URL for this page is:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809u/gonzales-investigation.

Related story:The Case of the Gonzales Notes
Did Alberto Gonzales create a set of fictitious notes to justify the reauthorization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program? By Murray Waas
. . . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 05:18 PM

. . . . .
BUZZFLASH Headlines On BuzzFlash.com,

George Lakoff Offers Some Last Minute Debate Advice to Obama
September 26, 2008
George Lakoff and Kathleen Frumkin

John McCain knew that there would be no bailout agreement before he announced that he would go to Washington, supposedly to help promote such an agreement in the spirit of bipartisanship. We smell a trap. Bush, Paulson, and the Congressional Republicans lure the Democrats (and Obama) into supporting a proposal based on a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.

The Congressional Republicans then come out as apparent populists riding the wave of a taxpayer revolt against Wall Street and they identify the Democrats and Obama as supporters of Wall Street. McCain can then come to the debate and say:
*that he is a maverick for not supporting the Bush proposal,
*that he is a populist for being against a bailout by taxpayers,
*that real populism is cutting taxes and getting rid of regulation, which is the Republican proposal, and that this is "real reform"

If Obama just says the Republican proposal won’t work (following Paulson and Bernanke), he will still be tagged as an elitist friend of Wall Street. The debate will not have time to go into the details of why economists say it won’t work, and McCain can emerge smelling like a populist rose.

Of course, Obama is the real populist here, insisting on conditions to help homeowners and to return the money to taxpayers by giving the government equity in the corporations. McCain can simply call this socialism and more big government.

Obama has to undercut this possibility from the start. He has to come out with the populist proposals as central and the question of who pays and how as a technical economic question that cannot be solved by partisan ideology. He also has to characterize the Republican proposal to cut regulation and corporate taxes as even more as more of what got us into this mess. And he has to say out loud that McCain knew about the breakdown of negotiations before he went to Washington, and that the trip was an attempt to revive a failing campaign.

In the foreign policy segment, Obama has to avoid helping McCain. McCain will claim that "the surge worked." Obama should come out calling the surge from the start of the discussion "a political failure", and later mention that it has been only a partial security success — partial because, in any other country, over 100 attacks a month would be called impermissible violence, and that’s how many attacks the surge has resulted in. Given that we have 12 times the population of Iraq, that would be like having 1200 bombings a month in America. Would you call that "working" if it occurred here?

Obama needs a response to McCain’s call for "victory." A possible response is "Victory over who?" "What enemies would you sign a peace treaty with?" The people of Iraq? They mostly want us to leave, as does the elected government.

Obama also has to take the foreign policy debate out of the purely military arena, and talk about the hardest problems in the world that cannot be solved by military means: global warming, global economic issues and poverty, hunger, the oppression of women, ethic cleansing, water, and so on. Our troops, as great as they are, cannot solve most foreign policy problems. Foreign policy requires president with vision in all these areas.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1785

SUBSCRIBE to BuzzFlash Alerts! http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/subscribe.php

For More Than 180 Headlines and Stories visit http://www.buzzflash.com.

BuzzFlash | PO Box 618354 | Chicago | IL | 60661-8354

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 05:26 PM

~~~~~~~
"To preserve their [the people's] independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude"

Thomas Jefferson
~~~
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake
~~~
"The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, Politics without principles."

Mahatma Gandhi
Indian leader
1869-1948
~~~
"We kill at every step, not only in wars, riots, and executions. We kill when we close our eyes to poverty, suffering, and shame. In the same way all disrespect for life, all hard-heartedness, all indifference, all contempt is nothing else than killing. With just a little witty skepticism we can kill a good deal of the future in a young person. Life is waiting everywhere, the future is flowering everywhere, but we only see a small part of it and step on much of it with our feet."

Hermann Hesse
German poet and novelist.
~~~
"...most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Self Reliance -
1841
From 'Essays", First series ~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 05:34 PM

:: :: :: :: :: Should We Fear Iran?
The Peter Principle Playoffs
By
Sheila Samples
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men
~~
George Orwell

So here we sit, our heads jerking back and forth so rapidly most of us are suffering severe whiplash. Will the US attack Iran? Will Israel attack Iran? Or will the two war-mongering bullies join forces and "bomb, bomb, bomb" that belligerent twit-nation into subservience?

It's a great game. A deadly game. The momentum to attack Iran has been building for so long that we're conditioned to watching it like some grotesque international tennis competition. It's the Peter Principle Playoffs, with neoconsters and ziomonsters out on the court milling around, working at their highest "levels of incompetence," feverishly plotting Iran's destruction. Foul lines mean nothing to them. There are no rules, no officials, no scores, no accountability.

Bolton's Law
Immediately before Bush invaded Iraq, the criminally insane John Bolton, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, made a personal trip to Israel to assure Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that as soon as we destroyed Iraq, we'd "deal with threats" from Syria, Iran and North Korea. However, it's obvious Iran has always been at the top of the list.

Since 2003, both US and Israeli governments, the corporate media, especially Fox News, and the US Congress have been unrelenting in their campaign to convince the world that Iran is an immediate nuclear threat, although Iran insists it is seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In August 2003, the UK Guardian's Simon Tisdall wrote, "They call it a trap. But we call it Bolton's first law of international power politics; keep the other guy guessing; wear him down. When he gives a little, demand a whole lot more. Then zap him anyway."

Bolton's Law: Make wild accusations. Escalate terror and confusion. Kill. Repeat.

It's no laughing matter, but the sight of this tousle-headed, "got milk?" maniac running in circles, warning of -- demanding -- a nuclear holocaust is good for a grin, albeit a grim one. Even as he was being forced onto the United Nations over national and international objections, Bolton was hot on Iran's trail. He insisted that Iran is the most dangerous critter out there -- harboring terrorists, arming terrorists, training terrorists -- sending bombs, IEDs, weapons to Iraq to kill Americans. If it weren't for Iran, there would have been no 9-11 attack because Iran provided safe haven for the box-cutting killers headed our way. Bolton warned if Iran managed to produce a single nuclear weapon, Israel, the United States -- the world -- was toast. He promised that Iran will come after us. "That's the threat," Bolton barked, "that's the reality whether you like it or not. And it will be just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time."

Bolton keeps showing up for work even though his paycheck is now signed by the second most powerful Israeli Lobby, the American Enterprise Institute . He's determined that Iran is going down and, if he can't goad the US into action, he will whip Israel into a frenzy. Like the Batman's Joker, Bolton leaps from the pages of the Wall Street Journal in catastrophic convulsions on a regular basis. On July 15, Bolton insisted "we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway," Bolton reasoned, "...so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can."

Who's On First?
Bolton is surrounded by fellow psychopaths like Norman Podhoretz who insists our only choice is to bomb Iran before Iran gets the bomb and bombs us. Podhoretz is a key figure in the Playoffs with his constant drumbeat that Iran is the "leading sponsor of terrorism in the world," and once it achieves nuclear technology, we're all gonna die!

And National Review's Larry Kudlow, who swooned ecstatically when Israel cluster-bombed Lebanon two years ago. Israel was "doing the Lord's work," defending freedom against the "Iranian cat's-paw" of terrorism. Kudlow says Israel must not stop, but furiously attack "all the terrorist sanctuaries, training camps, weapons caches, and missile systems it can find." Scary Larry enthusiastically supports at least half of Bolton's Law -- the last half.

Others joining Bolton for whom the destruction of Iran is a political game include Bill Kristol, virtuous "bookie" Bill Bennett, Joe Lieberman, and Daniel Pipes, whose harsh and raucous predictions center around whether Bush will attack Iran before or after the upcoming election. If McCain wins, most say that Bush will pass the nuclear baton to him while sprinting to the finish line to pardon his fellow war criminals. However, if McCain should lose, they agree that Bush will get his war on and leave the mess for Obama to clean up.

Those who continue to beat the drums of war trust that we will believe what they say without considering the obvious. Just last week, to coincide with President Ahmadi-Nejad's visit to the UN, former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, former CIA director James Woolsey, former Clinton Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross, and former UN representative for management and reform Mark Wallace wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal regurgitating rigid neoconservative talking points.

Channeling Cheney, they wrote that we shouldn't believe Iran when it says it "needs nuclear energy and is enriching nuclear materials for strictly peaceful purposes." Hey, Iran has "vast supplies of inexpensive oil and natural gas," so there's no "legitimate economic reason for Iran to pursue nuclear energy."

Then, unable to resist an unsubstantiated "Bushism" or two, these heavy hitters warned that "Iran is a deadly and irresponsible world actor," and should it get the bomb, Iran would "sponsor terror, threaten our allies, and support the most deadly elements of the Iraqi insurgency."

Finally, they whipped out Bolton's Law with the wild -- and discredited -- accusation that "President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be 'wiped from the map,' while seeking the weapons to do so."

The constant discordant barrage of accusations and demands is so outrageous we attempt to shrug it off as mostly ideological clatter-babble, yet we sit paralyzed with fear. We are unable to recognize the real danger that looms just beyond the shadows.

But we know he's there. When Dick Cheney emerges, we are bewitched by the horror he evokes as he piles lie upon bloody lie about Iran's nuclear activities -- in spite of international findings and US intelligence lack of evidence. He accuses Iran of smuggling weapons of mass destruction into Iraq to kill Americans. Iran is training insurgents, is joined at the hip with Al-Qaeda, is the world's most dangerous sponsor of terrorism, and if it can get its hands on just one nuclear weapon, it will immediately lob it in Israel's direction.

In 2005, Cheney instructed the Pentagon to draw up a plan for a nuclear attack on Iran should another 9-11-type terrorist attack on the U.S. occur, even if Iran had nothing to do with it. To provoke a war, Cheney suggested dressing up Navy Seals as Iranians, putting them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shooting at them. Murdering Americans in cold blood, exterminating 60-70 million innocent Iranians and contaminating millions more throughout the region is a small price for Cheney to pay. Iran must face the consequences for having the audacity to possess two-thirds of the world's oil.

Bad, Bad Ahmadi-Nejad
Since being elected in June 2005 as Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad has rhetorically stepped in it and tracked it all over the Persian rug. Scarcely in office four months, he gave a speech in which he quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini who had said years earlier -- "This regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." That comment was transcribed as Ahmadi-Nejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and despite repeated efforts to get the correct translation out, the world's media went into a shrieking frenzy that has yet to abate.

Ahmadi-Nejad has made numerous public and private diplomatic overtures to the United States in the last three years, and all have been rejected -- with insults, sneers, and threats. It is critical to the outcome of the Playoffs that spectators see Ahmadi-Nejad as a criminally insane killer who is a threat to the entire world. He is sort of cocky, and his arrogance at insisting that Iran has the same rights and privileges under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as the other members, that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that George Bush is not Iran's "Decider" is driving guys like Bolton over the edge.

Which -- when you think about it -- is not necessarily a bad thing...
So, who is this guy? Few know that Ahmadi-Nejad is an Engineer with a Ph.D on transportation engineering, a university professor, a working member on the Iran Civil Engineering Society, and the Islamic Association of Students in the Science and Technology University, as well as others. He is an accomplished journalist and former managing director of the Hamshahri newspaper. He was the mayor of Tehran before running for president. Even fewer know that, in reality, he wields no power other than that allotted to him by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. He's deeply religious, stubborn and reckless. He's unpredictable and, at times, dangerous. Ohmigod -- when you think about it -- Ahmadi-Nejad is "Bush with Brains!"

Should We Fear Iran?
Iran's nuclear ambitions for other than peaceful purposes are as elusive as Iraq's WMD, which defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said were "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Yet we are in danger of being swept up in the propaganda catapulted by the Bush administration and the corporate media once again. Perhaps we should take a deep breath and apply a bit of logic here, pay close attention to the obvious. If Iran is truly a threat to the entire world, then we should be afraid. However, demanding that Iran either prove a negative or face extermination of millions of its citizens does not, and should not, pass the terror smell test.

It is obvious that, in this unstable era, we should be aware of, and even fear, those countries bristling with nukes. For starters, the United States has more nuclear weapons than any other nation. Then there's Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea and...shhhhh...Israel. Currently, Pakistan is in turmoil and threatening to shoot down US planes that fly across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and kill civilians, Russia refuses to back off from its Georgia stance no matter how vigorously Condi Rice wags her finger in its face, China has abruptly cut off financial deals with the US because of the plummeting dollar, and North Korea is restarting its Yongbyon nuclear reactor because Bush broke his promise to remove it from Washington's list of state sponsors of terror.

Yet, amidst all this fury and instability, we are obsessed with destroying Iran -- a nation that, in modern history, has never attacked another country -- and which has repeatedly maintained it seeks nuclear power primarily for generating electricity for its growing population. In 2005, Ayatollah Khamenei issued a Fatwa that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons."

What is obvious to anyone familiar with the timeline of Iran's nuclear program from the 1950s is that Iran has never sought nuclear energy for anything other than peaceful purposes. In 1957, the Shah opened the American Atoms for Peace in Tehran, and signed an agreement with the US for cooperation in research on peaceful uses of nuclear technology. And, in 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on the first day it opened for signature. In the late 70's, the US supplied Iran with two nuclear power reactors and enriched uranium fuel, and granted Iran the "most favored nation" status so it would not be discriminated against when seeking permission to reprocess US-origin fuel.

To restate the obvious -- if we are to fear Iran, it is not because, as Bush said in June -- "They refuse to abandon their desires to develop the know-how which could lead to a nuclear weapon" -- it is because Iran threatens to defend itself if attacked. It is because other nations, such as Russia, refuse to stand idly by as Iran is "wiped off the map."

We need to get our minds around who is the aggressor here. Because if we continue to passively watch the evil unfold; if Dick Cheney wins the behind-the-scenes, off-court power struggle, the Peter Principle Playoffs will be over and the entire Middle East will explode in nuclear flames.

Sheila Samples

http://sheilastuff.blogspot.com/

is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at rsamples@wichitaonline.net

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
:: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 26th, 2008, 07:02 PM

^^^McClatchy Washington Bureau

Palin meets the press, and the reviews aren't good
David Goldstein | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: September 26, 2008 08:29:34 PM
SEE VIDEO AS WELL

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin finally fielded some off-the-cuff questions from the media this week _ a campaign first _ but it was her interview with CBS's Katie Couric that drew the attention, and the reviews weren't good. One conservative columnist suggested she should do what's best for the country and resign from the campaign.

The media exposure was a long time coming — 28 days and not a single news conference since John McCain plucked the first-term Alaska governor out of relative obscurity to be his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.

McCain's campaign has been trying to talk up her resume, but the reviews from a variety of quarters of the Couric interview — the latest of her three television interviews — were less than stellar.

In the CBS interview, Palin claimed that the U.S. had gained "victory" in Iraq.

Explaining her earlier comment that living close to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, she needed translation. "As Putin rears his head," she said, referring to Russian prime Minister Vladimir Putin, "and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state."

Her campaign later explained to The New York Times what she meant: "Russian incursions near Alaskan airspace have occurred, and when they do, she is briefed on them by the adjutant general of the Alaska NG (National Guard). Jets scrambled would likely be active duty, possibly Guard."

And after Couric asked repeatedly for examples of when McCain pushed for more regulation, not less, over the financial industry, Palin said, "I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you."

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote, "No one hates saying this more than I do," but Palin's "clearly out of her league" and should "bow out."

Broadway shows close after friendlier reviews.

The McCain campaign's kept Palin in a bubble and has been slamming the news media. It claims coverage has been unfair. The strategy plays well with the Republican base.

But with Election Day little more than a month away, a cultural war might not be the best political strategy when the economy is in meltdown and voters believe Democrat Barack Obama would handle it better.

Two publications suggested the McCain campaign might be part of Palin's problem.

"The fact that Palin's responses to questions are becoming increasingly incoherent rather than rapidly more polished is interesting," Ezra Klein wrote on the Web site of The American prospect. "Rote memorization should have all but eliminated the overlay of nonsense in her answers by now. Matt Yglesias offers a decent hypothesis, saying, 'It's possible that all this cramming is causing Palin to become less coherent — instead of just parrying questions she knows she doesn't have good answers to, she's trying to remember canned lines but it's too much all at once to actually get right.' "

The New Republic's Christopher Orr offered this take on the interview: "The obvious implicit message her preppers and coddlers and protectors in the campaign are giving her is: You're not ready. We don't trust you. You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't ever open your mouth unless you've cleared it with us or you might destroy the whole campaign. . . . When I compare Palin's performance with Gibson to her performance with Couric, the biggest difference I see is confidence."

The cocoon around the Alaska governor has become so tight that the some reporters, unable to get answers to the questions they lobbed at her, would chronicle the questions anyway.

Late-night comedians weighed in, too.

"And all this week, the McCain campaign is trying to prevent Sarah Palin from talking to reporters covering the news, you know?" said Jay Leno. "They said, 'You can take her picture, but you can't ask her any questions.' What is she running for, vice president or 'America's Next Top Model?'"

CNN anchor Campbell Brown got so frustrated that she accused the McCain campaign of sexism.

"Free Sarah Palin," she proclaimed, as if marching with a bullhorn.

Some Democrats apparently liked the sound of that. Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a prominent Obama ally, jumped to Palin's defense, blaming McCain for keeping her under wraps.

Suddenly belittling Palin was out. Empowering her was in.

"Why is it that every man who has ever run for president or vice president can go out and give speeches and talk to the press and handle themselves?" McCaskill said in an interview. "I think the men have decided they have got to keep her under wraps. Well, how insulting to women. I think she's plenty capable of doing this.

"If she's strong enough to go toe to toe with Putin or (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad . . . she needs to go toe to toe with John McCain and say, 'Set me free.'"

Janice Crouse, senior fellow at Concerned Women for American, a conservative public-policy group, dismissed it as an "obvious" ploy.

"At first they thought, 'Who is this yahoo from Alaska and religious right extremist?'" Crouse said. "The backlash was so strong. Now, 'These men around her won't let her go. She can handle herself. Let her be her.' It's laughable."

However, Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said, "It's challenging Palin to be the maverick. It's very clever."

Lost in all this, perhaps, is Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. In the tradition of most running mates, the veteran Delaware senator draws few headlines, content to ply the political backroads in battlegrounds such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Except, of course, when he makes news, as he does with his penchant for the occasional verbal blooper. Like when he said that Franklin Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929. He meant Herbert Hoover.

Or that it was "patriotic" for the rich to pay higher taxes as he defended Obama's plan to raise taxes only on people earning more than $250,000 a year.

If McCain's campaign in his more media-friendly days deserved the tag "Straight Talk Express," Biden's road show might be called the "Nonstop Talk Express." He's done nearly 90 interviews since he joined the Democratic ticket.

"It's hard for the press to . . . appear even-handed," said Jay Rosen, a media critic who's author of the blog "PressThink" and teaches journalism at New York University. "Biden is constantly available."

Go on site to gain access to text, links, & VIDEO just click on the following URL:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53157.html?mi_email=McClatchy%20Washington%20Burea u_DC+Newsletter
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Check out McClatchy's expanded politics coverage

Economy in turmoil: America confronts the crisis

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 ^^^

Saundra Hummer

September 27th, 2008, 11:06 AM

~~~~~
McClatchy Washington Bureau
McCain displays feisty charm,
Obama cool precision
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: September 26, 2008 11:51:41 PM
WASHINGTON — The old John McCain was back Friday — and that's good news for the Republican presidential nominee.

McCain brought his plain-spoken, wise-guy ways that work well in town-hall meetings to the presidential debate, while Barack Obama countered with his own trademark style — crisp point-by-point analyses of issues, answers in well-crafted paragraphs, little emotion.

The verdict: McCain did better than expected, because he was often the 2000 vintage McCain who dazzled voters with his give-'em-hell manner. Obama was Obama, and anyone who likes him was reminded why.

Expectations had been low for McCain, who in many eyes — including those of some Republicans — threw a wrench into delicate Washington negotiations this week by inserting himself into efforts to craft a financial rescue plan. He said he'd skip the debate to work on the deal, then participated very little in negotiations and reversed his decision Friday morning, flying to Mississippi.

However, none of that confusion was evident Friday night, as viewers sometimes saw stark differences between the candidates.

Foremost was the distinct difference in style.

McCain painted himself as the candidate of experience, who made it a point to note that he first came to Congress in 1983 "when the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan" was president.

The Arizona senator also was quick with quips and human touches. He started the debate by offering his "thoughts and prayers" to Sen. Edward Kennedy, the liberal Democratic lion, who was hospitalized earlier Friday evening.

He used a story about Gen. Dwight Eisenhower the night before the Normandy invasion to make a point about responsibility. He called the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a "train wreck."

And he repeatedly suggested that Obama, a first-term senator, was naive and didn't understand the subtleties of whatever foreign challenge they were discussing.

Obama didn't try to match the zingers and the heart tugs. He was more lawyerly, armed with data and fleshed-out positions. He often listed his proposals by enumerating his points. For every assertion, he offered evidence.

North Korea, for instance, "quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the non-proliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets potentially to countries like Syria."

Viewers who see Obama as the night's winner are likely to point to his technique of highlighting key policy differences with McCain, notably on foreign affairs.

The Iraq war remains highly unpopular, and though McCain was resolute in insisting that "we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded," that gave Obama an opening.

"The first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place," he said. He recalled that six years ago, "I stood up and opposed this war, at a time when it was politically risky to do so . . ." Not so risky in Obama's liberal home base on Chicago's South Side, however.

Obama also tried to paint McCain as too cozy with corporate executives, oil barons and President Bush.

The current financial turmoil, Obama said, "is a final verdict of eight years of failed economic policies — promised by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain."

But in some ways, the more Obama hammered away at McCain's ties to Bush, the more he gave McCain an opening to remind the audience of the political style that got him this far.

McCain eight years ago was Bush's Republican primary rival, surging to victory in the New Hampshire primary by holding dozens of town hall meetings and railing against corporate special interests.

He opposed Bush's signature 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and pushed campaign-finance legislation that Bush hated.

"It's well known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate," McCain said, "nor with the administration."

And he added, "I have a long record, and the American people know me very well."

ON THE WEB

The debate transcript

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Check out McClatchy's expanded politics coverage

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/53170.html?mi_email=McClatchy%20Washington%20Burea u_Weekly+Politics ~~~~~~~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 27th, 2008, 11:36 AM

*~ *
2008 DEBATE RESULTS
Public perception, pure and simple
A Service of FHC Research Inc.
Independents give Obama a hand up.

Click below to gain access to graph of poll results.

http://mediacurves.com/ * * *

Saundra Hummer

September 27th, 2008, 01:11 PM

. . . . . . . . .
FACTCHECK.ORGANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECKFactChecking Debate No. 1
September 27, 2008
Facts muddled in Mississippi McCain-Obama meeting.Summary
McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

.Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

.Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

.McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

.McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

.Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

.McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

.Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

.Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.

.McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

.McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.
Analysis
The first of three scheduled debates between Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama took place Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Mississippi at Oxford. It was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It was carried live on national television networks and was moderated by Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor of the PBS "NewsHour" program.

We noted these factual misstatements:
Did Kissinger Back Obama?
McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.
So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.
Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

$42,000 per year?
McCain said – and Obama denied – that Obama had voted to increase taxes on "people who make as low as $42,000 a year." McCain was correct – with qualification.

McCain: But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.
Obama: That's not true, John. That's not true.
McCain: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.
Obama: Look, it's just not true.

Yes, as we’ve said before, Obama did in fact vote for a budget resolution that called for higher federal income tax rates on a single, non-homeowner who earned as little as $42,000 per year. A couple filing jointly, however, would have had to earn at least $83,000 per year to be affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

The resolution actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. It called generally for allowing most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket.

Timetable Tiff
Obama contradicted McCain about what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen's said regarding "Obama's plan" for troop withdrawals.

McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That's not the case.
McCain: That's what ...
Obama: What he said was a precipitous...
McCain: That's what Admiral Mullen said.
Obama: ... withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That's not true.

Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous.

Mullen (July 20): I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I'm convinced at this point in time that coming – making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.

However, interviewer Chris Wallace had just told Mullen to take Obama out of the equation.

Wallace (July 20): But I'm asking you in the absence – forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, "Let's set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years," what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

So strictly speaking Mullen was not talking specifically about "Obama's plan." He did say a rigid timetable could have dangerous consequences.

Earmarks Down, Not Up
McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years.

McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18
billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels," according to its analysis.

$3 million to study the DNA of bears?
And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before.

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Iraqi Surplus Exaggerated
Obama was out of date in saying the Iraqi government has "79 billion dollars," when he argued that the U.S. should stop spending money on the war in Iraq.

Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.

As we've said before, there was a time when the country could have had as much as $79 billion, but that time has passed. What the Iraqis actually “have” is $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, which was omitted from the GAO’s surplus tally since it was still under consideration. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus. So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.

$700 billion for oil?
McCain repeated an exaggerated claim that the U.S. is sending $700 billion per year to hostile countries.

McCain: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

That's not accurate. McCain also made this claim in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He's referring to the amount of money the U.S. spends in importing oil. But the number is inflated. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need. And one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

(Note: A few of our readers messaged us, after we first noted McCain's mistake, with the thought that he was referring to foreign aid and not to oil. If so he's even farther off than we supposed: The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.)
Tax Cut Recipients
Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

Health Care Hyperbole
Obama and McCain traded incorrect statements on each other's health care plan.

Obama: So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer.

As we said before, McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would.

McCain also misrepresented Obama's plan when he said that his opponent favored "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

McCain: Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government.

McCain made a similar claim in his acceptance speech, when he said that
Obama's plans would "force families into a government run health care
system." We called it false then and we stand by that. Obama's plan mandates coverage for children, but not for adults, and it does not require anyone to be covered by a nationalized system. Obama's plan expands the insurance coverage offered by the government, but allows people to keep their own plans or choose from private plans as well.

Ike Was No Quitter
McCain mangled his military history:

McCain: President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

The story is widely circulated in military circles but not entirely true. Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail. But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning. Here's the full text:

Eisenhower (June 5, 1944): Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

No mention of quitting the Army, or his command.

A Longer Timetable
Obama stretched out his schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq. During the debate, Obama said we could "reduce" the number of combat troops in 16 months:

Obama: Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put – provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq
within 16 months:

Obama (Oct. 2007): I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.

The quote appears in "Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues" – a
position paper that was still available on the campaign's Web site as Obama spoke.

Still Soft on Iran?
McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

McCain: There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative. ...

Obama: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

Obama has in fact said that the IRGC should be named a terrorist group. He was a cosponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which, among other things, named the IRGC a terrorist organization. What he voted against was the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which also called for the terrorist group distinction. But Obama said that he opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was "saber-rattling."

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

Who's Naive on Georgia?
McCain called Obama's initial statement on the conflict in Georgia "naive." It's worth noting Obama's words echoed those of the White House.

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

It's true, as McCain said, that during the conflict between Georgia and Russia, Obama said, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war" in his first statement on the conflict. But so did the White House. Press secretary Dana Perino said on Aug. 8, “We urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” We pointed this out when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mischaracterized Obama's response to the crisis during the GOP convention.

Boeing Boasts
McCain was went too far when he said, "I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it."

McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. But the contract isn't exactly "fixed" yet. In fact, questions have been raised about the role McCain has played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest about the way the bids were processed, and the Government Accountability Office released a report that found in Boeing's favor. In the summary of GAO's investigation, the organization said there were "significant errors" with the bid process and that the directions given to Boeing were "misleading."

Further, the New York Times reported that "McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies." A liberal campaign finance group ran an ad hitting McCain on the connections back in July and our colleagues at PolitiFact found their attacks to be true, saying: "Center for Responsive Politics prepared a report for PolitiFact that backs [the charge] up. U.S. employees of EADS/Airbus have contributed $15,700 in this election cycle to McCain’s campaign."

Nuclear Charges
McCain said Obama was against storing nuclear waste. That's not exactly his position.

McCain: And Senator Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's against storing.

Obama: I -- I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is that we have to store it safely.
Obama's official position is that he does support safe storage of nuclear waste:

Obama fact sheet: Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

But the McCain campaign has attacked Obama before on this issue, going as
far as to claim Obama did not support nuclear energy at all, which was false. Obama has said he supports nuclear as long as it is "clean and safe."

Against Alternative Energy
Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy:

Obama: Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.

Here's the Obama campaign's list of the 23 votes. We find they're overstating the case. In many instances, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates. Only 11 of the 23 votes cited by the Obama campaign involve reducing or eliminating incentives for renewable energy.

Meanwhile, McCain was indignant at the suggestion that he'd voted against alternative energy at all.

McCain: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time. ... No one can be opposed to alternate energy.

But McCain's record says differently. As we say above, he has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.

In McCain's energy plan, he supports nuclear power and "clean" coal, which are alternative energies. But they don't qualify as renewable energy, such as hydro,
solar and wind power. McCain's plan makes a vague promise to "rationalize
the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial
feasibility." The experts we talked to weren't sure what exactly that meant.

Committee Oversight
Both candidates were right in talking about Obama’s NATO subcommittee.

McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO, that's in Afghanistan. To this day he's never had a hearing. …

Obama: Look, the -- I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

As we've already reported Obama's subcommittee on Afghanistan does have jurisdiction over NATO, which is supplying about half of the troops in Afghanistan. His subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan proper.

Getting the Dates Wrong
We also caught McCain getting his congressional history a little wrong.

McCain: Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman,
the one -- the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald
Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon. And I saw that, and I saw the
situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that because I was afraid
that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several
hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly
300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

This isn’t quite right. Marines were initially deployed to Lebanon in August 1982. McCain, however, was not elected to the U.S. House until November 1982, more than three months after Marines had already landed.

McCain is referring to a 1983 vote to invoke the War Powers Act. That bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law on October 12, 1983, authorized an 18-month deployment for the Marines. On October 13, a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut. McCain did in fact break with most Republicans to vote against the bill.

–by Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole and Joe Miller.Sources
"Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company" Government Accountability Office. 18 June 2008.
Isikoff, Michael, "McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs," Newsweek. 30 June 2008.
Laurent, Lionel, "Boeing Boomerangs on McCain," Forbers Magazine. 4 March 2008.
Wayne, Leslie, "Audit Says Tanker Deal Is Flawed," New York Times. 19 June 2008.
Tax Policy Center. "Individual Income Tax Brackets, 1945 - 2008." 4 November 2007. Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.
"U.S. Imports by Country of Origin." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.
"Spot Prices, Crude Oil in Dollars per Barrel." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.
"S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007." 8 April 2008.
Thomas.gov. 2 June 2008.
"Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585." National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Thomas.gov. 2 June 2008
U.S. Senate. "Roll Call Vote on Senate Amendment 3017." 26 Sept. 2007. U.S. Senate: Legislation and Records. 2 June 2008.
Grimmett, Richard F. "Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments." Congressional Research Service. 10 January 2001.
Daggett, Stephen. Costs of Major U.S. Wars. 24 Jul. 2008. Congressional Research Service.
Adair, Bill. Obama "suggested bombing Pakistan". Politifact.com.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues. Obama for America.
Barack Obama's Plan to Make America A Global Energy Leader. Obama for America.
Related Articles
The Whoppers of 2008
Where McCain and Obama have misled voters. A partial tally.
FactChecking McCain
He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read our full Analysis section.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site:

Desktop users Mobile users
Go on-site to the NUMEROUS LINKS within this report. Just click the following URL:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
Please consider supporting FactCheck.org and expanding our audience by Digging this article: http://dig.com/

Not bad, considering all the cramming and prep work. I would have thought that there might have been more misstatements, if not down and out twisting of facts. They leave that to ads one sees over and over in print and in on the air media I suppose. SRH
http://digg.com/register/
. . .

Saundra Hummer

September 27th, 2008, 05:48 PM

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093927/going-maddow-discuss-mccains-whoppers-tonight

Fact Checking John McCain On Rachel Maddow's MSNBC Show

By David Sirota

Campaign for America's Future, 9/27/08

I'm was on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show last night to fact check some of John McCain's statements during the presidential debate. You can watch the clip here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26910327#26910327

At the bottom, I have a claim vs. fact breakdown that you can read through. My overall thoughts: Obama won, but not as handily as I think he could have. He missed a huge opportunity to deliver the zinger of the night when McCain said "a lot of people might be
interested in Senator Obama's definition of 'rich.'" I was waiting for Obama to hit that softball out of the park by responding that McCain's definition was people making over $5 million

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1846364920080818

. But Obama seemed to shy away at times from drawing that kind of really stark contrast.

But again, I do think Obama won. McCain was clearly uncomfortable with economic issues, desperate to try to ramrod a debate over a global financial crisis into a completely unrelated discussion about earmarks. And I thought McCain's condescension repeatedly claiming Obama doesn't "understand" things made McCain look petty. My hope is that in the coming debates Obama takes it up one more notch.

MCCAIN CLAIM: "American business pays the second-highest business
taxes in the world..."

FACT: Page 42 of this Bush Treasury Department report

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/07230%20r.pdf

found that America has the second lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, as a percentage of our GDP (ie. the real way to measure this). Last month, Congressional Quarterly

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002937306.html

reported: "Most corporations, including the vast majority of foreign companies doing business in the United States, pay no income taxes, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday."

MCCAIN CLAIM: "We've got to start also holding people accountable."

FACT: What about the lobbyists in McCain's own campaign? What about
Phil Gramm, the guy who passed all this deregulation?

MCCAIN CLAIM: "We have to do is get spending under control in Washington...How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs"

FACT: Non-defense discretionary spending is at its lowest levels as a share of GDP in a generation

http://www.cbpp.org/3-13-07bud.htm

, and are projected to be the lowest since the Hoover administration in coming years

http://www.cbpp.org/5-16-07bud.htm

MCCAIN CLAIM: "We need very badly to understand that defense spending is very important and vital, particularly in the new challenges we face in the world, but we have to get a lot of the cost overruns under control."

FACT: Minutes later he said we need "a spending freeze on EVERYTHING BUT DEFENSE, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."

MCCAIN CLAIM: "I have opposed the president on torture of prisoner - Guantanemo Bay..."

FACT: The Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-mcain19feb19,0,4876430.story

reported in February that "McCain squandered some of his moral authority by supporting the Bush administration's position that the CIA should have more leeway than military interrogators" in torturing prisoners. The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/mccain_drops_the_torture_ball/

reported that McCain "had a choice between his principles and propping up a failed president. He chose the latter...McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, has long condemned waterboarding as torture, making him more sensitive than President Bush on an issue that stained America's image. But the Arizona senator and virtual Republican nominee to replace Bush voted against the bill."

MCCAIN CLAIM: "If we drill off-shore and exploit a lot of these reserves, it will help, at temporarily, relieve our energy requirements. And it will have, I think, an important effect on the price of a barrel of oil."

FACT: The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency has
stated

http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/24/eia-says-offshore-drilling-will-have-insignificant-impact-on-prices-saudis-just-proved-eias-point/%3Cbr%20/%3E

that the benefits from such drilling would be too small to have any significant effect on oil prices.

MCCAIN CLAIM: "America is safer today than it was on 9/11."

FACT: The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/washington/18assess.html

reported in 2007: "On Tuesday, in a dark and strikingly candid two pages, the nation's intelligence agencies offered an implicit answer, and it was not encouraging. In many respects, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence
against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism."

To update your preferences visit
http://davidsirota.com/list/?p=preferences&uid=6ae828830b19248dd8387e94fe93fddc
To forward this message to a friend visit
http://davidsirota.com/list/?p=forward&uid=6ae828830b19248dd8387e94fe93fddc&mid=1668

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 12:34 AM

~~~~~~~
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Adam Smith
The Wealth Of Nations
~~~
"When troubles come, they come not single spies, but in battalions."

Shakespeare
1564-1616
~~~
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

Franklin D. Roosevelt
1882-1945)
32nd US president
~~~
"Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. ... We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis."

George W. Bush
September 24, 2008
~~~
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority."

Thomas Jefferson
American 3rd US President
1801-09 ~~~~~

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 10:02 AM

^^^^^For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
September 28, 2008
Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.

A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.

The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain’s campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world’s second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain’s affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country. He has won praise as a champion of economic development and self-governance on reservations.

“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.

As factions of the ferociously competitive gambling industry have vied for an edge, they have found it advantageous to cultivate a relationship with Mr. McCain or hire someone who has one, according to an examination based on more than 70 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.

Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as “birds of prey.” Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.

When rules being considered by Congress threatened a California tribe’s planned casino in 2005, Mr. McCain helped spare the tribe. Its lobbyist, who had no prior experience in the gambling industry, had a nearly 20-year friendship with Mr. McCain.

In Connecticut that year, when a tribe was looking to open the state’s third casino, staff members on the Indian Affairs Committee provided guidance to lobbyists representing those fighting the casino, e-mail messages and interviews show. The proposed casino, which would have cut into the Pequots’ market share, was opposed by Mr. McCain’s colleagues in Connecticut.

Mr. McCain declined to be interviewed. In written answers to questions, his campaign staff said he was “justifiably proud” of his record on regulating Indian gambling. “Senator McCain has taken positions on policy issues because he believed they are in the public interest,” the campaign said.

Mr. McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, would not discuss the senator’s night of gambling at Foxwoods, saying: “Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.”

Over his career, Mr. McCain has taken on special interests, like big tobacco, and angered the capital’s powerbrokers by promoting campaign finance reform and pushing to limit gifts that lobbyists can shower on lawmakers. On occasion, he has crossed the gambling industry on issues like regulating slot machines.

Perhaps no episode burnished Mr. McCain’s image as a reformer more than his stewardship three years ago of the Congressional investigation into Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican Indian gambling lobbyist who became a national symbol of the pay-to-play culture in Washington. The senator’s leadership during the scandal set the stage for the most sweeping overhaul of lobbying laws since Watergate.

“I’ve fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes,” the senator said in his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination this month.

But interviews and records show that lobbyists and political operatives in Mr. McCain’s inner circle played a behind-the-scenes role in bringing Mr. Abramoff’s misdeeds to Mr. McCain’s attention — and then cashed in on the resulting investigation. The senator’s longtime chief political strategist, for example, was paid $100,000 over four months as a consultant to one tribe caught up in the inquiry, records show.

Mr. McCain’s campaign said the senator acted solely to protect American Indians, even though the inquiry posed “grave risk to his political interests.”

As public opposition to tribal casinos has grown in recent years, Mr. McCain has distanced himself from Indian gambling, Congressional and American Indian officials said.

But he has rarely wavered in his loyalty to Las Vegas, where he counts casino executives among his close friends and most prolific fund-raisers. “Beyond just his support for gaming, Nevada supports John McCain because he’s one of us, a Westerner at heart,” said Sig Rogich, a Nevada Republican kingmaker who raised nearly $2 million for Mr. McCain at an event at his home in June.

Only six members of Congress have received more money from the gambling industry than Mr. McCain, and five hail from the casino hubs of Nevada and New Jersey, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics dating back to 1989. In the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama has also received money from the industry; Mr. McCain has raised almost twice as much.

In May 2007, as Mr. McCain’s presidential bid was floundering, he spent a weekend at the MGM Grand on the Las Vegas strip. A fund-raiser hosted by J. Terrence Lanni, the casino’s top executive and a longtime friend of the senator, raised $400,000 for his campaign. Afterward, Mr. McCain attended a boxing match and hit the craps tables.

For much of his adult life, Mr. McCain has gambled as often as once a month, friends and associates said, traveling to Las Vegas for weekend betting marathons. Former senior campaign officials said they worried about Mr. McCain’s patronage of casinos, given the power he wields over the industry. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.

“We were always concerned about appearances,” one former official said. “If you go around saying that appearances matter, then they matter.”

The former official said he would tell Mr. McCain: “Do we really have to go to a casino? I don’t think it’s a good idea. The base doesn’t like it. It doesn’t look good. And good things don’t happen in casinos at midnight.”

“You worry too much,” Mr. McCain would respond, the official said.

A Record of Support

In one of their last conversations, Representative Morris K. Udall, Arizona’s powerful Democrat, whose devotion to American Indian causes was legendary, implored his friend Mr. McCain to carry on his legacy.

“Don’t forget the Indians,” Mr. Udall, who died in 1998, told Mr. McCain in a directive that the senator has recounted to others.

More than a decade earlier, Mr. Udall had persuaded Mr. McCain to join the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Mr. McCain, whose home state has the third-highest Indian population, eloquently decried the “grinding poverty” that gripped many reservations.

The two men helped write the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 after the Supreme Court found that states had virtually no right to control wagering on reservations. The legislation provided a framework for the oversight and growth of Indian casinos: In 1988, Indian gambling represented less than 1 percent of the nation’s gambling revenues; today it captures more than one third.

On the Senate floor after the bill’s passage, Mr. McCain said he personally opposed Indian gambling, but when impoverished communities “are faced with only one option for economic development, and that is to set up gambling on their reservations, then I cannot disapprove.”

In 1994, Mr. McCain pushed an amendment that enabled dozens of additional tribes to win federal recognition and open casinos. And in 1998, Mr. McCain fought a Senate effort to rein in the boom.

He also voted twice in the last decade to give casinos tax breaks estimated to cost the government more than $326 million over a dozen years.

The first tax break benefited the industry in Las Vegas, one of a number of ways Mr. McCain has helped nontribal casinos. Mr. Lanni, the MGM Mirage chief executive, said that an unsuccessful bid by the senator to ban wagering on college sports in Nevada was the only time he could recall Mr. McCain opposing Las Vegas. “I can’t think of any other issue,” Mr. Lanni said.

The second tax break helped tribal casinos like Foxwoods and was pushed by Scott Reed, the Pequots’ lobbyist.

Mr. McCain had gotten to know Mr. Reed during Senator Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, which Mr. Reed managed. Four years later, when Mr. McCain ran for president, Mr. Reed recommended he hire his close friend and protégé, Rick Davis, to manage that campaign.

During his 2000 primary race against George W. Bush, Mr. McCain promoted his record of helping Indian Country, telling reporters on a campaign swing that he had provided critical support to “the Pequot, now the proud owners of the largest casino in the world.”

But Mr. McCain’s record on Indian gambling was fast becoming a difficult issue for him in the primary. Bush supporters like Gov. John Engler of Michigan lambasted Mr. McCain for his “close ties to Indian gambling.”

A decade after Mr. McCain co-authored the Indian gambling act, the political tides had turned. Tribal casinos, which were growing at a blazing pace, had become increasingly unpopular around the country for reasons as varied as morality and traffic.

Then came the biggest lobbying scandal to shake Washington.

Behind an Inquiry

At a September 2004 hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain described Jack Abramoff as one of the most brazen in a long line of crooks to cheat American Indians. “It began with the sale of Manhattan, and has continued ever since,” he said. “What sets this tale apart, what makes it truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the apparent exploitation and deceit.”

Over the next two years, Mr. McCain helped uncover a breathtaking lobbying scandal — Mr. Abramoff and a partner bilked six tribes of $66 million — that showcased the senator’s willingness to risk the wrath of his own party to expose wrongdoing. But interviews and documents show that Mr. McCain and a circle of allies — lobbyists, lawyers and senior strategists — also seized on the case for its opportunities.

For McCain-connected lobbyists who were rivals of Mr. Abramoff, the scandal presented a chance to crush a competitor. For senior McCain advisers, the inquiry allowed them to collect fees from the very Indians that Mr. Abramoff had ripped off. And the investigation enabled Mr. McCain to confront political enemies who helped defeat him in his 2000 presidential run while polishing his maverick image.

The Abramoff saga started in early 2003 when members of two tribes began questioning Mr. Abramoff’s astronomical fees. Over the next year, they leaked information to local newspapers, but it took the hiring of lobbyists who were competitors of Mr. Abramoff to get the attention of Mr. McCain’s committee.

Bernie Sprague, who led the effort by one of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewas in Michigan, hired a Democratic lobbyist who recommended that the tribe retain Scott Reed, the Republican lobbyist, to push for an investigation.

Mr. Reed had boasted to other lobbyists of his access to Mr. McCain, three close associates said. Mr. Reed “pretty much had open access to John from 2000 to at least the end of 2006,” one aide said.

Lobbyist disclosure forms show that Mr. Reed went to work for the Saginaw Chippewa on Feb. 15, 2004, charging the tribe $56,000 over a year. Mr. Abramoff had tried to steal the Pequots and another tribal client from Mr. Reed, and taking down Mr. Abramoff would eliminate a competitor.

Mr. Reed became the chief conduit to Mr. McCain’s committee for billing documents and other information Mr. Sprague was digging up on Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Sprague said, who said Mr. Reed “did a great to service to me.”

“He had contacts I did not,” Mr. Sprague said. “Initially, I think that the senator’s office was doing Reed a favor by listening to me.”

A few weeks after hiring Mr. Reed, Mr. Sprague received a letter from the senator. “We have met with Scott Reed, who was very helpful on the issue,” Mr. McCain wrote.

Information about Mr. Abramoff was also flowing to Mr. McCain’s committee from another tribe, the Coushatta of Louisiana. The source was a consultant named Roy Fletcher, who had been Mr. McCain’s deputy campaign manager in 2000, running his war room in South Carolina.

It was in that primary race that two of Mr. Abramoff’s closest associates, Grover Norquist, who runs the nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform, and Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition, ran a blistering campaign questioning Mr. McCain’s conservative credentials. The senator and his advisers blamed that attack for Mr. McCain’s loss to Mr. Bush in South Carolina, creating tensions that would resurface in the Abramoff matter.

“I was interested in busting” Mr. Abramoff, said Mr. Fletcher, who was eventually hired to represent the tribe. “That was my job. But I was also filled with righteous indignation, I got to tell you.”

Mr. Fletcher said he began passing information to John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s chief political strategist, and other staff members in late 2003 or January 2004. Mr. Weaver confirmed the timing.

Mr. McCain announced his investigation on Feb. 26, 2004, citing an article on Mr. Abramoff in The Washington Post. He did not mention the action by lobbyists and tribes in the preceding weeks. His campaign said no one in his “innermost circle” brought information to Mr. McCain that prompted the investigation.

The senator declared he would not investigate members of Congress, whom Mr. Abramoff had lavished with tribal donations and golf outings to Scotland. But in the course of the investigation, the committee exposed Mr. Abramoff’s dealings with the two men who had helped defeat Mr. McCain in the 2000 primary.

The investigation showed that Mr. Norquist’s foundation was used by Mr. Abramoff to launder lobbying fees from tribes. Ralph Reed was found to have accepted $4 million to run bogus antigambling campaigns. And the investigation also highlighted Mr. Abramoff’s efforts to curry favor with the House majority leader at the time, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, a longtime political foe who had opposed many of Mr. McCain’s legislative priorities.

Mr. McCain’s campaign said the senator did not “single out” Ralph Reed or Mr. Norquist, neither of whom were ever charged, and that both men fell within the “scope of the investigation.” The inquiry, which led to guilty pleas by over a dozen individuals, was motivated by a desire to help aggrieved tribes, the campaign said.

Inside the investigation, the sense of schadenfreude was palpable, according to several people close to the senator. “It was like hitting pay dirt,” said one associate of Mr. McCain’s who had consulted with the senator’s office on the investigation. “And face it — McCain and Weaver were maniacal about Ralph Reed and Norquist. They were sticking little pins in dolls because those guys had cost him South Carolina.”

Down on the Coushattas reservation, bills related to the investigation kept coming. After firing Mr. Abramoff, the tribe hired Kent Hance, a lawyer and former Texas congressman who said he had been friends with Mr. McCain since the 1980s.

David Sickey, the tribe’s vice chairman, said he was “dumbfounded” over the bills submitted by Mr. Hance’s firm, Hance Scarborough, which had been hired by Mr. Sickey’s predecessors.

“The very thing we were fighting seemed to be happening all over again — these absurd amounts of money being paid,” Mr. Sickey said.

Mr. Hance’s firm billed the tribe nearly $1.3 million over 11 months in legal and political consulting fees, records show. But Mr. Sickey said that the billing statements offered only vague explanations for services and that he could not point to any tangible results. Two consultants, for instance, were paid to fight the expansion of gambling in Texas — even though it was unlikely given that the governor there opposed any such prospect, Mr. Sickey said.

Mr. Hance and Jay B. Stewart, the firm’s managing partner, defended their team’s work, saying they successfully steered the tribe through a difficult period. “We did an outstanding job for them,” Mr. Hance said. “When we told them our bill was going to be $100,000 a month, they thought we were cheap. Mr. Abramoff had charged them $1 million a month.”

The firm’s fees covered the services of Mr. Fletcher, who served as the tribe’s spokesman. Records also show that Mr. Hance had Mr. Weaver — who was serving as Mr. McCain’s chief strategist — put on the tribe’s payroll from February to May 2005.

It is not precisely clear what role Mr. Weaver played for his $100,000 fee.

Mr. Stewart said Mr. Weaver was hired because “he had a lot of experience with the Senate, especially the new chairman, John McCain.” The Hance firm told the tribe in a letter that Mr. Weaver was hired to provide “representation for the tribe before the U.S. Senate.”

But Mr. Weaver never registered to lobby on the issue, and he has another explanation for his work.

“The Hance law firm retained me to assist them and their client in developing an aggressive crisis management and communications strategy,” Mr. Weaver said. “At no point was I asked by Kent Hance or anyone associated with him to set up meetings with anyone in or outside of government to discuss this, and if asked I would have summarily declined to do so.”

In June 2005, the tribe informed Mr. Hance that his services were no longer needed.

Change in Tone

After the Abramoff scandal, Mr. McCain stopped taking campaign donations from tribes. Some American Indians were offended, especially since Mr. McCain continued to accept money from the tribes’ lobbyists.

Resentment in Indian Country mounted as Mr. McCain, who was preparing for another White House run, singled out the growth in tribal gambling as one of three national issues that were “out of control.” (The others were federal spending and illegal immigration.)

Franklin Ducheneaux, an aide to Morris Udall who helped draft the 1988 Indian gambling law, said that position ran contrary to Mr. McCain’s record. “What did he think? That Congress intended for the tribes to be only somewhat successful?” Mr. Ducheneaux said.

Mr. McCain began taking a broad look at whether the laws were sufficient to oversee the growing industry. His campaign said that the growth had put “considerable stress” on regulators and Mr. McCain held hearings on whether the federal government needed more oversight power.

An opportunity to restrain the industry came in the spring of 2005, when a small tribe in Connecticut set off a political battle. The group, the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, had won federal recognition in 2004 after producing voluminous documentation tracing its roots.

The tribe wanted to build Connecticut’s third casino, which would compete with Foxwoods and another, the Mohegan Sun. Facing public opposition on the proposed casino, members of the Connecticut political establishment — many of whom had received large Pequot and Mohegan campaign donations — swung into action.

Connecticut officials claimed that a genealogical review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was flawed, and that the Schaghticoke was not a tribe.

The tribe’s opponents, led by the Washington lobbying firm Barbour Griffith & Rogers, turned to Mr. McCain’s committee. It was a full-circle moment for the senator, who had helped the Pequots gain tribal recognition in the 1980s despite concerns about their legitimacy.

Now, Mr. McCain was doing a favor for allies in the Connecticut delegation, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a close friend, according to two former Congressional aides. “It was one of those collegial deals,” said one of the aides, who worked for Mr. McCain.

Barbour Griffith & Rogers wanted Mr. McCain to hold a hearing that would show that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was “broken,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, who was a lobbyist for the firm at the time.

“It was our hope that the hearing would shed light on the fact that the bureau had not followed their rules and had improperly granted recognition to the Schaghticoke,” Mr. Blakeman said. “And that the bureau would revisit the issue and follow their rules.”

Mr. McCain’s staff helped that effort by offering strategic advice.

His staff told a lobbyist for the firm that the Indian Affairs Committee “would love to receive a letter” from the Connecticut governor requesting a hearing, according to an e-mail exchange, and offered “guidance on what the most effective tone and approach” would be in the letter.

On May 11, 2005, Mr. McCain held a hearing billed as a general “oversight hearing on federal recognition of Indian tribes.” But nearly all the witnesses were Schaghticoke opponents who portrayed the tribe as imposters.

Mr. McCain set the tone: “The role that gaming and its nontribal backers have played in the recognition process has increased perceptions that it is unfair, if not corrupt.”

Chief Richard F. Velky of the Schaghticokes found himself facing off against the governor and most of the state’s congressional delegation. “The deck was stacked against us,” Mr. Velky said. “They were given lots of time. I was given five minutes.”

He had always believed Mr. McCain “to be an honest and fair man,” Mr. Velky said, “but this didn’t make me feel that good.”

Mr. Velky said he felt worse when the e-mail messages between the tribe’s opponents and Mr. McCain’s staff surfaced in a federal lawsuit. “Is there a letter telling me how to address the senator to give me the best shot?” Mr. Velky asked. “No, there is not.”

After the hearing, Pablo E. Carrillo, who was Mr. McCain’s chief Abramoff investigator at the time, wrote to a Barbour Griffith & Rogers lobbyist, Brant Imperatore. “Your client’s side definitely got a good hearing record,” Mr. Carillo wrote, adding “you probably have a good sense” on where Mr. McCain “is headed on this.”

“Well done!” he added.

Cynthia Shaw, a Republican counsel to the committee from 2005 to 2007, said Mr. McCain made decisions based on merit, not special interests. “Everybody got a meeting who asked for one,” Ms. Shaw said, “whether you were represented by counsel or by a lobbyist — or regardless of which lobbyist.”

Mr. McCain’s campaign defended the senator’s handling of the Schaghticoke case, saying no staff member acted improperly. The campaign said the session was part of normal committee business and the notion that Mr. McCain was intending to help Congressional colleagues defeat the tribe was “absolutely false.”

It added that the senator’s commitment to Indian sovereignty “remains as strong as ever.”

Within months of the May 2005 hearing, the Bureau of Indian Affairs took the rare step of rescinding the Schaghticokes’ recognition. A federal court recently rejected the tribe’s claim that the reversal was politically motivated.

Making an Exception

That spring of 2005, as the Schaghticokes went down to defeat in the East, another tribe in the West squared off against Mr. McCain with its bid to construct a gambling emporium in California. The stakes were similar, but the outcome would be far different.

The tribe’s plan to build a casino on a former Navy base just outside San Francisco represented a trend rippling across the country: American Indians seeking to build casinos near population centers, far from their reservations.

The practice, known as “off-reservation shopping,” stemmed from the 1988 Indian gambling law, which included exceptions allowing some casinos to be built outside tribal lands. When Mr. McCain began his second stint as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee three years ago, Las Vegas pressed him to revisit the exceptions he had helped create, according to Sig Rogich, the Republican fund-raiser from Nevada.

“We told him this off-reservation shopping had to stop,” Mr. Rogich said. “It was no secret that the gaming industry, as well as many potentially affected communities in other states, voiced opposition to the practice.”

In the spring of 2005, Mr. McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it. In a 2005 interview with The Oregonian, Mr. McCain said that if Congress did not act, “soon every Indian tribe is going to have a casino in downtown, metropolitan areas.”

Prospects for the proposed California project did not look promising. Then the tribe, the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians, hired a lobbyist based in Phoenix named Wes Gullett.

Mr. Gullett, who had never represented tribes before Congress, had known Mr. McCain since the early 1980s. Mr. Gullett met his wife while they were working in Mr. McCain’s Washington office. He subsequently managed Mr. McCain’s 1992 Senate campaign and served as a top aide to his 2000 presidential campaign. Their friendship went beyond politics. When Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, brought two infants in need of medical treatment back to Arizona from Bangladesh, the Gulletts adopted one baby and the McCains the other. The two men also liked to take weekend trips to Las Vegas.

Another of Mr. McCain’s close friends, former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, was a major investor in the Guidivilles’ proposed casino. Mr. Cohen, who did not return calls, was best man at Mr. McCain’s 1980 wedding.

Scott Crowell, lawyer for the Guidivilles, said Mr. Gullett was hired to ensure that Mr. McCain’s overhaul of the Indian gambling laws did not harm the tribe.

Mr. Gullett said he never talked to Mr. McCain about the legislation. “If you are hired directly to lobby John McCain, you are not going to be effective,” he said. Mr. Gullett said he only helped prepare the testimony of the tribe’s administrator, Walter Gray, who was invited to plead his case before Mr. McCain’s committee in July 2005. Mr. Gullett said he advised Mr. Gray in a series of conference calls.

On disclosure forms filed with the Senate, however, Mr. Gullett stated that he was not hired until November, long after Mr. Gray’s testimony. Mr. Gullett said the late filing might have been “a mistake, but it was inadvertent.” Steve Hart, a former lawyer for the Guidivilles, backed up Mr. Gullett’s contention that he had guided Mr. Gray on his July testimony.

When asked whether Mr. Gullett had helped him, Mr. Gray responded, “I’ve never met the man and couldn’t tell you anything about him.”

On Nov. 18, 2005, when Mr. McCain introduced his promised legislation overhauling the Indian gambling law, he left largely intact a provision that the Guidivilles needed for their casino. Mr. McCain’s campaign declined to answer whether the senator spoke with Mr. Gullett or Mr. Cohen about the project. In the end, Mr. McCain’s bill died, largely because Indian gambling interests fought back. But the Department of Interior picked up where Mr. McCain left off, effectively doing through regulations what he had hoped to accomplish legislatively. Carl Artman, who served as the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of Indian Affairs until May, said Mr. McCain pushed him to rewrite the off-reservation rules. “It became one of my top priorities because Senator McCain made it clear it was one of his top priorities,” he said.

The new guidelines were issued on Jan. 4. As a result, the casino applications of 11 tribes were rejected. The Guidivilles were not among them.

Kitty Bennett and Griff Palmer contributed to reporting.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Companyhttp://www.buzzflash.com^^^^^

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 10:12 AM

:: :: :: :: ::
Breakthrough Reached in Negotiations on Bailout
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE
September 28, 2008. . .WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and the Bush administration reached a tentative agreement early Sunday on what may become the largest financial bailout in American history, authorizing the Treasury to purchase $700 billion in troubled debt from ailing firms in an extraordinary intervention to prevent widespread economic collapse.

Officials said that Congressional staff members would work through the night to finalize the language of the agreement and draft a bill, and that the bill would be brought to the House floor for a vote on Monday.

The bill includes pay limits for some executives whose firms seek help, aides said. And it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make more aggressive efforts to prevent home foreclosures.

In some cases, the government would receive an equity stake in companies that seek aid, allowing taxpayers to profit should the rescue plan work and the private firms flourish in the months and years ahead.

The White House also agreed to strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program.

The administration had initially requested virtually unfettered authority to operate the bailout program. But as they moved toward clinching a deal, both sides appeared to have given up a number of contentious proposals, including a change in the bankruptcy laws sought by some Democrats to give judges the authority to modify the terms of first mortgages.

Congressional leaders and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. emerged from behind closed doors to announce the tentative agreement at 12:30 a.m. Sunday, after two days of marathon meetings.

“We have made great progress toward a deal, which will work and be effective in the marketplace,” Mr. Paulson said at a news conference in Statuary Hall in the Capitol.

In the final hours of negotiations, Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois and Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, carried pages of the bill by hand, back and forth, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, where the Democrats were encamped, to Mr. Paulson and other Republicans in the offices of Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader.

At the same time, a series of phone calls was taking place, including conversations between Ms. Pelosi and President Bush; between Mr. Paulson and the two presidential candidates, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama; and between the candidates and top lawmakers.

“All of this was done in a way to insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street,” Ms. Pelosi said at the news conference. “We have to commit it to paper so we can formally agree, but I want to congratulate all of the negotiators for the great work they have done.”

In a statement, Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary, said: “We’re pleased with the progress tonight and appreciate the bipartisan effort to stabilize our financial markets and protect our economy.”

A senior administration official who participated in the talks said the deal was effectively done. “I know of no unresolved open issues for principals,” the official said.

In announcing a tentative agreement, lawmakers and the administration achieved their goal of sending a reassuring message ahead of Monday’s opening of the Asian financial markets.

Lawmakers, especially in the House, are also eager to adjourn and return home for the fall campaign season.

Among the last sticking points was an unexpected and bitter fight over how to pay for any losses that taxpayers may experience after distressed debt has been purchased and resold.

Democrats had pushed for a fee on securities transactions, essentially a tax on financial firms, saying it was fitting that they contribute to the cost.

In the end, lawmakers and the administration opted to leave the decision to the next president, who must present a proposal to Congress to pay for any losses.

Officials said they had also agreed to include a proposal by House Republicans that gives the Treasury secretary an additional option of issuing government insurance for troubled financial instruments as a way of reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent up front on the rescue effort.

The Treasury would be required to create the insurance program, officials said, but not necessarily to use it. Mr. Paulson had expressed little interest in that plan, and initial cost projections suggested it would be enormously expensive. But final details were not immediately available.

Saturday’s intense negotiating effort followed a tumultuous week, including a contentious meeting at the White House with President Bush and the two presidential candidates.

That meeting had moments of drama, including a blunt warning by President Bush. “If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” he said. It ended with angry recriminations after House Republicans scotched a near-agreement from earlier in the day.

Mr. Paulson scrambled to revive the talks, and they resumed almost immediately. Congressional and Treasury staff then worked all of Friday and through the night, ending in the predawn.

Mr. Paulson and Congressional leaders stepped in at 3 p.m. Saturday and were in direct negotiations for most of the rest of the night. And immediately after the news conference, staff members began efforts to finalize the language.

Even then, their work is hardly over.

Congressional leaders who want the bailout to pass with solid bipartisan support had already begun to anxiously court votes, mindful of the difficulty they could face in a high-stakes election year.

Public opinion polls show the bailout plan to be deeply unpopular. Conservative Republicans have denounced the plan as an affront to free market capitalism, while some liberal Democrats criticize it as a giveaway to Wall Street.

Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the chief negotiator for House Republicans, who have been among the most reluctant to support the plan, expressed some satisfaction but did not commit his members’ support.

“We need to look and see where we are on paper tomorrow,” Mr. Blunt said. “We have been talking about how we can make these things work in a way that our conference can come together.”

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for the House Democrats, said that there was no expectation of making anyone smile.

“This was never going to be a bill that was going to make people happy,” he said. “No solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself. We are dealing with a very difficult problem.”

“Given the dimensions of the problem, I believe we have done a good job,” he added. “It includes genuine compromises.”

Aides described a tense meeting on Saturday afternoon that included Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, shouting at Mr. Paulson about executive pay caps.

Outside, stunned tourists visiting the Capitol watched as camera operators shoved one another to get footage of lawmakers talking outside of the meeting room.

At one point, when too much information was leaking out, staff members’ BlackBerrys were confiscated and collected in a trash bin.

While Congressional Republicans sent only their chief negotiators, Mr. Blunt and Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, at least nine Democrats with competing priorities piled into the meeting, surprising the Republicans but apparently not unsettling them.

The centerpiece of the rescue effort remains the plan for the government to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets from financial firms as a way to free their balance sheets of bad debts and to help restore a healthy flow of credit through the economy.

The money will disbursed in parts, with an initial $250 billion to get the rescue effort under way, followed by another $100 billion upon a report by Mr. Bush to Congress.

The president could then request the balance of $350 billion at any time. If Congress disapproved, it would have to act within 15 days to deny the Treasury the money.

Early in the day, the two presidential nominees were active from the sidelines. Mr. McCain telephoned Congressional Republicans to sound them out, and Mr. Obama got regular updates by phone from Mr. Paulson and top lawmakers.

Some lawmakers have made clear that they will not vote for the bailout plan under virtually any terms. “I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, who would normally be his party’s point man.

Pressed about his role, Mr. Shelby replied, “My position is ‘No.’ ”

Officials, including Mr. Bush, stepped up efforts to sell the plan to the American public, which, according to opinion polls, is deeply skeptical.

“The rescue effort we’re negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street; it is aimed at your street,” Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address. “There is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets.”

In a brief speech on the Senate floor, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said: “It’s not just going to be Wall Street. The chairman of the Federal Reserve has told us if the credit lockup continues, three million to four million Americans will lose their jobs in the next six months.”

The ultimate cost of the rescue plan to taxpayers is virtually impossible to know. Because the government would be buying assets of value — potentially worth much more than the government will pay for them — there is even a chance the rescue effort would eventually return a profit.

Some Democrats had sought to direct 20 percent of any such profits to help create affordable housing, but Republicans opposed that and demanded that all profits be returned to the Treasury.

Robert Pear contributed reporting.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company http://buzzflash.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28bailout.html?hp :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 12:14 PM

+++
TimesPeople
McCain’s Suspension Bridge to Nowhere
September 28, 2008
By
FRANK RICH
Op-Ed Columnist

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year. The other answers, all putting politics first, can be found by examining the 24 hours before he decided to “suspend” campaigning and swoop down on the Capitol to save America from the Sunnis or the Shia, or whoever perpetrated all those credit-default swaps.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Then came Black Wednesday — not for the stock market, which was holding steady in anticipation of Washington action, but for McCain. As the widely accepted narrative has it, his come-to-Jesus moment arrived that morning, when he awoke to discover that Barack Obama had surged ahead by nine percentage points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. The McCain campaign hastily suited up its own pollster to belittle that finding — only to be drowned out by a fusillade of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not. Obama was rising most everywhere except the moose strongholds of Alaska and Montana.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

By Wednesday, the McCain campaign’s latest tactic for countering this news — attacking the press, especially The Times — was paying diminishing returns. Davis abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that day at a weekly reporters’ lunch sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, escaping any further questions by pleading that he had to hit the campaign trail. (He turned up at the “21” Club in New York that night, wining and dining McCain fund-raisers.)

It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Yet even as he huffed and puffed about being a “leader,” McCain took no action and felt no urgency. As his Congressional colleagues worked tirelessly in Washington, he malingered in New York. He checked out the suffering on Main Street (or perhaps High Street) by conferring with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Hillary-turned-McCain supporter best known for her fabulous London digs and her diatribes against Obama’s elitism. McCain also found time to have a well-publicized chat with one of those celebrities he so disdains, Bono, and to give a self-promoting public speech at the Clinton Global Initiative.

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus. This “suspension” ruse was an exact replay of McCain’s self-righteous “suspension” of the G.O.P. convention as Hurricane Gustav arrived on Labor Day. “We will put aside our political hats and put on our American hats,” he declared then, solemnly pledging that conventioneers would help those in need. But as anyone in the Twin Cities could see, the assembled put on their party hats instead, piling into the lobbyists’ bacchanals earlier than scheduled, albeit on the down-low.

Much of the press paid lip service to McCain’s new “suspension” as it had to its prototype. In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman. Don’t mess with Dave. Picking up where the “The View” left off in speaking truth to power, the uncharacteristically furious host hammered the absent McCain on and off for 40 minutes, repeatedly observing that the cancellation “didn’t smell right.”

In a journalistic coup de grâce worthy of “60 Minutes,” Letterman went on to unmask his no-show guest as a liar. McCain had phoned himself that afternoon to say he was “getting on a plane immediately” to deal with the grave situation in Washington, Letterman told the audience. Then he showed video of McCain being touched up by a makeup artist while awaiting an interview by Couric that same evening at another CBS studio in New York.

It’s not hard to guess why McCain had blown off Letterman for Couric at the last minute. The McCain campaign’s high anxiety about the disastrous Couric-Palin sit-down was skyrocketing as advance excerpts flooded the Internet. By offering his own interview to Couric for the same night, McCain hoped (in vain) to dilute Palin’s primacy on the “CBS Evening News.”

Letterman’s most mordant laughs on Wednesday came when he riffed about McCain’s campaign “suspension”: “Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think maybe there will be other things down the road, like if he’s in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we’ve got a guy like that now!”

That’s no joke. Bush has so little credibility he can govern only through surrogates (Paulson is the new Petraeus). When he spoke about the economic crisis in prime time earlier that same night, he registered as no more than an irritating speed bump en route to “David Blaine: Dive of Death.”

It’s that utter power vacuum that gave McCain the opening to pull his potentially catastrophic display of economic “leadership” last week. He may be the first presidential candidate in our history to risk wrecking the country even before being voted into the Oval Office.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Readers' Comments
"Senator McCain, where have you gone? It's sad to see a man I admire - still - brought so low by whatever forces have driven him so madly, so destructively, these past weeks.... Whatever he has become, it certainly is not the stuff of which Presidents are made."
wdb, Pennsylvania

Read Full Comment » http://www.buzzflash.com +++++++

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 12:29 PM

. . . . . . .
Leading The News
Obama offers support for bailout deal
By
Ian Swanson
Posted: 09/28/08 11:50 AM [ET]
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in his first interview since Friday's debate offered support for the Wall Street bailout package quickly forming on Capitol Hill and continued to link GOP rival Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to President Bush.

Obama said the country on Friday had a chance to listen to two highly different views on the country's direction, and repeatedly cast McCain's debate statements as showing he would continue the economic and foreign policy positions of President Bush.

The Democratic presidential candidate also said he expects to support the bailout package congressional negotiators and the Bush administration appear poised to strike.

Obama told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that Congress needs to get something done to help the economy, and that he agreed with Bush that the situation is grave.

“I agree this is probably the most serious financial crisis we've faced since the Great Depression, and what we can't do is do nothing,” Obama said.

He said he was pleased that the package forming in Congress appears to include principles that Obama said he's stressed to congressional negotiators and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Obama said those principles included a body that would provide oversight over Treasury's plan to buy up troubled mortgage-backed assets from banks; restrictions on the compensation of executives of companies taking part in the program; additional relief for homeowners struggling with their mortgages; and rules that could allow taxpayers to share in the profits if Treasury is ultimately able to sell off the assets it buys.

Obama noted that none of these provisions was in the initial proposal from Treasury.

How the public views Obama's and McCain's positioning on the package could be vital in their presidential contest. McCain briefly suspended his campaign and called for Friday's debate to be postponed so that he could take part in negotiations, before quickly reversing course. Democrats scolded McCain for upsetting delicate talks.

Obama on Sunday appeared to be trying to suggest that he had played an important role in forming the package. Republicans, for their part, have tried to play up McCain's role, and McCain on Sunday said the deal now forming is better than the one that was shaping when he announced his campaign suspension on Wednesday.

Congressional negotiators announced early this morning they had reached a breakthrough and that a deal on the package was close. The hope is that the news of a deal will brighten prospects on the markets when they open Monday morning in Asia, and that a House vote on the package can take place sometime Monday.

Obama said the country never should have got into the position where a $700 billion bailout package was necessary, and he criticized McCain for supporting deregulation that led to a lack of oversight over the financial system. McCain and Obama have both called for more regulation this week.

On the debate, Obama said McCain did not show that his administration would be significantly different from Bush's on foreign policy.

Schieffer noted that McCain worked to cast Obama as not ready to be president in the debate, and said at several different points that Obama lacked an understanding of economic and foreign policy issues.

“Well, the interesting thing is he kept on asserting I didn't understand, but beyond repeating the line never indicated what exactly I didn't understand,” Obama said. “It's true that I don't understand Sen. McCain's positions on a whole host of issues.”

Asked whether he though McCain was condescending, Obama said McCain used a debating trick “which is to essentially just keep on saying that because of my vast years in Washington, somehow I'm more qualified to be president.”

Obama suggested that voters are interested in change, and that McCain's experience could work against him.

Asked repeatedly whether Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate and Alaska's governor, had the experience to be president, Obama dodged a direct answer and said that was up to the American public to decide. He said he was more concerned that Palin agrees with Bush on foreign policy issues.

McCain appeared to score a point in Friday's debate by questioning Obama's past statements that he would be willing to meet with foreign leaders of countries such as Iran and Cuba with no pre-conditions. Asked about this, Obama said he has repeatedly said he'd reserve the right to meet with any leaders if he believed it would help keep the U.S. safe. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-offers-support-for-bailout-deal-2008-09-28.html . . . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 03:53 PM

. . . . .From all I've read, Kissinger is stretching this one. Specifics added when there were none?

This from a man who has been caught up in "lies" which were about the deaths of political dissidents in South America under their cruel dictators, ones who's operative were schooled in "The School of the America's". (A new one is being built somewhere in a country under British control or in England, we've been told.)

Graves are now being excavated, and DNA processesed pointing to the cruel regimes that Henry Kissinger helped stay in control.

"He lied." Henry Kissinger himself did lie, and documents have recently surfaced proving as much.

It's my belief, that he needs to butt out of politics as he has hands which are too dirty to continue on.

Here's a bit from Annenburg's FACTCHECK.ORG: Facts muddled in Mississippi McCain-Obama meeting.
Summary
McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

.Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

Kissinger: Obama Was Wrong
Sunday
September 28, 2008
11:06 AM
During Friday night's presidential debate, Barack Obama claimed that one of John McCain's advisers, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, supported his view that the U.S. president should meet with Iran's president and other rogue dictators without preconditions.

The point made McCain livid, as he repeatedly pointed out that Kissinger, his friend of 35 years, would never back such a dangerous position.

McCain turned out to be right.

Kissinger released a statement immediately after the debate. It read:

"Sen. McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level."

"Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be preconditions," McCain said during the debate. He painted Obama's previously stated position as reckless and naive.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights resered http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/kissinger_obama_iran/2008/09/28/135207.html?s=al&promo_code=6BBA-1 . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 04:51 PM

NEWSMAX
is reporting that
1. Ahmadinejad Feted at Obama Fundraiser’s Hotel
http://www.netmax.com
(An overtly Neo Con biased web site)

OK, that's not something any of us are happy to hear, but I don't fear it happening. Ahmadinejad will be on the next plane out of here, shooting off his mouth while fearing that Obama might be elected, as he will then be drawn into negotiations, ruining his plans for his own self agrandizement. Maschismo Mouse with his venom. We have no reason to like him, and very little reason to actually fear him. ........

However, since many of those in the KKK wear their foolish garb, oftentimes we aren't quite certain who they are and whose rallies they attend, looking like your every day average Joe, your local PTA leader, the church deacon, the community leader, they are shadowy, secretive figures in bed sheets. We might not know just which candidates campaigns they're pumping their own money into. Some ardent KKK followers even rob others to further their cause.

We know of people like these, and we also know many of the ones who belong to exclusionary clubs, and it's a given that they aren't about to support Barack Obama either. God, what overt racism. It's gut wrenching. And we know what they're all capable of. We know what it is they spew, each type, each group, with many being more educated and insidious. Regardless of method, of style and of smarts, it's all just another case of ugly.

Silly move on Obama supporters parts, however, that's all it is, silly, however, after me thinking a bit about it, you can thrown in a big dose of dumb.

Saundra Hummer

September 28th, 2008, 06:18 PM

*Obama Moves Up, McCain Down in PollBy Gallup.com
posted: 36 MINUTES AGOcomments: 102filed under: Election News, Barack Obama, John McCain (Sept. 28) - Barack Obama leads John McCain, 50% to 42% among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday -- just one point shy of his strongest showing of the year.

These results, from Sept. 25-27, span the time period since John McCain made the announcement that he was temporarily suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work for a bipartisan solution to the financial crisis, and since Congressional leaders first announced progress towards the resolution of a financial bailout bill. Results since March are shown here.
Latest From the TrailAFP/Getty Images500 photos US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama shares a light moment with his campaign communication director upon landing at Midway airport in Chicago, Illinois, September 28, 2008. AFP PHOTO/Emmanuel Dunand (Photo credit should read EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images) Go on-site to gain access to images, graphs, charts, a poll, with it's immediate results, etc. Just click on the following link: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-moves-up-mccain-down-in-poll/192720?icid=200100397x1210282501x1200631368
The results also include one complete day (Saturday) after the first presidential debate on Friday night. McCain had reached a point where he was tied with Obama earlier in the week, but Obama has gained steadily in each of the last three days' reports. Overall, Obama has gained four percentage points over the last three days, while McCain has lost four points, for an eight-point swing in the "gap" or margin.

The full impact of the debate and its aftermath will not be reflected in the tracking data until Tuesday's report, which will be based on interviewing conducted Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Still, Gallup's one-day read on the standing of the two candidates on Saturday suggests that Obama held the lead over McCain among registered voters that night, just as he had for the two previous nights.

Obama reached an eight-point lead or higher twice before, once after his highly publicized foreign tour to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe in July, and once after the Democratic National Convention. In both of these instances, Obama's relatively large lead was short-lived; McCain came charging back to tie the race in both cases. Thus history would suggest the potential for future shifts in voter preferences and for McCain to bounce back once again.
Additionally, major news events relating to the campaign will be forthcoming over the next several weeks -- including the final resolution of Congress' efforts to pass a financial bailout bill and three more debates (two presidential, and one vice presidential), all of which could have the potential for future shifts in voter preferences. Obama has held at least a moderate edge over McCain for the vast majority of the days of Gallup Poll Daily tracking since June, and overall has led by an average of about three points in the over 100,000 interviews conducted by Gallup during this time period.
Survey Methods
For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.
The general-election results are based on combined data from Sept. 25-27, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,719 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
2008-09-28 18:29:47
Related Articles
Obama and McCain Still Neck and Neck
3 days ago
Economy Gives Obama Clear Edge in Poll
4 days ago
McCain leads Obama in 2 polls, race even in 3 more
20 days ago
McCain Moves Ahead of Obama in Poll
20 days ago
Obama, McCain vie for suburbanites, white women
30 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts * * *

Saundra Hummer

September 29th, 2008, 09:22 AM

. . . . .
A Book Review
BUZZFLASH.COM
White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son

(Paperback)
Tim Wise. . . . . . .
BUZZFLASH REVIEWS
Can anyone with common sense and fairness doubt that if Sara Palin or George W. Bush were black, they would have been pilloried and forced from the political arena within a day or two of their first public statements?

Palin recently was parodied on Saturday Night Live for a second time by Tina Fey. One of the most hysterical statements of the "Tina Fey Palin" was an actual answer Palin gave in her now infamous interview with Katie Couric. It was so incoherent that viewers thought that it was part of the comic script.

A key subtext to the presidential elections since Nixon have been the Republicans corraling much of the white vote through demagoguery. The effort of appealing to white "tribalism" has paid off with the economic pickpocketing of the white middle class (along with minorities)-- and the diminution in the quality of white Republican candidates to the point that Bush was the ultimate white affirmative action symbol of mediocrity. Ironically, the less skilled and knowledgable Republican candidates have become, the more they represent the right of the last stand of the "white power" cult to assert that a dumb white person is more entitled to run America than a savvy, knowledgeable minority. This is the ultimate -- and self-destructive -- assertion of white privilege and feeling of entitlement.

It's the ultimate deleterious impact of racism, leading to a form of national self-immolation. Stupid is as stupid does, and racism's stupidity (despite its strong emotional tug of tribal identity and feelings of superiority) has descended into the pit of Bush/Cheney rule and a McCain/Palin possibility. If any of the four were black, they would have been stalked, mocked and hounded from the political arena by the national corporate media (although Cheney would have been dismissed for his evilness; McCain for his erratic, reckless, non-sensical behavior; and Bush and Palin for their profound ignorance and limited intelligence.)

That brings us to Tim Wise's classic book, "White Like Me, Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son." Recently, BuzzFlash ran an op-ed by Wise that was one of our most popular pieces this election season: White Privilege, White Entitlement and the 2008 Election.

Read the commentary and you won't be able to resist reading his hard-hitting, thought provoking book on the poison of racism, overt and subconscious -- and the personal responsibility we have to stand up and speak out against affirmative action for mediocre, uninformed white candidates, and against racism in general.

If George W. Bush or Sarah Palin were black, Rush Limbaugh would have crushed them into dust by now, as would Hannity, as would Ann Coulter, as would Bill O'Reilly.

It's the white double standard, and it is a cancer upon our society, because it has self-cannibalized the white working class and led to the usurpation of the rule of law under Bush and Cheney.

McCain and Palin would have never made it beyond the starting gate if they were black.

Out nation's greatness, sense of justice, and economic well-being are imperiled as a result, because racism is just a fire stoked by the GOP to loot 95% of us to make the rich, richer.

That's the legacy of the lure of racism.

We will soon be offering another book by Wise, "Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections from an Angry White Male."

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS http://www.buzzflash.com/ . . .

Saundra Hummer

September 29th, 2008, 09:39 AM

* * *Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery
Detroit, Michigan
Sunday, September 28th, 2008

We meet here at a time of great uncertainty for America. The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a financial crisis as serious as any we have faced since the Great Depression. They said they wanted to let the market run free but they let it run wild, and in doing so, they trampled our core values of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.

Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many Americans, it isn’t really news at all.

600,000 workers have lost their jobs since January. Home values are falling. Your paycheck doesn’t go as far as it used to. It’s never been harder to save or retire; to buy gas or groceries; and if you put it on a credit card, they’ve probably raised your rates. In so many cities and towns across America, it feels as if the dream that so many generations have fought for is slowly slipping away.

I know these are difficult days. But here’s what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because that’s who we are. Because that’s what we’ve always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we’ve risen to meet the challenge because we’ve never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us.

There are many to blame for causing the crisis we are in, and that starts with the speculators on Wall Street who gamed the system and the regulators in Washington who looked the other way. It is an outrage – an outrage – that we are now being forced to clean up their mess.

But we have no choice. We must act now. Because now that we’re in this situation, your jobs, your life savings, and the stability of our entire economy are at risk.

This Administration started off by asking for a blank check to solve this problem. I said absolutely not. I said it was unacceptable to expect the American people to hand this Administration or any Administration a $700 billion check with no conditions and no oversight when a lack of oversight in Washington and on Wall Street is exactly what got us into this mess. If the American people are being asked to help solve this crisis, then you have a right to make sure that your tax dollars are protected. That’s why I laid out a few a conditions for Washington when this began:

First, I said we needed an independent board to provide oversight and accountability for how and where this money is spent at every step of the way.

Second, if American taxpayers are financing this solution, I said that you should be treated like investors. That means that Wall Street and Washington should give you every penny of your money back once this economy recovers.

Third, I said that we cannot and will not simply bailout Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes. They deserve a plan too.

Finally – and this one is important – I said that I would not allow this plan to become a welfare program for the Wall Street executives whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess.

And today, thanks to the hard work of Democrats and Republicans, it looks like we have a rescue plan that includes these taxpayer protections. And it looks like we will pass that plan very soon.

But our job is far from over. Because now that we’re fixing the mess on Wall Street, we need to move with the same sense of urgency to help families on Main Street. We don’t just need a plan for bankers and investors, we need a plan for autoworkers and teachers and small business owners. I will continue to fight for an economic stimulus plan for working families – a plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits for those Americans who’ve lost their jobs and cannot find new ones.

And I will fight every day of this campaign and every day of my presidency to make sure a crisis like this never, ever happens again. That means taking on the lobbyists and special interests in Washington. That means taking on the greed and corruption on Wall Street. That means putting in place the rules of the road and common-sense regulations for our finance system that I’ve been calling for since last March. It is time to reform Washington.

Now, my opponent, John McCain, talks about getting tough on Wall Street now, but he’s been against the common-sense rules and regulations that could’ve stopped this mess for decades. He says he’ll take on the corporate lobbyists, but he put seven of the biggest lobbyists in Washington in charge of his campaign. And if you think those lobbyists are working day and night to elect my opponent just to put themselves out of business, well I’ve got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska.

The truth is, for twenty-six years in Washington, Senator McCain has followed an out-of-touch philosophy he’s followed for decades in Washington – the idea that if we give more and more to those with the most, prosperity will trickle down to everyone else; the idea that no harm will be done if we let lobbyists shred consumer protections and fight against every regulation as unwise or unnecessary.

Well what we have seen over the last few weeks is nothing less than the final verdict on this failed philosophy. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people cannot be endangered anymore.

On Friday, we had a debate. And on issue after issue – from taxes to health care to the war in Iraq – you heard John McCain make the case for more of the same policies that got us into this mess. But just as important as what we heard from John McCain was what we didn’t hear.

We talked about the economy for forty minutes, and not once did Senator McCain talk about the struggles that middle class families are facing every day right here in North Carolina and around the country.

He defended his plan to give $300 billion in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, but he had nothing to say about the fact that wages have flat-lined and jobs are being shipped overseas.

He railed against some study of bears in Montana, but he had nothing to say about the fact that more and more Americans can’t afford to pay for college; can’t afford health care for their families; and can’t afford a retirement that is dignified and secure.

Senator McCain spoke again and again about the need to keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, but he said nothing about the need to end this war so that we can invest in good jobs, and rebuild our roads and bridges and broadband lines right here in America.

The truth is, through ninety minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you. He didn’t even say the words “middle class.” Not once.

You see, I think Senator McCain just doesn’t get it – he doesn’t get that this crisis on Wall Street hit Main Street a long time ago. That’s why his first response to the greatest fiscal meltdown in generations was to say that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.” That’s why he’s been shifting positions these last two weeks, looking for a photo-op, and trying to figure out what to say and what to do.

Well I know what we need to do. We need to stop giving those tax cuts to corporations and CEOs on Wall Street, and start standing up for families out on Main Street. We need to turn the page on the failed policies of the last eight years, and finally put working people first. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.

We don’t need any more out-of-touch, on-your-own leadership in Washington. We need a President who will change this economy so that it finally works for your family. We need a President who will fight for the middle class every single day, and that’s exactly what I’ll do when I’m President of the United States.

We have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great –that America is a place where you can make it if you try; that everyone should have the chance to live their dreams.

I know I wouldn’t be standing here today without that promise. And I know that’s the promise we must keep once more.

When I talk to those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton’s Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country.

And when I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep the promise of America alive as President of the United States.

That’s the change we need right now. And that’s the kind of change I’ll bring to Washington when I’m President of the United States of America.

Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

I will also create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We’ll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool and get the loans they need so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in Detroit, right here in Michigan, right here in the United States of America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the change we need will come without cost – though I have presented how we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.

But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don’t want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don’t want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children’s future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

At this defining moment, we have the chance to finally stand up and say: enough is enough!

We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth generator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education that helps your kids compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, make some calls, talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win Michigan, we will win this election, and we will change America together.http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-sunday-in-detroit/# *

Saundra Hummer

September 29th, 2008, 09:49 AM

:: :: ::

Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy Follies
By
Romesh Ratnesar
Saturday, Sep. 27, 2008

It takes a hard heart not to like Sarah Palin. She has a winning personal story. She can be poised, charming and funny. As she showed at the Republican National Convention, her ability to deliver set-piece speeches — a big part of the job for all politicians, but especially Presidents — is considerable. On balance, she's probably an asset to John McCain. But we should stop pretending that she is ready now or anytime in the forseeable future to be Commander-in-Chief.

I reached this conclusion after watching the foreign-policy portion of her disastrous Sept. 25 interview with Katie Couric. A number of commentators, including The Atlantic's James Fallows and Slate's Christopher Beam, have said that Palin resembled, in Beam's words, "a high-schooler trying to BS her way through a book report," which is an insult to both high-schoolers and B.S. Palin's answers were hesitant, convoluted and at times — like when she appeared to suggest that Vladimir Putin might be preparing a one-man airborne invasion of Alaska — downright loony.

But the more worrisome responses were the ones that betrayed her lack of curiosity about current events and reliance on bumper-sticker wisdom over complex thoughts. There were moments, in fact, in which you wondered whether she had been paying any meaningful attention to the world outside Alaska before McCain picked her as his running mate a month ago. (See photos of Sarah Palin on the campaign trail here.)

Set aside her strange imagining of Putin's flight path and her failure to remember that her tutor Henry Kissinger actually supports talking to Iran (which McCain also forgot during Friday's Presidential debate). Though less YouTube-able, two other moments in the CBS interview stood out as even more troubling. The first was when Couric asked Palin whether she believes "the Pakistani government is protecting al-Qaeda within its borders." This was Palin's response:

I don't believe that new President Zardari has that mission at all. But no, the Pakistani people also, they want freedom. They want democratic values to be allowed in their country, also. They understand the dangers of terrorists having a stronghold in regions of their country, also. And I believe that they, too, want to rid not only their country, but the world, of violent Islamic terrorists.

There's nothing inherently incorrect about that answer: Zardari, whose wife was assassinated by al-Qaeda, isn't in league with Osama bin Laden, and the vast majority of Pakistanis oppose terrorism. The trouble is that the same could be said about nearly every country in the world. But anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last few months knows that Pakistan is now home to al-Qaeda's top leaders and is the staging ground for the dramatic increase in suicide bombings in Afghanistan — and that elements of its security services are indisputably aiding that cause. Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, said this week that "the murder, killing, destruction, dishonoring and insecurity in Afghanistan is carried out by the intelligence administration of Pakistan, its military intelligence institutions." Just last month, the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan said, "Do I believe there has been some complicity on the part of organizations such as the ISI over time in Pakistan? I believe there has been." In fact, it's precisely the Pakistani government's unwillingness to go after militants along the Pakistan-Afghan border that has prompted the Bush Administration to authorize raids by U.S. commandos into Pakistani territory.

In short, most foreign-policy hands — including members of the current Administration — would have given Couric the exact opposite answer that Palin did. If U.S. officials once praised Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror, they almost never do now. But Palin doesn't seem to have noticed.

Then there was her pained, and painful, response to Couric's questions about the Bush "freedom agenda" — the goal of spreading democracy in the Islamic world. Predictably, Palin repeated standard Bush platitudes about making "every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world." That theory, though, has been discredited by the debacle in Iraq and years of inconvenient outcomes in the Middle East, in which elections have brought to power parties that are more extreme, not less. As a result, the Bush Administration abandoned the lofty talk about transforming the region roughly, oh, three years ago. Couric pressed Palin on this:

Couric: What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Yeah well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadenijad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

Couric's question was beyond difficult — it's the most vexing question that has faced US policymakers over the last seven years. What do you do when democracy produces results you don't like? There's no good answer, but there are many ways to grasp at one. Palin could have said that elections are only one component of democracy; that bringing extremist groups into the political process helps to moderate their behavior; that extremists tend to lose support once in power, because they don't know how to govern. She could even have said, Those are the breaks — we don't get to choose.

Instead, she changed the subject to the threat Iran poses to Israel. Why did she do this? Was it because she didn't want to acknowledge that democracy sometimes produces undesired results? Did she calculate that, since Gaza shares a border with Israel, she could use it as an opportunity to turn the discussion to Iran, where McCain and Obama disagree? Or did she just not know what Couric was talking about?

If she didn't, that's understandable. Most Americans are not particularly interested in the nuances of politics in Pakistan or the Middle East. But we should expect our leaders to be fluent in at least the basics of foreign policy. So far Palin is still struggling for words.

(See photos of Sarah Palin's rise to power here.
Just click the following URL:)

Click to Print Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845116,00.html :: :: :: :: ::

Saundra Hummer

September 29th, 2008, 01:36 PM

^^^
HOUSE VOTE: The Uprising Comes to Wall Street and Washington
By David Sirota
Campaign for America's Future, 9/29/08
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008094029/house-vote-uprising-comes-wall-street-and-washington
I'm scheduled to appear on CNN at 3:30pm EST to discuss the House's
extraordinary vote just moments ago to reject the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. What I'm going to say is pretty simple: the Left-Right make up of the "no" vote in Congress proves that Washington is facing a full on transpartisan revolt - the very revolt that I predicted in my book, The Uprising. No longer is this a populist revolt merely scaring Wall Street and Washington - this is a populist revolt that has, to quote Markos, crashed the gate, and it represents a real victory for the progressive movement and voices who aid Hell No. For once - and hopefully not for only a fleeting moment - democracy made an appearance in the halls of power.

Those who are surprised by this turn of events just haven't been paying attention to what's going on out in the country - they haven't been paying attention to, for instance, the social survey research showing rising rage against both our corrupt government and Corporate America. During my 3 month book tour, I faced a wave of skepticism from the Establishment media about my thesis. This earthquake on the floor of the U.S. House should end that skepticism once and for all.

Just as I said in the book that it's not clear what is going to come out of the Left-Right grassroots uprising throughout the country, it's not clear what is going to come out of this uprising in Congress. Will Democratic leaders tack to the hard right, load the bill up with corporate tax cuts and pass this bill with only Republican votes? Or will they actually be leaders of the Democratic
Party, make this bill a vehicle for the kind of New Deal-style investments and regulations that are necessary to start rebuilding this country, and pass this bill with full Democratic Party support?

This is the question moving forward. Attached is my article from yesterday laying out the top 5 reasons to vote against this bill and go back to the drawing board. That article outlines what should be the basic conditions for any bailout, including a speculators tax, re-regulation, economic stimulus, bankruptcy law reform and aid to homeowners. No amount of tinkering with Paulson's atrocity is going do the trick. They have to go back and start from scratch.

The Uprising is waiting for a serious response - will Congress step up to the plate? Contact your member of Congress right now and demand they go back to the drawing board.**********************http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093928/top-5-reasons-vote-against-paulsons-700-billion-bailoutTop 5 Reasons to Vote Against Paulson's $700 Billion BailoutBy
David SirotaCampaign for America's Future
9/28/08There's news this hour of a congressional deal to bailout Wall Street fatcats with $700 billion of taxpayer cash. Though the deal is better than what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson originally proposed early last week, it remains an insulting atrocity. Based on the outlines of the deal as reported in the press
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN2833491720080928

, here are the top 5 reasons (in no order) why every single member of
Congress - Democrat and Republican - should vote this sucker down. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into an email to your congressperson:
1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSEWhen an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's called kiting, and in many cases, it is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers toborrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane.

It didn't have to be this way, of course. As I noted in my newspaper
column this week

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/back-in-the-u-s-s-r.html
, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout. Similarly, Blue Dog Democrats proposed

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Blue_Dogs_seek_recoupment_provision_in_Wall_Street _bailout_package.html
a future tax on financial firms if and when taxpayers lose cash on the deal. These proposals were discarded in favor of language asking the government to "submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses," according to the Associated Press. Not only is that language toothless, but it opens up the possibility of a plan being submitted that says we should raise middle-class taxes or slash middle-class social programs to pay for Wall Street's misbehavior.

2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE
THINGS WORSE
Primum non nocere is the latin phrase for "first do no harm" - the priority principle for any EMT working on a sick patient. It should be the same priority for Congress at this moment - and a growing group of esteemed experts on both the Right and Left are insistingthat this bailout bill could make things worse. Here's a review:
The Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504531.html

reported on Friday, almost 200 academic economists "have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear." NYU's Nouriel Roubini

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253762/rge_conference_call_on_the_economic_and_financial_ outlookand_why_the_treasury_tarp_bailout_is_flawed

, the visionary who had been predicting this meltdown, says "The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan." Harvard's Ken Rogoff

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/26/is_the_crisis_real/
, a Former Federal Rerserve and IMF official, insists that the prospect of this bailout is, unto itself, taking a manageable problem and making it into a more intense crisis. He says that credit is frozen primarily because banks want to avoid dealing with other banks that might drive a hard bargain, and instead would rather wait for free money from the government. Without the prospect of that free money, Rogoff suggests that credit would probably begin moving again, if slowly. Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/26/bailing_on_the_bailout_or_is_i/

says that spending so much cash so quickly on such a poorly conceived plan could have the effect of making it impossible to fund economic stimulus that is the real way out of this mess. "Suppose the Paulson plan goes through," he writes. "It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble...When families respond to their loss of home equity by cutting back their consumption it will deepen the
recession. In this context it might prove very important to have the resources needed to provide a substantial stimulus. there is no doubt that this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell politically."

Meanwhile, it's not even close to clear that this is a problem that requires such an enormous response. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion - an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504155.html

reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending."

The questions, then, are simple: In the face of this bipartisan opposition from objective experts, why should a lawmaker instead believe the same Bush officials who helped create this crisis with their deregulation, the same Bush officials who just months ago said everything was AOK? Shouldn't there be almost complete unanimity among both objective and partisan observers before spending 5 percent of our entire economy after just one harried week of White House demands? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It's time, as The Who said, that we "don't get fooled again."

3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES
The mantra throughout the week has been that America has "no choice" but to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion giveaway - that, in effect, there are no alternatives. But that's an out-and-out lie - one with a motive: Making it seem as if the only thing we can do is hand the keys to the federal treasury over to both parties' corporate campaign contributors.

The truth is, there are a number of alternatives. Here are just a
few: In the Washington Post last week, Galbraith outlined a multi-pronged
plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403033.html

shoring up and expanding the FDIC, creating a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrecting Nixon's federal revenue sharing, and taxing stock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal. The Service Employees International Union

http://blogs.seiu.org/blogs/2008/09/26/take-a-deep-breath-our-economic-recovery-plan/

has drafted a plan based around a massive investment in public services and national health care, and regulatory reforms preventing foreclosures and forcing banks to renegotiate the predatory terms of their bad mortgages.
For those in the mindless, zombie-ish "someone has to do something!" camp, consider the possibility that you are under the spell of the same kind of White House fear that led us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed WMD. Consider, perhaps, that there may not even be a compelling basis for doing anything just yet (or at least not anything nearly so huge), and that the whole reason there is this urgent push right now has nothing to do with the financial situation, and everything to do with creating the political dynamic to pass a wasteful giveaway - one that couldn't be passed otherwise without a sense of emergency. In two separate posts (here

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/28/financial_meltdown_the_day_aft/

and here

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/26/bailing_on_the_bailout_or_is_i/

), CEPR's Baker says that letting the problem play out could be the best path, because Treasury and the Fed may already have the tools they need. Following this path, the worst thing that happens is "The Fed and Treasury will have to step in and take over the banks is exactly what many economists argue should happen anyhow," Baker writes. "So the outcome of the worst case scenario is a really frightening day in which the whole world financial system is shaken to its core, followed by a government takeover of the banks. Eventually the government straightens out the books and sells them
off again. But the real threat here is not to the economy, it is tothe banks."

Then there is the idea of simply taking the $700 billion and simply give it to struggling homeowners to help them pay off part of their mortgages. This hasn't even been discussed but the thought experiment it involves is important to understanding why there is, indeed, an alternative to the Paulson plan. If the root of this problem is people not being able to pay off their mortgages, and those defaults then devaluing banks' mortgage-backed assets, then simply helping people pay their mortgages would preserve the value of the mortgage-backed assets and recharge the market with liquidity. That would be a bottom-up solution helping the mass public, rather than a
top-down move helping only financial industry executives.

On this latter proposal, some may argue that giving any relief to homeowners is "unfair" in that those homeowners created their problems, so why should taxpayers have to help them? But then, is helping homeowners any less fair than simply giving all the money away to Wall Street, no strings attached? I'd say no - and helping homeowners also serves a second purpose: namely, keeping people in their homes, which not only helps them, but helps an entire neighborhood (as any homeowner knows, nearby properties can be devalued when foreclosures hit).

4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING
THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
As a preface, let me state that I think we live in a country where politicians too often listen to their donors and to the Establishment rather than their constituents, not the other way around. America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of "Statesmanship" and "Seriousness" and their supposed hatred of "pandering" to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic). So, in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with
this bill being "politicized" by coming down the pike right before an election - in fact, I think it's a good thing because the election - and the fear of being thrown out of office forces our politicians to at least consider what the public wants. I mean, really - would we rather have this decision made after the election, when the public can be completely ignored?

Polls overwhelmingly show a public that sees voting for this bill as an act of economic treason whereby the bipartisan Washington elite robs taxpayer cash to give their campaign contributors a trillion-dollar gift. As just two of many examples, Bloomberg News' poll

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYK_5_fV5D4M&refer=home

shows "decisive" opposition to the bailout proposal, and Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/opposition_to_bailout_plan_grows_but_still_expecte d_to_pass

reports that their surveys show "the more voters learn about the proposed $700 billion federal bailout plan for the U.S. economy, the more they don't like it."

Any sitting officeholder that votes for this - whether a Democrat or a Republican - should expect to get crushed under a wave of populist-themed attacks from their opponents. We've already seen it start. In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley (D) is airingscathing television ads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBy-5MuwP0Y

hammering Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for potentially supporting the deal. Similarly, this morning on Meet the Press, we saw Republican Senate challenger Bob Schaffer (CO) dishonestly papering over his own votes for deregulation and ripping into his opponent Rep. Mark Udall (D) for potentially supporting the deal. Incumbents, get ready for that kind of election-changing heat in your face if you vote "yes."

This, by the way, could play out in the presidential contest. Barack Obama has been taking the advice of the Wall Street insiders in his campaign in endorsing this bailout. McCain has endorsed the vague outline, but he may ultimately back off once he sees the details, allowing him to then run the last month of the campaign as the economic populist in the race. I'm not saying it would work, considering McCain's 26-year record of supporting the deregulatory agenda that created this crisis. But such a move could end up help him flank Obama on the defining economic issues of the race.

5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE IS SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND
AMERICA KNOWS IT
The amount of brazen corruption and conflicts of interest swirling around this deal is odious, even by Washington's standards - and polls suggest the public inherently understands that. Consider these choice nuggets:

Warren Buffett

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir