Government of the fat-cats, by the fat-cats, and for the fat-cats?

This is the United States of America, founded on the principle that there's both a wrong way and a "more perfect" way for government to act.

We have regulations controlling immigration, restricting tobacco and alcohol sales, establishing speed limits, and prohibiting the use of dangerous materials such as lead paint. We embrace regulations about what can’t be in our drinking water, and insuring we have the freedom to practice religion unfettered by the preferences of government agencies or the whims of men.

Not every decision is clear and simple. Our constitution was built deliberately to allow for clarifications and changes over time by wise men who had some notion of the limits on their own forecasting abilities. We've been trying to make good laws - good government regulations - and improve the bad ones ever since.

We have laws about everything from voter registration to verifying the safety & efficacy of drugs because we know we can’t simply trust everybody to do the right thing if there’s no judge or referee. Somehow the GOP has been persuaded to slow down the process of reforming Wall Street’s greedy, self-serving behaviors.

We know what happened when we let them call the shots; deregulation served a few very well indeed, while what trickled down to the rest of us was unemployment, foreclosures, and the destruction of the value of the largest asset most working Americans have, their home -- after we'd been encouraged to use it as a way to get credit to fuel corporate profits.

GOP strategists are now stalling reforms in the Senate, by asserting that we need economic analysis before "rushed rule-making." Where were they before the financial crisis in the late summer of 2008 and the resulting recession? I can tell you one thing, they weren't listening to the then-junior Senator from Illinois, who had written letters to the powers that be about what he saw as the looming mortgage lending crisis, but their hindsight may have factored that in.

Enough is enough. Wall Street needs reform if it's to create wealth for the nation instead of for itself. Congress may not get the new laws perfect on the first pass, but that's not news. If all the GOP has is questions, if they can't grasp the risks in leaving the system broken, I say let them step back; it's time to stop spouting sound bites while impeding progress and solutions.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Debunking the "regulations burden business" argument

In a discussion of the provocative Wall Street Journal headline “Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs” John Parsons and Antonio Mello point out, "It’s always possible to ignore the system-wide purpose of a regulation and claim it is costly due to the burden it imposes..."

Not everybody cares about the Dodd-Frank reform of financial derivatives markets, but we've seen what happens without regulation(s): the markets crashed, foreclosures destroyed home values, and millions of our friends and neighbors are unemployed.

It's costly to control immigration, to restrict alcohol sales, enforce speed limits, verify the safety & efficacy of drugs, and register voters, but we choose to do all these things because we know we can't simply trust everybody to do the right thing.

Why should you care? How much is at stake in this smoke and mirrors game of derivatives trading? $600 trillion. Compare that to the debt-ceiling, or the budget for the entire U.S. Government. $600 trillion is in play. That's why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone, and trying to scare us with more jobs lost.

"...there is 'no upside' to imposing margin requirements on end users, said David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness."

Victoria McGrane

Wall Street Journal February 13, 2011

Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs

Recovering our standing as the world leader in agriculture and industry, and creating the millions of jobs our country needs, won't be enough to keep Wall Street greed from ruining our economy. Can the financial markets "create prosperity" beyond Wall Street? It's hard to prove, lately; it's hard to see any upside in leaving those with the most to gain in charge of regulating themselves when they've already abused the system, or trust the tired old assertions about "burdens on business" so quickly, thoroughly debunked by simple logic.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

The First Debate of the Caucus

Well, the first democratic debate has come to an end, and as the political pundits over at MSNBC interview each other and talk about who looked the best, I’ll make the call to arms – bloggers: start your fingers!

For starters, to those of you who don’t know exactly where Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards stand on the issues: don’t feel bad. None of us do. The three front-runners coming into the debate have continued their firm stances of not having any firm stances. Hillary is roughly in favor of leaving some people in Iraq, Barack is more or less in favor of leaving no residual troops, and John Edwards is definitely from a poor, southern family. That’s about all they gave up in their continued campaigns to sound passionate without offering real solutions. Oh, and they’re all Christian. That matters to some people, I know.

If you want to know what their stances are – please just check their official sites, because there’s no point in going through a middleman when the information is so readily available. I’ll put the links at the end, if I can figure out how.

Now, to those of you who don’t know where the lesser-known candidates stand: shame on you! For the first time in a very long time, we have a great cross-section of democrats that are all ready to lead our country into a renaissance of peace and understanding. Any one of these candidates would be an unprecedented leap forward from our current administration, and every one has ideas that are both novel and refreshing. But as is the case with so many things in life, the best ones are flying under the radar. So here they are: the candidates without $20 billion….

Not that my opinion should mean anything to anybody other than myself (please just read about the candidates and make a decision on your own), but I’m officially stating that I feel Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico) is the best candidate for president of the United States Of America that we’ve had in decades. For virtually every question he was asked, he had a well thought out and decisive answer prepared, even if he wasn’t asked the same questions as the other candidates. He had multiple-points that he attempted to get to in the 1 minute allotted to him per answer. Admittedly, he doesn’t seem to have mastered the art of being concise with his speech, but that just tells me that he was more prepared than anybody else and he knows that there isn’t a quick, 1-minute answer to these difficult questions. His speech was honest (admitting once that he was the last of the candidates to call for Alberto Gonzales’s resignation, partially because Gonzales is Latino) and his opinions were clear and well stated. The moderator once mentioned that Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, and he was the only one to propose a way to give universal health care without raising taxes (which correlates with his track record in New Mexico, but again – check his site for facts. Blogs are for opinions.)

However, I’m not here to blow smoke up Governor Richardson’s ass, as every candidate is worth mentioning. Standing out from the crowd was former Alaskan representative and senator Mike Gravel. His speech was loud and often accusatory with radical ideas and an aggressive style, but frankly: that’s what we need. He was the most vocal against the Bush administration, but was also opposed to the other candidates that would pander to said administration by trading more money for a long-term timetable of withdrawal and taking any action that wouldn’t result in immediate change. The only other candidate looking for such quick action is Richardson whose timetable is “the end of this calendar year” but Gravel offered a virulent path to that end: a call to congress to make a law that would make it a felony for President Bush to continue the war in Iraq. His idealism may be a bit far-fetched, as he would need 67% of congress to over-rule the President’s obvious veto, but the idea is the sort of progressive thought that liberals are looking for.

Another stand-out in the field of candidates is senator Joe Biden, who came across as the most intelligent and professional of the group, even if his opinions are less radical than Gravel’s. Also, despite his great track record he doesn’t have the diplomatic experience that Richardson does. Biden is a very well spoken candidate who advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq and a quick end to the war. Unfortunately, he has a similar approach as Hillary, Barack, and Edwards in that he seems fine with a slow withdrawal and has no brilliant new ideas to make the changes we all want to see. He does have the intelligence, passion, and experience to run the country though.

Dennis Kucinich, like always, stands out as a passionate and intelligent individual. I’ve been a fan of Kucinich for years, and it’s a shame that once again I see him picking the wrong fights and choosing the wrong places to make a stand. When not one of the other 7 candidates would endorse his plan to impeach Vice President Cheney (this caucus is all about uniting, not further dividing) he pulled out a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and held it up while explaining that Cheney was going against what the country stands for and needs to be held accountable. A great point, and a good picture that we’ll likely see again during this race, but it certainly didn’t help his popularity. Richardson was right to say that the American people want an honest candidate, but a level of discretion is advisable to somebody involved in a popularity contest. And make no mistake: this is the grandest of popularity contests.

Senator Christopher Dodd also came across as both intelligent and well spoken, but his opinions were little more than regurgitation of everybody else’s stances. He was neither controversial nor particularly memorable, so his presence is more that of a strong benchwarmer than anything else. He reminds me that even the least memorable democratic candidate is infinitely better than the options that the other side has, and we would be lucky to have Dodd as a president, even though I don’t see him making many waves this year. But it’s still early, and we may hear from him yet – he certainly has the capacity to lead the democrats, and we could all rejoice if he were our next president.

As for the three front-runners, they don’t need more press, so I won’t spend as much time talking about them. Hillary was very well composed and presented herself like a President. Her pearls were a bit extravagant (who cares about a $400 haircut when you’ve got a $10,000 necklace?), but I’m not one to make a decision based on superficialities so that’s the end of that. Barack wasn’t his usual self, but that’s not to say he isn’t still deserving of his large following. I was first made aware of him three years ago, and to this day I like the guy. My only problem (like most people’s problem with him) is the lack of experience: it’s more than signing bills and pulling the troops out, and his continued reluctance to take any firm stances would keep me from voting for him. I’d love to see him take the vice-presidency, and then take over after 8 years of internship. That’s a distinct possibility. As for John Edwards: he’s the cookie-cutter candidate that we get at least one of every four years. Just like Al Gore before him and countless others that I won’t waste my time mentioning, he’s got the key phrases (“my Lord” was mentioned, of course) and his look is both clean-cut and conservative (appropriate, considering his approach). He doesn’t represent change – just a solid step away from the current regime.

So what should we all take away from this debate? Hope - tons and tons of hope. Every single candidate up on that stage was a good remedy to the bunch of stubborn misfits that we have in place right now, and no matter what happens – we’ll be much better off in 2009 than we were before. These candidates all represent more than a change of primary color in the executive branch: they represent a change in philosophy and approach. Every single one agrees that war has to be 2nd to diplomacy, not the other way around. They are all more willing to talk about the issues than to give each other grief (even if only one of them was willing to sign Governor Richardson’s agreement not to sling mud during the caucus), and they are all qualified leaders. We are terribly lucky to have this group vying for our votes, and 2009 will prove to be a great year in American history.

So do yourself a favor, and watch the future debates, keep track of the candidates, and know that whatever happens: voting democrat in 2008 is going to be a good decision regardless of your usual party affiliation.


Official sites/candidacy sites:

Bill Richardson

Mike Gravel

Joe Biden

Dennis Kucinich

Christopher Dodd

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Edwards