Saturday, November 15, 2008

White House blocking $25b aide for US automakers from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_blocking_25b_aide_to_1115.html

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The White House on Saturday firmly rejected pumping more aid into struggling US automakers out of the 700-billion dollars earmarked for an economic bailout plan earlier in this year.

"We want to see legislation passed at this week's lame duck session that uses existing funds intended for the automakers that will help them become viable for the long run," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

She said the money allocated under the Wall Street bailout plan to help stem the economic crisis needed to be conserved for "its intended purpose, stabilizing and strengthening our financial system."

Democratic lawmakers are convening a special lame-duck session of the outgoing Congress next week in a bid to pass more measures to help shore up the country's faltering economy.

One proposal is to give the Big Three automakers -- Ford, Chrysler and General Motors -- a further 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees on top of 25 billion dollars already agreed on in September.

Perino said reports that the White House had conditioned its approval of any new aid to the carmakers on relaxing fuel efficiency requirements for the auto industry were not true.

"That is false -- the president proposed these efficiency standards, Congress enacted them, and we're in the process of implementing them. We are not proposing relaxing them."

The September handout for the auto industry is aimed at enabling manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient vehicles more in line with the changing needs of today's market.

"We are urging Congress to choose a path that would help automakers that are willing to take measures to prove viability with a program that's already approved, and not pursue a path that won't make it out of the Senate," Perino added.

Top Executive at UBS Indicted in Massive Tax Evasion Scheme from TPR: The Public Record | In-Depth, Incisive, Independent Reporting

via http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/490-top-executive-at-ubs-indicted-in-massive-tax-evasion-scheme.html

A top executive of Swiss banking giant UBS was indicted Wednesday in a massive tax evasion scheme in which he allegedly helped the bank's U.S. clients hide $20 billion in assets from the Internal Revenue Service.

Raoul Weil, chairman and chief executive of UBS's global wealth management and business banking, is accused of allegedly using "nominee entities, encrypted laptops, numbered accounts and other counter surveillance techniques," to help the bank's "U.S. clients conceal their identities and offshore assets from the IRS."

The indictment was issued under seal Thursday and did not identify UBS by name. But Weil, who is identified by name in the indictment, worked for the bank between 2002 and 2007, the years that covered the conspiracy charge. Additionally, a UBS spokeswoman confirmed that the "Swiss bank" referred to in the indictment is UBS.

Between 2002 and 2007, Weil oversaw the Swiss bank's cross-border private banking business that provided services to 20,000 U.S. clients who "concealed their identities and the existence of their Swiss bank accounts from the IRS," according to the Department of Justice's criminal indictment.


About 17,000 "of these clients willfully failed to pay tax to the IRS on income earned on their Swiss bank accounts," the indictment says. UBS "assisted these United States clients [to] conceal the income earned on Swiss bank accounts..."

Israel Committing Human Rights Abuses, U.N. Reports Say from TPR: The Public Record | In-Depth, Incisive, Independent Reporting

via http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/494-israel-committing-human-rights-abuses-un-reports-say-.html

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said Israel's ongoing efforts to build settlements in the West Bank is "illegal," a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and have lead to widespread human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Ban made those statements last week before the U.N. General Assembly where he discussed the findings of two new reports he prepared about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The report, Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, is the latest update of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories,

The report says U.N. resolutions and a 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) both reflect how – "in effect, the transfer by an occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" – breach the Fourth Geneva Convention.

He said Israel's land requisition and the destruction of houses and orchards, are also "illegal."

"The advisory opinion and a number of United Nations resolutions have all affirmed that Israel's practice of constructing settlements — in effect, the transfer by an occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies —constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the Secretary General's report says. "In addition to the construction of the settlements, other activities related to settlements are also illegal.

"These include the requisition of land, the destruction of houses and orchards, the construction of roads meant for the use of settlers only, the exploitation of natural resources within the occupied territory and the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  The international community has also raised concerns regarding the depletion of natural resources as a result of settlements."

Spokespeople for Israeli government officials refused to comment on the Secretary General's report.

Ex-Lobbyists Have Key Obama Roles Some Members of Team Shaping New Administration Had Recent K Street Ties

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html

Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to change Washington, vowing to upend the K Street lobbying culture he encountered when he joined the U.S. Senate.

But more than a dozen members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years. They include former lobbyists for the nation's trial lawyers association, mortgage giant Fannie Mae, drug companies such as Amgen, high-tech firms such as Microsoft, labor unions and the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress.

Mark Gitenstein, one of the 12 transition board members who will play a significant role in shaping the Obama administration, worked on million-dollar lobbying contracts with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and promoted legislation for giant defense contractors Boeing and General Dynamics. Until this fall, he was registered to petition Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of AT&T, Merrill Lynch, KPMG, Ernst & Young and others.

Gitenstein has blue-chip credentials for the volunteer role on the Obama team. He was chief Democratic counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee during confirmation hearings for controversial Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork; was a close adviser to Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s White House bid; and served as counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But his presence is also a reminder that Obama's campaign pledge to keep his distance from the Washington lobbying culture may be tougher to fulfill than he anticipated.

"Nothing is going to change," said Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton who did lobbying work for a range of companies after leaving the White House.

"From George Washington to George W. Bush, there has been a role for the lobbyist that is perfectly appropriate and good for democracy. The notion that there is something wrong per se with lobbying is ridiculous. But I favor more transparency and disclosure -- online, in real time, for all lobbyists."

The number of former lobbyists involved in Obama's transition thus far is small compared with the past two transition teams, but they occupy several key positions. They include Biden's incoming chief of staff, Ron Klain, who was signed up to lobby for Fannie Mae until 2005, and transition co-chair John Podesta, who lobbied for the Center for American Progress until 2006.

After serving as a top aide to Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, Klain represented a company facing asbestos-exposure lawsuits, the embattled drugmaker ImClone and two companies trying to win support for large mergers. His completed his last lobbying assignment, helping Fannie Mae with "regulatory issues," in late 2004.

Obama's formal policy during the campaign indicated that there may be some role for lobbyists in his administration, though his rhetoric did not always convey that. In a 2007 speech, he said he was "running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

A few days later, he changed the phrasing to say that lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House."

Among the first acts of Obama's transition effort was the release of a formal policy on lobbyists, which Podesta described as "the strictest and most far-reaching . . . of any transition in history."

The rules ban lobbyists from donating to the transition effort and lobbying during the transition period. Once Obama is sworn in, his advisers must wait a year before attempting to lobby the administration on any transition issues they handled.

The code also says that "if someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied."

That one could be tricky for at least two transition team members. Gitenstein lobbied Congress on a broad spectrum of subjects such as "legal reform" during the past year, according to disclosure reports. As a senior advisory board member, his work could touch on a range of topics that would pose problems for him.

Another senior staff member, Patrick Gaspard, recently de-registered as a lobbyist on health-care issues for the Service Employees International Union. He is the transition team's associate personnel director.

Transition officials declined requests to make Gaspard and Gitenstein available for interviews but said both are adhering to the ethics code.

"Patrick and Mark have jobs on the campaign that are general in nature, but per the unprecedented ethics policy laid out earlier this week they will recuse themselves from the fields of policy or agencies they lobbied in the previous 12 months," said Dan Pfeiffer, the communications director.

Efforts to control influence-peddling go back decades. In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed criminal penalties for senior presidential appointees who, after leaving their posts, lobbied their former colleagues within a year. The law was strengthened in 1988 to cover a wider range of government officials.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton pledged to toughen the one-year lobbying ban. Hours after his swearing-in, he enacted a five-year ban in an executive order that covered about 1,000 appointees. But in 2000, just before leaving office, he lifted the five-year ban, citing bleak job prospects for many aides in the face of a Republican takeover. Podesta, then the White House chief of staff, drafted Clinton's revocation.

Past president-elects have had differing approaches to the transition period, which presents a unique opportunity for lobbyists to shape government in ways that could help their clients and enhance their own business. President Bush's policy demanded that transition workers avoid conflicts of interest, according to Michael Toner, who was chief counsel to the 2000 transition team.

Toner said excluding lobbyists altogether never struck him as advisable.

"Campaign rhetoric is one thing," he said. "You've got to have serious people who know the inner workings of government."


Analyst: Clinton would 'run parallel gov't.' from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140018?f=h_latest

Summary: On Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted that if President-elect Barack Obama names Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state, "she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem." Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: "Will she [Clinton] be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?"


Obama Issues First YouTube Address, Full Resignation Statement from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

http://chicagoist.com/2008/11/15/obama_issues_first_youtube_address.php

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to resign his senate seat tomorrow to focus on his transition to President full-time, he has taken to YouTube to issue his first radio address since being elected President. The address focuses on the economy, referencing the G-20 summit, discussing the current unemployment situation, and encouraging Congress to pass a down payment to stimulate the economy.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Senator: Auto bosses should take pay cuts from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Car_industry_bosses_should_take_wag_11142008.html

The bosses of struggling US car makers should take salary cuts to help their industry weather tough times, a Republican senator has suggested in letter.

"It's important to remember that any funding you receive is money from the pockets of American taxpayers," Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said in his letter dated Thursday to the bosses of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler.

Earlier this year, Congress approved a 25 billion dollar loan guarantee program to help ailing automakers retool to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the Big Three automakers last week asked lawmakers for an additional 25 billion dollars to survive the steep US downturn.

Grassley urged the auto industry bosses to remember the example of former head of Chrysler, Lee Iococca, who during the 1979 crisis cut his annual salary to a dollar and slashed the wages of other top workers by 10 percent.

"Lee Iacocca essentially worked for pennies to demonstrate leadership and forcefully prove to his colleagues that he was ready to make the same sacrifices they would have to make in order to reinvigorate Chrysler," Grassely wrote.


NC cops investigated for MySpace slurs toward Obama from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Report_North_Carolina_cops_investigated_for_1114.html

Police in Durham, NC, are investigating derogatory and potentially racist Web postings from at least two of their officers directed at Barack Obama.

Details of the investigation remain murky, and Durham's chief of police has insisted that a "racial slur" is not the subject of the investigation, but civil rights groups are demanding more information.

The local NAACP says police need to release copies of the Web postings, which appeared on officers' MySpace or Facebook pages.

Sirius XM Merger Reveals True Face: Fewer Channels And 'Sanitized' Programming [Sirius XM] from Consumerist

Sirius stock is trading at 26 cents right now.

via http://consumerist.com/5087231/sirius-xm-merger-reveals-true-face-fewer-channels-and-sanitized-programming

This week, Sirus XM began consolidating its channels. In reality, this mostly meant jettisoning XM channels wherever there was a tenuous overlap with something Sirius already offered, which is bad news for anyone with a favorite station on XM who woke up Tuesday morning to find it missing. Alex wrote in to tell us that the four Spanish music channels have been condensed to one without regard to genre, and that the uncensored "urban music" station Hot Jamz has been cleaned up, rechristened "The Heat," and now leans toward radio-friendly R&B. The Motley Fool suggests that the new lineup may drive people to downgrade their subscription—it's "an incentive to downgrade to the cheaper plan that costs $6 less a month and lets users cherry-pick 50 stations."

In addition to the latin and urban channels, Alex wants to know why Sirius XM couldn't have better prepared its listeners:

First off, why such secrecy? Millions of subscribers were blindsided yesterday. No announcements of any kind were made over the air to let people know what was going on. To them, everything was fine on Tuesday, butall of a sudden on Wednesday, their favorite channel was deleted or changed fundamentally. This was a breach of trust between the provider and the consumer. We are the subscribers. We are paying for this service. We deserve a voice over what it is we want to hear. More importantly, we deserve input about programming we are willing to pay for.

Second, we the consumers, Congress, and the FCC were assured that allowing the merger would increase diversity and choice. Wednesday's change showed you acted in bad faith. On the XM side, we lost 75% of the Spanish music choice. To clump together the previous 4 genres of music offered by Aguila, Viva, Caricia, and Caliente into one channel shows either cultural ignorance or contempt for diversity. My congressional representatives will be hearing from me about this.

Third, the new censorship. I bought Sirius to free myself from the shackles of FM. Hot Jamz has been neutered into "The Heat," essentially a satellite version of my local R&B station. I simply couldn't listen to it today. The songs were heavily edited and censored. This is the antithesis of what Sirius once stood for, what bringing Howard from FM symbolized. Fact is, urban music is written in the vernacular. What "The Heat" did to Hot Jamz is an insult.

Fourth, continuing on the theme of less choice. Sirus XM acted in bad faith when it shrunk the available choices:

No more electronica from Boombox — now pop2k... isn't there enough pop with 90's on 9, the Pulse, and Alt Nation?

No more Old Skool. No more Punk. No more Fine tuning/free form.

No more educational radio via Discovery channel. (I'm still raw over that)

Instead we get less choice and shallower playlists on what used to be Fred, Lucy, and Ethel.

Mel et al., you really should listen to what you customers have to say.

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/first-impressions-now-with-combined-channels-what-do-you-think.html#comments

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2008/11/xm-radio-sirius.html?cid=138920090#comments

http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=96996 (these are your most ferverent fanatics, and yet their poll shows less that 33% are satisfied)

If you had asked us to begin with, you may have avoided this heartache.

Dual-sub non grata,
Alex

As an aside, if you're a Mitsubishi Outlander owner experiencing problems with XM updates, Andy has figured out how to fix it:

Sirius recently merged with XM and my radio received an update as part of the merger. It killed the radio in my Mitsubishi Outlander with an "Antenna Error" message. I argued with 4 or 5 CSRs at Sirius that this was not a hardware issue, the timing is too perfect. I ended up pulling the #7 fuse and it reset the radio. Voila, the radio is back up and running. However, every time they send an update I have to pull the fuse. I hope this helps other MMS owners, and I hope Sirius gets this figured out asap. This is a factory installed radio part of the Mitsubishi Multi Messaging System premium radio system.

Here's a link to my forum post: http://www.mitsubishiforum.com/fb.asp?m=240820

"Sirius XM Has Crossed the LIne" [The Motley Fool]

RELATED
"Sirius gets serious, reshuffles lineup, cuts DJs" [Cnet]
"XM, Sirius change lineups as expected" [Technologizer]

Questions for Karl Rove - Party Loyalist - Interview - NYTimes.com



Interview with Rove - yep, still a douche

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/magazine/16wwln-Q4-t.html

Dallas School District Caught Using Random SSNs For Foreign Workers from Consumerist

via http://consumerist.com/5087589/dallas-school-district-caught-using-random-ssns-for-foreign-workers

The Dallas Independent School District has been making up fake Social Security Numbers for foreign hires for years, even after being told in 2004 by the state's education board to stop because it's illegal. The numbers were meant to "expedite" the hiring process and get the employees on payroll, but they found their way onto Department of Homeland Security and IRS forms (which are kept in-district but shared with feds upon request), were used for criminal background checks, and in at least 26 cases were numbers in use by real people.

The Dallas Morning News doesn't mention whether or not the DISD will be contacting the people who have had their SSNs appropriated, but they did offer this detail:

The DISD-issued Social Security numbers began with "200" – a prefix assigned to people in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Phillips' office noted that many ended with sequential numbers.

In general, though, with the exception of the occasional criminal background check, the fake SSNs were supposedly kept away from any legitimate use, and even if your SSN fits the description above the odds are low anything bad has happened. We're just amazed at the school district's monumentally bad judgment.


Thursday, November 13, 2008

Lawmakers challenge big banks on bailout funds | Reuters


via http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4AC77620081113?feedType=nl&feedName=usdai

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senators asked the nation's biggest banks on Thursday to explain how they are using the billions of taxpayer dollars provided to them under a massive government bailout program. The answers were mixed.

Amid deepening concern about the financial system and the economy, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd urged the banks to spend the money to preserve homeownership and restart credit markets, while putting limits on executive pay.

The $700 billion bailout approved by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in early October came with strings attached, but not as many as similar European bailouts, prompting some criticism that U.S. banks have too much leeway.

"Hoarding capital and acquiring healthy banks are not -- I repeat, are not -- reasons why Congress authorized $700 billion in emergency funding," Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said at a hearing on oversight of the financial rescue program.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc will spend the $10 billion it got on activities such as offering its clients strategic advice, financing transactions and making markets, said an executive for the Wall Street powerhouse.

Bailout proceeds "will be put to work consistent with our mandate to meet the advisory, financing and investing needs of our clients to fund innovation and growth," Goldman Sachs General Counsel Gregory Palm told the committee.

Leading banks JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp and Wells Fargo & Co said they would use government funds to make loans to creditworthy borrowers.

"The capital we have received ... is being deployed in a manner consistent with the purposes of the program," said JPMorgan Chase Chief Risk Officer Barry Zubrow.

Wells Fargo Regional Banking President Jon Campbell said the bank planned to use government funds for "additional lending and to facilitate appropriate home mortgage solutions."

The Treasury Department has already injected $110 billion of the bailout funds into the largest banks.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer warned that additional funds might come with provisions such as one that would require the Treasury Department to approve mergers.

"I didn't vote to save Wall Street; I voted to save Main Street," said Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

"If taxpayers' funds are not going to be used for lending, then we need to give serious thought to whether this effort still makes sense," Brown said.

Banks defended their dividend policies. Anne Finucane, Bank of America's global marketing and corporate affairs executive, said the company would use the money to strengthen its capital base. "We will not use it to increase our dividends," Finucane said.

Jobless claims hit 25-year high, imports plunge | Reuters



via http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4AC40B20081113?feedType=nl&feedName=usdai

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. workers drawing jobless benefits hit a 25-year high this month and imports suffered a record fall in September, according to reports on Thursday that underscored a rapid drop-off in the U.S. economy.

The number of workers filing new claims for jobless benefits rose by an unexpectedly steep 32,000 last week to 516,000, the highest since the weeks following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Labor Department said.

The number of workers still on the benefit rolls after drawing an initial week of aid hit 3.9 million in the week to November 1, the highest since January 1983.

"This is obviously very, very serious deterioration in the labor market, more than a lot of people had expected even a couple of months ago," said Scott Brown, chief economist with Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Fla.

"We are looking at the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the biggest economic crisis we have had in the United States since the early 1980s."

The U.S. economy has been suffering from a housing market crash, a lack of credit and an auto industry that is struggling to survive. One source of growth through the first half of the year has been exports, but that appeared to be stalling.

U.S. exports fell at the fastest pace in seven years as the credit crunch slowed economies around the world.

Worried U.S. consumers also cut back on retail purchases for the second consecutive month in October, according to SpendingPulse data, which excludes auto sales.

Consumer spending fell 1.5 percent last month, after a 2.4 percent drop in September that was the largest since SpendingPulse started the data series in 2003.

At a time when retailers are normally beginning to gear up for the holiday season, the trade data also showed imports of consumer goods fell nearly 7.9 percent in September.

However, a drop in interest rates spurred increased interest in home loans last week as mortgage applications recovered from almost an 8-year low.

"EVERYBODY IS HURTING"

U.S. stocks finished higher in volatile trade on Thursday after three straight days of losses. Investors snapped up beaten-down shares in energy, financial and others sectors, giving stock prices a boost despite the worries about a deepening economic downturn.

The dollar weakened against the euro, but rose against the yen. U.S. government debt prices fell.

A report from the Commerce Department showed a record drop in the price of imported oil and the lowest auto imports since February 2004, factors that helped trim the monthly trade gap to $56.5 billion, slightly below the $57 billion expected on Wall Street.

U.S. imports from China hit a record $33.1 billion in September, but imports from the European Union fell 3.8 percent and imports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries slumped 27.1 percent as the cost of imported oil fell by a record $12.41 per barrel in September.

"The drop in oil price is a factor, no doubt about it. People are just not driving that much (any) more," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania. "We are seeing a decline in everything -- imports and exports ... It tells me everybody is hurting."

U.S. goods exports fell by a record $10.4 billion, with all major categories showing a decline. A sharp drop in exports of capital goods was led by civilian aircraft, after posting big numbers in the two prior months.

"We should still have another strong year for exports, but the short-term trend is not as strong as we'd like," U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said. "If anything, what that says is we should help our exporters to offset that."

Congress could do its part by approving three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, while the White House keeps pushing for an agreement in the long-running Doha round of world trade talks, he said.

ET Pickup Artist: Five Ways to Hit on Aliens

link:

via http://io9.com/5083621/five-ways-to-hit-on-aliens

Jiffy lube engine flush = fail

Could This Damage Your Car? | NBC Los Angeles: "Undercover investigation examines services at some big name repair shops"

via http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/flushservices.html

inside a Jiffy Lube on Pico and San Vicente in Los Angeles, a service technician tries to sell an undercover NBC Los Angeles employee an "engine flush" or engine cleaning.

"Engine cleaning every two years, 30,000 miles is required for the vehicle," the technician says.

But NBC Los Angeles has heard from customers across the country, who say their engines broke down after having an engine flush.

At the Jiffy Lube we went to on Pico, the technician says the engine flush will prolong the life of the engine on our Honda Accord test car.

An engine flush is where they pour a chemical solvent into your engine, supposedly to flush out old sludge.

When our undercover person asks, "is that something that Honda recommends?" Than technician says, "It requires it every two years, every 30,000 miles."

That's not true. Our car's maintenance schedule says nothing about an engine flush.

"After engine flushes, there's a pretty high incidence of some damage to the interior of the engine," Chris Martin of Honda tells NBC Los Angeles.

That's why Honda issued a memo to mechanics advising them not to perform engine flushes. Other major car-makers, including Ford, General Motors, and Nissan have all issued similar advisories against the service.

Why? Over time, gummy deposits can build up inside your engine. The chemicals used for engine flush, are supposed to break up those deposits. But car-makers say, pieces of that broken up sediment can clog up other parts of the engine and ruin it.

The car ran perfectly before I took it in that day," says Pat Marriott. He took his Nissan Sentra to a Jiffy Lube in Kansas City. "They sold me, really sold me hard on an engine flush," Marriott tells NBC Los Angeles.

He says three days later, on the highway his car broke down and he had to replace his engine for $5000.

That's because Nissan and other car-makers say damage resulting from engine flushes won't be covered by your warranty.

At other Jiffy Lube's, like one on Overland in West Los Angeles, they offered us other services like a fuel injection cleaning. That's where they put a chemical cleaner into your fuel injectors.

When the NBC Los Angeles undercover person asked the technician, "does Honda recommend that?" He said, "It's every 15,000 miles or every year, recommended."

That's also not true. Honda and other big car-makers say fuel injection cleaning is an improper repair procedure.

"Using the cleaner, using a fuel injection cleaning system can cause harm to other injectors," Martin tells NBC Los Angeles.

Jiffy Lube isn't the only major chain recommending services car-makers say could be harmful. It happened to us at EZ Lube.

When our undercover person asked a technician at one of their locations in Silverlake, "Does Honda recommend an engine flush?" He replied, "They recommend... everything I'm telling you. We go by whatever the manufacturer recommends."

Our undercover person asks him for proof, since EZ Lube's computer lists all manufacturer recommendations, but there's no engine flush listed. The undercover employee asks him, "How come they're not on the computer?" The technician replied, "I don't know."

Across town at an EZ Lube near Santa Monica, technicians push a $99 transmission service using a high tech flushing machine.

Our undercover employee asks the technician, "does Honda recommend that it be done with a machine like that?" The technician responds, "Correct. That's the only way you can do it."

But Honda's memo to mechanics clearly says "do not use transmission flushing machines" because of the risks to the car.

All told four out of five Jiffy Lube's, and five out of five EZ Lube's pushed services car-makers don't recommend, but technicians told us the opposite.

We went back to the manager at that Silverlake EZ Lube.

"You said Honda recommends an engine flush. That's not true. Why did you say that?" NBC Los Angeles Investigative Reporter Joel Grover asked.

"I don't know," he replied.

As for those technicians at Jiffy Lube who didn't tell us the truth, they wouldn't talk to us on camera and neither would their bosses.

Executives at Jiffy Lube and EZ Lube declined our offer to watch our undercover tape, and do interviews.

But in separate statements, both companies said it was unacceptable for their employees to misrepresent certain services as manufacturer recommendations, when they're not.

EZ Lube says some of the employees we caught doing this will be terminated.

Jiffy Lube says they're taking steps to minimize the chance of it occurring again and they want to hear from any unhappy customers.

Jiffy Lube can be reached by phone at 800-344-6933.

EZ Lube can be reached by phone at 800-559-5823 or email info@ezlube.com.

Click here to read both companies full statements to NBC Los Angeles regarding this report.

How to tell if your cat is plotting to kill you [link]

This is really cute; my two cats are definitely getting kicked out tonight....

http://www.catswhothrowupgrass.com/kill.php

Obama Vetters Seek Your Darkest Online Secrets [Jobs] from Gawker

via http://gawker.com/5085354/obama-vetters-seek-your-darkest-online-secrets

Interested in serving in the president-elect's cabinet, or some other high-ranking capacity? Obama has 63 questions he'd like you to answer, quite possibly the most extensive vetting process in White House history. In addition to listing everything embarrassing or controversial that's ever happened to you, which must be pretty standard from administration to administration, or whether anyone in your family owns a gun, there are all sorts of exciting internet-related inquiries. Has anything been written about you, online, ever? You basically have to send all your Google results. Obama's team will also need anything you've ever written online, including fake names (see excerpt above). More exciting demands after the jump!

Ever written anything embarrassing in your diary, or controversial in an instant message? Right, of course you have, that's the point of diaries and IM messages, isn't it? So go ahead and send that in, too!

Also, everything on a Google search for you:

The Obama transition team is basically asking for a paper copy of the entire internet. Not because it expects to actually get one, but because the first test for a federal official is whether he can come up with a sane, narrow response to a seemingly absurd request, and to steer clear of controversy while being asked controversial questions. Congress and the government bureaucracy will eat him alive, otherwise.

Good luck on your first snowjobs, Obama people!

Rahm Emanuel's Jewish Terrorist Dad Already Insulting Arabs [Controversies] from Gawker


via http://gawker.com/5086135/rahm-emanuels-jewish-terrorist-dad-already-insulting-arabs

You may recall that knife-wielding madman Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's new Chief of Staff, has a dad named Benjamin who used to be an Israeli terrorist! Back in the 1940s Benjamin was in a militant Zionist group that massacred some Arabs and did various other freedom-promoting actions. These things can be a little sensitive, so uh, hey Rahm, whatever you do, don't let your dad go giving racist quotes about Arabs to Israeli newspapers. Okay? Oh hell, it's too late:

So Benjamin, will Rahm influence the White House to more pro-Israel?

"Obviously he'll influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."

Hmm... ok. Apology forthcoming, Arabs! [via Ben Smith; Pic via]

Obama to Resign Senate Effective Sunday from The Washington Independent

via http://washingtonindependent.com/18396/obama-to-resign-senate-effective-sunday

The Obama-Biden transition team announced today that President-elect Barack Obama will resign from his Senate seat effective Sunday, Nov. 16.

Obama released the following statement:

"It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate. In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who've taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children's future. It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation's next President,"

Illinois' embattled Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich is tasked with appointing Obama's successor. ABC News reports an up-to-date list of likely candidates:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL)

Illinois Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth

Illinois State Sen. President Emil Jones

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

Attorney General Lisa Madigan

Lieutenant Gov. Pat Quinn

According to ABC, Blagojevich intends to fill the seat by the end of the year.


U. of Texas Player Kicked Off Team For Racially Charged Threats On Obama from Crooks and Liars by Logan Murphy

via http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/u-texas-player-kicked-team-racially-c

260xStory_caa35.jpg

This story has little to do with sports, although you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Former center for the University of Texas Longhorns, Buck Burnette, made a racially charged threat against the president-elect of our nation and is lucky he only got kicked off his school's football team and didn't land himself in jail. The article brings up valid points about social networking sites and their potential pitfalls, but the real story here is about a racist pig who threatened our soon-to-be president.

AUSTIN — A template on facebook.com asks, "What are you doing right now?" An ill-advised response led to Buck Burnette's expulsion from the University of Texas football team.

What began as a private text-message exchange on Election Night between Burnette and a friend soon became available for anybody with a computer to see.

In the status update section of his Facebook page, Burnette posted, "All the hunters gather up, we have a (slur) in the White House," in reference to Obama's becoming the first African-American elected to the presidency. Burnette said the comment was a text message he received from a friend and that he exercised bad judgment posting it on his page. He later apologized in a written note that was read by Brown during a team meeting. Read on...

Why is this bigot still a student at the University of Texas? My guess is that if he weren't a starting player for a nationally ranked football program he would already have been expelled and thrown out on his ass. People have been expelled for less, and I'm curious to know if the Secret Service has investigated the incident.

Goldman was Obama's largest corporate campaign contributor, with $874,207. Also in his top 20 were three other recipients of bailout capital: JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley."

Wall Street Fat Cats Are Trying to Pocket Billions in Bailout Cash | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

via http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106195/

The election results pretty much confirmed the extent to which Main Street is rightly livid about the Wall Street mentality that led to our financial crisis. During his historic victory speech, President-elect Barack Obama told supporters, and the rest of the world, "If this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers."

But, it seems that Wall Street didn't get that memo. It turns out that the nine banks about to be getting a total equity capital injection of $125 billion, courtesy of Phase I of The Bailout Plan, had reserved $108 billion during the first nine months of 2008 in order to pay for compensation and bonuses (PDF).

Paying Wall Street bonuses was not supposed to be part of the plan. At least that's how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson explained it to Congress and the American people. So, on Oct. 1, when the Senate, including Obama, approved the $700 billion bailout package, the illusion was that this would magically loosen the credit markets, and with taxpayer-funded relief, banks would first start lending to each other again, and then, to citizens and small businesses. And all would be well.

That didn't happen. Which is why it's particularly offensive that the no-strings-attached money is going to line the pockets of Wall Street execs. The country's top investment bank (which since Sept. 21 calls itself a bank holding company), Goldman Sachs, set aside $11.4 billion during the first nine months of this year -- slightly more than the firm's $10 billion U.S. government gift -- to cover bonus payments for its 443 senior partners, who are set to make about $5 million each, and other employees.

Whereas Wall Street may not believe in higher taxes for the richest citizens, it does believe in higher bonuses for the head honchos. No matter what the market conditions are on the outside, steadfast feelings of entitlement tend to prevail.

Last year, when the financial crisis was just brewing, the top five investment banks paid themselves $39 billion in compensation and bonuses, up 6 percent over 2006. Goldman's CEO, Lloyd C. Blankfein, bagged a record bonus of $60.7 million, including $26.8 million in cash. That amount was nearly double the $38 million that Paulson made at the firm in 2005, the year before he became the Treasury secretary, a post for which he received unanimous approval from the Senate on June 28, 2006.

Two of those firms, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, went bankrupt this year. Bank of America is acquiring a third, Merrill Lynch. Shares in the remaining two, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, took a 60 percent nosedive this year.

Yet, that didn't stop their campaign contribution money from spewing out. Goldman was Obama's largest corporate campaign contributor, with $874,207. Also in his top 20 were three other recipients of bailout capital: JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

Last week, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., gave the bailout capital recipient firms until Nov 10 to come up with some darn good reasons to be paying themselves so much (PDF). Specifically, he requested detailed information on the total and average compensation per year from 2006 to 2008, the number of employees expected to be paid more than $500,000 in total compensation, and the total compensation projected for the top 10 executives.

Similarly, New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demanded information about this year's bonuses, including a detailed accounting of expected payments to top management and the size of the firms' expected bonus pool before and after knowing that they would be recipients of taxpayer funds.

The deadline Cuomo set for receiving bonus records was Nov. 5. Predictably, the firms in question requested more time as the date approached -- it takes a while to massage numbers, after all.

Meanwhile, they have been subtly releasing data to the media regarding how much lower bonuses will be this year, in order to combat inspection and criticism. This is Wall Street in its best defense mode, projecting an aura of accommodation and self-pity (because it's shedding jobs, too), in order to maintain a status quo state of self-regulation.

House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank is holding his own oversight hearing on the matter next week, having announced that "any use of the these funds for any purpose other than lending -- for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc. -- is a violation of the terms" of the bailout plan.

Banks are going to tell Congress that of course they won't use that $125 billion for bonuses -- it will go to shoring up balance sheets and for acquisitions just like they promised. And bonus money will come from earnings, as it always does.

If it sounds like accounting mumbo-jumbo, that's because it is. It doesn't matter where in the balance sheet capital comes from or goes, the point is there's more of it because of taxpayer redistribution in the wrong direction than there would have been otherwise, and that's not just. This begs the larger question: Why pay bonuses in a year of massive financial destruction, anyway?

"Exactly," says Gar Alperovitz, co-author, with Lew Daly, of the new book Unjust Deserts. "We're making homeowners take a big hit, and if there's any justification for any of these bonuses -- which is dubious -- sharing that burden is important."

But that's not quite the sharing that Wall Street wanted from the bailout package. Yet, if "change has come to America," as per Obama's promise, then it's high time for Wall Street to shoulder its part -- starting with this bonus season. A decisive move by Obama on this topic would go a long way toward solidifying the central promise of his campaign.

Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center Demos and author of Other People's Money and Jacked: How "Conservatives" are Picking Your Pocket (Whether You Voted for Them or Not)

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/106195/

"Summers was one of the key architects of our financial crisis -- hiring him to fix the economy makes as much sense as appointing Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the Iraq withdrawal"

Keep Larry Summers as Far as Possible from the U.S. Treasury | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

This guy Larry Summers, Obama's possible choice to be Treasury Secretary, is a real douche-bag - he thinks women are inferior to men genetically, issued a memo once saying that Africa was underpolluted, helped ruin Lithuania's economy and  scared away Russia from opening up to western capitalism.

via http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106553/

We all know in the backs of our minds that Barack Obama's incredible victory will eventually be followed by disappointment. But does it have to come so soon, and hit so hard? The answer will be yes, if Lawrence Summers is named treasury secretary in the president-elect's cabinet, as many observers believe will be the case. Summers was one of the key architects of our financial crisis -- hiring him to fix the economy makes as much sense as appointing Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the Iraq withdrawal. And when you look at the trail of economic destruction Summers left behind in other crisis-stricken countries who sought his advice in the past, then "terror" might be a more appropriate word than "disappointment."

The conventional wisdom is that Summers is the "centrist" choice -- Fareed Zakaria ("I think Summers is an extraordinarily brilliant guy") and David Gergen ("Larry Summers would be superb at this job"), two titans of centrism, both weighed in Sunday on the Stephanopoulos show in favor of Summers. And yet so far the debate over Summers has been largely confined to two outrageous moments in his career: his 1991 World Bank memo calling Africa "UNDER-polluted," and his more recent declarations, while serving as president of Harvard, about women's genetic inferiority in math and science. By themselves, these two incidents might be dismissed as merely provocative in a maverick-moron sort of way, as many of Summers' supporters argue; but in the context of Summers's track record, in which he oversaw the destruction of entire economies and covered up cronyism and corruption, his Africa memo and sexist declarations aren't exceptions but rather part of a disturbing pattern.

From the start, Summers has been on the wrong side of Obama's supporters. In 1982, while still a graduate student at Harvard, Summers was brought to Washington by his dissertation advisor Martin Feldstein, the supply-side economist, to serve on Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. Those first years in the Reagan administration were crucial in the right-wing war against New Deal regulation of the banking system and financial markets -- a war that Reagan's team won, and that we're all paying for today. Although Summers eventually identified himself with the Democratic Party -- albeit the right wing of that party -- nevertheless, as the New York Times's Peter T. Kilborn wrote in 1988:

He worked for 10 months as a top analyst in President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers when his mentor, Martin S. Feldstein, was running it, and his colleagues don't recall him venting anti-Reagan heresies then ....

"One of the ironies of this business is that Summers's economics are quite close to Feldstein's," said William A. Niskanen, who was a member of the Feldstein council.

It's ironic if you expected Summers to be a liberal Democrat -- but par for the course in the context of Summers's real record. Some fifteen years after Summers's stint in the Reaganomics war room, he reappears as one of the key villains fighting to suppress the regulatory efforts of a top

official, Brooksley Born, who was trying to call attention to the dangers of the unregulated derivatives, such as credit swap defaults, which today are considered the key to the current economic crisis.

But let's return to the Summers timeline. After his stint in the Reaganomics brain trust, he returned to Harvard to serve as one of the university's youngest professors. In 1988, he was Michael Dukakis's chief economic advisor, but when that campaign failed to bring Summers to power, he turned to America's great rival, the former Soviet Union, to try out his economic experiments. In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics, the traumatized Lithuanians voted the communist party back into power, the first East European nation to do so -- even though just a year earlier Lithuanians actually died on the streets fighting communism.

Fresh off his success in Lithuania, Summers moved to the World Bank, where he was named the chief economist in 1991, the year he issued his famous let's-pollute-Africa memo. It was also the year that Summers, and his Harvard protg Andrei Schleifer (who worked with Summers on the Lithuania economic transformation), began their catastrophic "rescue" of Russia's crisis-ridden economy. It's a complicated story involving corruption, cronyism and economic devastation. But by the end of the 1990s, Russia's GDP had collapsed by more than 60 percent, its population was suffering the worst death-to-birth ratio of any industrialized nation in the twentieth century, and the financial markets that Summers and Schleifer helped create had collapsed in what was then the world's biggest debt default ever. The result was the rise of Vladmir Putin and a national aversion to free markets and anything associated with Western liberalism.

But that's not all. Summers, through Schleifer, was also tainted with some of that country's corruption, which resulted in a US Justice Department lawsuit against Schleifer and others. While Schleifer was being paid by US taxpayers to advise the Russians on capital markets in the 1990s, his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, bought and traded Russian equities for a Boston hedge fund she ran -- they even used Schleifer's US taxpayer-funded offices to run Zimmerman's Moscow-based hedge fund operations.

How close were Larry Summers and Andrei Schleifer? According to former Boston Globe economics correspondent David Warsh, Summers and Schleifer "were among each other's best friends," and Summers taught Schleifer "as an undergraduate, sent him on to MIT for his PhD, took him along on an advisory mission to Lithuania in 1990, and in 1991, shepherded his return to Harvard as full professor, where he was regarded, after Martin Feldstein and Summers, as the leader of the next generation."

In 2000, the Justice Department sought $102 million in damages from Schleifer, one of Schleifer's Harvard associates and Harvard University in a conflict-of-interest suit resulting from Schleifer's role as the lead US adviser to Russia's economic reforms -- questioning the way Schleifer and his wife profited from his position. Schleifer's Harvard team in Moscow was funded by USAID in a no-bid contract, and supported by Summers as soon as he moved into the Treasury Department in 1993. So Schleifer benefited from his relationship with Summers twice: first, by getting a choice contract as the US government's man in Moscow in the 1990s when Summers was in power in the US government, one that benefited his wife's hedge fund (earlier this year, Portfolio suggested that the Schleifers' hedge funds made them billionaires ). Then after Schleifer returned to Harvard to face the lawsuit, Summers, now president of Harvard, presided over a controversial settlement that all but let his protg off the hook. Thanks to pressure by Summers, Schleifer kept his chair at Harvard, where he continues to teach today.

Summers's other favorite man in Russia was Anatoly Chubais -- who consistently ranks at the top of Russia's " most hated man" polls. Chubais was executor of the Russian government's privatization program, in which state companies worth tens of billions of dollars were handed over to insiders for a fraction of their worth in blatantly rigged auctions. Summers praised Chubais as a "demigod" and called Chubais and his free-market cohorts "the dream team." In September 1998, after Russia's capital markets collapsed, along with billions in US-taxpayer-backed loans, Chubais boasted to a Russian newspaper, "We swindled them." By "them," he meant the Western and American aid institutions that funded his reforms.

In light of all of the corruption, cronyism and devastation that have marked his career, Summers' statements about an under-polluted Africa or intellectually-inferior women no longer seem like provocative eccentricities but part and parcel of the Summers shtick. And now there's talk that President-elect Obama may hand the keys to national treasury to Summers -- meaning that he'll be in charge of overseeing a trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of the entire financial industry, a process already rife with conflicts of interest, cronyism and corruption -- as detailed by Naomi Klein.

The bailout, as currently implemented, threatens to devastate America's economy much as Russia's and Lithuania's were devastated before. The idea that this is exactly the right time and place to put Larry Summers in charge of our economy's future is so frightening that it makes the Sarah Palin vice presidential choice seem almost quaint by comparison. Let's hope the rumors are wrong.

Mark Ames is a contributor to eXiledonline.com. He is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton¿s Columbine and Beyond.

© 2008 TheNation.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/106553/

Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts

Tax Cuts: The B.S. and the Facts | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

I am not going to touch this one...

via http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106410/

The Myth

Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?

Yes. Tax cuts allow people to keep more of their own money. Therefore, they have more to invest and spend into the economy, and they have more money to start business and create jobs, therefore also helping to stimulate the economy. -- Yahoo Answers

I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference. -- George W. Bush

The Realities

The brute facts are these:

  • Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash.
  • High income taxes correlate with economic growth.
  • Income tax increases are followed by economic growth.
  • Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy.
  • All of this is especially true as applied to the top tax rates, the amount paid on income that exceeds the highest bracket.

The Three Great Tax Cuts: Boom, Bubble, Crash

1. Hoover

During World War I, the top marginal tax rate went up to 73 percent -- not the highest ever, but pretty high.

In 1922, a series of rate cuts began. Down to 56 percent, 46 percent, and finally, in 1925, it went down to 25 percent.

The stock market took off. There was a boom. But the boom was a bubble.

It was followed by the Great Crash of 1929.

There were bank failures and the Great Depression.

2. Reagan

From Franklin Roosevelt's second term all the way through to Jimmy Carter -- from 1936 until 1982 -- the top rate was in the 70 to 92 percent range.

Then along came Reagan in 1981. In 1982, he cut that down to 50 percent.

The economy went into "the worst recession since the Great Depression."

His supporters argued that it was all Carter's fault and that the new policies would take time to work. The tax cuts stayed in place. In 1987, there was another round of tax cuts. They took the top rate down to 38.5 percent. It would stimulate the economy!

There was a boom. But it was a bubble.

Then, in October 1987, there was a crash -- the worst since '29. It was called Black Monday.

Much of the bubble money had gone into -- ohmigod! -- real estate.

Suddenly there were bank failures! More than during the Great Depression. There was a Savings & Loan crisis! There had to be a bailout.

3. Bush II

George Bush came into office with the healthiest, post powerful economy in American history.

He immediately cut taxes. The top marginal rate went down from 39 percent to 35 percent. He also cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes. A recession immediately ensued. But he persisted.

Eventually, the economy began to grow.

Employment didn't grow very much. Median income went down. The stock market was pretty flat. But the financial sector -- and only the sector -- grew.

Which should have made it obvious to someone, that it was … a bubble.

There was a crash.

Bank failures. A bailout.

The three worst economic disasters in American history follow the exact same pattern: tax cuts, boom, bubble, crash.

High Taxes Correlate with Strong Economic Growth

The four periods of greatest economic growth in American history, by pretty much any measure, are:

  • World War II (1941-45): top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent
  • Post-war under Truman and Eisenhower: top rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent
  • Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent
  • First two Roosevelt administrations (1933-40). When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 percent to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.

A lot of ink, sweat and ranting have gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the United States entered the war.

Some of that anti-New Deal rhetoric also claims that the recovery began under Hoover. Perhaps, but to say so is also to say that it began with tax hikes.

Likewise, many right-wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28 percent to 31 percent) and was soundly thrashed by the conservatives for doing so. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute called it "The Crime of the Century" and explained at length how it had brought ruin to America.

Tax Increases Are Followed by Economic Growth

Three of the four high-growth periods cited above followed significant tax hikes.

The fourth, the Truman-Eisenhower years, began with a top tax rate of 91 percent -- it couldn't get much higher.

Moderate Tax Increases Are Followed by Flat Growth

John F. Kennedy is generally credited with starting the tax cut craze.

He proposed it, but, as with all his ideas, it was Lyndon Johnson who actually got it enacted. The top rate was cut from 91 percent to 77 percent, then to 70 percent, on all income over $200,000 for a single person and over $400,000 for a married couple.

That's where it stayed, through Nixon, Ford and Carter.

The Dow Jones average was pretty much the same when that period ended as when it began. Median personal income stayed roughly the same.

These are the brute facts.

I call them that because there doesn't appear to be any theory to explain them.

A noted conservative (a sane one, not William Kristol) recently wrote to me in a private e-mail exchange on this subject:

"I am unaware of any (or many) respectable economists (maybe I've missed some) who have suggested that higher taxes have proved to be a formula for better economic growth."

Actually, I am too.

Even now, in the midst of the Bush disaster, I constantly see and hear tax cuts, particularly at the top, described as "pro-growth." So I went and looked at the numbers -- tax rates, tax cuts and tax hikes -- and placed them alongside job growth, the Dow Jones, growth in the GDP and median income.

The brute facts say the opposite of the myth.

The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.

How do we distinguish a theological idea from a scientific (or rational) one?

According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way, which would then say the theory is wrong.

On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way; you could make up some story that said your theory was still right.

The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon, too.

In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens.

Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, none of the major tax cuts since 1913 have led to significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush), and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times.

It's time to throw out the theory, accept the facts, and come up with new ideas.

Coming: Part II: Why High Taxes Create a Healthier Economy and Low Taxes Don't

Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

"By making just one telephone call, the President could single-handedly jump start the U.S. economy and throw economic lifelines to millions of unemployed Americans,"

With One Phone Call, Bush Could Relieve the Economic Pain of Millions | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

Again, it bears repeating - we have over a trillion dollars to dole out to Wall Street without any oversight but we cannot get an extension of unemployment benefits? No right wing nuthugger can argue this one away.

via http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/106967/

Editor's note: The following is a press release from the office of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

"By making just one telephone call, the President could single-handedly jump start the U.S. economy and throw economic lifelines to millions of unemployed Americans," Rep. Jim McDermott, chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, which oversees the nation's unemployment insurance system, said today. He made the comment following release of troubling new data that shows a surge in unemployment filings to levels not seen since the aftermath of 9/11.

Rep. McDermott explained that his legislation, H.R. 6867, to extend unemployment benefits passed the House in early October on a massive bi-partisan vote of 368-28, but the legislation stalled when Senate Republicans, after consultation with the President, would not permit the legislation to come to the floor for a vote. The bill would extend benefits a minimum of seven weeks in every state, but 13 weeks in states where the unemployment rate has averaged 6 percent or higher over three months.

"When 85 percent of the House of Representatives vote in favor of anything, which was the case with my bill to extend unemployment benefits, that is a dramatic expression of strong support across party lines, state lines, and unemployment lines," McDermott said. "The House demonstrated the will to act and the President can show the way by making one telephone call to the Senate Republican leader to support the immediate passage of legislation to extend UI benefits."

McDermott noted that Members of Congress will be in Washington, D.C. next week and the Senate could quickly pass his UI bill and the President could sign this economic lifeline legislation ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday.

He added that the money to pay for extended unemployment benefits is in a federal trust fund right now and it is meant to be used in a time like this. The money is collected from every employer based on the number of employees.

Furthermore, independent studies show that an unemployment insurance benefit is money that is almost immediately re-injected directly into the economy to pay for food, housing and other family expenses. This legislation would provide approximately $6 billion in additional UI benefits and economists conclude that every dollar yields approximately $1.64 in economic impact as the money ripples through the economy and helps to sustain other jobs and restore consumer confidence.

McDermott pointed to a quote by Mark Zandi at Moody's Economy.com made earlier this year: "The benefit of extending unemployment insurance goes beyond simply providing financial aid for the jobless, to more broadly shoring up household confidence. Nothing is more psychologically debilitating, even to those still employed, than watching unemployed friends and relatives lose benefits. The slump in consumer confidence in late 1991, after the 1990-91 recession, may very well have been due in part to the first Bush administration's initial opposition to extending UI benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers."

Rep. McDermott concluded: "We are in the midst of an economic emergency. One telephone call by the President is all it would take to make a dramatic and immediate difference in the lives of ordinary Americans."

"This is about union busting, pure and simple."

Union-Busters Want GM to File for Bankruptcy | PEEK | AlterNet

via http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106911/

Let's call it what it is:

[N]ot everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.
Although G.M.'s labor contracts would be at risk of termination in a bankruptcy, setting up a potential confrontation with its unions, the company says its pension obligations are largely financed for its 479,000 retirees and their spouses.

This is about union busting, pure and simple.

No mention made about Rick Wagoner giving back the $2.2 million salary he pulled down in 2008 for driving GM into the ground.

"That a firm already reliant on taxpayers' funding would organize such an event is outrageous,"

Busted: AIG Caught Living High on the Hog with Taxpayers' Money (Again) | Video | AlterNet

via http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/106801/

Last month, a House committee discovered that just one week after the federal government bailed out insurance giant AIG, company executives went on $500,000 retreat to a luxury resort. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) asked in astonishment, "Have you heard of anything more outrageous?"

But yesterday, just as the federal government agreed to increase its bailout package to AIG, ABC News's Brian Ross reported that the company's executives gathered last week at a posh resort in Phoenix for a business conference, complete with "cocktail parties, limousines, and dinner out at a top restaurant." AIG "instructed the hotel to keep its involvement secret, no signs with its name allowed." Watch the report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3nSb8yUOjU

AIG CEO Edward Liddy defended the extravagant conference on CNN last night, claiming that the lack of signage was a result of cost cutting measures. "[W]e are really cutting corners. We're doing the same thing the American taxpayer is doing," Liddy said. "We are tightening our belts. We didn't use any signage."

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKBrEnWTwGQ

Cummings has now called on Liddy to resign. "That a firm already reliant on taxpayers' funding would organize such an event is outrageous," Cummings said.

Benjamin J. Armbruster is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

"The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans."

Why Won't the Federal Reserve Say Who They Gave $2 Trillion To? | PEEK | AlterNet: "The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans."

via http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106443/

Apparently Bernanke, that wonderful bipartisan soul who is so competent and wonderful that everyone in the village thinks Obama should leave him in charge is refusing to identify who got almost 2 trillion dollars of Fed cash. Bloomberg News is suing to find out. Personally I really, really, really want to know. What exactly is Bernanke hiding? Who got the money he doesn't want us to know got the money?

This is money that was loaned in exchange for "collateral", by which we mean "trash no one else but the Fed would buy for anything but cents on the dollar." Barney Frank, embarrassing himself yet again, claims the Fed should keep its clap shut because if people know how bad it is, well, there might be a run. I think Barney's missing the point, as long as people don't know how bad it is, they won't trust anyone who might be borrowing large amounts of money from the Fed with crap collateral, because they don't know how bad it is and they suspect it's really really really bad. As in 10 cents on the dollar bad.

More to the point, that 2 trillion is taxpayer money, and taxpayers have a right to know what sweetheart deals Bernanke's been giving out, and who's been getting what. This whole "this information is too scary for citizens to know" schtick is so Bush regime. I thought we were moving into a new era of openness? Perhaps Barney should get with the program?

As for Bernanke, this is yet another reason why Bernanke, a central banker so incompetent he lost complete control of LIBOR, his most basic job, should lose his position. Sure, his mandate runs for another year, but if Obama asks him to step down, I can't imagine he wouldn't. The idea that a central bank that has screwed up as badly as the Fed has under both Greenspan and Bernanke is so much better off independent than with the public having some control is ridiculous and fundamentally anti-democratic. Central bank independence has just led to a huge financial bubble and economic collapse, while Bernanke and Greenspan both acted as if they were virtual dictators.

Bernanke needs to go, and either before or after he goes, the Fed needs to come clean about who it has given 2 trillion in loans to, and what the collateral is.

Buying Influence In Missouri from Wal-Mart Watch

via http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/buying_influence_in_missouri/

This is right from Wal-Mart's government affairs guru Leslie Dach's playbook on "How to Appear Nonpartisan and Back a Winner."

Jake Wagman pointed out on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Political Fix blog yesterday, Wal-Mart ponied up $10,000 for governor-elect Jay Nixon – two days after he won Tuesday's election. Repeat: after he won. 

Given that Wal-Mart has avoided paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes in Missouri and no doubt violated every labor law in existence - under the current administration's oversight - it's easy to understand why Wal-Mart would want to attempt to curry favor with the state's new governor. Sure, political contributions often come into campaigns after elections for one reason or another, but Wal-Mart is clearly trying to send a message and buy a little access as it faces the changes that will come with new administrations in Missouri and nationally.  As Wal-Mart girds for a fight over EFCA and undoubtedly a host of other issues, Lee Scott and the Walton family are understandably nervous and willing to drop a few bucks here, there and everywhere to try to keep the status quo. 

Look for more on the Walton family influence here


Employee Speakout Update: EFCA Special from Wal-Mart Watch

via http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/employee_speakout_update_efca_special/

We've been talking all week about the looming fight between Wal-Mart and the Obama Administration over labor reforms which might force Wal-Mart to treat its employees a little more fairly and give workers a little more say in the terms of their employment.

But we shouldn't look at this as just a fight between Lee Scott and Barack Obama. There are 1.4 million Americans in the middle of this fight as well.

How has Wal-Mart been responding to the state of its workforce? Last week, Lee Scott was quoted talking non-specifically about his company's response to the EFCA threat:

"We're going to run this business," Scott said. "Our associates are going to be productive. We're going to reach out. We're going to have relationships with our associates. We're going to care about them and we're going to serve our customers."

("We're going to care about them"?....that's the best you can do, Lee? Anyone else think that sounds eerily like he's admitting that he's not caring about them now?)

But regardless, over the next year Wal-Mart execs will continue to tell us that all Wal-Mart employees are happy and productive and that all 1.4 million U.S. "associates" are one big warm fuzzy family. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We know because every day we hear otherwise from Wal-Mart employees. Here's a few more stories we've received lately.

Read these and more - in their entirety - on walmartspeakout.com:

"Why do you work overtime when you know that they will not pay you?"

"I have posted here a number of times before and I am always amazed that I have new bullets for my anti-Wal-Mart weaponry. No, my store doesn't miss a beat when it comes to denying overtime pay."

"Benefits" is a Loose Term to Wal-Mart

"When I was hired at Wal-Mart about 7 months ago, I was told by the hiring manager that Wal-Mart has the best benefits and I would receive then after 3 months. I believed him, but was in for a very rude awakening."

Deaf Employee's Request: Ignored

"I tried to apply for a promotion and they required me to do an interview over the phone, which was difficult considering there was no accommodation made for my disability."


Help Wanted from Wal-Mart Watch "looks like Wal-Mart has decided to hire a new set of “reputation warriors” and other government relations personnel to mislead inform Congress about two key issues – health care and sustainability"

via http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/help_wanted/

Despite its best efforts, Wal-Mart could not hold off Barack Obama and the incoming Democratic wave hitting our nation's capital. When asked about the election results, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, in a letter to associates, said Wal-Mart was committed to working with either party.

"A number of associates asked me how our company viewed the election and what our post-election plans were. I told those associates that this is clearly a time of great opportunity for our country, and also a time of great challenge. I reminded them that last June I said that Wal-Mart looked forward to working with the new President and Congress, regardless of party, to find solutions to our challenges. We are even more committed to that objective today."

Talk about revisionist history. Wal-Mart, since the beginning of the campaign, made it clear to everyone that the company would rather deal with John McCain. While disappointment is in the air in Bentonville, regular associates around the country should rejoice. Now workers have an advocate in the White House!

So where does Wal-Mart go from here? It looks like Wal-Mart has decided to hire a new set of "reputation warriors" and other government relations personnel to mislead inform Congress about two key issues – health care and sustainability. These new directors will beg for mercy advocate for Wal-Mart's interests on Capitol Hill.

I think we are all familiar with Wal-Mart's benefits package and green campaign. Good luck to the brave souls who fill these positions, you will need all the help you can get.


Blackwater Likely to Be Fined Millions in Iraq Weapons Case from Truthout

via http://www.truthout.org/111308F

 Washington - The State Department is preparing to slap a multi-million dollar fine on private military contractor Blackwater USA for shipping hundreds of automatic weapons to Iraq without the necessary permits.

    Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market, department officials told McClatchy, but no criminal charges have been filed in the case.

    The expected fine is the result of a long-running federal investigation into whether employees of the firm shipped weapons hidden in shrink-wrapped pallets from its Moyock, N.C. headquarters to Iraq, where Blackwater is the State Department's largest personal security contractor.

    Since the arms shipment allegations first became public 14 months ago, Blackwater, which has received $1.2 billion in federal contracts, according to the Web site fedspending.org, has consistently denied involvement in illicit arms trafficking.

    However, the State Department found that Blackwater shipped 900 weapons to Iraq without the paperwork required by arms export control regulations, one department official said. Of that number, 119 were "particularly ... erroneous," he said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been announced.

    Federal laws require obtaining a license before exporting military hardware, including automatic weapons, overseas.

    Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said Wednesday that the company had "not been informed of an intent to impose a fine, however ... we have been cooperating with the government to respond to inquiries into our export processes."

    The State Department's "resolution of export matters with other significant defense contractors, such as Boeing, L-3, Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics has typically resulted in some payment" to the government, she said in an e-mail exchange.

    Blackwater last month announced what it billed as a major new initiative to ensure that the company complies with rules for exporting military hardware.

    Saying that "our company has experienced remarkable growth in the last few years," Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said: "This growth, our work for the U.S. Government around the world, and the nature of the services we offer have created compliance challenges."

    Blackwater said it created the position of Vice President of Export Compliance and created a three-person independent oversight committee whose members include former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark.

    The amount of the planned fine couldn't be learned, but one State Department official said it was "way in the millions." The official said the fine could be announced as early as this week. A second official, however, cautioned that it's not imminent.

    Jay Greer, a spokesman for the State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, which implements defense export controls, declined comment.

    The weapons case became public in September 2007 as part of a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee inquiry into then-State Department inspector general Howard Krongard.

    The Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, a McClatchy newspaper, first reported that two former Blackwater employees, Kenneth Wayne Cashwell and William Ellsworth "Max" Grumiaux, had pleaded guilty to weapons charges and were cooperating with federal prosecutors in North Carolina.

    What became of the weapons may never be known.

    Iraq has a brisk black market for weapons. Pentagon probes have found that Defense Department-supplied weapons intended for Iraq's security forces were diverted. The Turkish government has complained that some ended up in the hands of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which Washington and Ankara consider a terrorist group.

    Blackwater employees are also the subjects of a Justice Department probe into the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisoor Square on Sept. 16, 2007. That incident sparked outrage over the actions of private military contractors and forced the State Department to impose tighter rules on the contractors.

    A federal grand jury is weighing whether to indict the Blackwater guards who were involved in the killings.


GM needs creative destruction from Politics in the Zeros

via http://polizeros.com/2008/11/13/gm-needs-creative-destruction/

Lava is destructive. It also creates new land. Look at Hawaii.

Thomas Friedman

The result [of decades of comatose behavior by US automakers] was an industry that became brain dead.

Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.'s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius "make no economic sense." And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming "is a total crock of [expletive]."

These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

Friedman's plan: Current management gets fired. Shareholders get nothing. Existing agreements, including union contracts, get torn up. Competent people are hired to run the companies, which will downsize immediately and manufacture hybrids.

Somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn't need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he'd like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I'd bet it wouldn't take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.


Bailout Update from Open Left - Front Page

via http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9912

Lots of bailout news over the last twenty-four hours. First, Paulson has decided not to buy up the shitpile, but instead to buy up the companies themselves:
The Bush administration dropped the centerpiece of its $700-billion financial rescue plan Wednesday, reflecting the remarkable extent to which senior government officials have been flying by the seat of their pants in dealing with the deepening economic crisis.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson said the administration would scrub plans to buy troubled mortgage-backed securities but continue to devote bailout funds to restore liquidity to credit markets.

Some Democrats are upset by this, but I'm not. Just buying up the bad assets from the companies, without getting a stake in the companies, was the ultimate raw deal. That is truly just the Buy My Shitpile plan. Well, maybe it was the penultimate raw deal, second only to the $70 billion in executive compensation from the bailout. Moving toward direct investment is better. Even if those investments function pretty much as low-interest loans to the companies, they do at least give the federal government the option of exerting control over the companies at a later point. Considering how fluid the situation is, that point might come sooner rather than later.

Moving on, while spending is underway, $290 billion so far, the oversight mechanisms of the bailout plan have not been filled (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: Bailout Update

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

Could Congress get anymore supine? They approved the money without putting the oversight mechanisms in place? Makes you wonder why we even have a legislative branch sometimes. It also doesn't lend much confidence for the second phase of he bailout, which is scheduled to start soon.

The bailout allocated $350 billion to be spent immediately, and the next $350 billion required additional approval from Congress. Given that no oversight has been undertaken so far, it kind of makes Charles Schumer's claim on the second $350 billion laughable:

The $700-billion plan approved by Congress authorized the Treasury to spend half that amount immediately, with additional requirements for releasing the rest.(...)

Schumer said he might seek new conditions on how the $350 billion is spent, such as reducing foreclosures and inducing banks to lend.

"If the economy needs it, Congress is going to approve it," Schumer said of the final installment. "But we might approve it with certain provisos."

You might approve it with provisos, eh? How are those oversight provisos going so far? And do those provisos demand that the Treasury Secretary just take bad assets off the hands of struggling companies? Probably, given the reaction of one of the lead Democratic negotiators, Barney Frank:

"Obama should tell Paulson, 'Thank you, but you should ask for the money and use a substantial portion for mortgage foreclosure reduction,' " said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

If that means we will be demanding the Buy My Shitpile plan, than I am pretty worried.

Congress meets in a special session next week. Bailout oversight and additional bailout funding will no doubt be on the agenda.


"the tide seems to be running against bailing out Detroit. The management of the automakers may not be any better than the managers of the banks. But they have been a lot worse for a lot longer."

Outstanding piece - check it out

via http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/the-passion-of-tom-friedman/

"The New York Times's Tom Friedman is getting a lot of mileage out of yesterday's column on Detroit's desire for a bailout. Here, on CNBC this morning, he gets into a fine rant on the subject (from 3:30 to the end) but it's worth watching the earlier tirade on Bush's foreign policy just to see Friedman in his new operatic mode. Friedman's usual cuddly, quizzical tone has changed and Vanity Fair suggests the thought leader is cranky over losses closer to home.

As many peope know, Friedman is married to a mall developer's daughter. General Growth Properties, the family business, has imploded as the company faces problems rolling over $1 billion in debt. If it can't refinance, GGP might get pushed into bankruptcy.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Friedman is right about the Michigan Congressional delegation and the way it has blocked government from creating an economic landscape that would have helped the auto makers thrive. "[I]nstead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers," Friedman wrote in his column.

He also brought in the big guns in the form of Paul Ingrassia, The Wall Street Journal's one-time Detroit bureau chief and still an expert on the industry. In Ingrassia's own op-ed on Monday, he wrote these words that Friedman seconded:

In return for any direct government aid, the board and the management should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp GM with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others, and downsizing the company. After all that, the company can float new shares, with taxpayers getting some of the benefits. The same basic rules should apply to Ford and Chrysler.

The letters in response to that Op-Ed are in today's Journal and worth reading. Nonetheless, the tide seems to be running against bailing out Detroit. The management of the automakers may not be any better than the managers of the banks. But they have been a lot worse for a lot longer."



Boxer Aide Facing Child Porn Charges from TPMmuckraker

via http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/boxer_aide_facing_child_porn_c.php

Jeff Rosato, a senior staffer for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has been fired after he was charged by authorities late last week with distributing and receiving child pornography.

Roll Call reports (subscription required):

He was arrested after he sent more than 600 images and movies of child pornography to an undercover FBI agent he believed was a 13-year-old boy, according to an FBI affidavit.

The online chats occurred from Jan. 2 to Jan. 23 over Google Hello, a photo-sharing program that was shut down in June. To identify Rosato, the FBI subpoenaed Google and Comcast.

In a Nov. 7 search of Rosato's Alexandria home, FBI agents found a computer with "approximately 200 images of child pornography and child erotica, and several movies containing child pornography and child erotica." Many of the images showed prepubescent boys engaged in sexual acts, according to the affidavit.

Rosato, who had served as senior policy advisor and counsel on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which Boxer chairs, had worked for the California senator since 2005.


"The Boston Red Sox froze their ticket prices at already-high 2008 levels Wednesday, a clear reflection of the worsening economic crisis."

Red Sox Will Not Raise Ticket Prices - NYTimes.com

via: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/sports/baseball/13tickets.html

The Boston Red Sox froze their ticket prices at already-high 2008 levels Wednesday, a clear reflection of the worsening economic crisis.

"We are hearing from fans and seeing for ourselves that these are uncertain, at best, and perilous, at worst, economic conditions," Larry Lucchino, the Red Sox' chief executive, said in a telephone interview.

The team had raised prices on some tickets at Fenway Park every season since 1995, settling on the current range for general-admission tickets of $12 for upper bleachers to $125 for field boxes. The team, with 469 consecutive home sellouts, drew three million fans last season, a home attendance record. Lucchino said that the team could have raised ticket prices this season but that its analysis of focus group research, fan feedback and the economy led to the freeze.

According to Team Marketing Report, the Red Sox' average ticket price of $48.80 was the highest in baseball.

"This is not based on an assessment of a reduction in demand," he said. "We have thousands of people who pay to be on our waiting list. This is an assessment that this was the right thing to do for the people of Red Sox Nation who have been loyal and committed fans to us."

The Red Sox follow the Houston Astros and the Pittsburgh Pirates (for the seventh straight season at PNC Park) in freezing their ticket prices.

The Milwaukee Brewers did not increase prices on 27 percent of their seats at Miller Park, but raised the average price for 2009 by 5 percent.

"That's historically low for a team that just reached the postseason after not making the playoffs for a while," Rick Schlesinger, the Brewers' executive vice president for business operations, said recently.

Hours after the Red Sox announced their price freeze, the N.F.L. said that the average price paid by fans for 2009 playoff tickets, except the Super Bowl, would be 10 percent less than it was last January. The three rounds of postseason games this year cost an average of $121 a ticket.

Pricing, done by the playoff teams for the games leading to the Super Bowl, will be set in conjunction with Commissioner Roger Goodell.

The Red Sox' business operation is considered one of the most sophisticated in baseball; the team is entering the eighth season of a plan to modernize Fenway Park, built in 1912, and increase its capacity from 36,108.

"We don't budget to lose money," Lucchino said.

Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College and an expert on sports economics, said the Red Sox' price-freeze was an admission of difficult times ahead by one of the elite teams in baseball.

"It means that even with a wildly popular team, in a stadium with the smallest seating capacity, and in a large market with the most excess demand for tickets, the anticipated economic condition next spring and summer is so weak that it will not sustain further increases in ticket prices," Zimbalist said.

The Red Sox' acknowledgment of the effects of the recession and the toll high prices have taken on fans comes as the Yankees are building a $1.3 billion stadium scheduled to open in April. Although the team has said that the prices for 25,000 seats would not be increased over 2008 levels, a considerable number of tickets, especially the premium ones, will cost much more. Some tickets, fans have said, have soared from $220 in the current stadium to $650 for the equivalent locations in the new one.

The Yankees have seven unsold luxury suites at the new stadium, and the number of potential season-ticket and premium-seat buyers has slowed.

"We can see that the economy is affecting the traffic," Lonn Trost, the Yankees' chief operating officer, said Tuesday. "Listen, nobody can avoid it. We recognize it. You wake up in the morning, and you see it."

In their state of perpetual rivalry, the Yankees, with a $209.1 million player payroll, failed to make the playoffs last season, while the Red Sox spent $133.4 million and lost to Tampa Bay in the American League Championship Series.

Team Marketing Report said the Yankees' average ticket price of $41.40 was third. But the Yankees' average premium ticket price of $203.72 was higher than the $163.86 of the Red Sox, but ranked second to the Dodgers' $223.38.

The prices for Fenway's premium seats, which fans have contracts for, were also frozen at $150 to $325 each, and fans buying them will get a year added to their contracts.

The deepening recession is beginning to alter the pricing equation of a sport that usually only sees attendance and ticket costs rise. "I think baseball teams get it," said Jon Greenberg, the executive editor of Team Marketing Report. "If they don't, they will. When the Boston Red Sox aren't raising prices, how can other teams justify it?"

Lucchino said that Boston was feeling the impact of rising unemployment. "We're still early in the display of real-world consequences," he said.

Meanwhile, the Tribune Co., which has been trying to sell the Chicago Cubs since April 2007, told potential buyers in a recent letter that it was seeking bids by Nov. 27. The company, which wants more than $1 billion for the team and Wrigley Field, is telling suitors it will be flexible in the stake it is willing to sell and in the length of the payout. Any buyer then needs to secure financing in one of the worst credit markets in memory.

Reasons to Bail Out GM

Reasons to Bail Out GM - Finance Blog - Felix Salmon - Market Movers - Portfolio.com

via http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/11/12/reasons-to-bail-out-gm

Reasons to Bail Out GM

Why bail out GM? I can think of quite a few reasons:

  1. As Andrew Leonard notes, it's what Barack Obama was elected to do. "If evangelical supporters of George Bush had the right to expect conservative judge appointments and restrictions on stem cell research, then working class Midwesterners are equally justified in expecting delivery on Democratic economic promises. That's how a democracy works." If Obama didn't intend to bail out Detroit, he was being very slippery during his election campaign.
  2. It's an efficient way of directing fiscal stimulus towards the rust-belt states which need it most. Up until now, Treasury's been careful to separate the idea of bailouts as distinct from fiscal stimulus: we're "investing" rather than "spending" the money going into the banks and AIG. But that's a silly distinction. As Steve Waldman says, most government spending, outside of entitlement transfers, is investment.
  3. It might be cheaper than the alternative of letting GM fail and throwing its employees, and its suppliers' employees, and its dealerships' employees, and so on and so forth, onto the unemployment rolls at a time when it's harder to find a new job than it has been in a very long time.
  4. It's a great way of being able to implement the long-term strategic goals of the Obama administration when it comes to things like energy independence. Leonard, again:

A Manhattan Project-scale plan to move the U.S. into an energy-sustainable future should start with a complete restructuring of the automotive industry. It's time to think big.

These aren't the kind of reasons that Treasury put forward for bailing out the banks and AIG. In that case, we were worried about the collapse of the global financial system: the bailout was necessary to prevent systemic meltdown. A lot of the arguments against a GM bailout seem to say that there aren't similar systemic reasons to bail out GM: that's true. But it's worth realizing that there are other reasons.

The government also has a lot more latitude about exactly whom it bails out than most commentators seem to realize. There seems to be an assumption that any bailout will, by necessity, have to be a bailout of all GM's bondholders, and will probably leave some non-zero value for shareholders as well. But that doesn't have to be the case: there are numerous ways of structuring a "bail-in" whereby GM's bonds are restructured and its bondholders share some of the pain.

On the other hand, there are other reasons not to bail out GM, as well. Ryan Avent says that since the long-term future of the rust belt does not lie with the automakers, a bailout would simply stand in the way of the rust belt's reinvention. "Political energy in the Rust Belt is geared toward maintaining the status quo at the expense of other priorities," he notes, and a bailout is much more likely to reinforce those tendencies than it is to shake them up.

That said, given the state of the economy, there is a strong case to be made, I think, for the government giving GM a helping hand in winding down slowly, maybe emerging as a smaller, leaner, sustainable carmaker, rather than simply collapsing overnight. So I disagree with Avent here:

$50bn spent propping up the Big Three is $50bn that can't be spent on direct investments in the people and cities of the Rust Belt. That kind of money could fund early retirement for older workers and unemployment benefits and retraining for younger workers, with enough left over for infrastructure improvements, research incentives and educational grants for the region as a whole.
Ford, General Motors and Chrysler are American institutions. They have helped define the character, the shape and the economy of the nation for a century. They're also just companies - corporate entities designed to provide goods and services at a profit. For too long, these firms have failed at that goal, and they've dragged down an entire region with them. We can spend that $50bn simply perpetuating, for a while longer, the names and structures of these companies. Or we can spend that $50bn helping the people and the cities of the Midwest. I don't think we can do both.

I can envisage a bail-out which goes largely to fund the UAW's healthcare trusts -- directly helping the people of the Midwest -- with a bit of extra cash to help bondholders put together a debt-for-equity swap and corporate restructuring. In other words, we can do both, especially considering the very low cost of US government funds.

So count me in on a strategically-oriented bail-in package which benefits the Midwest rather than GM's bondholders and shareholders. And if you want to call it a bailout, that's fine by me.

"no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste"

Bailout Lacks Oversight Despite Billions Pledged

Stunning - no formal oversight posts have been filled since the bailout began.

via http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html

"In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department's inspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout program until the newly created position of special inspector general is filled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going to do proper oversight of this thing."

In approving the rescue package, lawmakers trumpeted provisions in the legislation that established layers of independent scrutiny, including a special inspector general to be nominated by the White House and a congressional oversight panel to be named by lawmakers themselves.

Some lawmakers and their aides fear that political squabbling on Capitol Hill and bureaucratic logjams could delay their work for months. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which also has some oversight responsibilities, is worried about the difficulty of hiring people who can understand the intensely complicated financial work involved.

The legislation grants the special inspector, who is expected to be the primary overseer of the program, a budget of $50 million. The measure calls for him to conduct audits and investigations of how the government spends money under the bailout program, including on equity investments in firms. In particular, he is to report about any assets acquired and their value, plus an explanation of why they were acquired and details on individuals or companies involved in the transactions.

The leading candidate for the post is Neil M. Barofsky, a federal prosecutor in New York, and his nomination could come as soon as this week, according to people familiar with the matter.

Barofsky, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, is the chief of the office's mortgage fraud group and the lead prosecutor in the $2.4 billion accounting-fraud case against former executives of the collapsed financial firm Refco. He was formerly a white-collar criminal defense attorney in New York.

It is unclear that Barofsky would be confirmed by the Senate, as required, anytime soon. One complicating factor is a battle between the Finance and Banking committees over which has jurisdiction over the confirmation process. Spokeswomen for both panels said the issue has not been resolved and may not be until after President Bush names his choice.

Nonetheless, the finance committee has scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon in the event that a nominee is named.

Several congressional aides, however, said they did not understand how the Senate could possibly do all the proper vetting for such a critical appointment in just a few days. Thorson's confirmation process, for example, took nearly a year. But Treasury officials and Senate aides worry that if the nominee is not confirmed next week, when Congress is back in town for a lame-duck session, then the process might be delayed well into next year.

Some Republican lawmakers have said they are also concerned that Democrats may avoid acting on the nomination so that Barack Obama can choose his own special inspector general after he becomes president. But people familiar with the matter said Barofsky, the leading candidate for the position, would be palatable to the incoming administration because he supported Obama.

In the meantime, Thorson is trying to oversee the program in addition to his other responsibilities. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. asked him to take on those duties. Thorson has a few dozen people working on the program, but none are doing so full time. He said there should be at least 100 people in the new special inspector general's office.

Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the White House for not moving more quickly to name an appointee.

"Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't respected, a day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on it," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee.

Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, declined to comment on the nominee or when he or she would be named but said there is adequate scrutiny of the bailout.

"No program in the history of the federal government has had more layers of oversight and reporting and transparency," he said.

For their part, lawmakers have yet to nominate the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel, though leaders of both parties said they hoped they would be named by the end of the month and start work by December. People familiar with the matter said possible nominees included current and former government and industry officials, though some had to recuse themselves because of conflicts of interest.

The panel's mandate is to look at the use of Paulson's authority and the impact of the program on the financial markets and mortgage crisis.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said his concerns about oversight diminished after the Treasury program's focus shifted from purchases of financial firms' troubled assets to capital injections into companies. "The concern was they'd be buying assets and we wouldn't know the price," Frank said. The revised bailout program "doesn't have the conflicts of interest and the other things people were concerned about."

The delays in selecting both the special inspector general and the congressional oversight panel have prevented the release of a detailed oversight report required in the legislation. Under the law, the congressional panel was required to release a report 30 days after the bailout program began, a deadline that has passed. It is supposed to issue a more elaborate report on the financial regulatory process by Jan. 20, a deadline congressional aides said will be nearly impossible to make.

The special inspector general is supposed to release a report within 60 days of his confirmation. Though Thorson, the Treasury inspector general, is not required to prepare a report, he said he might feel obligated to issue one if the Senate does not confirm a special inspector by Monday.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is also required by the legislation to conduct oversight of the program. The agency's mission is to look at the overall performance of the initiative and its effect on the financial system.

The GAO has dedicated about 20 people to look at the bailout and has office space at the Treasury Department. Agency officials said they expect to issue a brief report on the program, as mandated by the legislation, within the next month.

The legislation also created a body called the Financial Stability Oversight Board, whose five members include Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. But it has no staff of its own, and few expect that policymakers can conduct oversight of themselves. "It's sort of a joke in terms of oversight," a congressional aide said."

Google Crashes Through $300

Google Crashes Through $300

Wow I am getting killed and will continue to get killed through a $200 price....

via: http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/google-crashes-through-300-is-it-finally-cheap-

"Google crashed through the $300 barrier this afternoon, only a month or so after smashing through $400. So, at $290, is it finally cheap?

"Cheap?" No.

"Pretty darn reasonably priced?" Yes.

At $290, Google's enterprise value (excluding cash) is about $83 billion, or 15X trailing free cash flow of $5 billion. In last year's market, that would have been bonified cheap, but valuations have gotten so hammered that today it just qualifies as reasonable.

Apple, in comparison, which is arguably just as strong a company as Google, is trading at only 10X free cash flow, and its market opportunity is much less penetrated than Google's. Apple is cheap. Google isn't quite there yet.

The other problem for Google's stock, as we've been saying for months, is that estimates still have to come down. The street has begun chopping estimates for Q4--even optimistic analysts are now only looking for 5% sequential growth, which is startlingly low for Q4--but 2009 consensus is still calling for nearly 20% revenue growth. That would be miraculous at this point.

So, bottom line, Google's stock is finally reasonably priced. You probably won't see a sustained rally until analysts really pare back their 2009 estimates (which will create the opportunity for upside). But the lower the stock goes, the closer we should be to a valuation floor. And--good news--the higher the long-term return should be. (When we walked through that Google-$2000-in-a-decade scenario last summer, we said we hoped the stock would drop to $200 in the meantime so we could get a 10X return. Looks like we might get that chance.)

That said, we can't think of a reason why Google couldn't trade at the same cash flow multiple as Apple. And, all things being equal, that would be another 30% downside ($200)."

'Dark Knight' Score Disqualified From Academy Awards Consideration from Cinematical

Well this is a bummer - its a great score - if you are into movie scores, give this one a try.....

via http://www.cinematical.com/2008/11/13/dark-knight-score-disqualified-from-academy-awards-considerati/

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in their continued efforts to avoid awarding Oscars to deserving efforts in film scores, has apparently disqualified Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's work on The Dark Knight. According to Variety (by way of In Contention), the same stipulation as to how many composers are technically listed on the cue sheet similarly screwed over their Batman Begins score -- the stipulation being that listing multiple names helps to award royalties to music editors and designers as well.

I'd argue that the film -- which is bound to crack a billion bucks worldwide any day now, and likely to rack up considerable awards nominations regardless -- owes a great deal of its sustained visceral thrills to this rousing score, and in an ideal world, the December 9th release of the DVD would be enough for the Academy to whip around and shape up their bureaucratic brouhaha. To them, I simply ask this: why so serious?

Obama could revoke secrecy orders protecting Bush records from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://rawstory.com/news/2008/More_than_sixty_groups_call_for_1112.html

More than 60 organizations called on President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday to revoke President George W. Bush's executive order on presidential secrecy and lift the veil in numerous areas of governmental furtiveness.

The groups' recommendations demand efficiency and openness from the Freedom of Information Act process, reforms in the classification system to reduce overclassification and ensure that presidential records are handled in accordance with US law and congressional intent.

Among the groups include the National Security Archive, OMB Watch -- a watchdog group of the White House Office of Management and Budget -- and the Radio Television News Directors Association.

"President-elect Obama can make a difference on Day One in the way his administration relates to the public," National Security Archive's general counsel Meredith Fuchs said in a release. "Secrecy got out of control in the last eight years, but a few focused directives will go a long way towards reopening the government."

Among the proposals include requests for Obama to:

* Issue a memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act that establishes a policy of maximum possible public disclosure of government records and directing an attorney general memo that reinstitutes the presumption of openness under FOIA, calls on agencies to use technology to engage with and inform the public, and commits to creating a more collaborative and less adversarial relationship with the public on issues involving access to information.

* Revoke President Bush's executive order on the Presidential Records Act, which undermined the PRA by purporting to create new constitutional privileges for the family members and descendents of former presidents and for former vice presidents; commit to working with NARA and Congress to ensure necessary oversight for the transfer and processing of the Bush presidential records; and establish a policy for the new administration to preserve all presidential records of administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value.

* Issue a presidential directive rejecting prior abuses of the classification system and tasking the relevant executive branch agencies to develop a new executive order on classification that will reduce overclassification, add internal mechanisms to prevent classification abuses, ensure consideration of the public interest throughout the lifecycle of classified information, and improve the declassification process and information sharing.

President Bush has acted to withhold governmental information from the public.

"In early 2002, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a memo to government agencies urging them to reject requests for access to public documents allowed under the Freedom of Information Act if they could find a legal argument against the release," the Washington Post reported Tuesday. "It was a reversal from the Clinton administration's stance, which assumed that records were public unless government proved otherwise."

More information is available at the National Security Archive website.

Conservatives already at war with Obama from Raw Story Breaking News

via http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_Conservatives_declare_war_on_Obama_1112.html

Right-wing politicians and pundits have already begun attacking the Obama administration, even though Inauguration Day is still more than two months away.

CNN noted in a segment on Wednesday that "some of the same pundits Hillary Clinton referred to as the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are at it again."

Rush Limbaugh has already charged, "This is an Obama recession, might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet, but his ideas are killing the economy."

Ann Coulter recently suggested, "Sounds like there's going to be a lot more Waco raids, Elian Gonzalez snatchings."

Fox's Sean Hannity asked, "Do we wait until he makes a mistake?" and has an Election 2012 countdown on his website.

Right now, Democrats feel able to laugh off these attacks. A new CNN poll shows that the Democrats are seen favorably by a margin of 62% to 31%, while the Republicans are seen unfavorably by almost as great a margin, 54% to 38%.

CNN political contributor Hillary Rosen suggests, "I think it's going to be very hard to reinvent the image of President Obama. ... This country's on his side, and the Republicans I think are making a mistake by trying to undermine him before he gets started."

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee is playing old clips of Ronald Reagan on its website, hoping to remind people of why they used to like Republicans.


This video is from CNN's American Morning, broadcast Nov. 12, 2008.




Download video via RawReplay.com


Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' from Raw Story Breaking News

Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama'

Tammy Duckworth, who earned the Purple Heart for her service in Iraq, may replace President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate

Iraq vet possible Senate replacement for Obama - Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

from: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/gns_duckworth_111208/

Tammy Duckworth, who earned the Purple Heart for her service in Iraq, may be moving up with President-elect Barack Obama.

Duckworth, now the Illinois Veterans Affairs director, has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Obama in the U.S. Senate or as Veterans Affairs secretary in an Obama administration.

She accompanied Obama yesterday as the Illinois senator marked Veterans Day by placing a wreath at the bronze soldiers memorial between the Field Museum and Soldier Field in Chicago.

Duckworth, then a pilot with the Illinois Army National Guard, lost both her legs in Iraq in 2004 when her Black Hawk helicopter was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade.

She has said she would be interested in either the Senate seat or a post in Obama's administration.

"I would be honored to be able to do that on a national level," Duckworth told The Associated Press recently about the prospect of helping veterans.

U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, following a Veterans Day ceremony yesterday at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl, said Duckworth's experience and the respect she has garnered from other veterans would make her an excellent choice for Veterans Affairs secretary.

Akaka, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said Duckworth has appeared in front of his committee and has proven to be knowledgeable of the challenges facing military veterans and their families.

"She's smart and she would be able to deal with the problems facing our veterans," he said. "She has a feel for veterans issues. She's one who has been through it and feels the needs."

State Rep. K. Mark Takai, D-34th (Newtown, Waiau, Pearl City), who has been friends with Duckworth since they attended UH together, said he spoke with Duckworth at the Democratic National Convention in August about her interest in a post in an Obama administration, although neither wanted to jinx anything by being too specific.

"I think she would be excellent, either as a U.S. senator or as a member of the Obama administration," said Takai, who serves in the Hawaii Army National Guard. "I think she has real-world experience that many of us can't imagine ever having."

Duckworth, 40, made an unsuccessful run for Congress in 2006 before being named Illinois Veterans Affairs director.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will choose who serves the remainder of Obama's Senate term, which runs until January 2011. He said he would like to make an announcement before Christmas.

Blagojevich has called Duckworth a "superstar." Other potential choices include U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis and Jan Schakowsky.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Naomi Klien's article in Rolling Stone is a must read

The New Trough : Rolling Stone

Naomi Klein wrote a powerful essay on why the bailout stinks and if her article does not rile you up, then you just don't care. Here are some of the insights she provides - I highly recommend reading the article at the link above.

On the subject of how firms are cashing in ala how contractors made a killing in Iraq -

"Under cover of an emergency, Treasury is rapidly turning into an economic Green Zone, overrun with private companies collecting lucrative contracts...a new team of contractors is lining up to reconstruct the U.S. economy — reconstruct it from the mess made by the very banks, brokers and law firms that are now applying for contracts. And it's not at all clear that America can survive their assistance."

On how little vetting the Treasury really did in hiring outsiders to work the bailout -

"See if any of this sounds familiar: As soon as the bailout was announced, it became clear that Treasury officials would hire outsiders to perform their jobs for them — at a profit. Private companies wanting to help manage the bailout were given just two days to apply for massive, multiyear contracts. Since it was such a mad rush — after all, the entire economy was about to implode — there was no time for an open bidding process. Nor was there time to draft rigorous rules to make sure that those applying don't have serious conflicts of interest. Instead, applicants were asked to disclose their conflicts and to explain — and this is not a joke — their "philosophy in fulfilling your duty to the Treasury and the U.S. taxpayer in light of your proprietary interests and those of other clients." In other words, an open invitation to bullshit about how much they love their country and how they can be trusted to regulate themselves."

On the inherent conflicts of interest in hiring the lawyers for legal advice on the bailout -

"The first major contract to be awarded in the bailout was for legal advice - the bidder who won the contract — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — takes a more relaxed approach to conflicts than its colleagues. The law firm is a Wall Street heavy hitter, having brokered some of the biggest bank mergers in recent years. It also provided legal support to companies trading mortgage-backed securities — the "financial weapons of mass destruction," as Warren Buffett called them, that detonated the banking industry. More to the point, it was hired to provide legal services to the Treasury in its negotiations to spend $250 billion of the bailout money purchasing equity in America's banks"

On how the banks never really intended to make loans with all this new cold, hard cash -

"Secretary Paulson promised that the banks won't just "hoard" the money — they will quickly "deploy it" through the economy in the form of badly needed loans. There is just one hitch: Neither Paulson nor Simpson Thacher got that "deploy" part in writing — nor did they put in place any mechanism to require the banks to spend their taxpayer billions. Apparently, the part about lending the money to homeowners and small businesses was sort of implied....At least for the next quarter, it's just going to be a cushion," said John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Gary Crittenden, chief financial officer of Citigroup, had an even better idea: He hinted that his company would use its share of the cash — $25 billion — to buy up competitors and swell even bigger. The handout, he told analysts, "does present the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities that might otherwise be closed to us.""

And on how you, the taxpayer, just funded their bonus pool -

"And the folks at Morgan Stanley? They're planning to pay themselves $10.7 billion this year, much of it in bonuses — almost exactly the amount they are receiving in the first phase of the bailout. "You can imagine the devilish grins on the faces of Morgan Stanley employees," writes Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Weil. "Not only did we, the taxpayers, save their company...we funded their 2008 bonus pool.""

The US Taxpayer has been robbed, shafted and left for dead the way Wall Street, with the aid of the Treasury, has raped and pillaged us. Unlike what the British government did to address their meltdown, here is what we did not get:

"In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back....No wonder it took just one hour for Paulson to convince all nine CEOs to accept his offer — less than seven minutes per bank. Not even the firms' own lawyers could have drafted a sweeter deal."

And on the firm that won the biggest contract of all in this bailout mess, Bank of New York Mellon:

"Treasury announced that it had selected the firm that would receive the juiciest contract of all: that of "master custodian." The winning company will be to the bailout what Halliburton is to the military: the contractor of contractors. It will purchase toxic debts from Wall Street, service them and auction them off in the future — a so-called "end-to-end process." The contract is for a minimum of three years. ...This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing? ...Shortly after receiving the contract, Hassell told investors that his institution is now well-positioned to profit from the market meltdown. "There's a lot of new business that's going on even in this chaotic marketplace," he said, "and so some of those things have been very positive to us." Just how positive, we don't know, because Treasury has blacked out the 10 lines of the "master custodian" contract that reveal how much Bank of New York Mellon will be paid. Though Treasury says it will release the information eventually, the secrecy goes beyond anything the Bush administration attempted in Iraq. Even Halliburton's dodgy contracts came with price tags attached....Bank of New York Mellon has a bad record for mischief. It is embroiled in a $22.5 billion money-laundering lawsuit in Moscow and has been forced to pay out a $14 million settlement in a related case. Though the bank's "master custodian" contract with Treasury prohibits unethical conduct, the arrangement seems rife with opportunities for abuse. According to its most recent earnings report, Bank of New York Mellon holds $1.2 billion in subprime mortgage securities. That means that in addition to the $3 billion it will receive as part of the equity program, it will also be eligible to apply for taxpayer money from the program it is being paid to administer."

So Bank of New York gets to earn huge fees, plus because it owns subprime debt, it gets to participate in the bailout.

But it gets scary worse - as bad as the economy is, Paulson knows that we are going broke saving America and some things are going to have to get shorted to make everyone whole. Like your social security. Keep in mind that this is coming from a man, a Goodman Sachs alum, who has profited from exploiting Wall Street to the tune of over 100 milion dollars:

"On the same day that he allocated the first $125 billion to the banks, Secretary Paulson announced the largest federal budget deficit in U.S. history. Buried in his statement was a preview of the next phase of the financial disaster. The deficit numbers, he declared, reinforce the need to "pursue policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility, and address entitlement reform." He was referring to Americans who feel entitled to receive Social Security in their old age and Medicaid when they are sick. Those programs, Paulson implied, might not be able to survive the budget crisis he is currently creating for the next administration....This is why the stakes of the bailout are so high: Unless we get a good deal, there will be nothing left over after the banks are done feeding to pay for the meager services now provided in exchange for taxation, let alone for the more ambitious initiatives promised on the campaign trail. The spiraling cost of saving Wall Street from its bad bets is already being used as an excuse for why we can't solve our many other crises, from health care to climate change....Because here is what George Bush and Henry Paulson are hoping we won't figure out: When a society no longer has enough money to pay for its most pressing needs, there are worse things than discovering you own the banks."

Get angry, everyone - they're robbing us blind.

'Barack's First Big Mistake on the Job: Rescuing Joe Lieberman "

Dave Lindorff: Barack's First Big Mistake on the Job: Rescuing Joe Lieberman | BuzzFlash.org:

The word is that Barack Obama, in keeping with his promise of a new post-Bush/Cheney era of "civility in government," is telling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not to eject the treacherous Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) from the Democratic caucus.

This is a terrible mistake. Joe Lieberman is a wretched example of a man without principle -- a back-stabbing slimeball of a politician whose only allegiance, apparently, besides to himself, is to Israel.

Now I don't want anyone to think I'm some rabid anti-Semite. My wife and kids are Jewish, we have good friends who are Israeli, and no, I don't think the Jews run the media or the country. I do, however, think that Joe Lieberman thinks more about what, in his warped and shriveled worldview, is good for Israel than about what is good for America.

This senator from my childhood state of Connecticut, who back in 2000 ran as a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party as Al Gore's running mate, since 9-11 has been a warmonger of the first order, even joining the right-wing Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in trying to pass a resolution in the Senate last year that, had it made it through as he originally worded it, would have effectively enabled -- even invited -- George Bush to attack Iran at will as a part of Bush's megalomaniacal global "War" on Terror.

It is Lieberman's obsession with having the U.S. obliterate first Iraq and now Iran, with nukes if need be, that led him to abandon his party and become a leading supporter and apologist for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and later to become a key endorser of Sen. John "Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain.

Lieberman also signed on enthusiastically to the worst excesses of Bush's and Cheney's eight-year-long assault on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law. As head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman became the leading advocate of fascist policies in the Senate, rivaled only by such ranting Republican proto-fascists as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). It was Lieberman who at least initially enthusiastically backed Attorney General John Ashcroft's mad proposal (thankfully never implemented) to establish an Operation TIPS (for Terrorist Information and Prevention Service) program that would have recruited millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors and co-workers, replicating the dreaded Stasi of Communist East Germany. Only after libertarian-minded Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) came out strongly against the scheme did Lieberman have second thoughts. Initially, in fact, Lieberman had personally, in his role as chair, blocked efforts by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to delete funding for Operation TIPS from a Homeland Security Department funding bill before his committee.

The Democrats, who already are assured of 56 solid seats in their caucus in the next Senate, with a chance at a couple more when all the 2004 Election races are settled and runoffs completed, don't need a weasel such as Lieberman mucking up their ranks. If they need four more votes to kill some Republican filibusters, they have Republicans they can turn to, or cajole. If Barack Obama is smart (and he certainly is that), he can also add a few -- perhaps even four -- Democrats to Senate ranks by naming as many Republican senators as he needs to replace to cabinet posts. As long as he names people such as Sens. Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe of Maine, or Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who represent states with Democratic governors, those governors will be able to appoint, as replacements, Democratic senators.

The other reason to shun Lieberman, and to cast him into the legislative purgatory he so richly deserves, is that it would be an object lesson to other potential Iagos in the party's legislative ranks that such treachery will not be tolerated. What, after all, is the point of having a party at all, if its members can be as back-stabbing as Lieberman and get away with it?

It would be a good lesson to the Democrats of the state of Connecticut, too, who voted in a Democratic primary two years ago to oust Lieberman as their candidate for re-election, but who then turned around and joined Republicans in re-electing him when he ran as an independent against a Republican challenger and against Ned Lamont, the Democrat who had bested him in the primary. This was treachery by a class of Democrats in the state of Connecticut that should also not go unpunished. Connecticut voters should no longer have the benefit of a powerful senator with seniority when that senator has so betrayed his party.

Let Lieberman go over to the Republicans hat in hand. Let him squirm as the Christian fundamentalists among them talk in tongues and as others of them mutter their anti-Semitic obscenities behind his back. Let this one-time self-described advocate of civil rights blush in shame as his new colleagues crack their racist jokes about the new president in the lily-white Republican caucus room.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in redemption as much as the next atheist. I'd be perfectly happy to see Joey Lieberman back in the Democratic caucus, but first he should be made to make a full public apology both to Obama and to the millions of Democrats who elected the nation's first black president, as well as to the Democrats of his home state of Connecticut, whose resounding 61%-38% vote for Obama was the biggest repudiation of Lieberman of all. That 38 percent tally is the one he should have had when he ran for re-election last time. It's probably higher than he'd get if he ran today in Connecticut against Lamont or any other Democrat.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

"College Loan Slavery: Student Debt Is Getting Way Out of Hand"

College Loan Slavery: Student Debt Is Getting Way Out of Hand | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet: "The quest for a college degree is dumping millions of young people deep into a pit of debt from which many will never recover."

Raya Golden thought she was handling college in a responsible way. She didn't apply until she felt ready to dedicate herself to her studies. She spread her schooling across five years so she could work part-time throughout. She checked that her school, the Academy of Art University in San Francisco, had a high post-graduate employment rate. But there were two things she hadn't counted on. The first was the $75,000 in nonsubsidized federal student loans she'd have to take out for tuition and those living expenses her part-time jobs selling hotdogs and making lattes couldn't cover. The second was that she'd graduate into a workforce teetering on the edge of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

"All of a sudden the work just dried up," says Golden, who got her degree in traditional illustration. "I've sent out probably a hundred resumes from L.A. to Canada, but I haven't had a single response. Experienced people are getting laid off, so why would anyone take a chance on a college grad?"

Shortly after graduating this past January, Golden moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles hoping there would be more work available, only to find hiring freezes at most of the production studios and animation houses. She has looked into fields ranging from children's book publishing to T-shirt design, but no one is hiring. For now, she's doing her best to get by working part-time as a barista at Starbucks and sleeping on a friend's couch.

Golden has taken a three-month hardship deference on her student loans but is well aware that the longer she pushes off payments, the higher the interest will climb. She had hoped to consolidate her loans, which are now at $112,000, but every place she called either no longer handles consolidations or turned down Golden because she was not employed full-time. Since there's no way Golden could possibly make her $1,400-a-month payments on a part-time barista's salary, she brokered a temporarily reduced payment of $650.

"It doesn't even cover the interest," says Golden, "If I pay that for two years I'll wind up owing $150,000. But I can't see that I have any other choice."

As for her career future, Golden admits things look bleak.

"I'll probably have to go back to school to learn computer illustration," she says, acknowledging that this means racking up even more debt with still no guarantee of a job. She is wary given that so far, despite her work ethic and excellent grades, the higher education path hasn't paid off at all.

"My timing couldn't have been worse," she says, voice brimming with frustration. "I'm doing the exact same thing I was doing before I went to school, only now I have all this debt to carry around, too."

The economy these days looks frightening for just about everyone. Who would want to be a retiree with little to no earning potential, or a young family grappling with mortgage and child care payments while facing the possibility, or reality, of job loss? But imagine trying to enter the labor force right now, making career choices that could affect your entire earning future. How are college graduates supposed to juggle student loan payments with the realities of an imploding job market and family members too caught up in their own financial turmoil to help out? With all the attention focused on failing banks and government bailouts, the very legitimate panic felt by such graduates risks getting lost in the shuffle.

"Most of the recent graduates I hear from are petrified," says Alan Collinge, founder of Student Loan Justice, an organization that fights for student loan reform, and author of an upcoming book about the student loan industry. "They have yet to find real jobs in their field, so they're out there slinging hash to make ends meet. And then their loan payments come due."

Graduates like Golden are right to feel petrified. According to a recent College Board report, about 60 percent of 2007 college graduates had student debt, each taking out an average of $22,700 in loans. Graduates are expected to begin repaying within six months, healthy job market or no. Loans can be deferred, but never erased (unless you die or are permanently disabled). And when those payments do come due, many will face the prospect of paying back not only fixed-rate federal loans but also high-interest private loans. The private loan industry is now responsible for 24 percent of student lending. Before the economic crisis hit, it was the fastest-growing sector of the student loan industry. And though the $700 billion bailout bill includes provisions to enable the U.S. Treasury to buy troubled assets, including private loans, from student loan providers, it provides no relief for the students who have taken out such high-interest loans.

Collinge sees the proliferation of costly private loans and the abysmal job market as a potentially toxic mix, one that could result in a wave of bad loans echoing what has already happened in the housing industry.

"Attention needs to shift from welfare of the banks to welfare of the students," he offers. "Otherwise, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a dramatic spike in the number of people defaulting on their private loans."

Private loans weigh heavily on Rebecca Gretzinger's financial future. When her $20,000 in government aid wouldn't stretch far enough, she took out $20,000 in private loans from Sallie Mae in order to complete her bachelor's degree. Since graduating two years ago, she has been paying $150 every six months to hold her private loans in forbearance. But come December she'll need to come up with $640 a month in total loan payments -- 40 percent of her monthly income.

"I'm in my mid-twenties, and I'm still living with my parents," she says. "I don't have any resources to fall back on. I am very concerned that my private loans will be put into default once I have to start paying them back. "

Gretzinger works at an insurance company call center, a job that doesn't require a college degree. It's neither well paid -- her salary is based on commission -- nor stable -- she was laid off in April and then rehired in October -- and Gretzinger holds out little hope that she will be able to support herself, and her debt, on what she makes. She has tried searching for better jobs near her family home in Green Bay, Wis., but despite her degree in business administration with a minor in marketing, no one is hiring.

"I don't know what my plans for the future are," she says. "But I realize now that I will never be able to have children or even a house of my own. I went to college to better myself but found myself much, much worse off then I ever could have imagined."

Gretzinger concedes that she's lucky to have a job at all, and she's right. The nation's underemployment rate -- which includes not only the unemployed but also part-time workers who want full-time jobs and jobless workers who want but are no longer seeking full-time employment -- reached 11 percent in September, its highest rate in 19 years. For recent graduates landing in a job market that already contains more than 17 million underemployed, the prospects are indeed depressing.

For those unable to find adequately paying jobs, and there will be plenty, the consequences of defaulting on student loans can be life-altering, ranging from ruined credit reports to garnished wages to liens placed against property and bank accounts. Not even declaring bankruptcy can hold them exempt. In these dicey economic times, an inability to pay could deliver a crippling blow to young people who have barely had a chance to get their feet wet in the working world. Such realities only add to the disillusion many like Golden and Gretzinger are experiencing regarding the nation's investment in their educations and their futures.

"I no longer believe that my job is safe, and there are very few other jobs out there," Gretzinger says. "The rescue plan may help the banks, but it's not going to help me. I believe that it will take years to get this country back on its feet."

It seems all a graduate can do these days is hang on and hope the new administration brings about some kind of economic change that will work in their favor. But for many, hope feels like a pretty tenuous thing.

"I feel like I'm on the Titanic," says Golden. "Who got out first? The rich people. Everyone else was just left to drown."

For years, young people have been banking on the message that acquiring job skills and an education will pave the way to financial security. Instead, for many, the quest for a college degree has only dumped them even deeper into the financial pit. For a country depending on coming generations to get us out of the economic mess we currently find ourselves in, such lack of faith in a brighter future truly is a petrifying prospect.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/106445/

"Paying for Eight Years of Bush’s Delusions"

Truthdig - Reports - Paying for Eight Years of Bush's Delusions

American lawyers defending six Algerians before a habeas corpus hearing in Washington this week learned some very odd things about U.S. intelligence after 9/11. From among the millions of "raw" reports from American spies and their "assets" around the world came a CIA Middle East warning about a possible kamikaze-style air attack on a U.S. navy base at a south Pacific island location. The only problem was that no such navy base existed on the island and no U.S. Seventh Fleet warship had ever been there. In all seriousness, a U.S. military investigation earlier reported that Osama bin Laden had been spotted shopping at a post office on a U.S. military base in east Asia.

That this nonsense was disseminated around the world by those tasked to defend the United States in the "war on terror" shows the fantasy environment in which the Bush regime has existed these past eight years. If you can believe that bin Laden drops by a shopping mall on an American military base, then you can believe that everyone you arrest is a "terrorist", that Arabs are "terrorists", that they can be executed, that living "terrorists" must be tortured, that everything a tortured man says can be believed, that it is legitimate to invade sovereign states, to grab the telephone records of everyone in America. As Bob Herbert put it in The New York Times a couple of years ago, the Bush administration wanted these records "which contain crucial documentation of calls for a Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Indiana, and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Alabama, to help in the search for Osama bin Laden". There was no stopping Bush when it came to trampling on the US Constitution. All that was new was that he was now applying the same disrespect for liberty in America that he had shown in the rest of the world.

But how is Barack Obama going to repair the titanic damage which his vicious, lying predecessor has perpetrated around the globe and within the U.S. itself? John F Kennedy once said that "the United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." After Bush's fear-mongering and Rumsfeld's "shock and awe" and Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Guantanamo and secret renditions, how does Obama pedal his country all the way back to Camelot? Our own dear Gordon Brown's enthusiasm to Hoover up the emails of the British people is another example of how Lord Blair's sick relationship with Bush still infects our own body politic. Only days before the wretched president finally departs from us, new U.S. legislation will ensure that citizens of his lickspittle British ally will no longer be able to visit America without special security clearance. Does Bush have any more surprises for us before 20 January? Indeed, could anything surprise us any more?

Obama has got to close Guantanamo. He's got to find a way of apologising to the world for the crimes of his predecessor, not an easy task for a man who must show pride in his country; but saying sorry is what – internationally – he will have to do if the "change" he has been promoting at home is to have any meaning outside America's borders. He will have to re-think – and deconstruct – the whole "war on terror". He will have to get out of Iraq. He will have to call a halt to America's massive airbases in Iraq, its $600m embassy. He will have to end the blood-caked air strikes we are perpetrating in southern Afghanistan – why, oh, why do we keep slaughtering wedding parties? – and he will have to tell Israel a few home truths: that America can no longer remain uncritical in the face of Israeli army brutality and the colonisation for Jews and Jews only on Arab land. Obama will have to stand up at last to the Israeli lobby (it is, in fact, an Israeli Likud party lobby) and withdraw Bush's 2004 acceptance of Israel's claim to a significant portion of the West Bank. U.S. officials will have to talk to Iranian officials – and Hamas officials, for that matter. Obama will have to end U.S. strikes into Pakistan – and Syria.

Indeed, there's a growing concern among America's allies in the Middle East that the U.S. military has to be brought back under control – indeed, that the real reason for General David Petraeus' original appointment in Iraq was less to organise the "surge" than it was to bring discipline back to the 150,000 soldiers and marines whose mission – and morals – had become so warped by Bush's policies. There is some evidence, for example, that the four-helicopter strike into Syria last month, which killed eight people, was – if not a rogue operation – certainly not sanctioned by Washington or indeed by US commanders in Baghdad.

But Obama's not going to be able to make the break. He wants to draw down in Iraq in order to concentrate more firepower in Afghanistan. He's not going to take on the lobby in Washington and he's not going to stop further Jewish colonisation of the occupied territories or talk to Israel's enemies. With AIPAC supporter Rahm Emanuel as his new chief of staff – "our man in the White House," as the Israeli daily Maariv called him this week – Obama will toe the line. And of course, there's the terrible thought that bin Laden – when he's not shopping at U.S. military post offices – may be planning another atrocity to welcome the Obama presidency.

There is just one little problem, though, and that's the "missing" prisoners. Not the victims who have been (still are being?) tortured in Guantanamo, but the thousands who have simply disappeared into U.S. custody abroad or – with American help – into the prisons of U.S. allies. Some reports speak of 20,000 missing men, most of them Arabs, all of them Muslims. Where are they? Can they be freed now? Or are they dead? If Obama finds that he is inheriting mass graves from George W. Bush, there will be a lot of apologising to do.

"Citing ‘High Percentage Of Minority Vote’ In GA, Chambliss Laments Not Getting ‘Our Folks’ Out To Vote"

Think Progress » Citing 'High Percentage Of Minority Vote' In GA, Chambliss Laments Not Getting 'Our Folks' Out To Vote

In last week's election, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) received more votes than his Democratic challenger Jim Martin but fell 0.2 percent short of the 50-percent-plus needed under Georgia law to win the election. Both candidates are expected to be headed for a runoff election next month.

Last night on Fox News, when asked why he wasn't able to "close the deal" with Georgia voters on election day, Chambliss said that because of Barack Obama, there was a "high percentage of minority vote" and that his campaign wasn't "able to get enough of our folks out" to vote:

COLMES: Why do you think you've been unable…[to] close the deal with the people of Georgia in terms of what happened on Election Day?

CHAMBLISS: Well, listen, we have, for the first time in the history the our state, a 30-day advanced vote period, and let's give the Obama people credit. They did a good job of getting out their vote early.

There was a high percentage of minority vote, and I am tickled to death that as many Georgians as did examined their right to vote. That's what make our election process the envy of the whole free world, but we weren't able to get enough of our folks out on Election Day.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH1prP_kdhE

Apparently, when Chambliss refers to "our folks," he's talking about Georgia's white voters. He added that it's going to be a "challenge to get them out in the runoff" but that his campaign "look[s] forward to that challenge."

In fact, Chambliss has used racially loaded, us-versus-them rhetoric in this campaign before. Just prior to Nov. 4, Chambliss bluntly warned his white base that "the other folks are voting," adding that the "rush to the polls by African-Americans early" has "got our side energized early, they see what is happening."

However, it seems that Chambliss's base wasn't as energized as he thought.

Bailout Was Urgent, Oversight Not So Much

Bailout Was Urgent, Oversight Not So Much—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

This is beyond pathetic. ABC reports:

Lawmakers and the Bush Administration frantically hammered out a gargantuan package to save the nation's economy earlier this fall. But their efforts to recruit watchdogs for their creation have lacked the same urgency. Take the White House: it was supposed to name a special inspector general to eyeball the bailout, according to the emergency legislation President Bush signed into law Oct. 3. To date, though, no one has been named. Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said he "would expect" the president to pick someone before he leaves office next January. But, he said, "I can't give you a sense on timing of any personnel decisions."

Party leaders on Capitol Hill were supposed to name a special oversight commission to check how the bailout was using its legal authorities, according to the law. But over a month has passed without a single name put forward. "There have been some beginnings of internal discussions," a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said late last week. "Still working on names," said a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "No," said a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., when asked if her office had been talking with others about the panel. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not respond to requests for comment.

They might want to pick up the pace: the panel has its first report due Jan. 20, 2009, according to their legislation.

Cool Stuff: A Map of Marvel’s Manhattan from /Film

Cool Stuff: A Map of Marvel's Manhattan

I once saw this television special called Marvel Super Heroes' Guide To New York City, which was a basic travelogue using the famous locations featured in the Marvel Comics universe. I've always loved visiting locations from famous films, but this tv special took it to a new extreme - the famous locations of fictional events which were drawn in the pages of comic books.

I recently discovered a book by Peter Sanderson called The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City, which may have inspired the travel special (not quite sure…).

Earlier today I found this wonderful map of Marvel's Manhattan, that was originally published in Wizard Magazine Issue #199, published in March 2008. If only someone made a wall sized poster which included more locations. (hint hint, Marvel, hint!)

My friend Mike from Great White Snark comments "Not marked: spot where Spider-Man continuity for the last 20 years was erased."

via: Kottke

"The TARP continues it amazing morphing machinery, as it migrates miles and miles away from the original bill of goods sold to Congress."

TARPUS Interruptus

The TARP continues it amazing morphing machinery, as it migrates miles and miles away from the original bill of goods sold to Congress.

The government is abandoning the centerpiece of its $700 billion rescue effort for the financial system and will not use the money to purchase troubled bank assets.

Why? Because Treasury Secretary Paulson has finally figured out what many experts previously stated: that buying troubled asset purchases "not the most effective way to use TARP funds. "

Instead, we are finding all sort of new, unapproved and inefficient ways to spend the TARP. Everyone from GM to AMEX is up for some Federal (read taxpayer) largesse.

No matter. Hank the Destroyer said that we will continue to use $250 billion of the program — or, as it was known when he was helping to leverage up Goldman Sachs to unsustainable levels as "walking around money" — to recap bank stocks, bolster balance sheets and "encourage them to resume more normal lending."

Up next is an expansion into securitized credit card debt, auto loans and student loans.

And soon after, the government will start to guarantee new GE Capital debt.

Sweet Lou Takes NL Manager of the Year from Chicagoist by Marcus Gilmer

Sweet Lou Takes NL Manager of the Year

2008_11_12_lou.jpgUm...really? Don't get us wrong: it's great to see the Cubs capture more postseason hardware and we thought Lou did a pretty swell job and all but given the way the Cubs shat the bed in the playoffs and the job Charlie Manuel did with the Phillies - who, you know, actually won the World Series - or even Torre out in L.A., we were surprised to learn that Lou Piniella has been recognized as National League Manager of the Year. Even more surprising is the fact that Manuel was a distant second place in voting, 103 points to 67. (In case you were wondering, Tampa Bay's Joe Maddon won in the A.L.)

It's Lou's third Manager of the Year Award (he won in 1995 and 2001 for his work in Seattle). He led the Cubs to a 97-64 record, good enough for best in the N.L. and is the first manager in 100 years to lead the Cubs to back-to-back playoff appearances and he's been rightly rewarded with a contract extension that'll keep him in Cub Blue until 2010 at least. After the Dodger series debacle, he said, "I'm excited [about next year], but I want to do more than play the part of the good loser. I really do. I want to do more than play the part of congratulating the other team in the first round of the playoffs.

We love Lou and the job he's done as skipper for the Cubs; there's actually a ray of hope in the clubhouse worth believing in. After all, it's not Lou's fault that the offense went AWOL in October. Lou is a strength that gives the Cubs their best shot at ending this ridiculous drought (that has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CURSES) and while we think he did an admirable job managing this year...well, we're just saying we're surprised. That's all.

Update: Okay, so multiple commenters and readers have pointed out that the voting is all done prior to the post-season. In which case, yes, Lou deserves it and that makes my questioning completely moot. Thanks, for the heads-up, guys. I don't know how I've followed baseball this long and didn't know that...

AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

"There was never any reason to trust these people, and there still isn't. Klein offers a real way for Obama to fix the bailout package, and hopefully, he'll do that. "

The New Trough

I have been horrified at all the stories on the bailout, the lack of transparency, the utter corruption, the insider dealing, the contempt for the public, but I haven't been able to bring it all into a package to tell the story of what's going on.  Naomi Klein describes it in a must-read Rolling Stone article called 'The New Trough'.  The bailout hasn't forced banks to lend and it's not clear what the ultimate outcome is, but just one factoid is remarkable enough.
Party leaders on Capitol Hill were supposed to name a special oversight commission to check how the bailout was using its legal authorities, according to the law. But over a month has passed without a single name put forward.  "There have been some beginnings of internal discussions," a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said late last week. "Still working on names," said a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "No," said a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., when asked if her office had been talking with others about the panel. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not respond to requests for comment.
There was never any reason to trust these people, and there still isn't.  Klein offers a real way for Obama to fix the bailout package, and hopefully, he'll do that.

Obama’s Boys From Chicago from The Washington Independent by Ben Joravsky

Obama's Boys From Chicago

David Axelrod, Richard M. Daley and Rahm Emanuel (WDCpix and Wikimedia Commons)

David Axelrod, Richard M. Daley and Rahm Emanuel (WDCpix and Wikimedia Commons)

In the days following his election, it has become clear that President-elect Barack Obama is bringing a little bit of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley's City Hall to Washington.

The White House chief of staff will be Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a former Daley fund-raiser . Emanuel is stepping down from his district on the city's northwest side to help Obama govern.

Obama's senior adviser will be David Axelrod, a long-time friend and ally who wrote speeches and ran campaigns for Daley for almost 20 years.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

And a key player on the Obama transition team is none other than William Daley, the mayor's younger brother and who is rumored to be in line for a Cabinet post.

What will it mean for the country to have so many denizens of Chicago's City Hall in charge?

Well, speaking as a Chicagoan who's been watching these guys for years, you can put aside any notion that the White House will be run by left-wing ideologues. By and large, this is a bunch of pragmatic deal makers who view ideology — especially extreme left-wing ideology — as a weakness.

In this regard, they're a lot like their boss. Mayor Daley acts as though he's above ideology — in part because he has so much power he doesn't really need it. Yet for all his power — and, believe me, he controls absolutely everything in Chicago, including the city's legislative body — Daley is primarily a deal maker. He'd rather win you over than roll you over, though he relishes the second option if the first one fails.

That may explain why Daley seems to have a deep affinity for Republicans, especially President George W. Bush. In the aftermath of the 2004 presidential campaign, Daley sang in the Karl Rove chorus, assailing the national Democratic Party as a collection of "Washington elites" who lost the election because they "don't like faith-based organizations" or people "who might read the Bible or read the Koran."

I don't know why Daley was so harsh on Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. Kerry only had nice words for him.

But I've always felt that Daley got along with Republicans because he knew they couldn't, or wouldn't, challenge his dominance in a Democratic town like Chicago. In contrast, his Democratic underlings — everyone from aldermen to congressmen — are constantly maneuvering to be well-positioned to replace him when he leaves office. After awhile, that sort of ceaseless plotting can make even the most powerful of politicians paranoid. In fact, I suspect  Daley endorsed Obama for president to get him out of Chicago once and for all.

In any event, Daley's admiration for Republicans is mutual. In 2006, Bush spent his 60th birthday whooping it up with Daley at a restaurant on the city's near south side. More important, the president has poured in more than $15 billion to help Daley expand O'Hare Airport — a huge boondoggle in which the city forced hundreds of homeowners in Bensenville, an adjoining predominantly Republican suburb, to sell their homes. As you can see, power politics is truly a bipartisan affair in Chicago.

William Daley has picked up his brother's affinity for Republicans. so much so that if young William had not been raised in the household of his father, the legendary Democratic Party chieftain, Mayor Richard J. Daley, I doubt he would even be a Democrat.

Examine William Daley's resume, and you'll see he's essentially a businessman who would fit in well with what's left of the moderate wing of the Republican Party. He was vice chairman of Amalgamated Bank, and then a partner in a corporate law firm before President Bill Clinton brought him to Washington as a special counsel. He soon upset the Democratic union base by helping negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

OK, so Daley did spend a stint as a Democratic partisan when he chaired Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. But less than a year later, he went to work as president of SBC Communications, the giant phone company based in San Antonio, Tex. Daley went from fighting Republicans to urging their legislators and regulators to pass legislation that, as The New York Times put it, "would make it easier" for SBC "to roll out high-speed Internet service." That, my friends, is flexibility.

Now, it's true that Emanuel enjoys beating up Republicans. But I sense he does so more out of a love of winning than advancing any particular Democratic ideology.  He reminds me of Frank Kruesi, Donald Tomczak, Tim Degnan and other great mayoral arm twisters who terrorized City Hall on behalf of Mayor Daley through the years.

Guys like these never seemed happier than when wielding the considerable power they spent their days accumulating. If they have a philosophy, it's a simple one: "Crush your friends — just for the heck of it."

In the long run, I predict Emanuel will be reviled as much, if not more, by Democrats as Republicans, who won't feel quite as much pressure to obey his commands.

Finally, there's Axelrod, the spin artist supreme. He's at his best on election night, when he parades before the cameras to explain why a loss for his candidate is really a victory, or a victory for the opposition is really a loss. For awhile I was starting to think his reputation was overrated — after all, how hard can it be to run the campaigns of an unbeatable mayor like Daley?

But in retrospect, I've come to realize that it can't be easy making the Daley Machine look efficient and smart.

Not to bore you with too many sordid details from my hometown. But consider the four years preceding Daley's 2007 run for reelection. His administration got nailed for awarding $100 million in affirmative-action contracts to a politically connected white-owned firm. His top City Hall aide went to prison for overseeing a hiring operation rigged to favor the well-connected over the well-qualified in tests and interviews. There was the Hired Truck scandal, in which his transportation, streets and sanitation departments doled out $40 million worth of contracts to private truck drivers who did little more than campaign for the Machine on Election Day. And some city employees got nailed for running a heroin operation out of his Water Department.

Have I forgotten anything? Oh, yes, the Red Line and the Blue Line — two of the city's main train lines — fell apart for lack of regular repairs.

Yet, with Axelrod writing the propaganda and running the campaign, Daley still won re-election with more than 70 percent of the vote. That proves that either Axelrod's a genius or the voters of Chicago are fools.

Either way, spinning for the White House will be a breeze.

Ben Joravsky is a staff writer for Chicago Reader newspaper, where he writes a weekly column about politics, and the co-author of Against the Tide: The Middle Class in Chicago.

Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' on bus: report from Raw Story Breaking News

Idaho students chant 'assassinate Obama' on bus: report

Maddow: New Bush rule kicks Patriot Act foes 'in the teeth' from Raw Story Breaking News

Maddow: New Bush rule kicks Patriot Act foes 'in the teeth'

The Evolution of the USS Enterprise from /Film

The Evolution of the USS Enterprise

Yesterday, Paramount released the first full photo of the USS Enterprise from JJ Abrams' Star Trek. In an attempt to compare old vs. new, I accidently posted a photo of the NCC-1701-A instead of the NCC-1701 from the Original Series (aka TOS). I was quickly blasted corrected by a few knowledgeable Trekkies. Truth be told, I've watched a lot of Trek over the years, but for me, the shows and movies have always remained passive entertainment. So tonight I thought I'd give myself a refresher and put together an "Evolution of the USS Enterprise". Click on the image below to enlarge. Enjoy!

Related Stories

Needy Dick Fuld Selling Art For Millions [Money Matters] from Gawker

Needy Dick Fuld Selling Art For Millions [Money Matters]

Poor failed investment bank Lehman Bros. is selling $8 million worth of art that used to inspire I-bankers to create beautiful works of finance, but now is just sitting around waiting to be liquidated in order to pay off creditors. Sad. But also appropriate! Because Richard "Dick" Fuld, the ex-CEO who ran Lehman into the ground, is auctioning off some of his own personal art collection tonight—and he was smart enough to get a $20 million guarantee for it, just before everything went to hell!:

The sale of drawings from the Fulds' collection, including three Willem de Koonings, was announced a few days after Lehman declared bankruptcy in September. The Fulds still own a sizable art collection and five homes, including a $21m Manhattan apartment.

Remember how earlier this year we thought Dick Fuld got knocked out in the company gym, but it turned out that it probably didn't happen? Well now he has an extra $20 million. Hm.

[Guardian UK]

Podesta Promises 'Strictest' Ethics Rules from All Content | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Podesta Promises 'Strictest' Ethics Rules

Lobbyists Swarm the Treasury for Piece of Bailout Pie from All Content | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Lobbyists Swarm the Treasury for Piece of Bailout Pie

Palin 2012: Electoral Records of Previous Losing VP Nominees Does Not Bode Well for Alaska Gov from Pensito Review

Palin 2012: Electoral Records of Previous Losing VP Nominees Does Not Bode Well for Alaska Gov

In the Last 45 Elections, Just Three Losing V.P. Nominees Have Gone on to Lead Tickets, And Only One of Them Won the Presidency

The 2008 election is barely a week old, but the punditocracy has already moved on to 2012, focusing on the political future of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the failed vice presidential candidate, whom many conservatives consider to be the next GOP frontrunner.
If history is a guide, however, chances are slim that Palin will survive the primaries in four years, and even if she does, her odds of winning the presidency are even slimmer.
If history is a guide, however, chances are slim that Palin will survive the primaries in four years, and even if she does, her odds of winning the presidency are even slimmer. In fact, based on past performances by losing vice presidential nominees (see chart below), Sarah Palin's chances of becoming president at any point in the future are 45 to 1, at best.

It is not uncommon for losing vice presidential nominees to run for the big job, of course. Most recently John Edwards (who lost with John Kerry in 2004) and Joe Lieberman (Gore, 2000) have run but lost in the primaries. In 1999, former Vice Pres. Dan Quayle, whose ticket with the senior Pres. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992, briefly ran against George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries.

Other losing vice presidential nominees who later ran but were not nominated include Democrat Edmund Muskie, who lost to Richard Nixon on the ticket with Vice Pres. Hubert Humphrey in 1968; Republican Earl Warren, the former California governor and eventual Supreme Court chief justice, who ran with Thomas E. Dewey against Pres. Harry Truman in 1948; and Nicholas M. Butler, who ran with GOP Pres. William H. Taft against Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

In the last 45 cycles, only three losing V.P. nominees have gone on to lead tickets. Former Vice Pres. Walter Mondale, who lost to Reagan with Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980, lost again to Reagan in 1984 (with running mate Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential candidate). In 1996, Bob Dole, who ran in 1976 on the losing ticket with Pres. Gerald Ford, led the ticket in 1996 that lost to Pres. Bill Clinton.

Obama to Send Bipartisan Team to G-20 Summit from The Washington Independent

Obama to Send Bipartisan Team to G-20 Summit

With news that President-elect Barack Obama will not attend President George W. Bush's summit on the global financial crisis, onlookers might be forgiven for wondering, "What's the point?"

Bush is leaving office in two months, and the responsibility for formulating a policy to manage the world's economic slowdown will fall to a new administration with a different set of priorities.

However, the Obama-Biden transition team announced today that it plans to send a pair of representatives to the summit to meet with members of the G-20 delegations. Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) "will be available for these unofficial meetings to seek input from visiting delegations on behalf of the president-elect and vice president-elect." Per the transition team, Albright and Leach will brief Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden following the summit.

Albright is one of a growing number of former Clintonites working on the transition. Others include transition co-chair John Podesta, economic transition advisors Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Leach, who supported Obama during the campaign and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, might seem an ironic choice — he co-authored the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated the banking industry. Many have criticized the measure for laying the groundwork for the Wall Street meltdown — a notion that has been challenged by economists on the left and right.

Regardless, the Albright-Leach announcement is a further indication that the new administration intends to adopt a centrist, bipartisan approach to problem-solving, rather than pursuing the "radical left" agenda feared on the right.

XM and Sirius channels merge at long last from Engadget

XM and Sirius channels merge at long last

Oil producing nations preparing for $45 oil from BloggingStocks by Joseph Lazzaro

Oil producing nations preparing for $45 oil

Can Sirius XM Radio (SIRI) survive? from BloggingStocks by Jamie Dlugosch

Can Sirius XM Radio (SIRI) survive?

Trickle Down Effects of Letting U.S. Automakers Go Bankrupt

Trickle Down Effects of Letting U.S. Automakers Go Bankrupt

This is a guest post by Steadfast Finances' Matt.

The U.S. Government just handed out 700 Billion Dollars bailing out Wall Street, and now the major U.S. automakers are headed to Washington hat in hand asking for the same treatment.

Why, you ask?

Because they're too large, too inefficient, and have essentially gotten their collective butts kicked by foreign automakers since the 1980s.

Anyone who lived through the 80s was introduced to the frightening concept that a foreign country – in this case Japan – was gaining a strong economic foothold on our soil by out-competing our nation's leading automakers. We also awoke to the very real concept that our vehicles were not considered the gold standard as we had been led to believe.

How did foreign automakers find such success? The experts would likely debate the specifics, but the Cliff Notes answer would be:

Productivity - more efficient manufacturing methodology.
Reliability – foreign cars had fewer maintenance issues after purchase.
Operating costs – lower maintenance costs and improved gas mileage.

Now, fast forward to the current economic crisis and ponder this question: Did the Big Three learn their lesson from history's past?

Apparently not, considering the size of the hole they have dug for themselves.

With the current downturn in the U.S. economy, and the subsequent tightening of the credit markets, the Big Three automakers once again find themselves in a quagmire. But this time, they're not looking to beat the competition by redesigning a classic American muscle car or run a nationwide clearance sale using zero percent financing incentives.

This time, they are fighting for their very existence, or at the very least, to stave off bankruptcy.
Regardless of whether we the taxpayers feel the automakers should go bankrupt or not, we should begin to consider the potential fallout of letting them go bankrupt, or worse, permanently out of business.

The Trickle Down Effects of U.S. Automakers going out of business

1. The Big Three shut down manufacturing plants. Hundreds of thousands of Big Three auto workers will potentially lose their jobs. Not just blue collar jobs, but white collar office workers as well. This includes everything from main line assembly workers, accountants, finance experts, and goes all the way to the lowly janitor.

2. Demand for replacement parts plummets.
Auto parts suppliers cut their work force in response to lower number of cars being produced.

3. Reduced need for auto financing. Fewer people can buy new cars due to tightening credit market. Auto financing, from auto specific lenders like GMAC or even the friendly neighborhood bank, see reduced profits from the lower volume of new car loans being written.

4. Unemployed workers begin a downward debt spiral.
Former employees begin to default on personal debts. Home foreclosures, credit card defaults, and auto repossessions begin to increase.

5. Local businesses dependent upon auto industry related income also decline. Businesses that sprang up around the manufacturing plants will see business decline due to fewer paying customers, and could potentially go out of business themselves.

6. Cities and towns see devaluation in local real estate market. With an increase in foreclosures, and more homes on the market than people are willing to buy, the law of supply and demand drive home prices lower with each passing month.

7. Local and state governments begin see lower tax revenues. Income and property taxes are the lifeblood of any local government's tax revenues, so as the two largest forms of incomes begin to dwindle, preplanned budgets begin to see dramatic scale backs in funding.

All this may sound like "doom & gloom" rhetoric, but the early warning signs are now becoming visible. The Bush administration has supposedly rebuffed General Motors and Chrysler in their attempts for a government funded merger, and auto parts supplier ArvinMeritor recently cut 7% of its workforce due to "difficult market conditions".

Even state governors have gotten into the act by proactively lobbying Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke specifically to take "immediate action" to ease the potential shockwave of massive job losses. Not surprisingly, state governments see the potential writing on the wall, and are taking as much of an active role as the current situation allows.

The jury is still out regarding the future of the Big Three automakers, but it will certainly be watched with much anticipation by the top echelon of big business, and perhaps more importantly, by the American taxpayer.

# # #

Matt, a full-time, independent trader, has been an active investor since 1998. He started Steadfast Finances after spending a substantial amount of time discussing financial advice with family and friends, who basically didn't know all that much about investing.

His goal is to educate those who want to know how to grow their money beyond a money market account or buying an index fund can provide, while throwing in a few personal finance tips along the way.

The 6 Most Unintentionally Hilarious Old School PSAs

The 6 Most Unintentionally Hilarious Old School PSAs | Cracked.com
These are must see....

video: Howard Stern's Artie Lange on Conan 11-11-08


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEMOYAmzVek

video: 'Cynical world-views aside, this is freakin’ ADORABLE"

This Baby Is Drunk On Power

There's nothing more amazing than having a huge crowd of foaming-at-the-mouth Phillies fans in the palm of your tiny toddler hand. When I clicked on this, the top comment on it was as follows: "I feel sorry for this little guy. Where does he go from here? Most of us spend our whole lives failing to get one person's attention." So true. So so true. Cynical world-views aside, this is freakin' ADORABLE:


Cosmetic surgery addict injected cooking oil into her own face

Cosmetic surgery addict injected cooking oil into her own face

Cosmetic surgery addict injected cooking oil into her own face - Telegraph


Hang Mioku

Hang Mioku

Hang Mioku

Hang Mioku, now 48, had her first plastic surgery procedure when she was 28; hooked from the beginning she moved to Japan where she had further operations - mostly to her face.

Following operation after operation, her face was eventually left enlarged and disfigured, but she would still look at herself in the mirror and think she was beautiful.

Eventually the surgeons she visited refused to carry out any more work on her and one suggested that her obsession could be a sign of a psychological disorder.

When she returned home to Korea the surgery meant Hang's features had changed so much that her own parents didn't recognise her.

After realising that the girl with the grossly swollen face was indeed their daughter her horrified parents took her to a doctor. Once again the possibility that Hang had a mental disorder was raised and she started treatment.

However, this treatment was too expensive for her to keep up and she soon fell back into old ways.

Amazingly, she found a doctor who was willing to give her silicone injects and, what's more, he then gave her a syringe and silicone of her own so she could self-inject.

When her supply of silicone ran out Hang resorted to injecting cooking oil into her face.

Her face became so grotesquely large that she was called "standing fan" by children in her neighbourhood - due to her large face and small body.

As Hang's notoriety spread she was featured on Korean TV. Viewers seeing the report took mercy on her and sent in enough donations to enable her to have surgery to reduce the size of her face.

During the first procedure surgeons removed 60g of foreign substance from Hang's face and 200g from her neck.

After several other sessions her face was left greatly reduced but still scarred and disfigured.

And it would seem that even Hang can now see the damage she has done; she now says that she would simply like her original face back.

"American Express won U.S. Federal Reserve approval to become a bank holding company — giving it access to the bailout party as credit card defaults climb"

American Express Becomes A Bank... And Wants Bailout Money [Bailout]

American Express won U.S. Federal Reserve approval to become a bank holding company — giving it access to the bailout party as credit card defaults climb. Bloomberg News says that the Fed waived the usual 30 day waiting period because (in the words of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke) we're experiencing "unusual and exigent circumstances affecting the financial markets." Today, American Express has requested $3.5 billion in taxpayer-funded capital from the federal government, says the WSJ.

From the Wall Street Journal:

While retailers, car companies and others hit by the slowdown in consumer spending haven't gotten the government money, financial firms of all kinds are getting federal bailouts.

It isn't clear if the application under the Troubled Asset Relief Program came before or after the credit- and charge-card giant got Federal Reserve approval Monday to become a bank-holding company.

Amex's shares are down 57% this year as even affluent consumers keep their plastic in their wallets. The WSJ says that it is unclear how Amex would use the money — and that it's clear that $3.5 billion won't help with the consumer spending slump.

Notoriously slime-filled credit card issuer Capital One has already received approval for $3.5 billion in bailout cash.

AmEx Said to Request $3.5 Billion in U.S. Aid [WSJ] (Thanks, Jameson!)
American Express Wins Fed Approval to Become Bank (Update1) [Bloomberg]

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

from Official Google Blog by A Googler - Tracking flu trends

Tracking flu trends

Like many Googlers, we're fascinated by trends in online search queries. Whether you're interested in U.S. elections, today's hot trends, or each year's Zeitgeist, patterns in Google search queries can be very informative. Last year, a small team of software engineers began to explore if we could go beyond simple trends and accurately model real-world phenomena using patterns in search queries. After meeting with the public health gurus on Google.org's Predict and Prevent team, we decided to focus on outbreaks of infectious disease, which are responsible for millions of deaths around the world each year. You've probably heard of one such disease: influenza, commonly known as "the flu," which is responsible for up to 500,000 deaths worldwide each year. If you or your kids have ever caught the flu, you know just how awful it can be.

Our team found that certain aggregated search queries tend to be very common during flu season each year. We compared these aggregated queries against data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and we found that there's a very close relationship between the frequency of these search queries and the number of people who are experiencing flu-like symptoms each week. As a result, if we tally each day's flu-related search queries, we can estimate how many people have a flu-like illness. Based on this discovery, we have launched Google Flu Trends, where you can find up-to-date influenza-related activity estimates for each of the 50 states in the U.S.

The CDC does a great job of surveying real doctors and patients to accurately track the flu, so why bother with estimates from aggregated search queries? It turns out that traditional flu surveillance systems take 1-2 weeks to collect and release surveillance data, but Google search queries can be automatically counted very quickly. By making our flu estimates available each day, Google Flu Trends may provide an early-warning system for outbreaks of influenza.

For epidemiologists, this is an exciting development, because early detection of a disease outbreak can reduce the number of people affected. If a new strain of influenza virus emerges under certain conditions, a pandemic could emerge and cause millions of deaths (as happened, for example, in 1918). Our up-to-date influenza estimates may enable public health officials and health professionals to better respond to seasonal epidemics and — though we hope never to find out — pandemics.

We shared our preliminary results with the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch of the Influenza Division at CDC throughout the 2007-2008 flu season, and together we saw that our search-based flu estimates had a consistently strong correlation with real CDC surveillance data. Our system is still very experimental, so anything is possible, but we're hoping to see similar correlations in the coming year.

We couldn't have created such good models without aggregating hundreds of billions of individual searches going back to 2003. Of course, we're keenly aware of the trust that users place in us and of our responsibility to protect their privacy. Flu Trends can never be used to identify individual users because we rely on anonymized, aggregated counts of how often certain search queries occur each week. The patterns we observe in the data are only meaningful across large populations of Google search users.

Flu season is here, so avoid becoming part of our statistics and get a flu shot! And keep an eye on those graphs if you're curious to see how the flu season unfolds...

Posted by Jeremy Ginsberg and Matt Mohebbi, Software Engineers

"Someone in Obama's camp leaked this info to the New York Times, which led someone in the Bush camp to leak a "we're not very happy with that" story to Drudge! "

Do We See Rahm's Knife Marks on Obama's Leak to the NYT? [Working 'with' The Press]

Hey, so, a little bit of news came out of the historic Bush/Obama handover transition secret White House surprise meeting. Details of what the president and the president-elect talked about were leaked to the press: apparently Obama tried to convince Bush to bail out the auto industry, and Bush said he might if Obama supports CAFTA. Hey, you know what the real news is, here? Someone in Obama's camp leaked this info to the New York Times, which led someone in the Bush camp to leak a "we're not very happy with that" story to Drudge! Whee! We think we know who's responsible, and he's a dreamboat.

Let's closely examine these two paragraphs from the New York Times exclusive on the Oval Office meeting:

While Mr. Obama campaigned on a promise of bipartisan conciliation, his choice for his White House chief of staff, Representative Rahm Emanuel, indicated on Sunday that no such deal linking auto-industry aid and a stimulus package with trade pacts was in the cards. "You don't link those essential needs to some other trade deal," Mr. Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week."

Democrats close to both Mr. Obama's transition team and to Congressional leaders seemed willing to call Mr. Bush's bluff, calculating that he would not want to gamble that G.M. — an iconic, century-old American corporation with business tentacles in every state — would fail on his watch and add to the negative notes of his legacy.

Hmm..... who is both close to Mr. Obama's transition team and to Congressional leaders? Who'd take a hard-line stance and threaten to call the president's bluff? Who'd use the Times to undermine the sitting president and make Obama look ready to support the auto industry if it weren't for stupid Bush and his stupid free-trade agreement?

Maybe, just maybe, Congressional Democratic leader and Obama chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel! You know, the same Rahm Emanuel who is known for just calling up Times reporters to shoot the breeze! Like when, as Ben Smith reported, he called up Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse for a nice little chat.

The Bush people fired back:

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

As for who this is, who went crying to Drudge, we don't know and don't care. Lame duck! Losers! Just go away and let Obama buy Detroit a million fuel-efficient puppies!

Lindsay Lohan: "...obliged with warm, hoarse words about "our nation's first colored president.""

Lindsay Lohan Filled With Pride Over Nation's 'First Colored President' [Poor Word Choice]

Though Lindsay Lohan has recently revealed herself to be a stickler for semantics, we have a feeling there's a word or two in her recent interview with Access Hollywood that she might want to take back right around now.

Maria Menounos quizzed the part-time actress on her reaction to Barack Obama's historic victory, and Lohan (clearly still reeling from the use of Homer Simpson's makeup gun) obliged with warm, hoarse words about "our nation's first colored president." That is maybe not how we would have put it, but neither would we have starred in the Chris Parnell vehicle Labor Pains. Someone's gotta be at the vanguard!

"Obama placed flowers at a bronze memorial at Chicago's Soldier Field with Tammy Duckworth, a disabled Iraq war veteran who serves as director of the department of veterans affairs for Illinois."

Obama marks Veterans Day

Obama marks Veterans Day

US president-elect Barack Obama Tuesday echoed a time-honored presidential tradition Tuesday by laying a wreath at a memorial to mark Veterans Day in the United States.

Obama placed flowers at a bronze memorial at Chicago's Soldier Field with Tammy Duckworth, a disabled Iraq war veteran who serves as director of the department of veterans affairs for Illinois.

The president-elect briefly bowed his head, saluted and walked away. Only a few dozen spectators were on hand.

In a statement, Obama said: "Our veterans are part of an unbroken line of heroes who have defended the American people and stood up for American values" throughout US history.

He took the chance to pledge support for the military under his administration after taking office in January.

"On this Veterans Day, let us rededicate ourselves to keep a sacred trust with all who have worn the uniform of the United States of America: that America will serve you as well as you have served your country," he said.

"As your next commander-in-chief, I promise to work every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served."


"I would recommend the FEC closely examine the McCain campaign’s billing of the media. This was a much-discussed potential scandal among the reporters on the McCain plane that never got reported, I suspect, for fear of getting kicked off the plane."

McCain Camp Faces Mandatory FEC Audit

Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

Now that Sen. John McCain has officially lost the presidency, Politico reminds him that he still has an audit to look forward to.

According to the report, President-elect Barack Obama, who opted out of public financing for his general election bid, will likely avoid an examination of his campaign's books by the Federal Election Commission. Because McCain did accept public funding, an FEC audit is mandatory, at the campaign's expense. Fortunately for him, Politico reports the McCain campaign allocated $9.4 million to pay for it.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more – allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations – but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.

I would recommend the FEC closely examine the McCain campaign's billing of the media. This was a much-discussed potential scandal among the reporters on the McCain plane that never got reported, I suspect, for fear of getting kicked off the plane.

I never flew on the Obama plane, so I can't say if this was an issue there as well. However, it was not uncommon to hear complaints from reporters on the McCain plane about being billed $150 for a lunch that they were not even able to eat because they were on pool duty.

Here's a sample of some of the charges from one receipt I received from the McCain campaign:

7/7/2008 396 DENVER CENTER FOR WI-FI $191.06

7/15/2008 402 BREAKFAST $82.23

7/16/2008 411 DUKE ENERGY CENTE WI-FI $205.85

7/17/2008 414 BREAKFAST $60.58

The meals were never extravagant. Breakfast almost always consisted of a standard buffet of eggs, potatoes, sausage/bacon, coffee and juice, a selection of cereals, etc. How that could possibly cost $82 per head is quite a mystery. Similarly, $205 for wireless Internet at a rally venue seems a tad expensive.

Perhaps the campaign was just paying whatever a vendor asked, and not caring because they would simply pass the costs on to the media outlets. Either that, or the media appears to have been illegally subsidizing the campaign.

Watch Out For Illegal "MB Image World" Charges On Your Bank Account

Watch Out For Illegal "MB Image World" Charges On Your Bank Account [Scams]

Watch out for a charge on your checking account for a charge from "MB Image World." People are complaining that the porn site, that they've never done business with or gave their account information to, is fraudulently issuing electronic check charges for $39.99. If they hit you, report the item to your bank as fraud and reverse the charges.

866-878-7962 [800notes] (Thanks to jurijuri!) (Photo: Getty)

Rumor: "According to one Democratic senator, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been discussing the possibility of holding major hearings to examine the activities of the Bush Administration."

Rumors: Congress To Investigate Bush In Obama Era?

Here's something interesting from my favorite new Washington gossip blog, Unattributable:

According to one Democratic senator, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been discussing the possibility of holding major hearings to examine the activities of the Bush Administration.

The form and scope of such hearings have yet to be determined, but this senator, and member of the Senate Judicial Committee, is pressing for something along the lines of Church-Pike–a bicameral endeavor that would address the full range of executive misdeeds.

For those unfamiliar with what blogger Constance means by "Church-Pike," she's referring to the landmark House and Senate investigations of the 1970s into intelligence abuses that discovered a massive amount of sanctioned illegality, including assassinations, domestic spying and more. Correcting the abuses discovered by the Church-Pike hearings are the reason we have, for example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Church-Pike basically cleaved the intelligence community into "before" and "after" eras. Depending on your politics, you see it as either a watershed moment for open government or a watershed moment for Congress to infringe on the president's prerogatives.

To do this again would be a huge, huge undertaking, so I'm skeptical. Constance's item says the Senate leadership isn't really on board with the idea, and it's not hard to see why: the GOP will spin any effort at post-facto accountability as a backward-looking partisan witch hunt. But so much about torture, warrantless surveillance, and extraordinary rendition remains unknown thanks to the Bush administration's utter refusal to declassify important information. And if that remains the case, it's hard to see how administrations to come feel any incentive to follow laws that the Bush team either undermined or flat-out broke.

If this does happen — a big if — keep an eye on Sens. Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein and Sheldon Whitehouse. They're the Democratic senators on both the judiciary and the intelligence committees. (No Republicans are on both committees.) That dual perch gives them a massive advantage in any prospective accountability hearings, and no small amount of power.

Hasselbeck continues to degrade herself with her stupidity: "Hasselbeck: Veterans Day not for ‘complaining’ about war "

Hasselbeck: Veterans Day not for 'complaining' about war

Hasselbeck: Veterans Day not for 'complaining' about war

Co-hosts of ABC's The View argued over the proper way to honor veterans on Veterans Day. Joy Behar said that major newspapers failed to remember the costs of war on their front pages.

Hasselbeck countered that this wasn't a day to "gripe" about the costs of war. "This is not the day for that. We have 23 million Americans fighting right now who have served our country. They have spent their lives dedicated to our country. Today is a day to honor their quiet courage."

Behar disagreed. "I'm not complaining about the boys and girls in the war. I am saluting them by talking about what the trials and tribulations have been because of this war," said Behar.

This video is from ABC's The View, broadcast Nov. 11, 2008.

Download video via RawReplay.com


"One of the teacher's aides ... said that Obama was going to be shot and killed,"

Pennsylvania teacher's aide said Obama would be shot

Pennsylvania teacher's aide said Obama would be shot

The mother of a sixteen-year-old student in the Allison Park suburb of Pittsburgh was shocked when her daughter repeated disparaging remarks made about Barack Obama by a teacher's aide at her vocational high school.

"One of the teacher's aides ... said that Obama was going to be shot and killed," Mara Gilligan told KDKA News. "And that our flag is going to be the KFC [Kentucky Fried Chicken] flag and that the new national anthem will be 'Moving On Up' -- and that all my daughter's beliefs were wrong and her children's lives were going to be ruined because Obama was elected."

Gilligan, who is white, said that her biracial daughter took the comments personally. "Being biracial, she was overjoyed that someone of color was elected, and she was so happy and excited to come to school. And for this teacher to yell these things at her and her fellow classmates was just unbelievable."

A teacher at the A.W. Beattie Career Center who overheard the comments filed a complaint with the principal, and Gilligan has since received an email from the administrative director saying the aide would be suspended and disciplined. However, the school would not comment to KDKA on the story.

"You don't have to yell at other people, especially our youth that are excited about the election," Gilligan concluded. "I mean, anybody should want that to happen, especially a teacher, and for you to destroy that joy that they have because of an election is terrible."

Southwestern Pennsylvania was repeatedly cited during the presidential campaign as a stronghold of racist attitudes, and even Rep. John Murtha, who represents a district east of Pittsburgh, aroused controversy when he referred to many of his own constituents as racists.

Two organizations which have been described as explicitly racist appear to be located in Allison Park, where the incident occurred -- the American National Union, which has its mailing address there, and a chapter of the Citizens Councils of America.

The KDKA News story is available here.


This video is from KDKA, broadcast Nov. 10, 2008.


Download video via RawReplay.com


" IT WAS THESE EXACT PRACTICES THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! They were called ‘interest only’ and ‘The Pay Option ARM’."

Fannie's NEW BIG PLAN Keeps Borrowers Underwater in Neg-Am's & Teasers

Their great new big plan to save the housing sector involves giving 40-year terms, adding balances to the end of the loan and offering teaser rates.  IT WAS THESE EXACT PRACTICES THAT GOT US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! They were called 'interest only' and 'The Pay Option ARM'.

This 'new' is nothing new at all. It is simply an aggregation of a bunch of stuff brought forth previously that just makes everyone renters. The government's new plan of reducing rates, extending terms and allowing negative amortization is done primarily to keep borrowers from walking and renting by competing with rentals. Why walk from your home when you can essentially rent your own home for the same? That is what the government is banking on.

In doing this the borrower stays underwater and highly leveraged.

This new plan certainly does not instill any confidence in the housing market - it makes everyone much more opaque.

Its sad when it takes reducing rates to 1-2%

This plan does not solve the problem - that home owners are hopelessly underwater and over-leveraged to their home. They can't sell or refi.  In turn, they are making a wise financial decision and waling away. Negative equity cuts across all loan types and borrower demographics.

Another main problem is that the borrowers have to produce income documentation. Remember, in the Alt-A universe 83% of all loans were limited documentation (stated income).  In the Subprime universe 55% were stated income and in the Prime world, some 35% were limited documentation.  How many that lied on their original loan application will be willing to give the real information now?

The solution announced today simply turns home owners into leveraged renters because banks refuse to reduce the principal balance.  Until principal is waived for good, no solution will work.

I highly urge you to read the two posts below regarding the terrible solutions being brought forth by the government. - Best, Mr Mortgage

Some local polling results in Chicago

The Beachwood Reporter

The [Tuesday] Papers

By Steve Rhodes /

Fun with numbers, via a Tribune graphic on Sunday:

* The 21st Ward delivered the most votes for Obama: 30,059. Alderman: Howard Brookins.

* The 12th Ward delivered the least votes for Obama: 6,188. Alderman: George Cardenas.

* The 41st Ward delivered the most votes for McCain: 11,858. Alderman: Brian Doherty, the council's lone Republican.

* The 17th Ward delivered the least votes for McCain: 95. Alderman: Latasha Thomas.

Yes, that's right. Just 95 people in the 17th Ward voted for John McCain. Voting for Obama: 23,379.

* McCain didn't win a single Chicago ward, which is unsurprising, but still interesting to note. He came closest in the 41st, of course (15,096 to 11,858 for Obama).

* McCain won the following Cook County Townships: Barrington, Lemont, and Orland.

* Thornton Township cast the most votes in Cook County for Obama: 67,406 (9,686 for McCain).

-

"Having gone over the numbers several times, I still can't get over the rock-solid support black Chicago gave President-elect Barack Obama in Tuesday's elections," Ben Joravsky writes. "The pollsters coming in to the election predicted Obama would win at least 90 percent of the black vote nationwide. But in Chicago it was over 99 percent - at least in the five wards that are almost 100 percent black. To be exact, he won 99.27 percent of the vote in the 6th Ward, 99.19 percent in the 8th, 99.24 percent in the 21st, 99.21 percent in the 24th, and 99.40 percent in the 34th."

Boss Hogs
"You may think a Cook County commissioner is well paid at $85,000 dollars a year," Dane Placko reports. "But now, Fox Chicago News reveals how some commissioners are giving themselves a back-door pay raise."

This is the first of a two-part series; the conclusion is tonight.

Fox has also posted the expense reports of county commissioners; you can get there through the link above.

Memory Hole
The Sun-Times said in an editorial on Monday that "We worry about Mayor Daley's memory."

Maybe it ought to worry about its own.

The paper, reacting to the mayor's convenient memory lapses when it comes to untoward business being conducted in his name, cautions that Daley "should remember one critical fact. If they get the brush-off too many times, voters don't forget."

Apparently, as pointed out in a letter to the editor today (second item), we haven't reached "one too many times" yet after 19 years of Daley rule. And neither has the Sun-Times, which will undoubtedly continue endorsing Daley just as it has in the past.

"Citi will adjust loans by reducing the principal owed, extending the term of the loan or reducing the interest rate."

ABC News: New Program Could Help Half a Million Homeowners

CitiMortgage, the nation's fourth-largest mortgage lender, announced today a new assistance program aimed at homeowners potentially at risk of falling behind on their payments or losing their homes to foreclosure.

Citi's homeowner assistance program will reach out to 500,000 customers still current with their monthly payments but who live in areas where home prices are falling or unemployment rates are rising. This represents nearly a third of the mortgages that Citi owns.

"Borrowers need to know what options are available to them before they are in a situation of financial distress," said Sanjiv Das, CEO of CitiMortgage. "They should know Citi will modify their loan even before they miss their payments."

Citi expects the program will almost immediately impact nearly 130,000 customers, totaling $20 billion in loans, by assisting borrowers regardless of the type of loan they currently own.

"Ours is not product specific, ours is borrower specific," said Das.

The new initiative from Citi comes as federal and state governments, homeownership preservation groups and other banks - most recently JP Morgan Chase - have launched programs over the past year to help homeowners -- at risk of foreclosure -- stay in their homes in order to shore up the nation's crumbling real estate market.

But Guy Cecala, publisher of the trade publication "Inside Mortgage Finance," cautioned that initiatives like this from CitiMortgage, as well as programs from other banks, look great on paper but often are not that dramatically different from what the banks have already been doing.

"Generally, the numbers they throw out there in terms of expectations are not that different from what they said they would do six months or even a year ago," he said. Cecala pointed out that the announcement from Citi comes a day before congressional hearings that could be critical of the action or inaction by lenders and mortgage services to help struggling homeowners.

"All these initiatives are as much in response to political pressure as they are to lenders responding to rising foreclosures."

Citi's Plan to Help Homeowners

Citi's program is modeled after the FDIC IndyMac modification program. That plan adjusts mortgages for eligible homeowners currently delinquent so their payments are no more than 38 percent of total income. Citi will modify at-risk mortgages to 40 percent.

Citi will adjust loans by reducing the principal owed, extending the term of the loan or reducing the interest rate. In some cases, Das said, the bank could use a combination of these options such as extending the loan to 40 years and then reducing the interest rate to 1 percent for up to two years in order to provide an affordable monthly payment for borrowers so they can stay in their homes.

And unlike other programs including the FDIC IndyMac plan, Citi's will be available not just for homeowners already late making their payments, but for any customers who could be at risk due to circumstances, such as a job loss.

"We will preemptively reach out to help at-risk homeowners before they become delinquent," said Das in a statement, "which is critical to avoiding the loss of a home and protecting their credit score and future borrowing potential."

Citi will redirect 600 employees in the sales force to the counseling center in order to call its customers about the program.

Citi also announced that it will extend its moratorium on foreclosures on mortgages it owns. To qualify, a homeowner has to stay in the home, it has to be the principal residence, the homeowner must work in good faith with Citi and have enough income to pay a more affordable mortgage payment. Citi says it has already saved 370,000 customers from foreclosure in the past two years through this program. Das believes extending the foreclosure moratorium will help an additional 50,000 families avoid foreclosure.

Citi owns nearly $200 billion in mortgages and the 500,000 homeowners it plans to contact represent about $50-55 billion.

The initiative only provides assistance to homeowners whose loans Citi owns and currently does not cover the nearly $600 billion in securitized loans owned by investors for which Citi provides loan services. The bank is currently in talks with investors about how to provide assistance to homeowners whose mortgages have been sold as packaged with other loans and sold to investors.

And therein is a central problem with many of the homeownership preservation programs, according to Cecala. Much of the assistance, even that provided by IndyMac, does not cover loans that have been bundled together and sold to investors. Cecala said approximately 80 percent of subprime loans are securitized as are nearly 75 percent of the "no income verification" loans.

"Unless you come with something to deal with those loans and get investors to cooperate, you are not going to find any solutions," he said.

In other words, many of the bank programs cannot actually help homeowners in trouble. According to Cecala, the hope is that with all these plans being launched, perhaps they will start to make a dent in the growing foreclosure crisis in the country.

With reports from ABC News' Zunaira Zaki.

"Barack Obama announced today what his transition team calls the strictest lobbying rules ever during a presidential transfer of power."

Obama puts leash on lobbyists for transition - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

After bashing rival John McCain for surrounding himself with lobbyists, Barack Obama announced today what his transition team calls the strictest lobbying rules ever during a presidential transfer of power.

But it could also be viewed as backtracking from Obama's campaign vow that lobbyists would not work in his White House.

Under the rules, federally registered lobbyists cannot contribute to the transition, are banned from any lobbying while working for the transition, and are prohibited from working in the fields in which they lobbied if they have done so in the past year. If a transition staffer becomes a lobbyist after the inauguration, they are banned from lobbying the administration for one year.

"President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and curb the influence of lobbyists," transition co-chairman John Podesta said in a statement. "During the campaign, federal lobbyists could not contribute to or raise money for the campaign. Today, the President-elect is taking those commitments even further by announcing the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

Podesta said the lobbyist rules for the administration will be announced later.

Lobbyists have become almost a fourth branch of government, and analysts have said that despite Obama's protestations, it would be difficult to dramatically lessen their influence in Washington.

Where Homes Are Worth Less Than the Mortgage

Where Homes Are Worth Less Than the Mortgage

As per our earlier discussions:

>

See also:

>

Source:
A Town Drowns in Debt as Home Values Plunge
DAVID STREITFELD
Published: November 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/business/11home.html

“In no way did President Bush suggest that there was a quid pro quo when it came to Colombia free trade agreement or the other free trade agreements,”

Stimulus Stalemate?

Even as the nation's economic news seems to darken each day, the White House and congressional Democrats remain at odds over proposals designed to reverse the trend.

Democrats are urging passage of yet another stimulus package — reportedly in the $100 billion range — providing aid for states, the unemployed and Detroit's flailing automakers. The Bush administration, though, has been steady in its opposition — a position reiterated Tuesday by White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"So far," she said, "we have not seen something [from Congress] that would stimulate the economy right away."

Last month, Perino suggested that Democrats could help the economy by dropping their long-held opposition to a trade-expansion plan with Columbia. According to reports surfacing today, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) rejects the idea of including the Columbia free-trade pact as part of the stimulus deal. From Bloomberg:

"The speaker has said that our first responsibility is to provide immediate assistance to the millions of Americans who are suffering in today's economy, and with the worsening economic conditions, the need for a Main Street recovery and job creation package is now," said Nadeam Elshami, a Pelosi spokesman. "That is our top economic priority and the Colombia free-trade agreement should be considered on its own merits."

Citing unnamed Republicans, the New York Times reported Tuesday that Bush would drop some of his opposition to the Democrats' stimulus plans in exchange for the Columbia deal — a claim Perino denied categorically.

"In no way did President Bush suggest that there was a quid pro quo when it came to Colombia free trade agreement or the other free trade agreements," she said.

House lawmakers were expected to return to Washington next week for short post-election "rump session." Without a stimulus agreement with the White House, though, they might just cancel those plans. Speaking to reporters Friday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) questioned the logic of returning to debate a bill that the president would veto.

"Clearly there is no point in us doing something if the administration is going to take the position that they're not going to sign something," Hoyer said.

President-elect Barack Obama said last week that a stimulus bill would be his first priority next year if Congress fails to act this month. It's looking more and more like it's a task that, by necessity, will fall to him.

'tickets for Barack Obama's Inauguration are the hottest item on the internet. The thing is, they haven't been distributed yet. Oh, and, again, they're free."

"Free" Inauguration Tickets Selling For Thousands

2008_11_11_inauguration.jpgProving once again that there is no such thing as "free" in the age of internet entrepreneurs, tickets for Barack Obama's Inauguration are the hottest item on the internet. The thing is, they haven't been distributed yet. Oh, and, again, they're free. So why are people shelling out up to $10,000 for them and how is any of this legal? Well, the answer to the first question is obvious: Obama's election was a historic event and he's built up one the largest active followings of any politician in our lifetime.

There are 240,000 tickets to the inauguration which are distributed via the offices of Senators and Congressmen. If you want to get in on the waiting list action, better call yours right away. Anyway. According to inaugural committee spokeswoman Carole Florman, many of the committees that organize most of the inaugural events haven't even been formed yet and that, "Any member of Congress is prohibited from profiting by their position. A letter is going out to them reminding them of that. Soon." That's not the only preventative measure being taken.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, said she is drafting a bill to ban sales of inauguration tickets, while her committee is sending a stern letter to Capitol employees outlining ethics rules about making money from access to power, and inaugural tickets.
So where are these "tickets" already being sold coming from?
Ticket brokers wouldn't say where their tickets were coming from. One broker, StubHub, explained that it was similar to providing tickets for the Super Bowl. In both cases, sales begin before tickets are in hand because the brokers are confident that they will be able to acquire them later.
Ah. Well, that clears that up. Besides, last we heard, the Inaugural Parade was...just that: a parade, which means it's open and free to the public. If you want all the official info, visit the Senate's Official Inaugural website. Of course, if you are lucky enough to land tickets, you're going to pay a hefty price for a hotel room, if you can even find one in the D.C. area.

Obama Administration Leaks: "Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president"

A New Obama-Rahm Leak Policy?

Maybe it's the addition of beltway leaker extraordinaire, Rahm Emmanuel, to the team, but it appears that the Obama team may have adopted a new policy on leaks, departing from their eerily disciplined no-leak approach during the campaign.

Note this passage in NYT's coverage of Obama's request that Bush support a bailout for the auto industry.

The struggling auto industry was thrust into the middle of a political standoff between the White House and Democrats on Monday as President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush in a meeting at the White House to support immediate emergency aid.

Mr. Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, a measure for which Mr. Bush has long fought, people familiar with the discussion said. [my emphasis]

Here's how the WaPo reported the same detail.

Bush, speaking privately to Obama during their first Oval Office meeting, repeated his administration's stand that he might support quick action on those bills if Democratic leaders drop their opposition to a Colombia trade agreement that Bush supports, according to people familiar with the discussions.  [my emphasis]

And here's how Bush's team reported Bush's ire about these leaks to Drudge.

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned. 

[snip]

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT. [my emphasis]

Seeing as how this obviously organized leak may well have come from the latest addition to the previously leak-proof Obama team--Rahm Emmanuel--the Bushies aren't really in a position to lecture about what past Presidents have done. Rahm's been there, and was leaking in the Clinton days as well, I'm sure. (One other candidate to be the leaker is another Clinton veteran, John Podesta, though my money's on Rahm.)

So my question has more to do with the efficacy of the leak. Will Bush be more amenable to an auto bailout now that everyone knows he tried to hold American workers hostage to the fate of Bush's union-busting buddy in Colombia, Alvaro Uribe?

Monday, November 10, 2008

Big Media is starting to come around and reject the "center-right nation meme"

Elite Media Voices Begin Making Our Arguments

Having been one of millions of progressives who have been out in the wilderness for so long, it's hard to believe I can write this, but I can: It seems the demands for rejecting the "center-right nation" meme, accepting the progressive mandate of the election, Going Big and emulating FDR - the demands we've been all making - are starting to be echoed even in the elite media stratosphere. And that's a damn good thing.
REJECTING THE CENTER-RIGHT NATION MEME

Here's a syndicated column I wrote that appeared in national newspapers on 10/31/08:

Conservatives' contend that no matter how big progressives may win on Election Day, this is nonetheless a center-right nation. Indeed, a LexisNexis search shows this poll-tested term - "center-right nation" - is lately among the Punditburo's most ubiquitous Orwellian buzzwords...The "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.

The proof of this center-right nation? Republicans cite polls showing more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. While that data point certainly measures brand name, those same surveys undermine the right's larger argument because they show majorities support progressive positions on most economic issues.

Here's the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne today:

Conservatives are trying to stop Obama from pursuing any of the ideas that he campaigned on...Their gimmick is to insist that the United States is still a "center-right" country because more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. What this analysis ignores is that Americans have clearly moved to the left of where they were four, eight or ten years ago.

Here's the New York Times' Frank Rich on 11/9/08:

We now keep hearing, for instance, that America is "a center-right nation" - apparently because the percentages of Americans who call themselves conservative (34), moderate (44) and liberal (22) remain virtually unchanged from four years ago. But if we've learned anything this year, surely it's that labels are overrated. Those same polls find that more and more self-described conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans. Americans now say they favor government doing more (51 percent), not less (43) - an 11-point swing since 2004 - and they still overwhelmingly reject the Iraq war.

ACCEPTING THE PROGRESSIVE MANDATE

On the idea that McCain made the 2008 election a referendum on conservatism, here's what I wrote on 10/24/08:

John McCain is doing what no progressive political leader has been able to do in at least a generation, if not more: He's creating a New Deal mandate for the next president, should that next president be Barack Obama...[McCain] has polarized the argument and turned the election into a referendum on the economic Darwinism of the conservative movement...He is framing the choice as one between a Republican presidency to the right of Ronald Reagan on economics or a Democratic presidency to the left of Franklin Roosevelt on economics - and if Obama wins, he will have as powerful an economic mandate as FDR received in the 1932 landslide election, because the voting public will be expecting - no, demanding - far-reaching economic change.

Here's the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne on 10/31/08, titled "Referendum on Trickle-Down":

Economic populism is thriving right now, and if Obama wins, his election would not simply be a non-ideological verdict against the status quo. It would be a clear repudiation of conservative economic ideas and McCain's claim that a more egalitarian approach to growth constitutes "socialism." McCain's attacks on Obama's thinking have been so forceful and direct that they require this election to be seen as a referendum that will settle a long-running philosophical argument.

GOING BIG

On the "Go Big" idea, here's what I wrote on 11/7/08:

The election became a choice between continued conservative rule and a progressive agenda as far-reaching as the current crises...Obama rose on a promise to eschew triangulation - and he won because America realized invertebracy and sail trimming will not solve problems. Voters rejected Clinton-style incrementalism in the primary, then scorned conservatism in the general election, meaning Democrats' best response to Bill McKay's "what do we do now?" question is a two-word answer: Go big.

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly now points out that Paul Krugman, Dionne and even Fareed Zakaria (!) have subsequently said exactly the same thing.

EMULATING FDR

In calling for an Obama administration to be bold and progressive in the FDR mold, here's  the last line of my column on 10/31/08:

[Obama will have] the very mandate for "direct, vigorous action" Roosevelt described in his 1933 inaugural address. Should a President Obama try to capitalize on it, he will have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Here's the last line of the 11/7/08 column by the New York Times' Paul Krugman:

[Obama] has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

Now, I point all this out not to pat myself on the back for (nor lament) writing columns that were later parroted by other columnists, sans acknowledgment. The fact is, I can't claim any kind of exclusive ownership over my columns' message because they only echo what so many of us have been saying for so long now. And even in the Jayson Blair era, I tend not to ascribe bad faith to fellow progressives, and instead subscribe to the "great minds think alike" principle that says like-minded people can honestly (ie. not plagiaristically) arrive at the same conclusions.

And that's the whole point here. Though the Braindead Megaphone (as George Saunders calls it) may be telling us that Obama's election proves America is more conservative than ever and that therefore he must govern like a Rockefeller Republican, there are an increasing number of Establishment voices saying what we, the progressive movement, have been saying for a while now: That this is a progressive country in need of a boldly progressive president. And I say the more voices that chime in and make that point, the better. 

Debbie Schlussel thinks that one of the many problems with America and its dumbing down is the blurring of the lines between masculinity and femininity

Below is her article; you be the judge.  But aside from coming off as intellectually elitist, she is mean spirited and petty. Dana Torres to me is awesome hot and I admire her effort at training to get to the Olympics. Debbie, there are a lot of other issues to bitch about - don't be so shallow and pretentious.

"Who Is That Man?"

By Debbie Schlussel

In my ongoing lament of the dumbing down of America and the decline of our great nation and its culture, I constantly salute blurring of gender roles and the masculinization of women as one of the ongoing problems that is both contributory cause and symptom.

Today, I start an occasional feature, "Who Is That Man?" to salute some of these "beauties." Yes, isn't is great that men can be women and . . . women can be men? Only in America. Expect a lot more of these Title IX "babes" to "express themselves" now that Obama is President-elect.

Who Is That Man? #1 . . .

daratorres.jpg
daratorres2.jpg
Olympic Gold and Silver Medalist Dara Torres

Who Is That Man? #2 . . .

madonnamanly.jpg
Obamaniac Soon To Lose Half of Her Fortune to Guy Ritchie

One word: Eeeuuuww.


More Quick Victories from Open Left - Front Page by Chris Bowers

More Quick Victories

Back in July, I compiled a list of legislation that would have passed in the 110th Congress if Democrats held eight more seats in the Senate and 20 more seats in the House. Here is the list (more in the extended entry:
Democratic trifecta legislation
  1. H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Withdrawing between 100,000 to 120,000 of the 160,000 American military troops in Iraq.
  2. Webb amendment to HR 1585: To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
  3. Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Making it easier to join a union.
  4. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Another worker's right's bill.
  5. District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act : A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives.
  6. Rush Holt's verified voting bill. A verified paper trail for every vote cast in America.
  7. Specter amendment to HR 1585: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.
  8. H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Expanding children's health care.
  9. Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act : A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
  10. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Increasing stem cell research.
  11. Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act. Increased investment in renewable energy.
  12. Harkin amendment to the Farm Bill. Not sure what this is, but it probably will pass when we get six more votes in the Senate.
  13. Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. A centrist global warming bill that doesn't do much to stop global warming, from what I have heard.

On the House side, the mission has been accomplished, as the requisite number of seats have been acquired. On the Senate side, we currently stand at six pickups, with Alaska, Georgia and Minnesota still undecided.

A week after the election, the Senate remains surprisingly in flux, with Democratic pickups standing at anywhere from six to nine seats. Fortunately, with six pickups, we get everything on this list except the Employee Free Choice Act. As we are already seeing, expect just about the entire list to be passed swiftly, since the Democratic trifecta will be itching for early successes.

In order to get the Employee Free Choice Act, we need eight pickups in the Senate, which means two our of three of the undecided campaigns. The Georgia Senate campaign will be decided on December 2nd via run-off election, so our path to winning that seat is obvious. Without any third party candidates, and without the assistance of Obama's turnout machine, Democrat Jim Martin is definitely the underdog in the campaign. However, it is far from over, and you can help out here. The Alaska and Minnesota Senate campaigns will be decided via counting and re-counting, and both campaigns should probably be considered toss-ups at the moment (Nate Silver breaks down the numbers for Alaska and Minnesota). So, we can still get the Employee Free Choice Act, too, even if the odds don't favor us at the moment.

Video: Obama arrives at White House from Raw Story Breaking News