Day: October 1, 2008

Random Thoughts From A Demented Mind

As I have said before these are a few thoughts I had and made notes but never made it to a post.  Just want to share with my readers and hopefully they will have a comment or two.

1–Will Repubs try to keep Palin under wraps or with a handler until elections?  Her ionterviews have been disasters.

2–McCain voted 19 times in 26 yrs against a minimum wage increase.  Is that country first?

3–Congressional hearings markets go up……vote fails…markets go down….day after markets go up….and the beat goes on.

4–McCain group pouting because Obama is using Davis’ connection to Fannie and Freddie, this after they tried to connect Obama to fannie and freddie—is not this f*cking silly?

5–All of Wall Street wants a bailout….think about that……

6–McCain has not voted in the Senate since April 08.

7–OMG!  The wording is everything!  The bailout is now asset acquisition or it is a rescue…….all trying to quell any dissension.

8–In the VP debate, Palin will be at a disadvantage–I look for her to ignore Biden and attack Obama and his policies.  There is NO way she can stand toe to toe with Biden in a debate.  Especially since her TV appearances shows she has no real value other than to generate the base to drooling.

9–A few suggestions–Maybe it would be a good idea to tell McCain to stop taking credit where credit is not due…Palin needs to stop trying to be glib…she is awful at it…makes her look like a moron…….Maybe McCain should pick a direction and stay on course…..

10-This will sound like a conspiracy in the making…but here goes anyway….the bailout failure Monday …could it have been the plan?  Now all those voices are starting to quiet down…now the basic same plan may pass on thursday…and the finger pointing can be minimized.  Thoughts?

Economists Against The Bailout

This is a letter sent to the US Congress and signed by economists on the present course of Congress on the bailout.

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. 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.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come

Over a humdred economist, most of whom are professors at American Universities and Colleges.

McCain On Energy Policy

Let’s change the tone of the posts for awhile.  The Economy has had enough coverage for now.  Presidential candidate McCain has been going around talking about changes in the energy policies if he is elected.  Let’s look at his track record.

During the presidential debate, Sept. 26, John McCain claimed, “I voted for alternate fuel all my time… No one can be opposed to alternate energy, no one.” But John McCain’s own record suggests he may be confused about how he has voted, not just once or twice, but 23 times against renewable energy.

In 1992, McCain voted against ending debate on the Energy Bill, which included provisions to encourage energy conservation and increase domestic energy production. (In other words, McCain supported an attempt to filibuster that bill along partisan lines.)

A few years later in 1999, McCain used Senate procedures to oppose an amendment that would have increased funding for energy supply and research and development activities for renewable energy sources.

In May 2001, McCain voted with George W. Bush against establishing tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction, and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings.

The following year, McCain voted again with George W. Bush against an amendment to require utilities to generate 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. In that same energy package on a different measure, McCain voted for an amendment that would allow retail electric suppliers to avoid strong federal renewable energy standards. In addition to these actions, McCain voted to allow states to waive federal standards on renewable electricity use.

That same year, along party lines and in line with George W. Bush’s policies, McCain opposed a measure that would overhaul the nation’s energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for $14.1 billion in energy-related tax incentives – in the wake of the Enron scandal. As part of that bill, McCain’s opposition included a rejection of funding for ethanol production.

In June 2003, McCain voted a number of times against expanding the use of ethanol and other renewable energy as an alternative to gasoline. McCain even voted against a measure to eliminate the use of the carcinogenic pollutant methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and to apply tougher standards on air pollution. Again, on these matters, John McCain voted along partisan lines and in sync with George W. Bush’s position.
In 2004, McCain voted against a measure that would require that gasoline sold in or introduced into the US contain renewable fuel. He voted twice the following year to continue to allow the use of MTBE and against higher standards on air pollution caused by burning gasoline.
Again in 2005, when McCain had the chance to prove that he supported “alternate energy,” he failed to do so when he voted to slash the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million.

And in 2006, when it became clear that George W. Bush and the Republicans were on the losing side of the public debate on alternative energy investments, McCain still voted with his president and party against investments in renewable energy research and development in cellulosic ethanol, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower energy sources.

Yes Irene, he is pandering his ass off for votes…….what makes one think he has had a change in thinking?

Pickens’ New Energy Proposal

“On the surface, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens appears to be the man with all the energy answers,” said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.  “Pickens says his ‘Pickens Plan’ can cut America’s dependency on foreign oil by one-third over the next ten years.  It sounds attractive at a time when Capitol Hill is getting nowhere in the pursuit of energy independence.  But would the Pickens Plan really work?  What would it cost taxpayers?  Do parts of it raise Constitutional questions?  And would private parties – including Mr. Pickens himself – benefit financially?”

“A man on a mission, Pickens has set aside $58 million to ensure his energy plan is heard loud and clear,” added Ridenour, “and he’s got people listening, but America should not choose an energy policy based on the appeal of a billionaire’s folksy commercials.  The fine print must be examined.  In this case, the fine print reveals the Pickens Plan requires billions in government subsidies and the widespread use of government eminent domain powers.

“If the Pickens Plan is really all about doing what is best for the country and not for himself, Pickens could demonstrate his sincerity by renouncing the government subsidies he is lobbying for.  That should be easy for a man who says he doesn’t need any more money.”

What If There Is No Bailout?

By voting down the proposed $700 billion financial bailout package – and causing a spectacular stock market rout – a majority of members in the House of Representatives made a clear statement that they didn’t want to put taxpayers on the hook for the failures of financial institutions.

But there’s a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, and it’s possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That’s because the regulators who mind the financial industry – the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC – will keep doing what they’ve been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn’t require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions.

Federal authorities are going to keep doing whatever they can to keep the financial system from collapsing. Taxpayers will bear the risks and the costs of that, whether Congress votes to put them there or not. And it’s possible – although nobody can know for sure – that this ad hoc approach will end up costing more than an up-front $700 billion bailout.

Is Congress Listening?

Of course, theyare listening, after all it is re-election time.  Would they be so interested in the people if they were not up for re-election?

The problem has been growing for years. Roughly 28% of Americans approve of President Bush. Roughly 18% of Americans approve of Congress. Now those low numbers and majority of bad feelings have manifested themselves in the starkest of terms.

Asked to take a leap of faith regarding a dizzyingly complex problem, a critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders, turning down the medicine that was offered. And so the politicians who are most exposed to popular whims have run for cover. With an election on the horizon, 95 House Democrats and 133 House Republicans opposed the bill. Some portion voted no for clearly ideological reasons. But many more were simply doing what politicians do – responding to the will of the people.

An analysis by statistician Nate Silver, who runs FiveThirtyEight.com, made this clear. Of the 38 incumbent members of Congress from both parties who are considered vulnerable in the coming election, 30 voted against the bill (eight supported it). By contrast, members of Congress from relatively safe districts were evenly divided – 197 for it to 198 against it.

“What this showed more than anything else was that not even members of Congress can ignore a switchboard system of Capitol Hill that is so totally jammed,” said Peter Sepp, a conservative opponent of the bill with the National Taxpayers Alliance.

Today In Labor History

01 October

Twenty-one die when the L.A. Times building is dynamited during a citywide fight over labor rights and organizing. A union member ultimately confessed to the bombing, which he said was supposed to have occurred early in the morning when the building would have been largely unoccupied – 1910

Thousands of dairy farmers in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Iowa strike in demand of higher prices for their milk – 1935

500,000 steel workers in 29 states strike for wage increases and a pension plan – 1949

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) was signed by President Nixon today, requiring medium to large employers to provide safe and healthy workplaces – 1970

United Transport Service Employees of America merges with Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees – 1972

Insurance Workers International Union merges with United Food & Commercial Workers International Union – 1983

Railroad Yardmasters of America merge with United Transportation Union – 1985

United Mine Workers of America affiliates with AFL-CIO – 1989

Pattern Makers League of North America merges with International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers – 1991

Stove, Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers International Union of North America merges with International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, & Helpers – 1994

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union merges with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union – 1998

International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine & Furniture Workers merges with Communications Workers of America – 2000

Is Capitalism In Crisis?

Awhile back I wrote a piece called, “Capitalism and Why” and made it one of my pages here on my blog.  This is a follow-up to that piece.  With the US economy tumbling head long into ruin, the question is still revelent if not more so.  Massive financial failures, unemployment, outsourcing, so on and I am sure there are others that we should add, but we will start here.

Of course it is–it is ALWAYS in one form of crisis or another….it is the nature of the beast.

In an unregulated or deregulated system, creditors routinely manipulate people of low and moderate incomes, often desperate people, to take loans which they then sell to those higher on the financial food chain, creating a house of cards based on quick profits gained from such manipulation. No one is safe, including the investors in the institutions at the top of the financial food chain, those in the higher professional and managerial strata with income significantly higher than most of the people who think of themselves as “middle class.” This dynamic creates a political economy which, to paraphrase the 17th century Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, encourages a war of all against all.

Crises of this kind, that is, instability rooted in the anarchic drive of capital to find ever bigger markets, drive out competitors, commodify all goods, services, and social relations, is the heart of the capitalist system. Each crisis grows greater with capitalist consolidation and expansion.
This specific crisis is peculiar to the capitalist system as it has evolved into bank-controlled monopoly or finance capital. In recent decades this system, or state monopoly capitalism, has substantially done away with the regulatory reforms whose purpose was to save it from itself, devolving or deregulating itself into a speculative market jungle, but one where the state funds are still available to protect speculators.
Money is made not by creating new productive capacity in a national economy(which the old Robber Barons, with all their horrors, did do), but by financial piracy and loan sharking, manipulating stock prices, reducing dividends to general shareholders, merging companies, cutting jobs, cannibalizing pensions to repay the debts created such activities and walking away with super-profits.

Yes it is in crisis, but then it will always be in crisis.

Bill Clinton Campaigns For McCain

The AP is reporting:

Bill Clinton is playing a starring role in a John McCain commercial. And here’s the ad’s kicker: “You’re right Mr. President.”

Fancy that. The Republican presidential nominee with a tip of the hat to the last Democratic president.

A new minute-long McCain commercial features the former president asserting that congressional Democrats could have done more to regulate the nation’s major mortgage financiers.

In a clip taken from a Sept. 25 interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton says: “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Recently when Bill signed on to stump for Obama Dems smiled and said that was all that was needed–a little unity.  So far that unity has not been there.  Bill has made many comments on the great character of McCain and has yet to say, outright, that he endorses Obama, by name.

The whole Alpha male crap is just silly.  Leadership is lacking in the Dem Party, as well as in the GOP.