Skip to content

The Daily Show says good-bye to Alan Colmes

Friday, December 12, 2008


Filed in Humour, Video | | Comments (0)

Guest post: A proposal for dealing with the credit crisis

Friday, December 12, 2008

Yesterday I was talking to Frank Liberty, an attorney from New London. He told me about his own ideas for dealing with the credit crisis. I started a post yesterday, to incorporate them, but after doing some math, decided that his idea would be prohibitively expensive. Frank wrote me this morning, with a suggested post, which I’ve inserted below. After some back and forth, I concluded that my off the cuff figures were wrong. There are about 100,000,000 taxpayers in this country. The total bailout cost so far, including the secret guarantees from the Treasury, etc, exceed trillions of dollars, the $700 billion figure being only the tip of the iceberg as far as taxpayer cost and exposure is concerned. The per person cost for Frank’s idea is well within the range of respectability, given those enormous costs.

So far, there hasn’t been much talk about a bottom up approach to dealing with the current situation. Nor have any of the suggestions I’ve heard directly benefit many ordinary people. We really need to start thinking outside of the box, and I think Frank’s idea deserves some consideration as a starting point for dealing with this. At least it guarantees that a whole lot of ordinary people will get some tangible benefits from the vast amount of debt the government will be running up in their names.

Frank describes himself as a fiscally conservative Democrat, but I don’t think there’s anything traditionally conservative about this proposal. So without further adieu, Frank’s proposal for dealing with the mess the banks have bequeathed us.

Prior to the initial bailout by Treasury, I saw a number of emails suggesting that cash be given to the public. I did not take it very seriously.

When the automakers sought a bailout, and after I saw the across the board decline in auto sales as to ALL manufacturers, it occurred to me that the slowing demand, increasing layoffs, further slowing demand cycle had no end point in sight. The auto bailout is throwing good money after bad unless there is an increase in demand. We will have to throw that money at them anyway and should to save that industry.

Both stimulus checks and bailout have failed to accomplish their purpose. The stimulus checks because it is a one time event for which consumers expect no repeat. The bailout because of hoarding. The bailout is also repugnant in that the financial companies can still enforce debt obligations despite receiving dollars from the very consumers they seek to foreclose/sue. Creating public works projects in the Great Depression also failed in their goal.
That brought me back to the cash gift idea. First, it had to be renamed to appeal to those who view it as socialism. I will call it a Voucher.

Each individual over 25 would receive a cash voucher for $25,000.00. If the consumer directs payment towards an existing debt as of 12/1/08, that money is not taxable.

This would reduce credit card debt and mortgages; it would take the pressure off the financial institutions as to toxic debt. The effect on the consumer is not a one time stimulus but a reduction in expenses freeing up disposable income in the future. Then the consumer is placed in a potential buying position to increase demand.

As to the housing crisis, purchasers of existing housing stock after 12/1/08 would still be able to use the voucher solely for that purchase. This should begin to lower inventory, reduce mortgage amounts to help purchasers secure mortgages as to their debt to income ratio.
For individuals on State assistance, the Voucher would be required to re pay the States, thus easing their revenue collection problems. This also eliminates the gift or non deserving recipient argument that would arise.

Cash would be available from the Voucher at a 50% federal tax rate at a determined sum.
This would have to be accompanied by serious financial reforms. In addition, Congress would have to eliminate default penalties and default interest rates from credit card judgements or debts to make this fair. They do not deserve anything beyond the standard interest rate.

I do not have all the details worked out. And leave it for people to use this a spring board for future discussions/ better ideas. But clearly, something different is needed.

I’d take issue with one thing. I think public works projects did achieve, or could have achieved, their goal during the Depression. As Krugman has said repeatedly lately, the programs were working until Roosevelt cut them in an effort to balance the budget, sending the economy back into the crapper. WW II, which was, in effect, a massive public works program, turned the economy around. In any event, such projects are a longer term solution. Frank’s idea is more of a kick start, but given the enormity of this crisis, I think both short and long term solutions are necessary


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Spreading the guilt in Illinois

Thursday, December 11, 2008

First, let me register a protest against the Governor of Illinois. He could have made life a lot easier had he been named Smith. I fear I shall never get the spelling right. I realize I lack standing to make such a complaint, but there it is.

But spelling’s not my subject; only my intro.

As others have observed, there are a lot of people who are in a hurry to make us all forget about the past eight years. One tactic is to pick up where they left off: manufacturing scandals. This is not to say that Blagojevich is not a scandal, but the press, with Republicans cheering them on, is not content to go after such an easy target. No, they will pick their other targets, evidence be damned. In this particular scandal it may very well be that the biggest loser will be Jesse Jackson, Jr.,who may very well be guilty of nothing more than being a politician:

It’s looking increasingly like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., was truly uninvolved in Rod Blagojevich’s alleged Senate-seat-for-sale scheme, other than expressing the usual interest in getting the appointment. Most telling was the report from Jackson’s lawyer today that the feds called Jackson as Blagojevich was being arrested to give him a heads up that the arrest was happening and that Jackson might see his name in the news.

I don’t do criminal law, but it seems highly unlikely that Jackson’s lawyer is lying. The Feds would slap him down too quickly. It also seems highly unlikely that Jackson would have gotten a heads up like that if he were a suspect. I assume they’d rather let him dangle.

But it gets worse. At least there is some reason, from perusing the indictment, to suspect that Jackson may have been involved, and it’s still possible that he was. Our newly vigilant press corps, so somnolent over the past eight years, now sees evidence of Obama’s guilt (or “taint”) where no reasonable person could discern it. At the Washington Monthly, Steven Benen notes that Time Magazine finds bad news for Obama stemming from the fact that Fitzgerald said Obama was not involved.

…Fitzgerald held a press conference on Monday, and presented the case against the governor. Reporters asked about Obama, and he said this doesn’t involve the president-elect. According to Time’s report, this is bad news for Obama. Why? Because Fitzgerald answered reporters’ questions and said Obama isn’t connected to the case.

In what universe does this make sense?

First, Fitzgerald didn’t “go out of his way” to talk about Obama. Reporters asked, Fitzgerald responded. …

The last quoted sentence responds to Time’s claim that Fitzgerald had to “go out of his way” to “distance” Obama from the case.

As I understand it, prosecutors are not in business to clear anyone. They bring charges against people they believe to be guilty. They are not empowered, nor are they in the habit of, pronouncing that any particular person is guilt free. The most they can say, as Fitzgerald said, is that a particular person is not named in an indictment, or that there is no evidence tying him or her to wrongdoing. Had the reporters asked Fitzgerald the same question about George Bush they would have gotten the same answer.

We expect the folks at Fox, and on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, to leap large logical impediments at a single bound. But it is disheartening when the press as a whole follows their lead. This is the press corps that resisted even recognizing the criminality of Libby, Cheney, et. al. with regard to the Valerie Plame incident (even after the guilty verdict), yet they seemingly have no trouble coupling Obama to a crook he has been consciously avoiding for at least a year. He was, for example, conspicuously absent from the list of governors who spoke at the convention.

Guilt by association has survived the campaign. Back then, Obama was guilty because he had been in the same room with Bill Ayers. Now he is guilty because he is from the same state as Rod Blagojevich. We are on the brink of a Depression. Global warming may be reaching a tipping point. We are involved in two military conflicts. We can’t afford to have eight years of the kind of fake scandals that plagued Bill Clinton, but that seems to be exactly what we’re likely to get.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Joe Courtney votes for Auto Bailout

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

This from an email from the prolific Brian Farber:

Congressman Joe Courtney released the following statement this evening after voting in favor of H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, which passed by a vote of 237-170:

“‘Main Street’ is hurting and Connecticut’s hard working individuals are feeling the brunt of the economic recession. There are approximately three hundred auto dealerships, mostly family-owned small businesses, throughout the state employing nearly 14,000 people, many of them in my own district. I cannot in good conscience allow those dealerships to close without a fight, forcing more of our neighbors and friends to the unemployment lines. Last week, we lost four auto dealerships to this credit crunch.”

“Allowing these American industries to slip into bankruptcy and collapse would put the jobs of three million Americans at risk. The repercussions of massive job losses would be felt across this nation and Connecticut and would be unacceptable at this time of peril for our economy. Jeopardizing our industrial base also has implications for our national security production, a threat I take seriously as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.”
“While the Big Three automakers have made progress in innovation in some areas, they have also botched numerous opportunities to advance hybrid technologies and more fuel efficient vehicles. However, the blame also rests in Washington, where it took thirty years to find a willing Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards. I was proud to vote to raise auto fuel standards to 35 miles per gallon – long overdue, and a feat considering the White House and the auto manufacturers opposed the measure.”

“The loan from already approved funding serves as a bridge for the American automakers to survive while requiring companies to restructure their businesses in order to regain their competitive advantage. Detroit executives will not be able to profit with a golden parachute, unlike the Wall Street bailout that carried no penalty for the financial industry’s failings and irresponsible behavior.”

“Taxpayers are protected. Oversight and transparency are at the core of this loan to the auto industry and is clearly laid out, unlike the Wall Street bailout that I voted against twice that has zero accountability and very little oversight.”

“I carefully studied other options, including bankruptcy for the industry, but in the end, bankruptcy would be more costly and not viable because of the larger expense, the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and will create a generation of Americans who refuse to purchase American made cars and trucks. The lost confidence may never be regained.”

No one is particularly happy about these bailouts, and I’m not quarreling with Joe’s decision. He’s a freshman and had no ability to influence the contents of the bill on which he voted. But it’s worth noting that the lamest of lame ducks rolled the Democratic Congress once again. The money is coming from the funds allocated from the Energy Independence and Security Act, funds that were supposed to be used to develop fuel efficient cars. Pelosi said she wouldn’t go along with that. She caved. The Democrats wanted a provision requiring the auto makers to withdraw lawsuits against states that imposed stringent air quality standards. Bush wanted to let the suits go on and threatened a veto. The Democrats caved.

As to the latter, did it occur to the Democrats to contact the auto makers and say: Yes, Bush will veto any bill with such a provision. But we won’t pass any bill until you voluntarily withdraw the suits with prejudice, thus mooting the issue.

No, I’m sure this never occurred to them. They were set to cave from the start.


Filed in Democrats, Economics | | Comments (0)

Obama is serious about dealing with global warming

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

There’s been a lot of talk throughout the blogosphere that Obama’s appointments have been too centrist. So far nothing he’s done has made me overly concerned. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The one thing I’ve always worried about was his commitment to combatting the climate crisis. This is the overriding issue of our times, so naturally it is the kind of issue from which all politicians run.

Today we hear that he is likely to appoint Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, and Carol Browner, a global warming wonk, as his energy coordinator. These are serious people who actually accept the facts about global warming and want to do something about it.

How refreshing.


Filed in Environment | | Comments (0)

Mercenaries Ahoy

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Blackwater, the mercenary army made rich by George Bush, is now planning to go into the pirate fighting business. Via Thinkprogress:

Private security firm Blackwater Worldwide began holding meetings in London on Tuesday with potential clients for a new business venture — protection from pirates.

The Moyock, N.C., firm, which has grown rapidly through State Department security work in Iraq, has been courting shippers and insurance firms about protecting ships in pirate-infested waters. It’s meeting with more than a dozen firms this week and hopes to drum up its first contract.

It is remarkable that the rise of private armies has raised so few hackles around the world. I remember, in those naive days of my youth, being taught that governments had a monopoly on the use of force. That’s the civilized way, or as civilized as it gets. We now treat private armies as just another business.

This will come to no good. That’s obvious. I suppose when we reap the whirlwind on this one we’ll hear a chorus telling us that no one could have seen it coming.


Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Specter wants to delay Holder vote

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Arlen Specter is trying to put the brakes on Eric Holder’s nomination to be Attorney General. According to Specter, Holder’s involvement in the Marc Rich pardon warrants close scrutiny:

But Specter is already applying the brakes, indicating that Republicans are going to make a big deal out of Holder at the hearing. Specter said he sees no way in which the Holder hearings could happen before Jan. 26. Specter said he still needs to see thousands of pages of background documents and Holder’s FBI background check.

“There are questions that need to be addressed,” Specter said in a Senate floor speech.

Specter, a former prosecutor himself, said he was troubled that Holder did not stand up to President Clinton on the pardon of Rich, who was a fugitive living abroad at the time of the pardon.

“To run counter to the views of the [law enforcement] professionals is a red flag,” Specter said. “We’re looking at a very, very serious matter.”

That pardon was not Clinton’s finest hour, or Holder’s either, I’m sure. It will be interesting to see if Specter carries through with his threat. This is they guy who made a habit of making noises about standing up against Bush’s destruction of the Constitution, only to back down or worse every time. Take the FISA situation, for instance. He started out by calling Bush’s actions illegal; he ended up legalizing them.

When Alberto Gonzales was nominated for Attorney General, Specter bought in to his transparent lies about his involvement in the Bush legal department’s torture legalization strategy. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that he claimed to buy into those transparent lies.

It was Specter who was responsible for slipping the language into the revised “Patriot” Act that allowed Bush to try to name interim U.S. Attorneys without confirmation hearings, despite his denials. That act led directly to the U.S. Attorney scandal of a few year back.

The Marc Rich pardon was small beer compared to all of this. So one must wonder, after eight years of spineless subservience to a lawless Administration, has Specter suddenly grown a backbone? Does he really believe an ill considered pardon is worse than torture? More to the point, will the Democrats let him get away with it? They couldn’t stop a torturer from becoming Attorney General. Are they going to let a torture enabler stop, or even appreciably delay Holder’s confirmation?

That, of course, is the more fundamental question here. The Democrats are not going to have 60 seats. In any event, make no mistake, they cannot count on Joe Lieberman. The Republicans had a slender majority the last time they controlled the Senate. Can you think of a single instance where the threat of a filibuster prevented them from wreaking their havoc on the nation? Maybe there was something, but it had to have been incredibly minor. This idea that you need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate is only operative when Democrats are in control, and only because they won’t play hard ball with the Republicans. Maybe that will change now, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

One Frankenstein, Two Monsters

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

John McCain is gone, but Sarah Palin, lives on. If worse comes to worst, McCain may live on in history as the man who gave a dangerous demagogue her start on the national stage.

McCain also gave us Joe the Plumber, and like Frankenstein’s monster, he has turned on his creator:

When I was on the bus with him, I asked him a lot of questions about the bailout because most Americans did not want that to happen. Yet he voted for it. … And I asked him some pretty direct questions. Some of the answers you guys are gonna receive — they appalled me, absolutely. I was angry. In fact I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.

He may not like McCain, but he loves his fellow creature, Sarah:

Wurzelbacher said he supported McCain only because he was “kinda the lesser of two evils.” However, his criticism of McCain didn’t extend to his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). “Sarah Palin is absolutely the real deal,” he said.

Even Victor Frankenstein didn’t foist two monsters on a helpless world. Victor had a conscience, so he dedicated himself to destroying his inhuman creation. Don’t expect McCain to follow his example.


Filed in Sarah Palin | | Comments (1)

Have yourself a very broccoli Christmas

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

People are amazing.


Filed in Music, Video | | Comments (0)

Department of You Can’t Make This Stuff Up-Blagojevich/Craig Edition

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

This is one of those times when I feel my own inadequacies as a writer with a peculiar intensity. How to do justice to the staggeringly audacious corruption of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich? Might I first observe that he makes John Rowland look like a piker-a rank amateur?

How, one wonders, did this guy ever get to be governor of Illinois? Alaska maybe, but Illinois? I’m not just talking about corruption. After all, he succeeded a guy who is now cooling his heels in jail, so the corruption part is to be expected. No, it’s the utter stupidity that is Alaskan in its scope. Sarah Palin couldn’t do better. Here’s a guy who knew he was under investigation, knew he was being wiretapped, yet has the bright idea of selling a seat in the United States Senate to the highest bidder. And not just any seat. No, this particular seat is the one being vacated by the man about to be president. And if initial reports are to be credited, it’s entirely possible that he demanded payment from the new President’s organization. Personally, if I knew that Pat Fitzgerald had me in his sights I would be one very careful person.

This brings me back to my original point. How do you do this stuff justice. No one could make this up. This is Mel Brooks country, and only someone like Brooks, at the height of his powers, could truly do it justice.

Meanwhile, while this “tragical-comical-historical” play begins, a straight farce has come to an end:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has turned down Sen. Larry Craig’s effort to undo his guilty plea, scuttling the Idaho Republican’s argument that the plea wasn’t valid because he’d mailed it in rather than appearing in court in person.

Some may be cheered by this development, but we First Amendment absolutists are in despair:

The appellate court also was unsympathetic to Craig’s argument that his conduct in the bathroom that day was protected by free speech. The disorderly conduct statutes are not overly broad, the court found, because the law requires that someone who’s charged with such an offense be aware that his or her language or conduct could arouse “alarm, anger or resentment” in others.

Craig will be a Senator for a few more weeks. During that time he could do his bit to protect our constitutional rights by introducing a bill protecting the rights of all Americans to solicit sex in a bathroom. If it ever came to a vote it might be the first time he actually voted in favor of individual rights (not counting guns, of course), assuming one agrees with his premise that bathroom solicitation is a protected activity.

In any event, we have seen the last of Craig. Or have we?

“I maintain my innocence, and currently my attorneys and I are reviewing the decision and looking into the possibility of appealing,” Craig said.


Filed in Corruption | | Comments (3)