Standing in line waiting to vote at 6:30 a.m. this morning was a surreal yet exhilarating experience. When I arrived at my D.C. polling station, a line of mostly African-American voters was wrapped around the block. In my anxiety to take my place in line, I zipped into the last available parking space on the street and was admonished by a resident who cheerfully declared, "Take your time, the job is going to be there. This day will only come once."
He was right. This experience wasn't to be rushed but savored. What an awesome sight to see African-Americans of all ages, many of whom represented multiple generations in a family, coming out in large numbers to vote for the Obama/Biden ticket. Those in line were jubilant. A woman standing patiently with her granddaughter in front of me turned and said, "It's good to see this many people out here. Let's hope it's like this all day." Behind me I overheard snippets of conversations conducted by a young man who cheerfully answered his constantly ringing cell phone, "Barack the Vote!"..."It's a happy day to be black."..."This day is inpiring on so many levels. It's incredible that's what's up."
An older man drove by the line honking, waving and shouting, "Hallelujah! Thank you Jesus!" After a short while, strangers in line started talking about the election to pass the time. It was quickly evident that people closely followed every twist and turn of this epic election. From what former BET Bob Johnson said in the primaries to the death of Sen. Obama's grandmother, everything--like in a soap opera--was up for discussion. To gales of laughter, one middle-aged African-American woman declared, "If she (Sarah Palin) can see Russia from Alaska, then we can see Canada--or better yet Cuba--from our backyard!"
The line started moving quickly once the doors opened at 7 a.m. As people streamed out of the voting booth, those still waiting in line waved and spoke to neighbors they knew. An older woman came out and saw the young man standing behind me and exclaimed, "I am so proud to see you here!" She gave him a big bear hug. After she left, someone asked him, "did you used to be bad?" "Yeah, I used to get in some trouble," he said sheepishly. "But I'm into good things now."
Once I reached the voting booth, the significance of the day began to sink in. "Barack Obama/Joe Biden" right there on the top of the ballot. No hesitation. "Eleanor Holmes Norton" for Congress. No hesitation. But who were some of these other people further down ballot? What do I know about them? Their policy positions? No matter. Just mark Democrat and hope its O.K. I made a mental note to myself to get more familiar with the local politicians and their positions on the issues.
As I left the gymnasium with my "I just voted" sticker affixed to my red woolen jacket, I passed the long line of people waiting outside. It was clear that as many new people were joining the line as were voting which suggested a steady flow of voters all day. That's good news for Obama. A photographer was taking a picture of an spry elderly woman on a cane with her daughters. One daughter mentioned that her mother was 91 years old. Looking at the woman, it was clear that she was excited and very happy to be a part of history.
Almost to the car now. "It's so good to see so many kids in line." I overheard someone saying. "Yeah, girl. They need to know that they too can be on the ballot one day."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama is for Everyone
Senator Barack Obama's historic candidacy has increased attention to the role of race in America. While commentators have explored multiple perspectives on this issue, few have addressed the claim that Senator Obama cannot be too closely aligned with African Americans in order to be considered a viable candidate for president.
The full impact of this largely overlooked theme hit home for me during the Democratic convention in Denver. I was seated in the stadium awaiting Barack Obama's nomination speech along with 80,000 other Americans of diverse backgrounds when, smiling serenely, an African-American male with a hand-made sign that read, "Brothers for Obama" stopped in front of our seating section. Behind me, a white male who looked to be in his 30s raised his voice in agitation telling the sign bearer to go away. I recall him saying that Obama "is for everyone."
Although the smile never left the African-American man's face, he moved on to other sections before returning a half an hour later. Again, the same white male, this time in an even greater state of agitation, yelled a similar response. His angry reaction seemed out of place and unseemly in a stadium filled with a mood of harmony and excitement about the historic nature of the nomination event. Indeed, I looked around during this exchange and the man's friends and others in our area seemed uncomfortable with his reaction.
There were other signs and buttons surrounding us—signs that read "Women for Obama," "Workers for Obama," "Veterans for Obama," and "Latinos for Obama"—that did not generate the same kind of angry reaction from this man. Indeed, he did not even seem aware of his own double standard.
This example, and others throughout the campaign, raises the question of whether an Obama presidency will be able to address the policy concerns of African Americans without some claiming that he is unfairly biased. Who could imagine a political strategist making the equivalent of this argument about George W. Bush or former President Clinton when it comes to their interactions with white Americans?
There has been muted concern among many African Americans about this aspect of the national dialogue. For implicit in these arguments is the notion that issues of concern to African Americans should be expected to take a back seat if Senator Obama is becomes the next President. Yet why should issues facing African Americans (e.g., skyrocketing rates of HIV/AIDS, incarceration, and failing schools) be any less eligible for policy action simply because the presidential candidate is also an African American?
Imagine the absurdity of an Obama Administration that failed to address policy issues of utmost concern to African Americans—a demographic providing him with a larger percentage of votes than any other group in the nation—even as it addressed the concerns of whites, religious groups, business owners and any other multitude of interest groups seeking the president's help.
To be sure, there are some who argue that public policies should benefit the nation as a whole. While this noble sentiment is appropriate when it comes to some issues like national security, it ignores the realities of a democracy driven by interest group advocacy. According to Harold Lasswell, a noted 20th century political scientist, politics is the process of determining "who gets what, when, and how." And, it is often the squeakiest wheels—those who demonstrate voting, fundraising and lobbying prowess—who receive the most from our democratic institutions.
Furthermore, lawmakers often draft policies to meet the expressed needs of target populations. That is why we have aging policies to address the needs of the elderly, faith-based policies to support the needs of religious groups, income security programs to address the needs of those in poverty, tax preferences to support homeowners, and gender-specific policies—such as the Violence Against Women Act—to address the concerns of women. Why should we expect our democracy to work differently for African Americans?
Ultimately, the angry white guy in Denver's Invesco Field stadium was right--Obama's candidacy should be for all Americans. However, this cannot be achieved if African Americans do not assert, as Martin Luther King (echoing former President Calvin Coolidge) once espoused, "the full measure of citizenship." This includes maintaining the right to participate equally in and receive equal outcomes from our democracy—regardless of who occupies the White House.
By addressing African-American concerns alongside the concerns of Americans from other racial and ethnic groups, the next president of the United States has a chance to help us achieve this uniquely American dream.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Another Appointment for Colin Powell
General Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama should not be surprising. After all, as George W. Bush's first Secretary of State Powell was a reluctant participant in the push for the War in Iraq, a vocal critic of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's strategies, and treated poorly by an Administration that is notorious for turning against dissenters.
At an Aspen Institute event several years ago (following his departure from the Bush Administration), Powell shared his mental struggle with his role in helping to facilitate an unjustified war in Iraq. It was clear to attendees that Powell maintained a sense of guilt that he clearly needed to purge to feel at peace with himself.
For this reason (and the fact that he is knowledgeable about U.S. military affairs), a potential Obama administration should seriously consider letting Powell redeem himself by guiding U.S. troops safely out of Iraq and contributing to a policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan that makes sense. While Powell does not have to have a formal cabinet role, an Obama administration should consider it. For who else would perform the intricate task of safely extracting our troops but someone who has so much at stake in a successful pullout?
What Powell lost in his go-along-get-along role as the U.N. salesman for the Iraq War was his reputation, honor, and vaunted place in the history books. For Powell, a career military man with a code of honor emblazoned into his DNA, the ultimate penance for his sin would be to fix what was broken in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Giving him a chance to redeem himself may not only be good for Powell, it may be the best thing for an Obama Administration, our troops and the nation.
At an Aspen Institute event several years ago (following his departure from the Bush Administration), Powell shared his mental struggle with his role in helping to facilitate an unjustified war in Iraq. It was clear to attendees that Powell maintained a sense of guilt that he clearly needed to purge to feel at peace with himself.
For this reason (and the fact that he is knowledgeable about U.S. military affairs), a potential Obama administration should seriously consider letting Powell redeem himself by guiding U.S. troops safely out of Iraq and contributing to a policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan that makes sense. While Powell does not have to have a formal cabinet role, an Obama administration should consider it. For who else would perform the intricate task of safely extracting our troops but someone who has so much at stake in a successful pullout?
What Powell lost in his go-along-get-along role as the U.N. salesman for the Iraq War was his reputation, honor, and vaunted place in the history books. For Powell, a career military man with a code of honor emblazoned into his DNA, the ultimate penance for his sin would be to fix what was broken in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Giving him a chance to redeem himself may not only be good for Powell, it may be the best thing for an Obama Administration, our troops and the nation.
Palin's Ambition
"But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition?" Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 2008
It's clear that the game is over when writers at the Wall Street Journal start questioning Gov. Sarah Palin's credentials. Sarah Palin is a fraud who managed to bamboozle the people of Wasillah, the state of Alaska and presidential candidate John McCain into believing that she is a capable politician.
In the early days, shortly after her addition to the Republican ticket, it was easy to believe that Palin was a good call. She could read well from a teleprompter, she had a story that appealed to the Republican base, and she was drawing loads of attention from the national media. It didn't take long for the veneer of true policy depth to be challenged, incredibly by the simplest of Katie Couric's questions querying Palin about her reading habits.
After eight years of the Bush Administration, a majority of Americans and the mainstream media are waking up to the realization that leadership matters, knowledge matters, and character matters. They had been lulled away from this realization by the prosperous yet scandalous years of the Clinton Administration. During this time, America's cynicism about the personal failings of politicians led many--particularly family values conservatives--to lean toward the guy who seemed to have a stable homelife and to be rooted in his faith. Yet this simplified test of character ignored other evidence suggesting that George W. Bush was an incurious man with little intellectual depth and an inferiority complex that would drive his ambition to make up for the perceived failings of a father who questioned his son's capacities.
Now, eight years later no one can argue that Bush, Jr.'s character flaws had real consequences for the nation. They led us into a disastrous war in Iraq, to a massive failure in governance in the aftermath of Katrina, and to the brink of economic collapse.
These failings bring us back to Sarah Palin. From her barely understandable utterances in media interviews to her bald-faced assertion that she had been found innocent in her state's Troopergate ethics probe which found her guilty, Palin has proven that she too lacks the knowledge or character to make a good leader.
Leading conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Peggy Noonan have arrived at a similar conclusion. In her Wall Street Journal column Peggy Noonan questions what drives Sarah Palin's ambitions in light of her obvious political deficits. The answer is as clear as it is telling. Sarah Palin is auditioning for Tina Fey's job as an actress on Saturday Night Live or Thirty Rock.
Palin's seeming deep-seated desire to be a powerful politician is really a desire to be in the spotlight. So far, politics has been the most ready vehicle through which she has been able to channel this ambition. Yet, her continued happy-go-lucky, willing-to-say-anything countenance in a race that is sure to lay the groundwork for her political obituary, suggests that her ambitions are not necessarily connected to her political future.
If the McCain/Palin ticket goes down in flames, many in the Republican Party will point the blame at Palin. She will be treated as toxic waste and abandoned by a party that will be looking for a fresh start in 2012. And, it is likely that her vice presidential run will also undermine her ability to be reelected as governor of the state of Alaska. For she has collected political enemies, many of them within her own party, since ascending to office on a maverick platform that has fingered Republicans for their malfeasance. The combined effects of the political quagmire that is the McCain/Palin ticket and internal Alaska politics are likely to spawn at least one strong challenger in Alaska's next gubernatorial election.
But don't worry about Sarah Palin. If she doesn't become the nation's next Vice President or win reelection as Alaska's governor, she will find her way to the next public platform that feeds her ambition. After all, the New York Times and other sources are reporting on the adoring crowds--prominently featuring admiring men of all ages--who show up at her rallies. With some wearing buttons proclaiming, "Proud to be voting for a hot chick" and Alec Baldwin remarking on her good looks during a recent Saturday Night Live appearance, it is clear that Sarah has the potential to build a fan-base that rivals Angelina Jolie's.
Within the next few weeks we will know whether Washington is out of Palin's reach. But look out Hollywood. The real Sarah Palin may be coming to theaters near you.
It's clear that the game is over when writers at the Wall Street Journal start questioning Gov. Sarah Palin's credentials. Sarah Palin is a fraud who managed to bamboozle the people of Wasillah, the state of Alaska and presidential candidate John McCain into believing that she is a capable politician.
In the early days, shortly after her addition to the Republican ticket, it was easy to believe that Palin was a good call. She could read well from a teleprompter, she had a story that appealed to the Republican base, and she was drawing loads of attention from the national media. It didn't take long for the veneer of true policy depth to be challenged, incredibly by the simplest of Katie Couric's questions querying Palin about her reading habits.
After eight years of the Bush Administration, a majority of Americans and the mainstream media are waking up to the realization that leadership matters, knowledge matters, and character matters. They had been lulled away from this realization by the prosperous yet scandalous years of the Clinton Administration. During this time, America's cynicism about the personal failings of politicians led many--particularly family values conservatives--to lean toward the guy who seemed to have a stable homelife and to be rooted in his faith. Yet this simplified test of character ignored other evidence suggesting that George W. Bush was an incurious man with little intellectual depth and an inferiority complex that would drive his ambition to make up for the perceived failings of a father who questioned his son's capacities.
Now, eight years later no one can argue that Bush, Jr.'s character flaws had real consequences for the nation. They led us into a disastrous war in Iraq, to a massive failure in governance in the aftermath of Katrina, and to the brink of economic collapse.
These failings bring us back to Sarah Palin. From her barely understandable utterances in media interviews to her bald-faced assertion that she had been found innocent in her state's Troopergate ethics probe which found her guilty, Palin has proven that she too lacks the knowledge or character to make a good leader.
Leading conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Peggy Noonan have arrived at a similar conclusion. In her Wall Street Journal column Peggy Noonan questions what drives Sarah Palin's ambitions in light of her obvious political deficits. The answer is as clear as it is telling. Sarah Palin is auditioning for Tina Fey's job as an actress on Saturday Night Live or Thirty Rock.
Palin's seeming deep-seated desire to be a powerful politician is really a desire to be in the spotlight. So far, politics has been the most ready vehicle through which she has been able to channel this ambition. Yet, her continued happy-go-lucky, willing-to-say-anything countenance in a race that is sure to lay the groundwork for her political obituary, suggests that her ambitions are not necessarily connected to her political future.
If the McCain/Palin ticket goes down in flames, many in the Republican Party will point the blame at Palin. She will be treated as toxic waste and abandoned by a party that will be looking for a fresh start in 2012. And, it is likely that her vice presidential run will also undermine her ability to be reelected as governor of the state of Alaska. For she has collected political enemies, many of them within her own party, since ascending to office on a maverick platform that has fingered Republicans for their malfeasance. The combined effects of the political quagmire that is the McCain/Palin ticket and internal Alaska politics are likely to spawn at least one strong challenger in Alaska's next gubernatorial election.
But don't worry about Sarah Palin. If she doesn't become the nation's next Vice President or win reelection as Alaska's governor, she will find her way to the next public platform that feeds her ambition. After all, the New York Times and other sources are reporting on the adoring crowds--prominently featuring admiring men of all ages--who show up at her rallies. With some wearing buttons proclaiming, "Proud to be voting for a hot chick" and Alec Baldwin remarking on her good looks during a recent Saturday Night Live appearance, it is clear that Sarah has the potential to build a fan-base that rivals Angelina Jolie's.
Within the next few weeks we will know whether Washington is out of Palin's reach. But look out Hollywood. The real Sarah Palin may be coming to theaters near you.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The 'Christian' Slime Machine
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5, The New American Standard Bible
Oh how easily the Religious Right forgets its bible lessons when engaged in contemporary political battles. In supposed defense of social conservative values like defending the "right to life," the religious right has vigorously supported politicians who have lied to the American public, sent innocent soldiers and civilians to their deaths based on lies, failed to provide for Americans in times of suffering and great need (i.e. Katrina), denied health insurance coverage for children in need (i.e. Republicans' veto of the SCHIP bill) and failed to mind the storehouse (i.e. impose regulation or conduct sufficient oversight) as greedy lenders bilked vulnerable Americans out of their homes with fraudulent financial practices--placing all Americans and the world in harms way in the process.
Now, just in time for the final round of the 2008 presidential elections, social conservatives are urging presidential nominee John McCain to "take the gloves off" in the battle for the White House. McCain campaign operatives have indicated that they are prepared to go after Senator Barack Obama for his questionable associations with William "Bill" Ayers-a former 60's radical who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a convicted Chicago businessman, and the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor.
Light-as-a-feather and avowed Christian Sarah Palin has delivered the opening salvo by suggesting that Barack Obama has been "palling around with terrorists"--a reference to his time serving on a charitable board alongside Bill Ayers. While her attack is disturbing, it is not because of her avowed christianity. After all, we have come to expect the public rants, accusations and half-truths uttered by so-called christians during the political season. Her attack is disturbing because of the sheer hypocrisy that undergirds it.
Let us consider the facts:
Oh how easily the Religious Right forgets its bible lessons when engaged in contemporary political battles. In supposed defense of social conservative values like defending the "right to life," the religious right has vigorously supported politicians who have lied to the American public, sent innocent soldiers and civilians to their deaths based on lies, failed to provide for Americans in times of suffering and great need (i.e. Katrina), denied health insurance coverage for children in need (i.e. Republicans' veto of the SCHIP bill) and failed to mind the storehouse (i.e. impose regulation or conduct sufficient oversight) as greedy lenders bilked vulnerable Americans out of their homes with fraudulent financial practices--placing all Americans and the world in harms way in the process.
Now, just in time for the final round of the 2008 presidential elections, social conservatives are urging presidential nominee John McCain to "take the gloves off" in the battle for the White House. McCain campaign operatives have indicated that they are prepared to go after Senator Barack Obama for his questionable associations with William "Bill" Ayers-a former 60's radical who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a convicted Chicago businessman, and the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor.
Light-as-a-feather and avowed Christian Sarah Palin has delivered the opening salvo by suggesting that Barack Obama has been "palling around with terrorists"--a reference to his time serving on a charitable board alongside Bill Ayers. While her attack is disturbing, it is not because of her avowed christianity. After all, we have come to expect the public rants, accusations and half-truths uttered by so-called christians during the political season. Her attack is disturbing because of the sheer hypocrisy that undergirds it.
Let us consider the facts:
- Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) from 1995 until 2002. The AIP is a separatist organization that has espoused the separation of Alaska from the United States. It's founder, Joe Vogler, has been quoted as saying, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." In short, Todd Palin's AIP affiliation could be considered treasonous (i.e., a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state).
- According to a Huffington Post article and other published reports, Sarah Palin's former pastor Ed Kalnins has "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."" Whatever his shortcomings, Reverend Wright--Obama's former pastor--never tied the salvation of his congregation members to their political affiliation or preferences.
- Sarah Palin's running mate, Senator John McCain celebrated his 70th birthday with Raffaelo Follieri, a con man who plead guilty to cheating investors out of their money with a bogus claim that he represented the Vatican on real estate deals connected to the Catholic church. Furthermore, published reports suggest that one of McCain's top aides had a business arrangement with Follieri.
- In today's paper, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson points to McCain's close association with former Texas Senator Phil Gramm. Meyerson writes, "Chief among those to whom responsibility attaches for the financial crisis that is plunging the nation into recession is former Texas senator Phil Gramm, McCain's own economic guru...As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the Clinton administration, he consistently underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission and kept it from stopping accounting firms from auditing corporations with which they had conflicts of interest. Gramm's piece de resistance came on Dec. 15, 2000, when he slipped into an omnibus spending bill a provision called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which prohibited any governmental regulation of credit default swaps, those insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event they went belly up." This is the same Phil Gramm who called Americans a "nation of whiners" suffering from a "mental recession." He uttered these words just a few short weeks before the extent of the real economic crisis was apparent for all to see.
- And we can't forget McCain's dubious role in the Keating Five scandal in which he and four other U.S. Senators were accused of corruption through their questionable dealings with the owner of a savings and loan association which eventually went belly-up causing 21,000 mostly elderly citizens to lose their life savings. McCain was formally reprimanded for his role in the scandal.
What this abbreviated historical overview (the National Enquirer and others are digging up more stuff on Palin, her relatives and associations as we speak) of the McCain/Palin associations reveals is that there is plenty animus to go around. Yet, that won't stop the McCain/Palin train from heading down this malicious and slanderous track. For what matters to these christians and their social conservative supporters is not so much the letter of the Word but the ability to easily forget the Word when it is politically convenient.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
U.S. a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Wall Street
Wholly-owned subsidiary: "a company whose stock is entirely owned by another company. The owner of a wholly-owned subsidiary is known as the parent company or holding company. Because the parent company owns all of the stock of the wholly-owned subsidiary, the parent company can control all of its activities."
The events of the past several weeks underscore that the United States of America and the institutions that govern it are controlled by the capitalists that run our financial systems. How can we tell that this is the case?
The rejection of the first Wall Street Bailout bill in the House of Representatives on Monday, September 29 was fueled by Congressional representatives responding to the sentiments of constituents who were calling en mass against the bill. By the time of the revote, which passed in the House on Friday, October 3 Congressional representatives had received a barrage of calls organized by Wall Street lobbyists and pro-business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and others with a vested interest in getting Congress to approve the bill despite its obvious deficits (e.g. the absence of any direct measures to help homeowners).
In this case, coordinated business interests were able to offset and marginalize the will of the people (although some citizens changed their negative opinions about the bill when they saw the stock market drop precipitously following its initial defeat, polls show that a majority of Americans were still against the bill as drafted by the end of the week).
Having worked on Capitol Hill for a number of years, I have personally observed instances of corporate lobbyists subverting the intent of our democratic institutions by applying undue influence in the political process. For example, I have seen bills shaped by corporate interests passed into law without much or any input from average citizens or organizations representing the public will. Most of these measures have passed without much public attention due to the complexity of the issue and relative obscurity of the process.
The content and implementation of the Wall Street Bailout bill should reveal to Americans the full extent to which corporate interests have taken over the functions and management of the U.S. government. The bill has given unprecedented authority to the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry "Hank" Paulson, Jr.--himself a former Chairman and CEO of the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs.
Secretary Paulson is now tasked with turning over a large amount of the $750 billion promised in the bill to be managed by his friends in the industry. As the New York Times reported on Friday, October 3:
"Treasury officials do not plan to manage the mortgage assets on their own. Instead, they will outsource nearly all of the work to professionals, who will oversee huge portfolios of bonds and other securities for a management fee.
...Mr. Paulson has recruited several former colleagues from Goldman Sachs to advise him...
...The government will...outsource the bulk of the program to 5 to 10 asset management firms.
...The selected asset management firms will receive a chunk of the $250 billion that Congress is allowing the Treasury to spend in the first phase of the bailout.
... Administration officials said they would try to drive down fees with a competitive bidding process. But with $700 billion to disburse, the plan could still generate tens of billions of dollars in fees if the firms negotiate anywhere close to their standard fees."
The article goes on to say that with so many Wall Street professionals now out of work, the U.S. government will have plenty of experts available to help it implement the bailout plan.
Instead of help for homeowners in danger of losing their homes, Americans now learn that the Wall Street Bailout bill is really a boondoggle for the same Wall Street "professionals" who messed up so badly with the creation and proliferation of the subversive financial products and processes (e.g. subprime mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps) that have gotten this country into its current mess.
This is not government "for the people, by the people." It is government for monied interests and by monied interests.
The events of the past several weeks underscore that the United States of America and the institutions that govern it are controlled by the capitalists that run our financial systems. How can we tell that this is the case?
The rejection of the first Wall Street Bailout bill in the House of Representatives on Monday, September 29 was fueled by Congressional representatives responding to the sentiments of constituents who were calling en mass against the bill. By the time of the revote, which passed in the House on Friday, October 3 Congressional representatives had received a barrage of calls organized by Wall Street lobbyists and pro-business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and others with a vested interest in getting Congress to approve the bill despite its obvious deficits (e.g. the absence of any direct measures to help homeowners).
In this case, coordinated business interests were able to offset and marginalize the will of the people (although some citizens changed their negative opinions about the bill when they saw the stock market drop precipitously following its initial defeat, polls show that a majority of Americans were still against the bill as drafted by the end of the week).
Having worked on Capitol Hill for a number of years, I have personally observed instances of corporate lobbyists subverting the intent of our democratic institutions by applying undue influence in the political process. For example, I have seen bills shaped by corporate interests passed into law without much or any input from average citizens or organizations representing the public will. Most of these measures have passed without much public attention due to the complexity of the issue and relative obscurity of the process.
The content and implementation of the Wall Street Bailout bill should reveal to Americans the full extent to which corporate interests have taken over the functions and management of the U.S. government. The bill has given unprecedented authority to the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry "Hank" Paulson, Jr.--himself a former Chairman and CEO of the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs.
Secretary Paulson is now tasked with turning over a large amount of the $750 billion promised in the bill to be managed by his friends in the industry. As the New York Times reported on Friday, October 3:
"Treasury officials do not plan to manage the mortgage assets on their own. Instead, they will outsource nearly all of the work to professionals, who will oversee huge portfolios of bonds and other securities for a management fee.
...Mr. Paulson has recruited several former colleagues from Goldman Sachs to advise him...
...The government will...outsource the bulk of the program to 5 to 10 asset management firms.
...The selected asset management firms will receive a chunk of the $250 billion that Congress is allowing the Treasury to spend in the first phase of the bailout.
... Administration officials said they would try to drive down fees with a competitive bidding process. But with $700 billion to disburse, the plan could still generate tens of billions of dollars in fees if the firms negotiate anywhere close to their standard fees."
The article goes on to say that with so many Wall Street professionals now out of work, the U.S. government will have plenty of experts available to help it implement the bailout plan.
Instead of help for homeowners in danger of losing their homes, Americans now learn that the Wall Street Bailout bill is really a boondoggle for the same Wall Street "professionals" who messed up so badly with the creation and proliferation of the subversive financial products and processes (e.g. subprime mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps) that have gotten this country into its current mess.
This is not government "for the people, by the people." It is government for monied interests and by monied interests.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Sarah Goes to Hollywood
While analyzing Governor Sarah Palin's performance in tonight's debate, it suddenly hit me that Sarah Palin is an actress who never found her way to Hollywood. Her debate performance was much better than her performance in Katie Couric's interviews. However, it was clear that she learned her lines and stepped into the character of the folksy "regular gal" who's taking the political establishment by storm. Will Sarah's performance be enough to pull the McCain/Palin ticket from sinking further in the polls? I'm sure that it will bolster the enthusiasm of those Republicans who were starting to question the sanity of the Palin pick. It may even carry sway with those independent voters who care more about whether they like the candidate instead of the substance of issues. Although Governor Palin may have performed better than expected, she did not win the debate. She was evasive on many answers that required specificity--particularly the foreign policy questions. But, more importantly, Senator Joe Biden was surprisingly strong in his second half performance. He highlighted that John McCain has no plans that are different from George W. Bush. He questioned the veractiy of John McCain's "maverick" status. And, he challenged Palin on the notion that a man couldn't care and worry about his family. Joe's best moment was when he became emotional talking about his personal story and how it relates to the struggles facing Americans everywhere. Pleasantly, Joe Biden also stayed away from any negative body language or statements that could be perceived as patronizing or threatening. In short, the substance of Biden's answers and his ability to avoid any verbal or gender gaffe's gave him a clear edge. On to the next debate....
Truth Vs. Spin
It's sad to say, but the country is being misled by the President and leaders in Congress. Instead of plain spoken truth, Democrat and Republican leaders in support of the Wall Street Bailout bill (now $850 billion as a result of the Senate-passed version which added on multiple provisions that have nothing to do with the crisis) have issued only spin and half-truths. Let's break it down:
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will prevent executives on Wall Street from taking home multi-million dollar paychecks.
Fact: While the bill contains rhetoric to this effect, it does not have any provisions to enforce this measure.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will help homeowners prevent foreclosures.
Fact: Again the bill expresses the sense that the Treasury Secretary should use some of the monies to help homeowners, but there are no enforcement provisions to ensure that this will happen.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill has oversight provisions that will ensure the $700 billion (now $850 billion) will be well spent.
Fact: The two oversight provisions contained in the bill--a Congressional oversight board and an entity whose members are appointed jointly by the President and Congress (with the majority of appointments going to the Republicans)--contain no enforcement provisions that will allow these entities to stop the actions of the Treasury Secretary should his spending prove off the mark.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will get our credit markets going again and save our economy from destruction.
Fact: Treasury Secretary Paulson has admitted that he does not know whether this bill will have the intended effect of bringing full function back to the credit markets. There are many economist who have suggested that it won't. Consider the following quote from economist Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
"How do we go about getting the banks in order? Almost every economist I know rejects the Paulson approach and argues instead for directly injecting capital into the banks. The taxpayers give them the money and then we own some, or all, of the bank. (That's what Warren Buffet did with Goldman Sachs.)
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will prevent executives on Wall Street from taking home multi-million dollar paychecks.
Fact: While the bill contains rhetoric to this effect, it does not have any provisions to enforce this measure.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will help homeowners prevent foreclosures.
Fact: Again the bill expresses the sense that the Treasury Secretary should use some of the monies to help homeowners, but there are no enforcement provisions to ensure that this will happen.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill has oversight provisions that will ensure the $700 billion (now $850 billion) will be well spent.
Fact: The two oversight provisions contained in the bill--a Congressional oversight board and an entity whose members are appointed jointly by the President and Congress (with the majority of appointments going to the Republicans)--contain no enforcement provisions that will allow these entities to stop the actions of the Treasury Secretary should his spending prove off the mark.
Spin: The Wall Street Bailout bill will get our credit markets going again and save our economy from destruction.
Fact: Treasury Secretary Paulson has admitted that he does not know whether this bill will have the intended effect of bringing full function back to the credit markets. There are many economist who have suggested that it won't. Consider the following quote from economist Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
"How do we go about getting the banks in order? Almost every economist I know rejects the Paulson approach and argues instead for directly injecting capital into the banks. The taxpayers give them the money and then we own some, or all, of the bank. (That's what Warren Buffet did with Goldman Sachs.)
This isn't about begging for a sliver of equity as a concession for a $700 billion bailout, this is about constructing a bank rescue the way that business people would do it. We have an interest in a well-operating financial system. There is zero public interest in giving away taxpayer dollars to the Wall Street banks and their executives."
Consider too the words of economist Joseph E. Stiglitz-who won a Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001:“No private firm was willing to buy these toxic mortgages at what the seller thought was a reasonable price,” he wrote. “They finally found a sucker who would take them off their hands -- called the American taxpayer.”
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Bailout Blues
Top ten reasons why the Wall Street bailout doesn't smell right:
10. George W. Bush is a lame duck president who will be leaving office in less than 3 months. Why would a Democratic Congress authorize W's Treasury Secretary to spend $700 billion as he is going out the door with no real strings attached (forget the oversight board talked about in the media--the bill that Congress considered on Monday had a sham of an oversight board with no real enforcement authority)? This is the equivalent of giving a kid the keys to the candy store.
9. George W. Bush and his Administration are proven liars. They have lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they have lied about the Justice Department firings of state attorney's, they have lied about their involvement in the "outing" of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, they have lied about domestic spying, and they have lied about using torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Why should the Democrats or the country trust them now?
8. The Wall Street Bailout does not address the source of the problem. People unable to meet their mortgage terms have caused unprecedented numbers of foreclosures which have in turn caused banks that extended the loans and companies that trafficked in mortgage-backed securities and related products to go belly-up or experience severe financial strain. If mortgage foreclosures are the source of the problem, then why isn't the bailout structured to stop the hemmoraging at its source by helping people to restructure the terms of their mortgages?
7. The Wall Street Bailout would leave the next President of the United States with little to no financial wiggle room. The next President would be without the resources needed to implement important new investments such as universal healthcare or a broad-based energy plan designed to wean the country off of its dependence on foreign oil.
6. The Wall Street Bailout continues to use the failed trickle-down economic approach. Under this philosophy, wealthy people and corporations get the most support from government under the theory that their wealth will trickle down to the average-earning people on Mainstreet. This approach, the same one that undergirded the Bush tax cuts, has been a proven failure. Instead of trickling down, the money has gushed to the top and stayed at the top. Average people are losing jobs, unable to pay their bills and the gap between the super-wealthy and the middle class has gotten larger.
5. Free market Republicans who have historically poo poohed the need for government have turned into born-again Democrats. You know that something is wrong when Wall Street titans and Bush Administration officials agree that there is a good role for government: providing taxpayer subsidies to companies (otherwise known as Welfare for Wall Street). Some Republicans are even calling for the need to better regulate the market--after more than 20 years of fighting against such regulations (thereby contributing to the current crisis)!
4. The Bush Administration does not have a track record of good fiscal management. The unprecedented amount of Waste, Fraud and Abuse that has characterized the Bush Administration's handling of the public's tax dollars does not bode well for how the bailout money will be spent. The level of cronyism (giving federal money to its friends) shown by this Administration has been unprecedented in scale and scope. There have been billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Many of these dollars have been spent on well-connected defense industry contractors who have taken the money without completing work or performing satisfactory work. Additionally, why is noone taking notice that the federal government is in the same predicament as many of the bailout banks teetering on the brink of destruction? The nation is trillions of dollars in debt and is promising to print more paper money to float the bailout. If the foreign countries whom the U.S. owes decide to quit financing our nation's excesses, our nation will essentially be facing insolvency. Simply put, we can't afford $700 billion.
3. By essentially leading the charge on the need for the bailout (Bush's version with light modifications), the Democratic Congress is placing itself in a position to be punished by angry voters in November. Why would the Democratic Congress--an entity that should have all of the leverage in negotiations (given Bush's lame duck status and the Republican's minority status)--take the lead in promoting and defending a bailout plan that largely favors Wall Street over Mainstreet? One reason why this Democratic Congress has such low approval ratings may be that the average person feels that it has failed to leverage its position of power to benefit the people who gave them the majority in 2006.
2. The Bush Administration has resorted to staging a public stickup to get what it wants. Instead of a gun, Bush has used the media, the stock market and timing (it waited until the last minute to admit the seriousness of our economic troubles) to pressure a nervous Congress into getting what it wants--$700 billion of your tax dollars for its Wall Street friends. Many experts and even Administration and Congressional leaders have stated that they are not certain that the bailout as currently structured will stop the economic losses. Despite calls to take the time to develop a rational and workable plan, the Congress has gone along with the Administration's stickup timeline by holding votes within days of the ill-concieved bailout package being presented.
1. The Wall Street Bailout is a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers with modest means to corporations and people with vast resources. The money used for the Wall Street Bailout is money that you pay the U.S. treasury every April during tax season. This is your hard earned money and instead of redirecting it to help you, it is being directed to help those who earn profits and bonuses on a scale unimaginable by most working families. Welfare for the wealthy, indeed. But it is at your expense. Instead of stealing from working families, why not ask corporate tycoons to help make their companies financially secure by returning their excessive bonuses and paychecks from the last 5 years? And, for those who believe that the Wall Street Bailout package has enforceable provisions to curb the salaries of corporate CEO's, well I have some swamp land in Florida that I would like to sell to you.
I know that people's pensions, savings, credit lines, etc. are on the line and that measures are needed to stabilize the economy. This post is designed to point out that there are good reasons to be very careful in terms of how we craft the stabilization measures as the results are likely to stay with the country for a long time. Despite the reluctance of the public, the media, Wall Street and the Administration are trying to convince the public that we need to strike a bailout deal (their bailout deal) immediately. There are good reasons to be suspicious of the high-pressure tactics being utilized and the content of the currently proposed bailout deal.
10. George W. Bush is a lame duck president who will be leaving office in less than 3 months. Why would a Democratic Congress authorize W's Treasury Secretary to spend $700 billion as he is going out the door with no real strings attached (forget the oversight board talked about in the media--the bill that Congress considered on Monday had a sham of an oversight board with no real enforcement authority)? This is the equivalent of giving a kid the keys to the candy store.
9. George W. Bush and his Administration are proven liars. They have lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they have lied about the Justice Department firings of state attorney's, they have lied about their involvement in the "outing" of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, they have lied about domestic spying, and they have lied about using torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Why should the Democrats or the country trust them now?
8. The Wall Street Bailout does not address the source of the problem. People unable to meet their mortgage terms have caused unprecedented numbers of foreclosures which have in turn caused banks that extended the loans and companies that trafficked in mortgage-backed securities and related products to go belly-up or experience severe financial strain. If mortgage foreclosures are the source of the problem, then why isn't the bailout structured to stop the hemmoraging at its source by helping people to restructure the terms of their mortgages?
7. The Wall Street Bailout would leave the next President of the United States with little to no financial wiggle room. The next President would be without the resources needed to implement important new investments such as universal healthcare or a broad-based energy plan designed to wean the country off of its dependence on foreign oil.
6. The Wall Street Bailout continues to use the failed trickle-down economic approach. Under this philosophy, wealthy people and corporations get the most support from government under the theory that their wealth will trickle down to the average-earning people on Mainstreet. This approach, the same one that undergirded the Bush tax cuts, has been a proven failure. Instead of trickling down, the money has gushed to the top and stayed at the top. Average people are losing jobs, unable to pay their bills and the gap between the super-wealthy and the middle class has gotten larger.
5. Free market Republicans who have historically poo poohed the need for government have turned into born-again Democrats. You know that something is wrong when Wall Street titans and Bush Administration officials agree that there is a good role for government: providing taxpayer subsidies to companies (otherwise known as Welfare for Wall Street). Some Republicans are even calling for the need to better regulate the market--after more than 20 years of fighting against such regulations (thereby contributing to the current crisis)!
4. The Bush Administration does not have a track record of good fiscal management. The unprecedented amount of Waste, Fraud and Abuse that has characterized the Bush Administration's handling of the public's tax dollars does not bode well for how the bailout money will be spent. The level of cronyism (giving federal money to its friends) shown by this Administration has been unprecedented in scale and scope. There have been billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Many of these dollars have been spent on well-connected defense industry contractors who have taken the money without completing work or performing satisfactory work. Additionally, why is noone taking notice that the federal government is in the same predicament as many of the bailout banks teetering on the brink of destruction? The nation is trillions of dollars in debt and is promising to print more paper money to float the bailout. If the foreign countries whom the U.S. owes decide to quit financing our nation's excesses, our nation will essentially be facing insolvency. Simply put, we can't afford $700 billion.
3. By essentially leading the charge on the need for the bailout (Bush's version with light modifications), the Democratic Congress is placing itself in a position to be punished by angry voters in November. Why would the Democratic Congress--an entity that should have all of the leverage in negotiations (given Bush's lame duck status and the Republican's minority status)--take the lead in promoting and defending a bailout plan that largely favors Wall Street over Mainstreet? One reason why this Democratic Congress has such low approval ratings may be that the average person feels that it has failed to leverage its position of power to benefit the people who gave them the majority in 2006.
2. The Bush Administration has resorted to staging a public stickup to get what it wants. Instead of a gun, Bush has used the media, the stock market and timing (it waited until the last minute to admit the seriousness of our economic troubles) to pressure a nervous Congress into getting what it wants--$700 billion of your tax dollars for its Wall Street friends. Many experts and even Administration and Congressional leaders have stated that they are not certain that the bailout as currently structured will stop the economic losses. Despite calls to take the time to develop a rational and workable plan, the Congress has gone along with the Administration's stickup timeline by holding votes within days of the ill-concieved bailout package being presented.
1. The Wall Street Bailout is a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers with modest means to corporations and people with vast resources. The money used for the Wall Street Bailout is money that you pay the U.S. treasury every April during tax season. This is your hard earned money and instead of redirecting it to help you, it is being directed to help those who earn profits and bonuses on a scale unimaginable by most working families. Welfare for the wealthy, indeed. But it is at your expense. Instead of stealing from working families, why not ask corporate tycoons to help make their companies financially secure by returning their excessive bonuses and paychecks from the last 5 years? And, for those who believe that the Wall Street Bailout package has enforceable provisions to curb the salaries of corporate CEO's, well I have some swamp land in Florida that I would like to sell to you.
I know that people's pensions, savings, credit lines, etc. are on the line and that measures are needed to stabilize the economy. This post is designed to point out that there are good reasons to be very careful in terms of how we craft the stabilization measures as the results are likely to stay with the country for a long time. Despite the reluctance of the public, the media, Wall Street and the Administration are trying to convince the public that we need to strike a bailout deal (their bailout deal) immediately. There are good reasons to be suspicious of the high-pressure tactics being utilized and the content of the currently proposed bailout deal.
Palinisms
In yesterday's post, I stated that Sarah Palin could be considered a role model...a role model for 9 year olds. In the ongoing saga of the Katie Couric interviews, Governor Palin has shown a disturbing lack of knowledge. The latest is that she was unable to name a single newspaper or magazine that she relies on for her news. Her answer suggests that she can't name a news source because SHE DOES NOT READ THE NEWS. Show me a leader who relies on television soundbites for her news and I will show you someone who cannot lead. If America votes for the McCain/Palin ticket, they will be voting to take our country back to the stone ages. This is particularly true after 8 disastrous years of George W. Bush--another Palinesque barely traveled, lite-reading "leader."
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
On Sarah Palin and Feminism
Many women will be on the edge of their seats tomorrow watching Sarah Palin participate in her first and only vice presidential debate of the election season. Some will tune in to root for the first woman on the Republican Party presidential ticket. Others (like me) will tune in because they are wondering if Palin will continue her erratic performance on the campaign trail and whether her intellectual deficits will set women's rights back 30 years.
No doubt about it, whether for or against the Republican ticket women everywhere are fascinated by the moose-hunter from Alaska with an unwed teen daughter, special-needs child and dog-sled driving husband. Whatever criticisms women may have about Palin's ideology (she doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose), no one can question that she represents a non-traditional role-model. Role-model?!? Yes, role model. Think about it: Palin got into politics after becoming active in her community. She was elected Mayor and then governor of her state on her own record and not through a politician husband (like Hillary Clinton).
That being said, what are we to make of Palin's ideology? It doesn't fit the traditional feminist profile of pro-choice, equal pay for equal work, etc. Does Palin's conservative perspective on these issues mean that she isn't a feminist? If this working mother of five can't legitimately claim the feminist label, then what is she? Perhaps she is an independent woman who believes that she doesn't have to be placed into an ideological box in order to express her womanhood. If this is the case, then Palin is expressing a post-feminist understanding of womanhood in which women are free to be, think, and believe what they want--even if it undercuts traditional feminist values considered important for the advancement of all women.
No doubt about it, whether for or against the Republican ticket women everywhere are fascinated by the moose-hunter from Alaska with an unwed teen daughter, special-needs child and dog-sled driving husband. Whatever criticisms women may have about Palin's ideology (she doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose), no one can question that she represents a non-traditional role-model. Role-model?!? Yes, role model. Think about it: Palin got into politics after becoming active in her community. She was elected Mayor and then governor of her state on her own record and not through a politician husband (like Hillary Clinton).
That being said, what are we to make of Palin's ideology? It doesn't fit the traditional feminist profile of pro-choice, equal pay for equal work, etc. Does Palin's conservative perspective on these issues mean that she isn't a feminist? If this working mother of five can't legitimately claim the feminist label, then what is she? Perhaps she is an independent woman who believes that she doesn't have to be placed into an ideological box in order to express her womanhood. If this is the case, then Palin is expressing a post-feminist understanding of womanhood in which women are free to be, think, and believe what they want--even if it undercuts traditional feminist values considered important for the advancement of all women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
