Crisis in Libya: Al Franken Gets It

Did you watch the President's speech on Monday night? Reviews are mixed, naturally, depending on the agenda of the reviewer. Here's a quick sampling before moving beyond the pundits to talk about Senator Franken's pragmatic action.

@thenation
The Nation

Obama tries, without success, to explain an undeclared war. By John Nichols. http://bit.ly/fxeZq0

From the other end of the spectrum:

@NewsHour
NewsHour


Pres. Obama accomplished three main goals to three distinct audiences at his speech on #Libya http://ow.ly/4oHYO

Even people who felt Gadhafi was presiding over a beastly, cruel, and violent repression of Libyan citizens are rightly concerned about the cost, particularly given how the two major U.S. military operations in the last decade added to the deficit. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) is set to introduce a bill to assure that military operations, such as the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, don’t get a free pass to float a check - that military spending won't add to our national debt.

Senator Franken has expressed concerns about the potential cost of military operations in Libya, saying, "You know, so far the administration said we can pay for it in the regular military budget but at a certain point, that may not be the case." Franken continues to be a forceful presence in the Senate, focusing on productive work rather than simply posturing for the press.

The debate will continue about what we should have done about the slaughter of civilians, and what the role of the U.S. government and diplomacy should be outside our borders. With so much of our budget already dedicated to the military I'm glad somebody has the courage to face reality and confront the hard choices we face instead of passing the cost-burden along. Thank you, Senator Franken.

Thomas Hayes is a New Media Advisor, Political Consultant, Journalist, Entrepreneur, and former Congressional Campaign Manager; he believes in "follow the money" when following politics, and continues his 12-step recovery from the years spent as a Programmer/Database Administrator by carrying his camera nearly everywhere and writing on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Too Rich to Fail?

Budget shortfalls in many states have helped shine the spotlight on fiscal responsibility, but as we've seen in Wisconsin when there are political careers on the line rhetoric tries to muscle its way into the spotlight, too. There is no guarantee of objectivity left in commercial "mainstream" media in the U.S. anymore; the chase after "bottom line" success has also chased truth and journalistic standards into full retreat.

Now elected so-called leaders want to chase education into full retreat, too. With the full complicity of ratings-driven networks who will present any side of an issue if they make a buck today, the folks who can afford to pay as much for their kid to attend an elite private academy every year as the rest of us can justify for a graduate school have decided public schools and the people who teach them are no longer a priority.

"...in the derivatives market alone, $600 trillion is in play. That’s why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone..."

from "$6 Trillion in play: derivatives markets"
18 February 2011 at realitytax

We bailed out Wall Street bankers after the 2008 crash caused by years of risky business put our economy in a tail-spin, supporting their lavish lifestyles, sky-high salaries, and jaw-dropping year-end bonuses; in exchange they demand we reduce taxes on the ultra-rich while our bridges crumble, potholes proliferate, and we're reducing the modest paychecks and threatening the retirement benefits of public school teachers? In the land of opportunity? Seriously?


We've let corporations and lobbyists build a system where the rule is that some are not only being asked to pay less than their fair share, but they're also too rich to fail. What's next, taking away the collective bargaining rights that made this country great by building the middle class into the engine of the world's greatest economy? We can do better than this; on behalf of our children we must do better than this.

In 2009, "America’s top 25 hedge fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each — enough to pay for 20,000 teachers." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 3 May 2010

Political Correspondent Thomas Hayes is a former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a journalist, photo/videographer, entrepreneur, and communications consultant who contributes regularly 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 Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave

Former U.S. Representative David Stockman (R-MI), who served as Ronald Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, used the forum of the Sunday New York Times to unmask and rebuke Republican members of Congress and their elite messaging strategists who cling to claims to be fiscal conservatives.

"Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Describing current and recent GOP tax rhetoric "a mockery of traditional party ideals," Stockman says these policy doctrines have led to four "great deformations" of the U.S. economy over the past four decades, starting when the Nixon administration ignored the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world while "Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Doubtless this is why so many who lately vote against Republican policies and politicians describe themselves as socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. The GOP has been abusing the trust of their base, successfully waging a PR war on the truth: relying on either the inattention, and/or gullibility of voters who have fallen for their appealing "brand ideology" without realizing this rhetoric is entirely at odds with actual GOP goals and actions for the past 4 decades.

That's the real threat to the Republican Party, which is now gleeful for media coverage of Tea Party events so far to the political right they may fool swing voters into thinking the GOP looks as though they occupy the middle-ground. Stockman's Op-Ed article is a must read for all who take politics seriously enough to vote.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

What's Bart Stupak's real agenda?

The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Represenatives has prepared, for all 435 congressional districts, a district-level analysis of the impact of health care reform legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on families, small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. Somebody in Michigan should forward the link to Representative Bart Stupak, just in case he doesn't know.

The bill caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $6,200 for individuals and $12,400 for families who purchase insurance through the exchange or who are insured by small businesses. It also eliminates annual and lifetime limits on all insurance coverage. These changes mean no family will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.

Take, for example, the highlights from the report on MI's First District, Represented by Republican Bart Stupak. In Rep. Stupak’s district, the health care reform bill will:

• Improve coverage for 364,000 residents with health insurance.
• Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 197,000 families and 17,900 small businesses to help them afford coverage.
• Improve Medicare for 141,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole.
• Extend coverage to 44,000 uninsured residents.
• Guarantee that 10,000 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
• Protect 1,100 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
• Allow 50,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.
• Provide millions of dollars in new funding for 41 community health centers.
• Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $102 million annually.

Under the legislation, small businesses with 100 employees or less will be able to join the health insurance exchange, benefiting from group rates and a greater choice of insurers. There are 18,600 small businesses in Bart Stupak's district that could benefit from this provision.

Tax credits for truly small businesses:
Small businesses with 25 employees or less and average wages of less than $50,000 will qualify for tax credits of up to 50% of the costs of providing health insurance. There are up to 17,900 small businesses in the district that could qualify for these credits according to the committee report.

By that reckoning, it's bound to be good for the 1^st CD in Michigan, but their Democratic Representative must have something else as a higher priority than the health and economy of his district.

Curious how other districts will fare? The full report is at: Benefits of Health Care Reform, District by District Impact, where the Committee notes the cost of health care reform under the legislation as currently formulated is:

"...fully paid for, in large part by eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and excessive profits for private insurers. The legislation will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years, and by about $1.2 trillion over the second decade."

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

$100 billion in green investment = $160 billion PER YEAR!

The Economic Policy Institute recently showed that a $100 billion in green investment annually would yield $160 billion in additional output for each of the next two years, creating approximately 1.1 million new jobs and resulting in an increase of approximately 100,000 in the number of unionized jobs in the United States.

EPI points out that this would lead to rising median incomes, a reduction in inequality and more access to job-training and mentorship programs.

At a time when outsourcing undermines the middle class, and deregulation has wounded our entire economy, we have a chance to be creating millions of new jobs right here in the U.S.A.

It's time for our leaders to take charge of the economy. Deregulation has helped the wealthy long enough: it's time to reward those who WORK for a living by insuring there are jobs for anybody in the U.S.A. willing to be productive.

Investing in energy independence isn't simply a national defense priority, it makes sense for the environment and our economy - it means jobs right here at home.

In September, 2008, the Blue Green Alliance released a report, in conjunction with the Center for American Progress and authored by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, which showed that significant investments in six global warming solutions - building retrofits, mass transit and freight rail, wind and solar power, next generation biofuels and a smart grid transmission system - would create two million jobs in two years, four times the jobs created with the same investments in expanding our oil supply. That same report also found that these green investments created three times the number of good jobs - paying $16 or more - than the same investment in oil.

learn more | digg story
Read the EPI Issue Brief | Read the Blue Green Alliance Report

The irony of hope: Obama's not relying on it

To confront the most profound challenges to our financial system the people of the United States have invested their hope in a former lawyer turned community activist, Barack Obama. In his address to the U.S. Congress, watched by much of the nation Tuesday night, Obama offered an insight into what's been happening inside his administration during the first month he's been in office, but it's clear the work began well prior to inauguration day on a wide range of initiatives.

You may argue that the cost of the Iraq war leaves us too far in debt to attain his ambitious goal of halving the national budget deficit in four years, or that the need for money to help homeowners and those losing their jobs is too urgent and will hamper his ability to attain those goals - and that's far from the only challenge the White House faces domestically, let alone on the stage of world affairs.

Still, we must reverse the unacceptable trends in the housing markets and the massive bleeding of the jobs from the workforce in the United States. We cannot simply wait and hope it gets better. Our long range future depends on a realistic assessment of the scope and scale of the problems and addressing not merely the budget deficit, but the deficit that average citizens feel when considering the leadership of our financial institutions and lawmakers that brought us to this critical point.

As the President rolls out the budget today, questions about fiscal policy in particular loom from all sides about more than the numbers. We must move to a system with clearer rules and better oversight to prevent another looting of our savings and investments in ways that benefit only a very few already wealthy individuals while leaving privatized retirement accounts and home values in tatters with echoes of the crisis around the globe.

Fortunately, Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and their team are neither rookies nor have they been basking in the post-inaugural glow. They've had their sleeves rolled up for months. This administration has brought new vigor and insight to a variety of issues, clearly including the domestic economic crisis. Barack Obama gave an inspirational speech, despite unseemly catcalls from some of the opposition as he described an interlocking, holistic approach that combines controlling costs, retaining/creating job opportunities, and enhancing revenue by targeting three major sectors (energy, education, and health care.)

The man who had hope as a central theme of his campaign is not relying on hope. Obama's laid out a clear foundation for recovery that moves quickly into rebuilding our economy and infrastructure in a way that accounts for our place on the planet, both physically and metaphorically. He's not overlooking the threat from disaffected individuals in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe, but Obama his team have brought new energy and creativity to ordering our priorities, in a refreshingly open way.

Obama's asking a lot of people. Even mustering the energy to remain hopeful can be hard when challenges are so ubiquitous. Like the best doctor faced with a critical patient, though, Obama's asking more of himself, though, and his staff - they're not content to hope, they're leading by example. The executive branch of the U.S. is working aggressively on all fronts, using transfusions where appropriate to keep critical systems functioning, while focusing on the goal of stabilizing the U.S. and world economy that are intertwined with our other domestic challenges so that we can heal, and back to the American dream. That's a path I can believe in.

read more | digg story

Never underestimate the power of a woman.

The U.S. economy continues to reverberate from the policies (or perhaps lack of policies) that the Bush-Cheney administration championed since taking office 8 years ago, and by most accounts we've now lost over 3.5 million jobs during the recession that they bestowed upon the tax-payers and future tax-payers. 600,000 Americans have been laid off in January alone. The mortgage foreclosures continue unabated, the unemployment rate is soaring, yet now that Bush is out of office certain members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives continue to support the trickle-down theories that brought us to this economic precipice. But it's not their fault.

The bloc that blocked

I don't mean the state of the economy - that's the fault of everybody who ever championed, or simply ignored, deregulation of the banking and financial industries. No, it's not their fault that they're engaged in partisan posturing at a time when the country has delivered a broad mandate for new approaches, because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tricked them. The Speaker got the minority to circle their wagons, to vote as a block against the first version of the new Stimulus bill even though they had been supportive of Bush's hurried spending bills to bail out banks as the previous administration was winding down, and now the Republican Senators are largely following suit.

Pelosi ran a bill through quickly for a vote, and now they're posturing desperately while the tax payers and voters watch more closely than the politicos are accustomed to - they're being downright obstructionist, and that leaves the Democrats in a stronger position.

Some strategists might suggest that at such a juncture the wise thing would be to give the newly elected President what he asks for, hoping that by the time the mid-term election rolls around they'd have something to point their fingers at if it fails while saying, "we did what he asked." But the voters are seeing the Republicans suggest we try "cutting taxes" again. Cutting taxes sounds pretty good to the people we've bailed out on Wall Street, I suppose, but when you're worried about losing your job and keeping food on the table your concern is not for the Capital Gains tax which is already considerably lower than the Income Tax, your concern is over staunching the flow of jobs before unemployment spirals to the levels of the Great Depression. President Obama's right to insist on timely action, the same sort of need the prior administration finally woke up to in the waning lame-duck days of their power.

Theatrics are alive and well in the U.S. Senate

What are the Republicans opposed to? Not so much, it turns out: something under 1% of the spending, yet rather than come with proposals for the voters to contemplate their doing what worked in the past, made-for-Fox drama and histrionics, name calling. While the President is visibly reaching out to find common ground, some of the most influential Republicans in the capitol are playing for sound-bites of their outrage and opposition, "...you have to start from scratch" - they failed to realize that Nancy Pelosi invited them back into their old, discredited "we-they" postures for the national audience, and failed to understand the urgency and pain of their constituents as the layoffs and foreclosures continue.

The reality is the situation is urgent; we can't allow the economy of the nation to falter and stall, we can't afford it. The decisions have to be made and plans launched by people who can't remotely follow the calculus that economists such as Paul Krugman or Mark Anson employ. Americans want to get back to work - and we want our elected leaders to do their work swiftly so we can stop laying off teachers and assembly line workers and losing their productive participation in our economy.

Maybe if we enforced layoffs, or even pay cuts, in Congress in proportion to the rest of the country, or the budget, they'd get off their rhetoric and get the bill passed.

John McCain was for ACORN before he was against them.

Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer of The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) said, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN." Seriously, McCain was the keynote speaker at a 2006 ACORN rally. Evidently McCain was for Immigration reform before he was against it? It does make one wonder why he and his campaign are so exercised over their allegations that Senator Obama has also got ACORN connections.

Perhaps McCain's actions, and those of surrogate organizations such as the Buckeye Institute, are more than the typical election-year stunts we've seen in recent election cycles. Perhaps this time they aim to take some focus off Wall Street's bailout after years of deregulation and the resulting chaos in U.S. and world economies? But in 2006 McCain was pleased to be photographed at the rally, seated beside Florida Democratic Representative Kendrick Meek.

The rally, co-sponsored by ACORN in partnership with the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC), Catholic League Services – Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia/Vota en Accion, the Service Employees International Union [SEIU], and UNITE/HERE, was intended to call attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

Senator McCain spoke at the rally attended by hundreds of ACORN members, most of whom were dressed in the red shirts typical of its members. Senator McCain's speech focused on the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill, which McCain sponsored with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

See The Actual Links Between John McCain and ACORN for Yourself!

If you're a GOP supporter, or just a McCain enthusiast, please get your facts straight about McCain's association with ACORN. Remember Attorney General Alberto Gonzales arranging the firing of Republican U.S. Attorneys because they refused to prosecute voter assistance groups, including ACORN? Remember how it ended up with Gonzales resigning in disgrace? That was the same year Senator McCain partnered with ACORN.

It's no wonder McCain is trying to take over the "change" theme; his record is littered with sudden reversals in positions that leave him open to charges he's been both for and against virtually anything that Congress has voted on depending on what seemed politically expedient, and his initiatives on health care and taxes don't favor the middle class when examined impartially.

Ms. Lewis' recent remarks about McCain included a scathing assessment of his potential leadership, "...he was a maverick before he became erratic. We were thrilled to partner with him to help reform the outdated immigration laws in this country, and were pleased to work closely with him on this issue."Lewis continued, "We expected Senator McCain to support our efforts to give voice to millions of Americans who have never participated in an election before. We are surprised at his efforts to vilify an organization that, until recently, he saw as an ally. Maybe this surprise attack and change of heart is indicative of his state of mind, and the way he would govern."

Maverick, or political opportunist?

Ms. Lewis went on to say that, "We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."

Senator McCain was joined at that 2006 rally by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, and members of labor, business, and religious organizations.

When a department store calls the police to report a shoplifting employee, no one says the department store is guilty of consumer fraud. But for some reason, when ACORN turns voter registration workers over to the authorities for filling out bogus forms, it gets accused of “voter fraud.” This is a classic case of blaming the victim; indeed, these charges are outrageous, libelous, and often politically motivated. The commercial media may be content to echo McCain's talking points, and tacitly approve them by not contradicting "misstatements" during so-called debates, but the era when divisive political attacks and partisan smoke-screens are accepted as just "business as usual" is ending. We demand more now, and we deserve better from commercial news organizations and candidates alike.

The conduct of Schieffer, Obama, and McCain during tonight's debate at Hofstra University will be scrutinized closely by millions. I suggest one simple ground rule: "No more lies."

Digg this story!

Palin avoids imploding during VP debate

Did Governor Palin's performance change the outcome of the election? Almost certainly not, though she probably did succeed in getting the attention back on Senator McCain. Her answers were obviously much less spontaneous, and accordingly less substantive, less revealing, and generally less related to the questions Gwen Ifill posed. In fact, the debate may have been overshadowed by the revelation that the McCain campaign has written off Michigan, and will even continue running ads there.

Both candidates foreshadowed their strengths and styles for the evening handling the very first question, Biden gave a fairly soft answer when asked had the previous week been DC at its best or its worst, but Governor Palin essentially ignored the question altogether to assert that McCain, who had championed Wall Street deregulation, nonetheless had warned people "two years ago" that something bad might be looming.

What came through from Senator Biden was the sense of a man who genuinely grasps the enormity of the dual crises facing America: the meltdown in our economy and the damage to our standing in the world that the policies of the Bush administration have wrought. Biden was considerably more willing to show himself to us, while his opponent's agenda was clearly to echo now-familiar talking points wrapped in folksy colloquialisms – a sort of blending of the styles of George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Biden did seem to gloss over that the time-tested Republican campaign theme of "lowering taxes" which has not by any means strengthened our economy during the Bush administration. So perhaps casual viewers looking for bright spots in Palin's performance will buy her assertion that a vote for McCain isn't likely to continue current policies even though Biden did once basically dare her to name one way in which McCain offered any real change. We're left to wonder if gosh-darnits meant to sound like Reagan are sufficient evidence of a viable Vice President or not. As a strategic goal, distancing the McCain~Palin ticket from Bush and Cheney is obviously prudent, yet speaking at a tactical "in the limelight" level, Sarah Palin mispronouncing nuclear in the same way that George Bush does surely emphasized her similarities to our increasingly unpopular President.

When Ms. Ifill asked how a VP might change the partisan posturing that we associate with Washington politics the two answers were markedly different. Biden's story about being given a come-uppance and his resulting lesson about not judging another motives rang with credible humility. Palin, on the other hand, after suggesting the secret was in selecting political appointees without regard to their politics (that's a trifle naïve, I must say) then immediately launched into a highly partisan smear as she made her appeal to voters to pick Republicans to return to the Oval Office.

Who dealt with the questions better?

Palin dodged the question when both candidates were asked about their weaknesses. Biden was forthcoming, whereas the Governor clearly launched into talking points. Asked about policy issues they'd had to change on during their careers Biden admitted to giving up his original ideal about selecting judicial nominees based solely on temperament and intellect, learning there was reason to consider "judicial philosophy" as well. Palin cited not vetoing budgets when she lacked support. In other words she'd learned she couldn't dictate from a minority position, which frankly sounded like she didn't understand the question although it's a good lesson.

Biden did have the upper hand in the exchanges about taxes. The Governor was obviously in talking point territory on that topic, while Senator Biden clarified and debunked those points and how they relate to wage earners under $250,000, regardless of if they are small business owners or not. A format that allowed longer responses probably would have provided Biden the opening to talk about how tax cuts haven't been creating jobs lately, but the rules for the VP debate cut down the intervals each had for speaking in comparison to the Presidential events, and that frankly worked in Palin's favor.

Well moderated evening

Any questions or concerns about Gwen Ifill's impartiality as a moderator have been erased by her style of presenting both with similarly sticky questions – and letting both hear both questions before replying when the two were different, such as on challenging the Governor to explain why she'd said she didn't know what a VP did ("it was a joke") whereas Ifill noted Biden had been quoted as saying he'd never be a VP (which he didn't actually have to address, since Palin wanted BOTH to be seen as jokes - Sarah let Joe off the hook.) Ifill had moderated the vice-presidential debate between Republican candidate Dick Cheney and Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards during the 2004 debate, but her as-yet-unpublished book had been the source of some hand-wringing among certain pundits during the 24-36 hours before the debate.

One outstanding quandary for those who were paying close attention to Palin's talking points is how to reconcile her assertions about getting government out of the way with such statements as being the first Governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet. That's not exactly a small-government approach, although it did allow her to nearly deflect questions about what causes climate change. Biden, of course, was quick to point out that while it's all well and good to talk about avoiding finger pointing, yet it's hard to solve problems if you don't know what the cause is. Perhaps his best shot of the night came early on when he likened McCain's proposals to tax health care benefits while deregulating the health care insurance system as a "Bridge to Nowhere."

Republicans can relax, she passed.

Still, it must be said, Governor Palin was much better prepared for this than she had been for her interviews with Katie Couric, and surely exceeded the expectations of many who watched the debate. Did she win? Not in the traditional sense of providing substantive answers related to the questions. Yet political debates are not judged solely by that standard, and since she likely didn't drive conservative voters away she also didn't lose.

If the standard is which candidate presented a person ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, a question Ifill asked about, Senator Biden's more thoughtful, spontaneous familiarity with the national policy issues outshined the Governor's repeated references to Alaska as an energy producing state. There can be little doubt in the minds of the voters that the Obama~Biden policies will diverge sharply from those in force currently, whereas based on Palin's performance, (which didn't meet the level she attained reading her acceptance speech at the RNC,) a vote for McCain~Palin is, indeed, a vote for more of the same.

Digg this article...

BAILOUT PROPOSAL - LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(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;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

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.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term "mortgage-related assets" means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term "United States" means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia. 

California Unemployment Insurance Fund Going Broke - Economy Failing

It's one thing to have people out of work and drawing unemployment, but it's more terrible to be in a position where that unemployment insurance fund is running out of money.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle today the California unemployment insurance fund is running out of money and will have to borrow from the Federal Government for the first time since the 1930s.  The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.6 billion.  

To make matters worse, not just California but 18 other states may find their unemployment insurance funds in deficit, including New York, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri.   

"We Are Out Here" - Republicans Speak Truth to McCain's Lies

We are out here - the Republicans or ex-Republicans who will no longer tolerate the racist, despicable slime machine that the right wing and the John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign has become.

One such Republican penned an article at Daily KOS - a place I seldom send people to read, because it has been so staunchly partisan. Yet this story merits the visit:

I know, for I am one of them. I am not your typical progressive, being an ex-Air Force officer (9 years), evangelical Christian, card carrying conservative...

Is this election going to be about lies, and distortions, or issues?

It's Obama's tax plan that favors over 90% of this country's families and voters, whereas McCain's tends to give money to the wealthiest.

It's Obama who wants to fix Health Care, whereas McCain says changes Obama proposes will reduce our choices and put bureaucrats in charge of our medical decisions. Has McCain never dealt with insurance company bureaucrats who control our health care already, making decisions based on profit not medical advice?

If McCain's all about choices in health care, why does he want to remove choice when it comes to women's reproductive health, and return us to the dangerous day of back-alley abortions?

Obama and Biden want to keep the government out of religious matters, whereas McCain's selected a rookie governor who wants to be able to ban books, and as a Mayor charged victims for rape kits if they reported the crime. That's not the kind of maverick outlook the Alaska State legislature condoned - in response they passed a law insuring victims weren't charged.

If John McCain really wants to campaign with dignity, what's up with all those ads? Is that conduct becoming of a senior Senator, let alone a candidate for the White House? Let's ask him:

Whatever became of "Do unto others," Senator McCain? Either you're outright lying about your intent, totally out of touch as James Carville suggested, or simply unable to control teh GOP and your lobbyists & campaign staff. Meanwhile Senator, your campaign seeks to divert us and the media from all these issues by manufacturing outrage over lines you've used yourself?

America, our moment is now. It's time to get past Red and Blue states, it's time to reclaim our former greatness, to reform DC, and start coping with the mess Bush has made of our economy, our housing markets, and our international reputation.

Obama for America.

read more | digg story

Tax plans: Obama vs. McCain

Let me state at the outset that you can't know. I don't just mean that politicians don't always follow through on campaign pledges, either. Among other things, circumstances change, and the economy is neither stable nor predictable, so while we may be able to discuss goals, vision, and philosophy, it's not entirely possible to figure what it will take to turn the economy in a better direction while dealing with the costs we've incurred in Iraq.

But the question is hard to answer for another reason, too. Senator McCain and his team have avoided releasing any specifics. Taylor Griffin, for instance, one of McCain's trusted, close advisors, danced away from details about Social Security, because he says McCain fears the debate might become politicized. Seriously. Here's the most beef I can uncover from Griffin or McCain:

"The history of the Social Security debate has taught that too many specifics, especially during a presidential campaign, has polarized the debate."

In contrast, if you want to know what Obama's plan is you can readily find volumes of information describing his specific positions and detailed proposals on taxes and the economy, or virtually any other issue. McCain's savvy; he's been in Washington a long time, and his team knows that the devil's in the details, so they won't give any on his website or in interviews. Clever campaigning, perhaps, but it makes it hard for a voter to make an informed choice.

Let's not dither: we're all in favor of lowering taxes and cutting federal spending, we'd all like to have more discretion in spending on what we personally favor and enjoy. Meanwhile the present budget deficit means that whoever wins the November election faces a gargantuan task leading the country out of the hole. “I will not pretend we can achieve them without cost, or without sacrifice, or without the contribution of almost every American citizen,” Senator Obama said on Monday, “But I will say that these goals are possible, and I will say that achieving them is absolutely necessary if we want to keep America safe and prosperous in the 21st century.” I'll return to Obama's New Energy speech in a bit, but in terms of taxes and the economy? Vision alone won't do it, and both candidates owe us specifics of how they'd manage the budget to overcome the deficit.

The Tax Policy Center, in a report disputed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin (arguably McCain's key economic advisor,) said that McCain's "...proposals on the stump are often far more sweeping than the more measured options outlined by his campaign." That they might as much as double the tax impact of his formal proposals, while Obama's off-the-cuff additions would reduce the impact of his plan (by roughly one-sixth, they say.)

Who can we believe? And who are we? There's nobody following the campaign who doubts Obama will champion tax policies that will impact those who earn a quarter million dollars or more in a year. Fortunately, while those folks have economic challenges, they need not worry about the price of a gallon of gas or the cost of bread, and their children will probably be able to afford any college they choose. In his "New Energy" speech on Monday (see below) in Lansing Michigan Obama, for instance, repeated his call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies while focusing on eliminating oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, while McCain's speeches and press releases on energy are somewhat vague - basically, "drill now, and build nuclear plants."

Obama offers New Energy for America

So, what of the various rumors circulating in email or reports echoing in the media lately? Let's turn to a non-partisan group that has found fault with both major candidates at times, PolitiFact. Here are some highlights from their clear summary page on taxes. Click the meter(s) if you want the details on each of these "facts."

• "Obama will charge a 28% tax on all home sales."


• Obama wants to "restore" the estate tax that George W. Bush "repealed."


• McCain will keep the estate tax at 0%, the same as it is now.


• Obama will "cut taxes for working families."


• McCain July 30th, 2008 in a television ad: Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity."


• Tax rates were significantly higher "in the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s."


• Obama wants to "enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War," according to John McCain on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 in Washington, D.C.


• McCain and Bush are millionaires who are "for tax cuts for millionaires."


• John McCain on Monday, August 4th, 2008 on the Bush tax cuts.

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help track truth in the presidential campaign. The Times and CQ analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads, and interviews daily to determine and report on whether the claims are accurate.

So, when you ask who will raise "my" taxes more, the answer depends on who you are. If you work for BP, or Exxon/Mobil, or if you can earn a million dollars in under four years, your personal weatlth and earning potential may suggest you support McCain (although where he finds the money to fund his admittedly vague proposals still could affect you adversely.)

Despite the fact that Obama has hired more economic advisors, McCain might need more advice.

Despite the fact that politics relies on perception, voters need facts to make informed choices. For individuals earning under a quarter million dollars a year concerned with their personal finances as a key issue, a close reading of Obama's plans probably wins the vote. Either way, McCain's claims that Obama will raise taxes are wrong.

Digg this story!