Choose:

hope over fear-
unity over division-
change over the status quo-

Think how lovely it will be to have a president who can string a sentence together...and a nation.

Vote for Barack Obama!

Fire Sale

Hurry, hurry, hurry!
Step right up, folks.
Get your failed economic policies,
Your compromised Constitution,
Your yawning inequality,
Crumbling infrastructure, declining
Middle Class, and Defunct New Orleans
While supplies last.

Going, going, going! A culture war, cheap;
Other wars at deep discount:
Iraq war, complete with oversized embassy;
Afghan war with revived Taliban;
Pakistan war...oops, can't say that...
(But I gotta tell you, folks, this one
Is the enhanced version with
A holed up bin Laden. Don't miss it!)

Hurry, hurry before they all sell out!
Don't miss out on plummeting world standing,
Record deficits accompanied by double-
Digit inflation and a stupendous
One-only-left-in-stock Wall Street Collapse
and Worst Recession In a Generation.
These unbelievable articles were manufactured
By the same great team who brought us
A Resurgent Russia, Growling China,
Unsettled Middle East, Nuclear North Korea,
World Economic Meltdown, Devalued Dollar,
Pending Chaos: all classics available now.
Hurry, hurry, hurry. These things can't last.

Step right up for a chance to own one
Failed presidency, tarnished but
Still glittering with faux pas.
I'll be honest, folks. We may never
See our democracy at such a discount again.
Ashcrofts, Brownies, Rumsfelds, Gonzalaz'
These are limited editions,
Each a-once-in-a-lifetime steal.
You won't see them again at any price
Anywhere after Obama wins the election.
Don't take a chance on
Missing this historic moment.
Sale ends November 3rd.

Now we can relax, knowing our money is in good hands, right?

Accountability?

Oh, you think the $700bn will be different? I sure hope you are right and I am wrong. I hope it helps the people it is (alleged to be) intended to help. What are you going to do when all your appeals have been for nothing? Hope's all that's left in my arsenal.

Time to polish up the old tools:

Hard Times Come Again No More

Pastures Of Plenty

Hard Travelim'

Brother, Can You Spare A Dime

More later.

Here's details of the bailout bill, including a summary of the unbelievable number of attachments. Newscasters mentioned the 'sweeteners; intended to entice the support of resistant Republicans, but there's a lot more than that involved! After reading it, I couldn't help marveling that any legislation ever gets passed. If Mr. Smith went to Washington today, he'd suffer culture shock.

How can any senator ever state definitively what he's voted for or against? It would take days to wade though the details of the attachments which rode to passage on the back of that bill last night. I'm willing to bet that not one senator who voted yea was in support of every attachment. Is that what they mean when they talk about compromise? I get it that compromise is a necessary evil when you are resolving issues among those with diverse goals/ideals - I am not entirely naive - but what happens to the integrity of people who are faced with such compromises year after year? Isn't it a very short step from compromise to corruption? If you've been tamping down your conscience for years in order to vote for legislation even though it contains attachments you believe are unnecessary or even repulsive, doesn't that somehow damage you? What kind of commitment does it take to be willing to subject yourself to that? You gotta wonder - and marvel.

Now, just because the Senate has passed their version of the bailout doesn't mean it can't or should not be stopped, and the House may do that. The House will vote on it tomorrow. They will undoubtedly make some changes to it. Perhaps they will take up the task of drafting legislation that both addresses the financial realities of Wall Street and protects taxpayers. I was encouraged today, listening to House members - all Republicans - who intend to vote no on the bill again. Gohmert of Texas talked about the folly of giving one man, Secretary Paulson, so much authority over so much of our money. I am in full agreement with him on that. Then, Bachus expressed concerns about our ability to meet other commitments if this we tie up $700bn. Although Pelosi (who has, incidentally, been given a bad rap for not sealing the deal Monday) says we have plenty of time to address the shortcoming of our financial regulations, the fact is, once Paulson has all that money, what we may regret is giving him so much leeway. It's almost like an invitation to crime, like leaving your car keys in the ignition is an invitation to car thieves.

The media is awash with messages warning of the dire consequences of the bill's failure. There's hardly room for dissenting voices to squeeze in, but I've heard a few. Allen Meltzer on NPR is one of them. And although Daniel Gross, business columnist for Newsweek, argues in reluctant favor of the bailout, I liked what he said:

"The Bush administration's desire to turn all Americans into participants in the capital markets through the privatization of Social Security never got off the ground. But in the last months of its second term, it has managed to pull off something of a coup. Soon enough, we'll all collectively own various securities issued by lots of big companies. Too bad the Ownership Society is happening only because we became a Bad Debt Society."

The media blitz on this issue reminds me of the way disserting voices were drowned out prior to the Iraq war. I smell the same hysteria in the air. I think we will have plenty of time to regret our hasty act if we allow ourselves to be swept up in it. I agree with, I think it is Bachus, who says how about giving Paulson $50bn for now and thinking about this over the recess, then taking it up again immediately on return? What's wrong with that? It certainly addresses the liquidity problem, if that's really what the problem is.

The Senate is considering the bailout plan today. Since 4 AM, Pacific Time, I have been trying to get through the Congressional Switchboard to leave messages for my representatives in Congress, but the number has been busy and the circuit jammed.

Wow! What's that all about?

I hope it means that all those against this bailout plan are flooding Washington lines.

This modified plan - the modifications make it even lass palatable - to be voted on in the Senate tonight still does not address issues of concern. The changes in the plan are designed to address concerns of wayward senators; they aren't trying to convince us anymore; they are trying to convince each other. We don't feel we are being heard.

Why would the Senate give such a large amount of money to the Bush Administration whose record of fiscal irresponsibility and dishonesty over the last eight years is incendiary? Why would they do it so close to a change of administrations? Why would they do it and effectively bind the hands of the next administration? It makes no sense.

Bernie Sanders gave an excellent speech on the floor. He has introduced an amendment, but I doubt it will gain any traction. He is one of the few I've heard speak out against the bill who state unequivocally they will not vote for it as it stands. Kudos to all who resist.

Call your representative! Let them know how opposed you are to this bailout. Remind them that it's an election year.

Democracy Now! had an excellent program discussing the bailout. A few snippets:

ROBERT JOHNSON: [former chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee] You say, too big to fail. Well, if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to be let loose to do whatever you want to do, because, in essence, you’re awarded the state. You’re like a public utility that we all depend on. And what they’ve tried to do is be too big to fail, but, on the upside, play whatever gambling games they want to do. That’s got to change.

BRUCE MARKS: [founder and CEO of NACA, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America] It is a real problem out there that these are so big they can’t even move to readdress what’s going on in the market. But again, the last words are: please, to all your viewers, call your congressmen, call your congresswomen. Tell them, don’t do the bailout. It’s working; we’re winning. The left and the right are coming together to stop this theft of the American taxpayer dollar. It’s a theft. Let’s stop it. We’re winning. We can kill this thing.

Is it possible that some representatives actually listened to their constituients, and that's the reason the bailout bill failed? Dave Lindorff thinks it is (The Power of No) and he says to keep the pressure on them.

People see clearly that this proposal is a trillion-dollar giveaway to the very people who have been hollowing out and destroying the US economy for over a decade or more by convincing both parties to let them do whatever they want to get rich, free of any kind of significant oversight or regulation.

As Nobelist economist Joseph Stiglitz has written [3] of this outrageous rip-off, there are four problems facing the financial system, and the bailout proposal only addresses one--getting the toxic mortgages off the banks' books and onto taxpayers' backs. Left unsolved is the gaping hole in banks' balance sheets in the form of loans made to people and companies which cannot be repaid, which will mean they still won't start lending money again. Left unaddressed too is the continuing collapse of housing prices, which will inevitably lead to more bank collapses even after the bailout. Finally, Stiglitz says there is the general loss of faith in the financial system--a major crisis which the bailout will also not solve.

Also, this article by Dean Baker make sense to me. He wrote:
<...>
There has been a mountain of scare stories and misinformation circulated to push the bailout. Yes, banks have tightened credit. Yes, we are in a recession. But the problem is not a freeze up of the banking system. The problem is the collapse of an $8 trillion housing bubble. (It was remarkable how many so-called experts somehow could not see the housing bubble as it grew to ever more dangerous levels. It is even more remarkable that many of these experts still don't recognize the bubble even as its collapse sinks the economy and the financial system.) The decline in housing prices to date has already cost the economy $4 trillion to $5 trillion in housing equity. This would be expected to lead to a decline in annual consumption on the order of $160 billion to $300 billion.
<...>

Finally, the bailout absolutely can make things worse. We are going to be in a serious recession because of the collapse of the housing bubble. We will need effective stimulus measures to boost the economy and keep the recession from getting worse.

However, the $700 billion outlay on the bailout is likely to be used as an argument against effective stimulus. We have already seen voices like the Washington Post and the Wall Street funded Peterson Foundation arguing that the government will have to make serious cutbacks because of the bailout.

While their argument is wrong, these are powerful voices in national debates. If the bailout proves to be an obstacle to effective stimulus in future months and years, then the bailout could lead to exactly the sort of prolonged economic downturn that its proponents claim it is intended to prevent.

In short, the bailout rewards some of the richest people in the country for their incompetence. It provides little obvious economic benefit and could lead to long-term harm. That looks like a pretty bad deal.
(emphasis mine)

The bailout bill went to a vote Monday morning after a historic night of politicking. It was all set to pass, supposedly, when Nancy Pelosi gave what some are calling a partisan speech. (It merely sounded like truth to me.) As a consequence, 12 Republicans who'd pledged to support the bill got their feelings hurt and reneged.

I can't say I'm sorry the bill failed - and it didn't seem to me that any House members looked all that distressed either - but as Barney Franks pointed out, it is absurd to put hurt feelings before the "good of the country." Spin it how they may, the Republicans failed to support an emergency bill set forth by their president to save the world, or at least Wall Street.

As some in the media have mentioned, a no vote on the bill was the safest vote, considering the mood of the electorate. Republicans are not confident of their seats anywhere in the country this election year, so they may have been putting their re-election before the good of the country. Talk about hurt feelings! Nothing hurts more than job-hunting during a recession.

Congress is still considering a bail out plan despite having received a letter of opposition signed by 200 economists.

We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

Another report:

"Ben Bernanke likes to say there are no atheists in fox holes, well General Bernanke just called in from the fox hole and said we want a nuclear strike. It's that radical and we're going 'is it really that bad?'" said John Cochrane, finance professor, University of Chicago.

Prof. Cochrane says despite what you hear from Wall Street and Washington financial armageddon is not upon us.

"Before you go nuclear I think we need to know if there's something really bad out there they're not telling us about," said Cochrane.

Both Sapienza and Cochrane say the Bush administration is hyping the urgency with which Congress needs to act. They believe the markets can hold their own for a week or two or three and give congress time to determine whether such a big bailout is essential.

Jim Rogers, of Rogers Holding, has come out vehemently against the bailout plan. He is outspoken in his criticism of Bernanke and has been for months. There are numerous clips available on YouTube that document his views.

"It's welfare for the rich, but not for you or me....The more bandaids you put on [Wall Street], the worse it's going to be down the line. "

His numerous assertions that this is just a bail out for Bernanke's friends causes me to wonder: how many members of Congress also stand to benefit? We need to know the answer to that. It should be made public right alongside their decision on how to handle this emergency. There should be no conflict of interest in protecting taxpayers.

What Congress needs to say to Bush is, prove to us that your very expensive bailout plan will actually accomplish something. Congress needs to tell him we citizens are tired of being left holding the bag after he's used his dirty tactics to get his way. He lied about the Iraq war and look what that brought us. Not flowers and a paid-for war, as promised. Not a democracy in Iraq that looks favorably on the great gift we gave them. No, all it got us was close to 4500 dead Americans, an unending occupation of another country, and an increase in anti-American sentiment worldwide by which al Queda fills its ranks.

Please tell us, Congress, that you have learned something from that war, from the Patriot Act, from the Social Security "emergency," from the Terri Schiavo farce, from the worst president this country has ever had the misfortune to have steal an election. When Bush screams "Emergency!" we should all head for the exits. Not to escape. Oh, no! But to lock the doors to keep him and his lunacy at bay.

Bush - or has advisors anyway - seem to know a little bit about two things: money and dirty politics. His tactics are so outrageous, we tend to accept his proclamations instead of recognizing exactly to what brazenly-corrupt lengths he will go to achieve his ends. Paulson and Bernanke sit up there with earnest expressions, and you don't want to believe that they are acting in a partisan manner, that they are playing games with the principles on which our country was founded. It's too scary to confront the possibility that people in the upper echelons of our government are running amuck with our freedom at stake. But that's where we are, people.

Interestingly, the stock market doesn't seem to give a damn about the bailout. Pundits are making much of minor fluctuations in the market today, but it's all part and parcel of the panic-the-people ploy: sound and fury... Not every depression begins with a major market purge. Anybody whose ever taken a course in economics could have seen this coming.

So we may be facing a severe recession - even a depression - but this giveaway of taxpayer money to Wall Street is not the solution. (I don't think anybody has been quite brazen enough to state unequivocally that it would.) And if we are facing the dire economic circumstances predicted by the Bushies, why would we give them more money? They caused this situation in the first place with their irresponsible tax policies and unpaid-for wars, their housing bubbles, their mergers and monopolies.

Just look how they are grandstanding now, blaming Democrats for not passing the bailout bill while refusing to participate themselves. They plan to capitalize on the situation either way. If the Democrats go it alone and pass a bill, then all the bottomless pit of (justified) taxpayer anger will fall directly on their shoulders and then the Republicans can claim to have been opposed. If the Democrats refuse to pass it without the Republicans, then they are charged with delaying this emergency bill and with putting politics before country. Bah!

Nope, it's time to call the chief bluffer's bluff. Let's not forget that we are days away from an election the Republicans will surely lose unless they cheat. Bet there's nothing to him but hot air and crooked politics.