Righties blame lefties for financial problems

This is from a piece about David Cameron's right-handed attack on British Labour:

Cameron said that he wanted the Tories to be "a voice for change, optimism and hope". He said that his vision was for "responsible government and responsible business helping to build a responsible 21st century nation – where social reform and decentralisation strengthen our society, where a stronger society reduces demands on the taxpayer, and where lower taxes, a less interfering, bureaucratic state and green growth combine to produce a sustainable economy."

He also identified three priorities for his party in 2009: showing that it had learnt the lessons from the debt crisis, offering positive ideas to tackle the recession, and setting out a positive vision for change.

This is the same batch of bad ideas that Americans loved to hear from Bush. Morality, positive thoughts, responsibility ('ownership society'), small government, less regulation. Interesting idea that government borrowing caused the financial meltdown. Wrong, but interesting.

I suspect our British cousins might fall for the same bad policies we Americans embraced with enthusiasm for the last 8 years.

Lawrence Summers in the Washington Post

I want to put this piece here in its entirety, but I want to point out a few tidbits on the Bushes that appeared recently. President Bush was asked his opinion on the need for economic stimulus and he said that the drop in gasoline prices was just the stimulus needed. Misses Dumbass Bush was asked about the idea that her husband's presidency is the worst in US history, said some shallow stupid things like "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," Mrs. Bush said in an interview that aired Sunday. "I think history will judge and we'll see later." All set.

From The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601299.html

Obama's Down Payment
A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results
By Lawrence Summers
Sunday, December 28, 2008; Page B07

When President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he will face what may well be the bleakest economic outlook since World War II. Economic forecasts have been revised significantly downward over the past several months; today, many experts believe that unemployment could reach 10 percent by the end of next year and our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity -- which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.

As difficult as these conditions are, however, the Obama administration also inherits an economy with great potential for the medium and long terms. Investments in an array of areas -- including energy, education, infrastructure and health care -- offer the potential of extraordinarily high social returns while allowing our country to address some long-standing national challenges and put our economy on a solid footing for years to come.

In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children's prosperity.

Our president-elect understands both the peril and the promise of the situation and the importance of responding to changing conditions. That is why his economic team is crafting a broad proposal, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, to support the jobs and incomes essential for recovery while also making a down payment on our nation's long-term financial health.


A key pillar of the Obama plan is job creation. In the face of deteriorating economic forecasts, Obama has revised his goal upward, to 3 million. For one thing, significantly fewer positions would be created in the absence of any recovery plan. Second, more than 80 percent of these 3 million jobs will be in the private sector, including emerging sectors such as environmental technology. This is a bold goal. But economists across the political spectrum recognize that it is far less risky to stand firmly against the forces propelling our economy downward than to be timid in the face of a mounting crisis.

The Obama plan represents not new public works but, rather, investments that will work for the American public. Investments to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries our children need to meet 21st-century educational challenges. Investments to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by spurring renewable energy initiatives (many of which are on hold because of the credit crunch). Investments to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and public transit systems. Investments to modernize our health-care system, which is necessary to improve care in the short term and key to driving down costs across the board.

Laying the groundwork for recovery and future prosperity will require shedding Washington habits. We must measure progress not by the agendas of interest groups but by whether the American people experience results. We must focus not on ideology but on drawing the best ideas from all quarters. That is why, for example, in key sectors such as energy, Obama is pushing for both public investments and the removal of barriers to private investment. It is also why his plan relies on both government spending and tax cuts to raise incomes and promote recovery.

The president-elect has insisted that investments proposed in the recovery plan meet standards much higher than has been traditional. There will be no earmarks. Investments will be chosen strategically based on what yields the highest rate of return for the economy and monitored closely not just by officials but also by the public as government becomes more transparent. We expect to evaluate and to be evaluated rigorously to ensure that Washington is held accountable for how tax dollars are spent.

Some argue that instead of attempting to both create jobs and invest in our long-run growth, we should focus exclusively on short-term policies that generate consumer spending. But that approach led to some of the challenges we face today -- and it is that approach that we must reject if we are going to strengthen our middle class and our economy over the long run. Far from being an excuse for inaction or delay, the magnitude of the work ahead is all the more reason to begin that work.

The writer served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and will head the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration.

Lefties spin expectations

Huffington Post came up with some twisty headlines from the following Obama quote from yesterday:
"Let me make an observation," said Obama, "that we are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, and that is lowering the interest rates ... it is critical that the other branches of government step up, and that's why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely critical, and my economic team, which I will meet with today, is helping to shape what is going to be a bold agenda to create 2.5 million new jobs."

The headlines were "Obama: Bush tying my hands on economy" and "Obama: We are running out of options".
It is cute that the Huffers want to do some finger-pointing at the Bush Administration, but that's not what Obama was saying. He was saying that he needs support for his huge spending plan. This is an argument he needs to state over and over until we are sick of it. The reason is that the American people and the media who filters their information does not truly believe that there is a very serious set of problems in the world economy that can only be addressed in the way Obama has proposed. I saw a poll yesterday that said most Americans think the big 3 automakers should be allowed to sink, because they don't think such failures will have any impact on the overall economy. This kind of ignorance takes my breath away.

right wingers trying to get their mojo back

I've read about the following Republican political initiatives in the last few days.
- The claim that Obama cannot be sworn in because he is not a "naturalized citizen". I doubt there is any honesty in this and suspect some rich activists are trying to make names for themselves in the party and pave the way for an Arnold run.
- The claim that the stimulus package (which I am calling The New New Deal) is "just pork" or "business as usual". Pork is pointless, unproductive spending provisions which are attached to bigger bills for the benefit of a local district. This spending bill is designed to create jobs in the short run and make the country more productive in the long run. This kind of thing worked well in the 1930s, but was ended by Republicans who took over the legislature and destroyed it before it could work long term. Naturally, they claimed that it didn't work because of some sort of quack economic theories that they still cling to today.
- 'All bailouts are bad'. A good use of sliming a complicated idea with a simple, negative word. The truth is a bit harder to grasp as it contains subtle colors and concepts that most conservatives can't be bothered to grasp. That truth is that some bailouts are bad, some are kinda good, and some are real good. This is the argument that the GOP is using to stop the bridge loan to GM.
- Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are the rising stars of the Repulican Party. This brings joy to my heart - Two knuckleheads to replace the knuckleheads who are leaving office next month.

A few gems from Barney Frank - yesterday

Talking about Obama, Frank said the following:

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

"It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process. My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan. Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."

Barney cracks me up with his down-home, elitist truisms.

What I'm seeing from Obama so far

He's looking more Clinton-esque all the time in style, yet looks to be learning from Bill's early mistakes of walking slowly into the transition. So far, the Obama team is long on technicians in the economic team, and short on ideologues. I would like to see some more left-leaning idealists in there, but I'm a leftie and am cool with the more centrist bureaucrats in the Executive Branch. That's what is called for in those offices.

I like the pick of Hillary for State. The "Team of Rivals" comparison is pretty lame given how closely their views resembled each other's in the primary. That's a cute reference on a good book, but this rivalry was largely rhetorical but ideologically shallow.

As far as the stupid continuing debate over the word 'change' goes, it just seems silly to me to say that because he's picking experienced Clinton Admin people that he isn't going to change anything. I can't say much more about that because, well, it is just stupid, that's all.

Back to the economic policy. I've heard Obama say that he is considering some major budget cuts to offset the stimulus and holding off on repealing the Bush tax cuts for rich people. That stuff is decidedly conservative, which doesn't please me but I understand that he has to build a coalition with some of the people who lean to the right of me. The tax rate structure needs to be more progressive not just because of the fairness of it, but because it is practically healthy for the economy.

And I hope his team doesn't put too much energy into trimming the federal budget, as that is just not going to produce much positive short term result for economic growth. Perhaps that would be a good bone to throw the McCain people. Get them working on trimming the pork. Make McCain the Pork Czar. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Don't let the door hit you on the ass, GW

A few quotes from an MSNBC.com article about Bush's recent interview with ABC News:

As he leaves office, Bush said he felt responsible for the economic downturn because it's occurring on his watch, but he added: "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so" before he became president.

This really burns my ass. The guy wants to 'feel responsible' and blame the current problems on thngs that took place prior to his Administration...things HE DID NOTHING ABOUT!!!!! Sheesh! And people believe this shit! Well, my Republican friends, you have to sling a lot of horseshit to blame Clinton entirely for the current recession and financial meltdown but I am sure you freaks are more than up to the task. Sling away.

Surely, the de-regulation that took place under Clinton was overdone. But even more assuredly the Bush Administration (along with chief ally John McCain) should not have gone even further than Clinton did. Allowing leveraged, unregulated derivatives onto the markets was the start of this. The last 8 years of Executive action and inaction plays a much larger role in the current problems than the previous 8. Isn't that just simple, obvious logic? Probably not, but it seems so to me.

He said he would like to see "instant liquidity" in the markets given the extent of the financial rescue plan, yet he understands that fear has paralyzed the markets.

"It is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became," Bush said. "And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy."

Look numbnuts, easy credit is what led to the over-leveraging of the system. Instant liquidity is a pretty stupid thing to wish for, dontcha think?

All Republicans have a favorite talking head

They like to call him "my guy". I have never met a Republican who doesn't have one. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one.

Yesterday I caught a few tortured minutes with good ole Rush Limbaugh. Rushie was incredulous that anyone (especially a Republican) would say that foreclosures should be halted by law and that they want to save the banks. This exposes two of Rush's favorite things to resonate his great voice over: stupidity and hypocrisy. According to Rush's logic banks are doomed to failure if they are prevented from foreclosing on people who are behind on their mortgages. This logic is so stupid I'm not going to count the ways it is wrong, but it did make me think. It made me wonder what planet are Republicans living on. I really don't know.

A few years ago I had a right-wing radio guy that I liked to listen to during afternoon drive time. Jay Severin was a local guy in Boston at the time, I'm not sure what he is doing now. I liked listening to him because he was funny and cute about his wrong-headed ideas. He crossed my line on the first day of the Iraq invasion of 2002. Jay was so excited and happy and the bombs being dropped that he cheered and laughed loudly on the air at the reports of dead Iraqis piling up and the glorious explosions. I guess he thought he was trying to make death and destruction entertaining. That's a tough job to do, but it seemed a bit much to me when he came out against the war in just a few short months time and blamed his enthusiasm on Bush and Coling Powell's lies.

Maybe I just take politics more seriously than the average radio talk listener. Or maybe I'm just an elitist pinko. I can take either insult, they don't seem particularly insulting to me.

Dear President Obama,

Please name your nominee for TREASURY SECRETARY!
NOW!!!!

Thank you in advance,
Jeff

Added later in the day: Geithner = good. Thank you sir.

Reaganites and their rewrite of history for partisan political reasons

This takes me back to my freshman year in college. Reagan had just assumed power and the effective lies they told the American people were starting to hurt my country. The video below (from this week) is a very nice example of how the Reaganite Republican lies live on to harm the US today:

Tom Friedman, pessimism and socialism

The economic news is almost too awful to take lately, but I do want to take in the political news. President Obama and his Democratic adminstration must be the fresh air in our sails and I want to see it coming. This causes a problem for me because the economic and political news are inextricable these days. So I'm in a bit of a quandry. I must have some light of optimism to drag myself out of the bed every day and continue my job hunt, but optimism is getting harder and harder to find in the press.

Yesterday I watched a bit of the "Meet the Press" roundtable. One of my least favorite windbags was on the show, Tom Friedman. Any good roundtable must have at least one obnoxious windbag, but in this case all the other presumably knowedgeable people were agreeing with Friedman. And these days Tom Friedman is a very eloquent, impassioned advocate for unrestrained pessimism.

The main subject of the week is the bailout of the US automakers. The Republican leadership in the Senate wants to let the market forces do their magic and keep gubment hands out of the mess. The moderate left wants to throw more Treasury funds into the black hole of corporate shortsightedness that has created the losses. I think the US automakers should be socialized. I'm talking full government ownership of the all three corporations. Buy out the stockholders (for pennies on the dollar), kick some Union ass in very hardball negotiations, and manage the industry toward fuel-efficient production pronto. These corporations are political entities, so full-blown socialism is very close to what they are at the moment.

President-elect Obama

The initial blush of excitement has worn off. I went through an elation phase and a let-down phase. Now I'm into trying to anticipate what's next. I don't care what kind of dog the Obamas adopt. I don't care what school the Obama kids go to. I don't care what Michelle does with the drapes. I do care what President Obama, together with lame duck Bush does with the country's economic situation over the next few weeks.

Obama has some good solid liberals and some decent centrists in his economic advisory team. I'm partial to Robert Reich, who's blog gives a better voice to his ideas than I ever could . Essentially Reich is pushing for a very large injection of federal spending on US infrastructure. Kind of a baby New Deal, but a pretty fat baby. This would add to the huge federal debt, but unlike the Iraq War that was funded by the latest debt increase this infrastructure spending would have lasting positive effects in the USofA. The trick is to keep some of the pork out of the package.

Report on my experience at the polls

It is now fashionable to report any and all possible irregularities at polling places. With that in mind, I went to the polls this morning with my keen blogger's sense of the way voting should be. I must report that there was absolutely nothing unsual going on. Smiling workers, fully operational hardware, no exit polls, no undue pressure from 'partisans'. Just straightforward voting. Kinda disappointing in a good way.

Election Eve and what did we learn about the candidates

Mostly a bunch of nothing about how they want to be perceived and how they want us to perceive their foe. Obama is for change, McCain is a maverick, Obama is a 'tax and spend democrat', McCain is George W Bush. I'm left with the a gnawing curiosity about what these guys will do when they are President. Not what they plan to do, but what will REALLY happen. That is asking too much.

Obama is Clinton with a skinny neck and his dick in his pants (I hope).
McCain is close to Bob Dole in experience and GW Bush in depth of intelligence.
I guess all who vote are just placing a bet. I want to KNOW how the bet will pay off. Oh well, let the anxiety continue.

after the bailout/rescue

The Treasury will have a pile of cash and will go into the marketplace to buy up the lousy mortgages. I think the best case is that they will play hardball in the negotiations, pay well under book value. This will mean huge losses to the banks which will hit their bottom lines very soon. Other capital from overseas will sweep in and buy up US Banks. The markets will bounce back and the Treasury will be able to sell the lousy mortgages at increased prices and replenish its coffers.

More likely the feds will not play hardball at the table and will pay nearly book value for the securities. This will mean the banks will not take a hit and the Treasury will. Very little disruption to the markets for now, but a further expansion of the national debt will set us right back on the same path that brought us to this point. Weakening currency, some inflation, low growth in GDP, jobs and wages. Ho hum.

Good speech by Bush last night

I didn't watch it, but the text looks like some straight medicine. Good stuff. I tip my had to the pig.

A good little McCain smear

NY Times writer Paul Krugman used a recent McCain piece about health care reform to paint him as a scary guy to fix the financial crisis. Here's the quote Krugman lifted:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

The smear is that effective and clever. What McCain was talking about was allowing interstate (or cross border) health insurance as was done with interstate banking. No one in their right mind think interstate banking has anything to do with the current financial meltdown. Krugman simply cut the context out to jab McCain.

I like this technique. The Republicans have been doing this to Democrats forever, and it works.

Big Gubment redux

Now that the financial meltdown requires massive federal intervention, it will be fun to see how the ideologues on the right play this. How to wriggle out of their standard railing against the government they want to run in times like these. Hopefully, they will just roll over and let the Democrats take over. There really is no argument for the right at this time. None at all.

Big vs Small Government

This is one of the great rhetorical devices in American political history. Always effective, always dishonest. This is the argument that was used by Jefferson against Hamilton in his fight against a National Bank and a strong currency. It was used by slaveholders in the middle of the 19th century to justify states rights and the ownership of human beings. It was used most effectively in my lifetime by Reagan to say that taxes should be smaller and regulation on commerce should be eliminated whenever possible.

Now we see the results of totally free capitalism in the form of a meltdown of our financial system. Freedom given to instituions to write whatever mortgages they want and bundle them into any sort of securities they can market is now resulting in disaster. But the Republicans are caught in a quandry and are using further dishonesty to ensure their victory in the coming election. Because they are still in power, any subsidies (or 'bailouts') must have their stamp of approval. Such ideas go against the central right argument that bailouts = big gubment = evil. That one is easy as they are simply standing their philosophical ground and blaming others for the necessary bailouts.

McCain says lax regulation did not led to bad loans, it was the bad people who made the bad loans. All the Feds need do is crack some heads and get tough on those bad guys. This works because it plays into the tough guy personna that the right loves and the American voters love from them.

Like all Republican arguments, it is a lie. An effective lie. This so very frustrating to see my country walk right into making the same mistake we make over and over again. The mistake of giving the Republican Party continued power.

ABORTION and Sarah Palin

I'm following as much of the 'stark choice' bullshit as I can stomach this election season. I understand from Sarah Palin (as advised by the Republican establishment) that she is a pro-life, pro-family, small town, Washington outsider...or some such nonsense. Since I would do anything in my power to oppose her espoused philosophy in how my country should be run, I suppose that makes me an anti-life, anti-family, big city Washington insider...or some such nonsense.

I am glad she had the CHOICE to bear her children.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to become a Granny at her young age.
I am glad she had the CHOICE to marry the person she wanted to marry.
That's the kind of country I want to live in. But I fear that the American voters do not want a country like that. They prefer a country with a solid rhetorical script. The script offered by the Washington insiders who run the Republican Party.

Right vs Left, Ends vs Means

This is one of the best essays I have every read about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the current USofA. Cheers, Dr Reich. You rule.
From http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
********
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring More About Ends Than Means

We’ve been here before: The Republican attack machine at full throttle, spewing lies in best-selling books, on Fox News, on talk radio. The mainstream media reporting on the controversy, thereby giving it more air time and squeezing out the Democrats’ affirmative message. Followed by accusations by Democrats that Republicans are playing unfairly. Responded to by smiling shrugs and winks from Republicans, who say Democrats can’t take the heat or can’t enjoy a joke or are out of touch with average Americans who are concerned about whatever it is the Republicans are lying about. This ignites a furious debate among Democrats about how negative they should go against the Republican. “If we use their tactics, we’ll lose the moral high ground,” say the Democratic doves. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the war,” say the Democratic hawks. The debate is never fully resolved. The Democrats sort of fight back but don’t have the heart to do to Republicans what Republicans do to them. And so it goes.

The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there. The paradox lies deeper. For most Democrats, the means are part of the ends. We want an electoral process that eschews the lying and cheating we’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks. If we use their tactics, we undermine our own goal, violating one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. Yet if we don’t stoop to their level, how can we prevail in a system that allows – even rewards – such lying and cheating?

It’s the same with governing. Right-wing Republicans detest government, so when they screw it up – failing to protect the citizens of New Orleans or returning veterans in Walter Reed hospital, or wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on non-competitive bids for the military, turning budget surpluses into massive deficits – they’re proving their own subterranean point that the public can’t trust government to do anything right. Democrats, once in power, inherit this legacy of distrust and deficit, and spend much of their time in office working their way out of it. And also inordinate time and energy promoting good governmental processes (recall Al Gore’s “making government work” crusade, which holds the record for the most arduous effort generating the least media attention).

Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends. Anyone trying to chronicle the Bushie’s disregard for the rule of law is quickly overwhelmed with examples, such as violating civil service laws to fill up the executive branch with political hacks; riding roughshod over constitutional laws in firing federal prosecutors; wiretapping Americans in clear violation of law; holding prisoners of war without charge, in violation of international law; using torture. Democrats, once in power, regard laws as serious constraints on that power. (When I was secretary of labor, the department’s lawyers would instruct me about what I could not do because I was unauthorized to do it, rather than how I might reinterpret or bend the laws in order that I could. The lawyers who work in the Bush administration do the opposite.)

Those who are willing to do anything to achieve their ends will always have a tactical advantage over those who regard the means as ends in themselves. The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.

posted by Robert Reich

McCain on Social Security

Senator McCain said this yesterday "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace and it's got to be fixed."

Americans should surely understand this about the system because it is the way it was designed to work and it has always been so. It is not a disgrace (absolute or otherwise). It is rational, compassionate and sensible. There is no other way to have Social Security exist. The social part of it is key here. It is socialistic. It is not a savings program. It never was and it never should be.

One Microphone and One Vision for America

BS Battle

Now that Obama has made the first of several victory speeches, we have a good dose of the kind of rhetoric the Dems and Repubs will use over the next few weeks. Of course the tone will change as we get closer to November, but it is essentially a battle to see who can lay claim to keywords like change, leadership, judgement, freedom, liberty, patriot, children, love, good, God, happy, fairness, plus, addition, positive, brave, tough, wise, true...you get the picture.

No specifics about policy as McCain tries to paint another Republican Administration as "moving forward" and Obama tries to paint his relatively fresh face as "experienced". The rhetorical gymnastics might be fun for some. I don't find it fun, I find it interesting but a little bit pathetic. Pathetic that we choose the course of the Executive Branch of our government just like we choose our breakfast cereal. What's on the outside of the box and the advertising that pushes it is more important than the stuff we eat.

Speaking of bullshit, I find the morning spin on "the end of the Clintons" to be stupid. Hillary has postioned herself perfectly to be Obama's choice to be on the ticket with him. There is no better spot for any Democrat who wants to run for President after Obama than the spot she is in. She is not an old person. Do the math before you listen to the spin about "the end of the Clintons".

Ted Kennedy's legislative highlights

I don't know what to say about the Senator's prognosis and his life, so I've just copied this dry piece from The Boston Globe:

1965: Immigration
In his first major legislative accomplishment, the 32-year-old Kennedy managed the successful floor battle to pass the Hart-Celler Act, a reform of immigration policy that abolished quotas and lifted a 1924 ban on immigration from Asia.

1971: Cancer
After rising to the position of majority whip in 1969, which made him the third-ranking Senate Democrat, Kennedy and Representative Paul G. Rogers, a Democrat of Florida, passed legislation establishing a federal cancer research program in 1971 that quadrupled the amount spent fighting cancer.

1972: Women's sports
Kennedy was a key Senate backer of Title IX, a 1972 amendment to federal education law that helped spur the growth of women's college sports by requiring colleges and universities to provide equal funding for men's and women's athletics.

1974: Campaign finance
Joining with Senator Hugh Scott, Republican of Pennsylvania, Kennedy sponsored the sweeping overhaul of ethics rules after Watergate that imposed limits on contributions to political candidates and set up the public financing system for presidential candidates in 1974.

1983: MLK holiday
In the early 1980s, Kennedy teamed with civil rights leaders to urge the creation of the Martin Luther King Day holiday, which was eventually approved by overwhelming margins in both Houses and approved by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

1986: Anti-apartheid
After Reagan vetoed economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa in 1986, Kennedy spearheaded the bipartisan effort in both Houses to override the veto. The law banned the purchase of gold, coal, iron, and other goods from South Africa.

1990: Family leave
Kennedy and Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, authored the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1990. The law required businesses to provide unpaid leave in the case of family emergencies or after the birth of infants, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

1993: Student loans
In response to concerns that students were getting bad deals from private lenders, Kennedy sponsored a Department of Education program in 1993 that allowed students to borrow directly from the federal government instead.

1996: Healthcare
Kennedy joined with Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, in 1996 to pass the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act, which allowed employees to keep health insurance after leaving their job and prohibited health insurance companies from refusing to renew coverage on the basis of preexisting medical conditions.

1996: Minimum wage
Kennedy was the lead Senate sponsor of legislation increasing the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15. He reprised this role in 2007, after Democrats retook Congress, quarterbacking the effort to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009.

2001: Education
Over the objections of some fellow Democrats, Kennedy helped pass President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, a sweeping law that required more rigorous testing of public school students and makes it easier for parents to transfer their children from low-performing schools.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Why is Hillary still running?

This is a response to a thoughtful post from Robert Reich.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-hrc-hanging-in-there.html
I choose option 2

2. She wants to establish herself for a 2012 run, if Obama loses to McCain or if Obama proves to be such an unpopular president that the Democrats look for another standard-bearer.

She's not "trying to destroy the party" or grind an axe against Obama. She's giving herself 'fighter' credentials for the next presidential round, be it in 2012 or 2016. Next month she will publicly endorse Obama and then actively campaign on his behalf. This will eliminate most of the chatter that she's out to tear down the party and will go a long way to solidfying the Dem base. It will not help Obama with the ignorant center (see below for what the hell I'm talking about), but it will boost her standing with the hardcore Dems like me.

Left-wing slime machine update

I see that the left is starting their play for the ignorant middle. McCain is crazy and violent. His wife is secretative about her finances. It seems kind of weak to me. Certainly not as bad as being a commie islamist.

The Ignorant Middle

I just invented a brilliant new catchphrase. I'm so proud.
These are the people who decide elections in the USofA. The people who don't read, and only watch TV or think about politics in a very short period of time leading up to elections. They don't vote in primaries. They call themselves 'independent' and pundits often call them 'swing voters'. The lying slime machines favored by the US right wing works very well on these people. Just another little pitfall of democracy I suppose. Even idiots have the right to vote no matter how wrong their views.
My prediction: this will work in the upcoming presidential election. President McCain, true american patriot. Barack Obama, muslim-sounding name and communist sympathies. Who will the ignorant middle pick?

poiliticalization of personal pain

Moral, religious and righteous indignation are the rhetorical tools of both the left and right. Today abortion and gay rights come to mind most often when I think of this societal evil. Agendas and morality get in the way of individual psychological therapy and cause additional pain to people who need help.

Abortion counsellors push their pro-life or leftie feminism on the people they are helping. People who are in pain and facing life and death decisions are pushed to the decision that suits the organization running the counselling service. After the abortion, attempts at psychological healing are similarly run by organizations with a agenda. Unfortunately, helping the patient is secondary to the agenda of the caregiver. This pisses me off. Organizations generally suck, and they especially suck when empathy and compassion are needed. Organizations cannot do this. Only people can.

Hard core PRO CHOICE

Forever. That's what I am about today.
There's just no goddamn reason in the world why some self-righteous God lover should EVER take that option out of a woman's hand. Especially when said self-righteous God lover has testicles. She with the uterus is in charge of the contents therein. If there is a Creator, He created us that way. If God were like these men he would surely stick his pointy self in the middle of her business. If God were a woman she would surely leave it up to her sister to decide, as she is a compassionate being. If God were both man and woman, it would be a very confused thing.

I think (and being me, I am the most righteous me I know) that no human being truly knows God. Therefore, the laws and moral preachers should defer to the person that reproduction affects most directly: the person who has the uterus.

Bush marks 4,000th US death in Iraq

How to fix US financial markets

I agree with Barney.

Frank renews call to regulate financial markets
March 20, 2008 11:06 AM
From The Boston Globe

Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the excesses of the subprime mortgage crisis will result in a new era of regulation, similar to those that broke the monopolistic trusts of the early 20th century and restored the financial system following the Great Depression.

Frank, addressing the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said most problem mortgages, which have led to record foreclosures and infected financial markets where mortgage-backed securities are traded, emerged from lightly regulated or unregulated sectors of the financial system, such as mortgage brokers and investment banks. Commercial and savings banks, subject to much stricter oversight, didn't write the risky loans to people unable to pay them back, Frank said.

"We now see a situation that more damage was done by inadequate regulation," Frank said. "What we have is a systemic problem, and that's what we want to address. Sensible regulation is pro-market because it can instill confidence."

Frank, noting Congress must first address the immediate threat of rising home foreclosure, said he expects to take up legislation next year to put in place new regulations, such requiring investment bank to operate under rules similar to commercial banks. Investment banks buy mortgage loans, bundle them into mortgage-backed securities and buy and sell them for profit.

This system, which relieves lenders of the risk and responsibility of collecting loans, has broken the "discipline of the lender-borrower relationship," and which regulation ultimately must restore, Frank said. In other words, he said, "You don't make loans if you don't think people will pay you back."
(By Robert Gavin, Globe staff)

Great quote from Joseph Stiglitz on McCain

Q: The economic costs have now come back to undermine the whole post-9/11 security effort. When John McCain says he's not interested in and doesn't understand the economic aspect of things, and only knows about how to keep America safe, what does that say about his leadership capability?

Stiglitz: If he doesn't understand the economy, he doesn't understand security. If we had infinite resources, we might be able to have perfect security. But America, like every other country, has resource constraints. That means you need to be smart -- that is, economic -- about the money we spend. If you weaken the American economy, you won't be able to find the resources you need for security. The two cannot be separated.

Obama OK

The endorsements swung me his way: John Kerry, Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, Hulk Hogan. An impressive list for sure.

Edwards is out

I'm bummed. He was the most liberal of the three Dems.
I don't have a preference between Clinton and Obama. Both are pretty moderate. I can see the huge differences in the resumes and styles, I just don't really care about that stuff. Maybe I'll participate in Super Tuesday - maybe not.

John McCain - Mr. Honesty

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." - John McCain, November 2007 Wall Street Journal.

I think Sen McCain is cruising for the nomination. Given the state of our economy, the ignorance of the current President, and my fascination with economic policy - I hope this guy loses. Economic education should have been a priority for Sen McCain a long long time ago.

Stimulate my economy, please

I don't know what our President will propose today, but of the stuff I've heard tossed about I do know what would do me the most good. $1,600 US Treasury cash into my family's hands and increases to Unemployment Insurance benefits would stimulate me. Neither of these things is going to induce me to buy stocks or a home, but it will make me feel marginally more comfortable in my checking account.