www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman
September 30, 2008
What to do?
Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is playing the part of Governor
Sarah Palin of Alaska as Senator Joe Biden prepares for this Thursday's debate.
Granholm graduated from UC-Berkeley in 1984 Phi Beta Kappa and holds two BA
degrees (Political Science and French) She then graduated from Harvard Law
School with honors. If it weren't for the fact that she was born in Canada,
Granholm (a former winner of the Miss San Carlos, California beauty pageant)
might very well have been an opponent of Senator Obama in the Democratic primary
herself. Knowing that, I just have one question for the Obama-Biden campaign:
Where did you put the other half of Governor Granholm 's brain and make sure you
give it back to her.
-Noah Greenberg
A Third World Nation
Quick: What would you think of a nation who's economic system is in shambles;
ignores their citizens after a natural disaster; only provides health care to
those who can afford it; and with major population centers tied up with long gas
lines and little fuel to fill the tanks; Would you call it a Third World nation?
Or would you call it The United States of America?
With our nation's top one percent in control more than twenty percent of its
economic resources, creating an almost feudal-like system; and with the
disappearance of the middle class in favor of those at the top, can we describe
our nation as a First World - Western Power leader anymore?
We are in a position seen mostly by Third World nations with leaders who care
more about their own bottom line than those they represent. And that philosophy
starts at the top.
We've been told over and over again that huge tax breaks, given as a great
percentage to the very wealthy, will put our nation on the track to prosperity.
And even though we were apparently on that road some eight years ago, the new
government which came in 2001, led by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and a
Republican-controlled Congress (the Senate was soon to follow), they insisted we
change things.
Today when we desperately need someone to take control - to take a leadership
role - we have partisan bickering. I blame the Republicans, and here is why:
First, the President took the lead role in removing any and all regulations
which governed the banking and financial industries. They wrote these laws and
gave those who were able to take advantage of the economy a free hand in
satisfying their greed needs.
Second, the Bush administration, with the support of his GOP-led Congress,
pushed through those tax breaks mentioned above and targeted them toward the
very rich, or the Bush "base of haves and have mores". By doing this they took a
budget surplus of nearly $300 billion and created a budget deficit which stands
in the trillions of dollars.
Third, they kept their blinders on. As our nation bled jobs through President
Bush's first four years (the first time our nation had a net job loss for an
administration's first term since the Great Depression) the administration did
nothing. Instead of trying to keep jobs in America, they were complicit in
helping giant corporations take those jobs overseas. Most of us will remember
the haunting words of the President's chief economic advisor Dr. N. Gregory
Minkow who said, "Outsourcing... is a good thing." It wasn't.
Fourth, as the housing market was creating its bubble, instead of insisting
restraint and warning of its eminent burst, the Bush administration, along with
John McCain, pointed to it as proof that the economy was growing. Even though
all other indicators showed the kind of stress which can cause financial
collapse, the Bushies and McCain-ites stood the course and insisted all was well
and getting even better.
Fifth, the $125 billion per year spent on the Iraq war. Thee are so many more
things we could be doing with that kind of money: Job creation through public
works programs and health care for those without are just two obvious ideas
which would have contributed to the economic health of our nation.
Lastly (but only for the purposes here), as the markets were crashing, finally
forcing Wall Street to suffer as we here in Main Street have suffered for the
past seven years, the word came down, not only from the administration but from
their would-be successor, John McCain that the economy was "fundamentally
sound." Insisting there is no problem, as then-President Herbert Hoover did as
he helped usher in the Great Depression and twenty-five percent unemployment
rates, helped put us where we are today as well. Surely there were those in and
outside of Washington who noticed what was going on. Why were they ignored?
Perhaps Bush and Company were hoping the crap didn't hit the fan until after
they were no longer in power.
On McCain's involvement in the financial industry bailout negotiations, I have a
question: What was said in the meeting between the House Republicans and Senator
McCain last Thursday? Right before the meeting, it appeared that there was a
deal; and right after the meeting the del fell through.
McCain said that he went to DC to "help". Was it his intention to stop the
rescue efforts, with the help of the House Republicans led by Minority Leader
John Boehner only to take up the mantle of "leader" when the bill eventually
passed? And why hadn't McCain met with his Senate Republicans, a group who could
have stopped the bailout talks with a simple filibuster, instead? That answer
certainly could be a distrust they have for their "Maverick" colleague and why
the meeting was set up with the House GOP instead.
McCain put a lot on the line when he suspended his campaign and did his best
Alexander Haig "I'm in charge here" impersonation. (In the hours after President
Ronald Reagan's assassination attempt, Haig made that remark seemingly
forgetting that he, as Secretary of State, was way down on the list of
succession.)
McCain bet that his name would be atop the "I made it happen with my leadership"
list. Instead, it appears that his end-play was to run interference.
In the end, McCain's "support" (as if there was any) didn't gain even one more
vote towards getting the bailout bill passed. Not one Arizona Congressional
member (and only four of nineteen Representatives from George Bush's home state
of Texas) actually voted for the bill.
There was a bill, bipartisan with the support of the White House, ready to be
out before the House and Senate until McCain showed up.
There is no bill today.
-Noah Greenberg
BAILOUT!
by Victoria A. Brownworth
copyright c 2008 Journal-Register Newspapers, Inc.
What’s good for Wall Street is supposed to be good for Main Street. So goes the
conventional wisdom. If the market does well, ordinary Americans are also
supposed to prosper because stocks will go up, dividends will be high, credit
will be flowing and most Americans are represented by the stock market in one
way or another--so Wall Street impacts us all.
That said, it’s difficult for most Americans–myself among them–to comprehend how
the $700 billion bailout House and Senate leaders agreed upon in a rare Sunday
session September 28 will be good for us here on Main Street, particularly as it
is something the Bush Administration proposed.
Americans who are not wealthy have seen a radical economic downturn under the
Bush Administration as compared to the Clinton Administration, which was one of
the most prosperous in the 20th century. For everyone.
Both the House and Senate will likely vote on the bailout plan this week after
major tweaking is done. About 60 percent of Congressional Democrats were behind
the bailout, but only about 30 percent of Republicans favored the plan with
House Republicans standing firmly against it until the Sunday session. Speaker
of the House Nancy Pelosi had consistently demanded bipartisan response to the
bill.
Neither presidential candidate supported the original plan, but both have said
they would “likely” vote on a final version as long as it includes protections
for those of us here on Main Street. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have been
strongly advocating oversight of the agreement and assurances that taxpayers
would not be stuck carrying the full weight of the bailout.
But taxpayers will indeed be stuck with the price tag for this monumental
decision and what’s more, it will have a decided impact on the next president
and his plans for the country.
In the September 26 presidential debate, moderator Jim Lehrer tried to get both
Obama and McCain to state their opinions on the bailout and what they would cut
in their administrations to pay for it, but both candidates skirted the issue,
although both did voice their concerns for Main Street.
Most economists have agreed something dramatic is needed to keep an increasingly
fragile economy from further damage. (Most economists not in the Bush
Administration have failed to used the word “collapse” as Treasury Secretary and
former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson has, however). But a majority of
economists have urged restraint and careful consideration in the
negotiations–something echoed repeatedly by House Financial Services Committee
Chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Frank has been one of the key arbiters of
the bailout plan and has voiced the most consistent concerns for those of us on
Main Street, saying that average Americans should not be expected to pay for
Wall Street’s mistakes.
It’s been a rocky few months on Wall Street. We’ve witnessed four of the major
investment banking corporations in the country tank and the fifth completely
restructure itself. On September 26, the country’s largest thrift bank,
Washington Mutual, was sold for pennies on the dollar to J.P. Morgan Chase after
it went under. Stock market volatility has been the most dramatic in 24 years
and economists who believe the country is already in a recession, have cautioned
that a depression might follow.
Most Philadelphians I’ve spoken to in the past few weeks have echoed what
congressional leaders are hearing from their constituents, however, and are
saying one thing: No bailout.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was among the first to publicly say “Not so fast” when
Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke both
exerted pressure on President Bush to urge the bailout.
Yet without the infusion of cash into the market, Paulson and Bernanke argued,
the stock market would continue to take terrible hits, banks would continue to
founder or collapse, credit would dry up–all of which would damage the American
economy in ways that would effect not just the average citizen, but America’s
standing in the global marketplace.
Paulson and Bernanke are right, of course. But what they and the President have
consistently failed to note as they have sounded their urgent alarms about the
imperative for the bailout *right now* is that this problem has been brewing for
over two years and they and the Administration have done nothing until two
months ago to staunch the financial bleed.
At that time, they began the bailouts with investment corporation Bear Stearns,
followed by the bailouts of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the
mega-insurance corporation, AIG. When Paulson talks about a $700 billion
bailout, that is over and above the bailout of more than $400 billion already
provided by the Treasury to Wall Street, with the price tag accruing to the
American taxpayer. In addition, there has been a steady infusion of billions per
week into the market by the Fed.
Most Americans are not fluent in economics. It’s a complex system that includes
not just our own economy, but the global marketplace. Thus the $700 billion
bailout will include bailing out quite a few foreign banks and investment
corporations–small-print items glossed over in the negotiations because
Americans have already been phoning their congresspersons with a 200 to one
ratio of calls *against* the bailout.
I was one of those callers. One of my concerns in the bailout–which has not been
assuaged by the Democrats bending to Bush’s will with alacrity yet again–is that
foreign countries will now own a majority of American assets as defined by this
plan. I also wonder why, if America is indeed a free market capitalist system,
the Treasury is leading the charge toward nationalizing the banks.
If I were to choose what we were going to nationalize in America, it would be
health care, not the banking system.
And yet, that is what we are doing–socializing banking, credit and loans.
No one can argue effectively that the deregulation efforts by Republicans in the
1980s has not led to the current state of affairs. Yet in the 1990s that same
deregulation helped surge the economy forward. But when greed took over in the
past eight years, government failed to intervene. The current crisis is the
result.
It would be easy to blame the whole of this mess on the Bush Administration and
certainly they are responsible for much of the problems we face right now. But
Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for where we are now because no
one has–before Sunday morning–made any effort at oversights. Democrats believed
as much as Republicans that growing the economy would benefit everyone.
In the end, it hasn’t. Instead the government has encouraged speculators on Wall
Street while also encouraging a credit-heavy economy on Main Street. Most
Americans carry at least $10,000 in credit-card debt–that’s debt that simply
eats away at one’s financial foundation and grows annually with no return on the
“investment.” The difference is, no one will be bailing *us* out for deciding to
buy the kids new winter coats on credit, while Wall Street will be given a
reprieve for bad investments based largely on greed.
The proposed plan now stipulates that the government would buy mortgage-backed
securities and other bad debts now held by banks and other investors. The $700
billion would allow these lenders to make new loans and keep credit lines open.
The government will allegedly try to sell these now wildly discounted loan
packages at the best possible price to someone–most likely foreign investors,
because China doesn’t have enough of a hand in the American economy already.
There’s a murky clause that suggests but does not demand that CEOs of companies
aided by the bailout can only take “reasonable” bonuses. There’s another equally
vague suggestion that people facing foreclosure might be helped out by some
restructuring of mortgages.
Put those two things together and see if they don’t enrage you. Washington
Mutual’s CEO will still get a bonus, but if your mortgage is held by WaMu, as
mine is, expect nothing to be done to help you out.
Another disturbing surprise is that House Republicans–not the Democrats who are
the ones most of us depend on to take care of the average American, not the
CEOs–have demanded that a portion of that bailout fund be set aside for a
program that would encourage holders of distressed mortgage-backed securities to
keep them and buy government insurance to cover defaults, thus keeping the money
in the country and keeping taxpayers from footing the entire bill.
One concern I have is that this kind of governmental bailout has failed in other
economies much like our own–notably Japan and Brazil. In addition, the
nationalizing of the banking system in Italy has resulted in wide-ranging
inflation and a tax burden on the citizenry almost unmatched in the European
Union.
Why do Paulson and Bernanke believe it will work here?
What you might have gotten for that $700 billion if the government had been
paying attention to this problem before it escalated is this: National health
care for every American for five years. Two Iraq wars (we’ll pass on this
option). Total revamping of either the public education system or the
transportation system.
These are just some of the options we might have had with that money.
But another alarming fact is–the $700 billion doesn’t actually exist. The
Treasury is just going to print it up and use it on Wall Street.
Since you and I can’t just print up more money in our collective basements, we
will be paying for this new money for years to come while having no new money to
pay our own impressive debt load.
The immediate cost of the bailout is more than $6,000 for every American. But
that will actually expand, not decrease over time, just like any bad debt.
And the bottom line is that the next president–Obama or McCain–will be saddled
with the sure knowledge that he will not be in any position to give the proposed
tax cuts each has promised while campaigning. The money simply isn’t there. This
debt will accrue to all of us one way or another. If we don’t get it ourselves,
our kids will. The punishment to all of us will come in cuts in services to us,
our kids and our towns. Wall Street’s bill may never come due, but Main Street’s
always does.
Which means no matter how you look at it, the government has failed us once
again and this bailout–essential or not–reeks. We own it, but we should make it
clear to our representatives in Congress that we are very unhappy about it.
An Event for the Environment
Please participate in this great fundraiser for Obama featuring environmental
leaders including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (named by Time as one of the Heroes for
the Planet) and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer (member of the Nobel Prize winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). It will take place on Monday October
6 at George St. Playhouse in New Brunswick. The main event starts at 8 PM and
the minimum contribution is $100. The minimum contribution for the pre-reception
which starts at 7:15 is $500/person or raise $1,000 for this event.
The campaign needs to raise more resources now so it would be terrific if you
could make a contribution to this event soon. Please contribute by clicking on
following website. After making a pledge, please click on "Fulfill your pledge"
and make your donation on-line:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/fundraising/gpgqff
If you have questions or prefer to send a check (made out to Obama Victory Fund)
please contact either Josh Haimson (
ilenejj@optonline.net; 732-740-1238) or Meryl Frank
(Mfrankhp@aol.com)
-Josh Haimson
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg