Bailout Extortion

Bailout Extortion

Paulson, Bernanke

 

 

 

 

Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Director Bernanke issued only generalized warnings, if dire, in testifying at the Senate Banking Committee hearing yesterday. One question left unanswered was a big one–‘What exactly is the harm in not authorizing the smashing sum of $700 billion+ to bail out some entities in the financial industry?’

(Another big question not answered: Which entities would get the money, or the most, and why?)

The only itemization was some consumer lending—automobile loans, mortgages, and college education loans—with a few references to businesses lending money to each other.

Lending and cramdown

Tabling that second category for now, the argument about consumer lending seems to be that businesses will no longer be found—absent the $700 billion authorization–willing to lend Americans money for automobile purchases, mortgages, or college tuition. No car loans; no mortgages; no education loans.

My first response: Huh?

Not even a Hugo Chavez would be willing to help people in the U.S. buy cars, in the interests of sustaining the U.S. automobile, petroleum and highway sectors if nothing else? Says who?

Second response: This, if true, is extortion. If true, also, it has to be industry-wide and thus surely violates U.S. Antitrust law. Go, FBI!

(The FBI is launching investigations on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG and other companies, and on their top management and executives, for fraud. Let’s hope the FBI moves very, very swiftly. You know there is fire beneath the smoke when the FBI and Daily Kos are on the same page.)

DK

 

 

Setting aside the crime-fighting for the moment, it is pathetically obvious that our automobile industry at the very least does not have to be held hostage to Wall Street. While Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) joined the chorus about the automobile industry at the hearing yesterday, there are clearly alternatives to bailing out (unnamed) lenders in the hope of a lateral trickle over to Detroit:

 

In simplest terms, if the administration is really worried about people not being able to buy cars, then by all means lend the U.S. automakers with monies they can use—to extend car loans to customers themselves–without going through some middleman entity of the Lehman Brothers ilk. Similar proposals have already been floated by Detroit.

 

Obviously, lending to giant automakers—or underwriting loans they extend—is less than the ideal solution. But lending money to Big Auto has to be better than giving money to Big Bankruptcy.

Same for education loans. If they’re worried about students loans drying up, if the powers that be are genuinely so worried about what might happen to student loans that they can contemplate a proposal like the bailout bill–then by all means lend/underwrite our institutions of higher learning themselves—either lend to students directly, at a reasonable, modest rate of interest; or extend the Pell Grants to save the (financially) bottom half of the college population from graduating in debt; or at the very least extend loans to higher education so that it can lend the money itself—without, again, going through a middleman like the Lehman brethren. Or some combination of the above. Every state has a department of higher education, btw. The states could help.

Ditto home mortgages. If a dearth of available mortgages really awaits, then—by all means, extend lending or underwriting to or through—picking a random example here–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, I thought they were doing that already. After all, these two entities are already under strengthened federal oversight.

Meanwhile, what happened to the old guidelines like ‘Never give in to a blackmailer. Not only is it wrong, it doesn’t work anyway’?

 

Note: The president is scheduled to speak on television in primetime tonight, to boost public support for the bailout. They are smart to have him wait until 9:00 p.m. (ET). If he did it during business hours, everybody in the nation could watch the Dow drop by hundreds of points during a 14-18-minute presentation.

Bush at war

And that’s without allowing questions from reporters afterward.

 

[This and the subsequent articles on the Wall Street bailout, deleted by the system among hundreds of articles and blog posts in summer 2011, are re-posted using archives and Word files.]

Conyers Opposes FISA Compromise Bill

Conyers Opposes FISA Compromise Bill

From John Conyers’ office:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) opposed H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008.

Conyers condemned the telecommunication immunity
provision. “This is a pre-ordained outcome and it is
unacceptable,” he said.

Fox News, Barack Obama, and Ignorance of Religion

Ignorance of religion . . .

Fox News Sunday today is relentlessly flogging the Reverend You-know-who. In its pursuit to bring down Barack Obama, Fox has shifted tactics somewhat, allowing some questions about Hillary Clinton into interviews—asking Terry McAuliffe, for example, about several prominent members of the Clinton administration who now support Obama. (McAuliffe’s answer: I cd give you a list of thousands of former Clinton people who still support Hillary Clinton. Fair enough.)

 

Joe Andrews speaks for himself

Chris Wallace harped on the Reverend throughout his interviews with DNC chair Howard Dean, McAuliffe, and Rep. Joe Andrew, who famously has switched from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama. The harping continues into the panel discussion graced with neocon luminaries like Bill Kristol. Meanwhile, as Wallace repeatedly mentions, the Republicans are trying to tie Democratic candidates around the nation (read: the South) to the reverend, for his “damnAmerica” remarks . . .

Proving once again that some of these highly compensated political consultants really are as underqualified as some of television pundits and news figures (George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, Bill Kristol, George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer, etc).

 

All the little foxes/neocons

Not that everyone has taken Comparative Religion, History of Religion, or any similar college course usually taught in the philosophy department of your nearest university. Many nominally educated people have, in fact, never taken any course touching on world history. Still, there are a few fundamental points that many Westerners do grow up knowing, if only by osmosis, or by . . . let’s see—oh, yes—thinking. Fox personnel like Wallace, above, really do seem to have convinced themselves that the Reverend You-know-who is ‘radioactive.’ I think they’re overreaching.

Meanwhile, on the other ticket . . .

 

(YouTube video clip of opposing party, re religion, here)

 

A quick recap, Comparative Religion 101-style, here:

  • Contemptus mundi, contempt of this world in anticipation of the next, has always been an extremist problem for Christianity. Since the first century of the Christian era, there has always been a tension between “In my father’s house are many mansions” and all the other visions of a better hereafter, on one hand, and instructions to live this life well and make this world better while you’re here, on the other. Contempt of earthly dross—flesh, gold—is good up to a point. But when you get into arrogance (spiritual pride), lack of charity (unloving behavior) and suicide, you have problems.
  • Still, it is consistent with every known Christian denomination to downplay earthly power. Put not your faith in princes or principalities. Strong stuff; goes way back.
  • In this tradition, we often—routinely—have preachers and other men (usually) of the cloth excoriating this country. Fire and brimstone from the pulpit does not spare self; it does not spare one’s own community; it does not spare one’s own country. If more of the media figures and political consultants who pander to the right wing actually entered some of those churches they try to get money from, they would know this.
  • The history of the United States, from Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God to now, is replete with these religious traditions. For many millions of Americans, they are central in everyday thought. Very few churches inAmerica would seriously tell their congregants to place a president above conscience, above God, or even above their church. The Supreme Being, in this line of thought, does hold the power of salvation and damnation.
  • Some commentators on the left are bringing up rightwing pastors—Jerry Falwell springs to mind—as a riposte to the Reverend You-know-who inChicago. I think this is a basic misreading. Anyone who does this kind of thing is invading another place of worship, at least intellectually invading it, in a way that millions of people feel instinctively—and rightly—to be a violation.
  • Btw, this phenomenon is by no means restricted to “black churches.” Nor are members of “black churches” the only Americans offended by the current media harping—entirely by overpaid individuals—on Reverend You-know-who.

I am not going to quote other American preachers making equivalent or similar statements aboutAmerica. But I could. And this little point is one widely known—to people who have actually sat through a sermon in their lives.

Speaking of churches, African-Americans, and related topics: I leave you, my brethren and sisters, with a brighter historical note for the day. The reverend Billy Graham, a member of a large and prominent Baptist church in Dallas, and already world-famous himself, became concerned at the fact that his church was segregated.

So, in some of the best traditions that have made America what it is today, he took steps. He visited with his church elders, and told them point-blank, in no uncertain words, to desegregate. Otherwise, he informed them, he would leave the church—and would tell the world why.

The church desegregated in short order. It’s called blackmail. Wonder whether some of those elders left the gathering thinking, “God damn . . .”

But there was no Chris Wallace and Fox News in those days, so we’ll never know. Oh, come to think of it, we would never have found out from Fox News anyway.

Kudos: ‘Attytood’ is right about ABC and last night’s ‘debate’

A big hearty plug for the open letter to Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, posted today by Attytood (Will Bunch) of the Philadelphia Daily News/philly.com. He’s right about last night’s show on ABC, which was supposed to be–by the way–a debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Excerpt from the piece:

“You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns
of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I’m a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my
neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing
that reflected our everyday issues — trying to fill our gas tanks and save for
college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or
the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn’t
enough space — and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited — to list all
the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate
change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of
Afghanistan to veterans’ benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually
everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst
presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the
trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy
concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.”

Back at home, I began by watching the broadcast, then felt free to leave the room to do other things because of that feeling that I was unlikely missing anything anyway, then gave up altogether. Why do wealthy figureheads in the news media presume that they are in touch with the concerns of millions of other people who face problems–every day–that  gentlemen like Gibson and Stephanopoulos never even see? No wonder the evening news shows focus on health topics so much–virtually always individual health problems, btw:  our cardiac systems and a few other body members constitute some of the few remaining worries faced even by the wealthiest in our society, in the huge and galloping divide between the super-rich and everyone else.

Why do the media figureheads presume that they have latitude to define the election as ‘about’ anything other than the major issues of our time? And why can’t they tell what those issues are? Why won’t the networks use some of their financial resources to hire the researchers, fact-checkers and investigators who could actually make a difference, so the news could make a difference?

The egos that get on television . . .

Live-blogging the Petraeus and Crocker Iraq hearings, continued

11:15 a.m. With the televised portion of the Petraeus and Crocker appearances now concluded–including a very little Q&A with some senators–there is indeed little new news. What Petraeus said, or projects for the future–“the way ahead,” it’s characterized–amounts to little good, for the public interest.

Gen. Petraeus

The ‘drawdown’ of the ‘surge’ buildup will be completed in about July. Then there will be a ‘pause,’ acc to SecDef Gates, tho Petraeus phrases it differently, for “assessment” and “evaluation.” The ‘pause’ is projected to last about 45 days, during which time apparently they’re not going to be trying to bring any more troops home. Then–it will be around election time.

I suppose we can all hope that John McCain will not suddenly notice that the Iraq war is wrong, go roadblock on national television at the end of October, and call for bringing all the troops home with a promise to do it himself if elected. Or if he does, we can but hope that the public will not be fooled. But both Ike and Nixon did milder versions of same, Ike with regard to Korea and Nixon w/ Vietnam.

Shots of Sen. Joe Lieberman always show him looking like McCain’s mini-me. All the speculation about how the three senators who are presidential candidates will present seems to me to be trumped by the inevitable: Sen. Clinton will come across bogus; Sen. McCain will come across used up by the system, played out; Sen. Obama will come across well.

CNN seems to have judged accurately that the news quotient of any remaining discourse will be comparatively negligible. Some senators might ask good questions, however. We can tune in at cnn.com.

Meanwhile, I wish the Code Pink people would demonstrate at Lockheed Martin, at GE (incl NBC), etc. Much of the political world has gotten the message. It’s the corporate world that needs to get it.

Leading to Iraq: High crimes and misdemeanors. May, 2004.

120th in blog series on the administration
push to war. As more information on the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and
other
U.S. prisons becomes public, the
White House becomes more defensive. Its special new ally in the White House
press corps continues his effort to defend the administration. The situation in
Iraq continues to worsen, predictably, and the
administration responds