Monday, September 29, 2008


TOP 5 REASONS TO VOTE
AGAINST BAILOUT

By David Sirota

Huff Post

There's news this Sunday afternoon of a congressional deal to bailout Wall Street fat cats with $700 billion of taxpayer cash (you can read the draft legislation here). Though the deal negotiated between congressional leaders and the White House is better than what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson originally proposed early last week, it remains an insulting atrocity, having omitted even basic aid to homeowners, bankruptcy reforms and any modicum of future financial industry regulation. Now, the New York Times reports that the Democratic leadership may not have the votes to pass this bailout. So without further ado, here are the top 5 reasons (in no order) why every single member of Congress - Democrat and Republican - should vote this sucker down. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into an email to your congressperson. They are deciding right now - let them hear your voice.
1. BAILOUT'S INHERENT FISCAL INSANITY COULD MAKE PROBLEM WORSE
When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's akin to check kiting, which is is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" - that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd - it is insane.
It didn't have to be this way, of course. As I noted in my newspaper column this week, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout. Similarly, Blue Dog Democrats proposed a future tax on financial firms if and when taxpayers lose cash on the deal. These proposals were discarded in favor of language asking the government to "submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses," according to the Associated Press. Not only is that language toothless, but it opens up the possibility of a plan being submitted that says we should raise middle-class taxes or slash middle-class social programs to pay for Wall Street's misbehavior.
2. EXPERTS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SAY THIS BAILOUT COULD MAKE THINGS WORSE
Primum non nocere is the latin phrase for "first do no harm" - the priority principle for any EMT working on a sick patient. It should be the same priority for Congress at this moment - and a growing group of esteemed experts on both the Right and Left are insisting that this bailout bill could make things worse. Here's a review:
The Washington Post reported on Friday, almost 200 academic economists "have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear."
NYU's Nouriel Roubini, the visionary who had been predicting this meltdown, says "The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan."
Harvard's Ken Rogoff, a Former Federal Rerserve and IMF official, insists that the prospect of this bailout is, unto itself, taking a manageable problem and making it into a more intense crisis. He says that credit is frozen primarily because banks want to avoid dealing with other banks that might drive a hard bargain, and instead would rather wait for free money from the government. Without the prospect of that free money, Rogoff suggests that credit would probably begin moving again, if slowly.
Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research says that spending so much cash so quickly on such a poorly conceived plan could have the effect of making it impossible to fund economic stimulus that is the real way out of this mess. "Suppose the Paulson plan goes through," he writes. "It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble...When families respond to their loss of home equity by cutting back their consumption it will deepen the recession. In this context it might prove very important to have the resources needed to provide a substantial stimulus. [and] there is no doubt that this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell politically."
Meanwhile, it's not even close to clear that this is a problem that requires such an enormous response. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion - an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending."
The questions, then, are simple: In the face of this bipartisan opposition from objective experts, why should a lawmaker instead believe the same Bush officials who helped create this crisis with their deregulation, the same Bush officials who just months ago said everything was AOK? Shouldn't there be almost complete unanimity among both objective and partisan observers before spending 5 percent of our entire economy after just one harried week of White House demands? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It's time, as The Who said, that we "don't get fooled again."
3. THERE ARE CLEARLY BETTER AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES
The mantra throughout the week has been that America has "no choice" but to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion giveaway - that, in effect, there are no alternatives. But that's an out-and-out lie - one with a motive: Making it seem as if the only thing we can do is hand the keys to the federal treasury over to both parties' corporate campaign contributors.
The truth is, there are a number of alternatives. Here are just a few:
In the Washington Post last week, Galbraith outlined a multi-pronged plan shoring up and expanding the FDIC, creating a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrecting Nixon's federal revenue sharing, and taxing stock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal.
The Service Employees International Union has drafted a plan based around a massive investment in public services and national health care, and regulatory reforms preventing foreclosures and forcing banks to renegotiate the predatory terms of their bad mortgages.
For those in the mindless, zombie-ish "someone has to do something, so we have to do what the White House says!" camp, consider the possibility that you are under the spell of the same kind of White House fear that led us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed WMD. Consider, perhaps, that there may not even be a compelling basis for doing anything just yet (or at least not anything nearly so huge), and that the whole reason there is this urgent push right now has nothing to do with the financial situation, and everything to do with creating the political dynamic to pass a wasteful giveaway - one that couldn't be passed otherwise without a sense of emergency. And ask yourself why you would listen to this White House instead of listening to those experts who have been predicting this crisis and are now advising against this bailout - experts like CEPR's Baker. In two separate posts (here and here), he says that letting the problem play out could be the best path, because Treasury and the Fed may already have the tools they need. Following this path, the worst thing that happens is "The Fed and Treasury will have to step in and take over the banks [which] is exactly what many economists argue should happen anyhow," Baker writes. "So the outcome of the worst case scenario is a really frightening day in which the whole world financial system is shaken to its core, followed by a government takeover of the banks. Eventually the government straightens out the books and sells them off again. But the real threat here is not to the economy, it is to the banks."
Then there is the idea of simply taking the $700 billion and simply give it to struggling homeowners to help them pay off part of their mortgages. This hasn't even been discussed but the thought experiment it involves is important to understanding why there is, indeed, an alternative to the Paulson plan. If the root of this problem is people not being able to pay off their mortgages, and those defaults then devaluing banks' mortgage-backed assets, then simply helping people pay their mortgages would preserve the value of the mortgage-backed assets and recharge the market with liquidity. That would be a bottom-up solution helping the mass public, rather than a top-down move helping only financial industry executives.
On this latter proposal, some may argue that giving any relief to homeowners is "unfair" in that those homeowners created their problems, so why should taxpayers have to help them? But then, is helping homeowners any less fair than simply giving all the money away to Wall Street, no strings attached? I'd say no - and helping homeowners also serves a second purpose: namely, keeping people in their homes, which not only helps them, but helps an entire neighborhood (as any homeowner knows, nearby properties can be devalued when foreclosures hit).
4. ANY INCUMBENT VOTING FOR THIS PUTS THEMSELVES AT RISK OF BEING THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
As a preface, let me state that I think we live in a country where politicians too often listen to their donors and to the Establishment rather than their constituents, not the other way around. America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of "Statesmanship" and "Seriousness" and their supposed hatred of "pandering" to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic). So, in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with this bill being "politicized" by coming down the pike right before an election - in fact, I think it's a good thing because the election - and the fear of being thrown out of office forces our politicians to at least consider what the public wants. I mean, really - would we rather have this decision made after the election, when the public can be completely ignored?
Polls overwhelmingly show a public that sees voting for this bill as an act of economic treason whereby the bipartisan Washington elite robs taxpayer cash to give their campaign contributors a trillion-dollar gift. As just two of many examples, Bloomberg News' poll shows "decisive" opposition to the bailout proposal, and Rasmussen reports that their surveys show "the more voters learn about the proposed $700 billion federal bailout plan for the U.S. economy, the more they don't like it." Put another way, this bailout proposal has unified both the Right and Left sides of the populist uprising that I described in my new book and that is now even more angry than ever.
Any sitting officeholder that votes for this - whether a Democrat or a Republican - should expect to get crushed under a wave of populist-themed attacks from their opponents. We've already seen it start. In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley (D) is airing scathing television ads hammering Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for potentially supporting the deal. Similarly, this morning on Meet the Press, we saw Republican Senate challenger Bob Schaffer (CO) dishonestly papering over his own votes for deregulation and ripping into his opponent Rep. Mark Udall (D) for potentially supporting the deal. Incumbents, get ready for that kind of election-changing heat in your face if you vote "yes."
This, by the way, could play out in the presidential contest. Barack Obama has been taking the advice of the Wall Street insiders in his campaign in endorsing this bailout. McCain has endorsed the vague outline, but he may ultimately back off once he sees the details, allowing him to then run the last month of the campaign as the economic populist in the race. I'm not saying it would work, considering McCain's 26-year record of supporting the deregulatory agenda that created this crisis. But such a move could end up help him flank Obama on the defining economic issues of the race.
5. CORRUPTION AND SLEAZE ARE SWIRLING AROUND THESE BAILOUTS - AND AMERICA KNOWS IT
The amount of brazen corruption and conflicts of interest swirling around this deal is odious, even by Washington's standards - and polls suggest the public inherently understands that. Consider these choice nuggets:
Warren Buffett is simultaneously advising Obama to support the deal, while he himself is investing in the company that stands to make the most off the deal.
McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists from the companies that stand to make a killing off a no-strings government bailout.
The New York Times reports that the person advising Paulson and Bernanke on the AIG bailout was the CEO of Goldman Sachs - a company with a $20 billion stake in AIG.
The Obama campaign's top spokesman pushing this deal is none other than Roger Altman, who Bloomberg News reports is simultaneously "advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc." - that is, who have a direct financial interest in the current iteration of the bailout.
Add to this the fact that the negotiations over this bill have been largely conducted in secret, and you have one of the most sleazy heists in American history.
**********


Visit: Blacks4Barack Blog !

Saturday, September 27, 2008



NEWSFLASH !




McCain Said 'HORSE SH*T' IN LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE !






This man does not have the temperament to be President of Our Country !


Time For Leadership

TIME FOR OBAMA !


SHARE EVERYWHERE !


Visit: Blacks4Barack BLOG

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

Thursday, September 25, 2008


WOW ! McCain Pulled Out of Debate Against Bush in 2000 !

After Polls Show His Campaign DEAD !



B4B NOTE: Well I'll be. So this is a regular tactic John McCain uses when he feels he's losing. Below is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle dated February 28, 2ooo....This Guy Is AMAZING ! PASS THIS ON !
***************************************


With new polls showing his campaign dead in the water among California Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain has pulled out of a long-scheduled debate with Texas Gov. George Bush, set for Thursday in Los Angeles.
McCain campaign officials tried desperately yesterday to put the best face on their withdrawal, even as a new Field Poll showed Bush far ahead among likely Republican voters in the winner-take-all race for the state's 162 GOP delegates.
Top campaign officials attributed McCain's decision to Bush's earlier reluctance to appear at the debate.
``We had agreed to do this debate a long time ago, and Gov. Bush said he wasn't going to do it,'' McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky said yesterday. ``We aren't going to hold our schedule together forever.''
But Opinsky said McCain will debate Bush on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' Sunday, a national TV show that will reach millions of Americans.
Still, just last week, the McCain campaign was openly derisive of Bush's reluctance to commit to a California debate -- and promised its own candidate would be there.
``John McCain believes it's important for the people of California to see and hear the candidates talk about the issues,'' McCain communications director Dan Schnur told The Chronicle last week. ``Thirty- three million Californians are worth that attention . . . and we'll be there, either way.''
As recently as Thursday, when he was in California, McCain was talking about his plans to debate Bush; even last night, McCain's own Web site listed his California debate- watching parties. The CNN-Los Angeles Times debate was the only scheduled head-to-head meeting of the two candidates in California before the primary, a week from tomorrow.
McCain's campaign said the candidate confirmed to CNN on Thursday that he would not appear. But until yesterday afternoon, when rumors swirled about the pullout, McCain -- who has touted his ``straight talk'' politics -- gave no public indication that he intended to duck the nationally televised showdown.
The bait and switch on the debate left the Arizona senator -- whose favorite campaign line is ``I'll always tell you the truth'' -- wide open to blistering criticism from his rivals.
``Clearly, this is more double-talk from the McCain campaign,'' said Alixe Mattingly, a spokeswoman for Bush. ``Pulling out of this debate at the last minute is an indication that they're pulling out of California, where McCain's antagonistic message clearly isn't working.''
The decision to avoid debating Bush clearly upset some of McCain's top advisers.
``It's definitely a mistake, but hopefully, the people of California feel strongly enough about the McCain reform agenda . . . to overlook a staff error and come out and vote for John McCain,'' said Schnur, a longtime California political operative. ``John McCain is completely committed to California; unfortunately, our staff's position on this debate sends just the opposite message.''
California Republicans have been worried all along that the two leading GOP candidates are not giving the nation's most populous state the respect it deserves. Bush's campaign stop in Los Angeles last week, for example, was his first visit to the state since November.
Bush supporters quietly reveled in McCain's surprise announcement.
``From a distance, it seems like the `Straight Talk Express' is careening off the exit ramp in California,'' said Leslie Goodman, a Republican communications consultant and Bush backer, in a reference to McCain's campaign bus. ``They claimed they'd make California a priority because it was win or die, and now they don't care enough to debate.''
Although McCain's backers insisted that a devastating series of polls had no effect on the decision, the senator's chances of winning a Republicans-only primary in California have grown increasingly dim in recent days.
A Field Poll released today shows the state's Republicans backing Bush over McCain in the March 7 primary by a 48 percent to 28 percent margin in the contest for California's 162 convention delegates, a gap virtually unchanged from a Field Poll earlier this month. Other polls released over the weekend by the San Francisco Examiner and Time/CNN showed similar results.
Most of Bush's support comes from Republicans who identify themselves as strongly conservative. Among that group, Bush is favored by a 4-to-1 margin.
``That group seems galvanized and ready to vote for Bush,'' said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. ``It's going to be hard for McCain to break into that group.''
Ironically, the rest of the poll is nothing but good news for McCain, a war hero who, in California at least, has extended his appeal beyond Republican voters.
In the state's open primary, where voters can choose from among all the presidential candidates regardless of party, McCain has seen his support among all likely voters surge from 10 percent in January and 15 percent earlier this month to 20 percent today, just 2 percentage points behind Bush and 8 points back of Democratic front-runner Al Gore's 28 percent. Democratic former Sen. Bill Bradley trailed with 10 percent.
It is becoming increasingly likely that McCain could beat Bush among all California voters, yet badly lose the Republican-only count that will determine who receives all the state's national convention delegates.
The new poll also bolsters McCain's claim that he would be a stronger candidate than Bush in November. In a head-to-head matchup, McCain beats Gore among likely voters in California by 48 percent to 41 percent, while Gore overruns Bush 51 percent to 41 percent. Bush also loses to Bradley, 47 percent to 43 percent, while McCain crushes Bradley, 52 percent to 35 percent.
McCain also has the best image of the top four candidates, with 57 percent of likely voters viewing him favorably, compared to 26 percent with an unfavorable impression. The new poll shows that for the first time, Bush's unfavorable rating is higher than his favorable rating, with 51 percent viewing him negatively, compared to 41 percent with a favorable impression.
``Everything in the polls seems to be going in McCain's direction, except the one that counts the most, which is the contest for the (Republican) delegates,'' DiCamillo said.
On the Democratic side, the poll shows Gore staying far ahead of Bradley, 54 percent to 16 percent, among likely Democratic voters.
``All the attention on McCain is siphoning any type of insurgent campaign momentum away from Bradley,'' DiCamillo said. ``Gore seems to be running out the clock and is in a very good position to do that.''
The poll is based on a telephone survey of 1,447 registered California voters conducted from Tuesday to noon yesterday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for the entire poll, 4.5 percentage points for the Democrat- only figures and 5 percent for the Republican-only figures, based on the size of the sample.
The poll represents a snapshot of voter opinion at the time it was taken and is not meant to predict the outcome of the vote.



PASS THIS ON !!!!!

Time For Leadership
TIME FOR OBAMA

Visit Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To TRUTH !


Our Troops Don't Get a Time-Out
for the Financial Crisis

Jon Soltz
Huff Post





So, because there's a financial crisis, Senator McCain cannot take 90 minutes to address how he will face challenges around the world, including how and when he will send American troops to fight, and possibly die.
Wow. Troops would sure love that luxury.


Unfortunately, though, insurgents in Iraq don't stop shooting at us, or setting IEDs, because our Commander in Chief needs a breather to figure out Wall Street.


Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region don't send our troops notes that read, "Hey, I hear you guys are tied up with Wall Street. Your President needs to concentrate on other things, so we'll give you a break. So, to make things easier on you, here's our coordinates."


Nor do our troops get a few days to figure out how to hold onto an area we've secured, if there's an unexpected attack. Sometimes we need to deal with multiple flare-ups at once in any warzone. We'd sure love a time-out, but sadly, the world isn't such a nice place that it gives us that kind of pity.
When you're Commander in Chief, I don't think there'd be a worse signal to send to our troops in harm's way than to say, "Hey, hold on guys. I know you're getting killed over there, but I have to get a time-out here to deal with Wall Street."


If troops need to multi-task without a break, is it so wrong that we demand that a potential President-in-waiting prove that he can manage a financial crisis, and still address crises around the world for 90 minutes? And, if a potential President-to-be can't manage that, is it wrong to think that maybe he ought not just suspend a debate and the campaign, but move aside and get out of the race?


Just something to think about.

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make The Difference !

McCain Suspends Democracy !
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
The Nation
Lincoln ran for office in 1864, when there was a good chance he wouldn't have a country to lead. FDR ran for office in the middle of the largest conflict in human history--twice. We can have a debate this Friday.
Instead, McCain is going to "suspend" the democratic process? And this from a man who prides himself on his Commander-in-Chief skills? How is calling quits amid a crisis as severe as 9/11, in human security terms, a measure of his leadership strength?
Bush and McCain, linked again at the hip, are telling this nation, which seeks confidence and hope: You have nothing to fear but the end of fear itself. McCain has bailed out from the responsibilities demanded of a presidential candidate who claims to be a leader. Bush looked like the dog in that never-to-be-forgotten National Lampoon cover with dog, gun pointed at his head. Propped up at single digit ratings delivering a speech, the worst president in our history was sent out there to scare Americans and prop up a man he smeared two election cycles ago.
The people of this nation don't need more showboating, fearmongering and ducking for cover. They need a plan which will treat Main Street with dignity, respect and equity. McCain's desperate sprint to Washington only exposes how the pinstripers in pitchforks are scared. (As CNN's Anderson Cooper reported tonight , McCain has missed more votes than any other senator this year.)
There is blame to go around. The Nation's special forum on the bailout this week lays out ideas about how to extricate this good country from a financial disaster with bipartisan parents. But McCain's low road showboating is nothing but a way to put his political fate ahead of his country's in order to divert and distract attention from his failing campaign. We deserve better.
Time For Leadership
TIME FOR OBAMA !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To TRUTH !


Demand that the Bailout Legislation Be Rejected


We are witnessing a bankers' coup d’etat. In the name of saving the economy from a crisis created by their own greed and immense profits, the biggest bankers have taken a country and a people hostage.
“Give us your money and tear up what’s left of your Constitution or we will sink your economy,” is the message from Wall Street and the Bush Administration. “Give us the power and money we demand or you will be left jobless from a new economic depression."
Under the pretext of the banking crisis, the Bush Administration is changing the way this country operates. This is not simply taking trillions of dollars from the people and giving it to the richest bankers to do with as they see fit.




Congress is poised to vote to give the Executive Branch of government, and specifically the White House’s political appointees in the Treasury Department, the absolute right to take our money and give it to domestic and foreign banks and corporations without any oversight of elected officials, from the courts, or from the people.
The new legislation states: “Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” The Legislation allows the Treasury Department to appoint the same bankers who created the crisis to administer and dictate the use of trillions of our tax dollars.


We will not stand by and let the Bush Administration formalize its vision of a “government of, by and for the richest bankers."
The new system institutionalizes theft on a grand scale. Lehman Brothers bankers will receive $2.5 billion in bonuses after their company went bankrupt last week, but the new dictatorial authority under the White House and Treasury Department has ruled out any relief for the millions of working families who are being foreclosed.
We live in a $15 trillion annual economy. Instead of taking our tax dollars and giving it to the already rich and powerful, these funds should be used provide to decent paying jobs, affordable housing, health care and a good education for our children. There is another way!


Now is the time to hear the voice of the people. A spineless Congress authorized Bush’s illegal war in Iraq and rubber-stamped the Patriot Act. Now they are being herded like sheep again to give the White House and Wall Street dictatorial control over the people’s money.



Don't Be BAMBOOZLED...

AGAIN !


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...

Dedicated To TRUTH !

Tuesday, September 23, 2008




"JUST SAY NO"....to THIS Bailout !






There are just too many unanswered questions surrounding this bailout, not to mention how rediculous it is to put $700 billion in one man's hands to 'solve' the economic crisis. EVERY time George Bush has done anything in a rush has turned out disastrous for our country.....Iraq, Katrina, Patriot Act, etc..It is being reported that the 'urgency' is due to the fact that the U.S. will be audited on September 30 by the world bank system, (where's that in the media) which would reveal worldwide the true mismanagement of our economy. THIS hasty bailout is NOT the answer. Select your Senator below to


JUST SAY NO !....to THIS 'Bailout' !






Senators of the 110th Congress

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI)
Class I
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
Web Form: akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Class II
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....

Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Class II
521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5941
Web Form: allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Barrasso, John- (R - WY)
Class I
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Web Form: barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs...

Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Class II
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Bayh, Evan- (D - IN)
Class III
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT)
Class III
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
Web Form: biden.senate.gov/services/contact/


Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)
Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO)
Class III
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm


Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA)
Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact


Brown, Sherrod- (D - OH)
Class I
455 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: brown.senate.gov/contact/


Brownback, Sam- (R - KS)
Class III
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm


Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)
Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...


Burr, Richard- (R - NC)
Class III
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Web Form: burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home


Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html


Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)
Class I
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/


Cardin, Benjamin L.- (D - MD)
Class I
509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4524
Web Form: cardin.senate.gov/contact/


Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE)
Class I
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/


Casey, Robert P., Jr.- (D - PA)
Class I
383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: casey.senate.gov/contact/


Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Class II
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...


Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY)
Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact


Coburn, Tom- (R - OK)
Class III
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Web Form: coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSena...


Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Class II
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm


Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Class II
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
Web Form: coleman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...


Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Class II
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...


Conrad, Kent- (D - ND)
Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Corker, Bob- (R - TN)
Class I
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Class II
520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: craig.senate.gov/email/
Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)
Class III
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142
Web Form: crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
DeMint, Jim- (R - SC)
Class III
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6121
Web Form: demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT)
Class III
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Class II
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6342
Web Form: dole.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...
Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)
Class II
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6621
Web Form: domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm
Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)
Class III
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Class II
309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Ensign, John- (R - NV)
Class I
119 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Class II
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424
Web Form: enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI)
Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
Web Form: feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA)
Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Class II
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...
Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA)
Class III
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744
Web Form: grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm#emailform
Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)
Class III
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Cont...
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Class II
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/c/
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Cont...
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX)
Class I
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
Class II
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Web Form: inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...
Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI)
Class III
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3934
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/abtform.html
Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA)
Class III
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
Class II
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5842
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/contact/
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA)
Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)
Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Klobuchar, Amy- (D - MN)
Class I
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Kohl, Herb- (D - WI)
Class I
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html
Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)
Class I
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT)
Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT)
Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR)
Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN)
Class I
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814
E-mail: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Martinez, Mel- (R - FL)
Class III
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
Web Form: martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactIn...
McCain, John- (R - AZ)
Class III
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Web Form: mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...
McCaskill, Claire- (D - MO)
Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Class II
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ)
Class I
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD)
Class III
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4654
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm
Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)
Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Murray, Patty- (D - WA)
Class III
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)
Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE)
Class I
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D - IL)
Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Class II
255 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2353
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/contact/
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Class II
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4642
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm
Reid, Harry- (D - NV)
Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Class II
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774
Web Form: roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInf...
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Salazar, Ken- (D - CO)
Class III
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852
Web Form: salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Sanders, Bernard- (I - VT)
Class I
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5141
Web Form: sanders.senate.gov/comments/
Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY)
Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Class II
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Web Form: sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Constitue...
Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL)
Class III
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
E-mail: senator@shelby.senate.gov
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Class II
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3753
Web Form: gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)
Class I
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat...
Specter, Arlen- (R - PA)
Class III
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...
Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI)
Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Class II
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004
Web Form: stevens.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Class II
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
Web Form: www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html
Tester, Jon- (D - MT)
Class I
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/
Thune, John- (R - SD)
Class III
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2321
Web Form: thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
Vitter, David- (R - LA)
Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
Web Form: vitter.senate.gov/?module=webformIQV1
Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH)
Class III
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Web Form: voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....
Warner, John- (R - VA)
Class II
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
Web Form: warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...
Webb, Jim- (D - VA)
Class I
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/
Whitehouse, Sheldon- (D - RI)
Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/
Wicker, Roger F.- (R - MS)
Class I
487 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253
Web Form: wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EMa...
Wyden, Ron- (D - OR)
Class III
230 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Time For Judgement
TIME FOR OBAMA
Early Voting Has Started !!!
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make The Difference !

Monday, September 22, 2008



The Obama campaign just launched a new one-stop voter registration website called

Vote for Change:



You can check your registration status, register to vote, look up early-vote information for your state, apply to vote absentee, or even find your polling place.It's the easiest and most important thing you can do to bring the change we need.

Make sure your voice is heard:



Thanks -- see you at the polls.


PASS THIS ON !


Obama '08


Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE

A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots org...

Together, We WILL Make The Difference !

"Decisions of The Secretary...Are Non-Reviewable...And May Not Be Reviewed By ANY Court of Law or ANY Administrative Agency"
Dirty Secret of the Bailout:
Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
Jason Linkins
(Huff Post)
A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire.
It reads, in its entirety:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.
Is this starting to sound familiar? Robert Kuttner cuts through much of the gloss in an article in today's American Prospect:
The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital. Both Obama and McCain have opposed the provision denying any judicial review of decisions made by Paulson -- a provision that evokes the Bush administration's suspension of normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security.
The differences between this proposed bailout and the three closest historical equivalents are immense. When the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s pumped a total of $35 billion into U.S. corporations and financial institutions, there was close government supervision and quid pro quos at every step of the way. Much of the time, the RFC became a preferred shareholder, and often appointed board members. The Home Owners Loan Corporation, which eventually refinanced one in five mortgage loans, did not operate to bail out banks but to save homeowners. And the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, created to mop up the damage of the first speculative mortgage meltdown, the S&L collapse, did not pump in money to rescue bad investments; it sorted out good assets from bad after the fact, and made sure to purge bad executives as well as bad loans. And all three of these historic cases of public recapitalization were done without suspending judicial review.
Kuttner's opposition here is perhaps the strongest language I've seen used, pushing back on this piece of legislation, in any publication of repute, and even here, Section 8 is not cited by name or by content. McClatchy Newspapers also alludes to Section 8 with concern, citing the "unfettered authority" that Paulson would be granted, and noting that the "law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity." Jack Balkin also gives the matter the sort of attention it deserves on his blog, Balkinization.
But elsewhere, the conversation is muted. The debate over whether Congress is going to pass the Paulson bailout package, or pass the Paulson bailout package really hard seems to have boiled down to a discussion of time and concessions. The White House has made it clear that they want this package passed yesterday. Congressional Democrats seem to be of different minds on the matter, with some pushing back hard, and others content to demand a small dollop of turd polish to make the package seem more aesthetically pleasing, at which point, they'll likely roll over and pass the bill. Neither candidate, John McCain or Barack Obama, seem all that amenable toward the bailout, but neither have either demonstrated that they are willing to risk their candidacies to do much more than exploit the issue for electoral purposes.
Sunday morning came and went, with Paulson traipsing dutifully from studio to studio, facing nary a question on Section 8. Front page articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal detail the wranglings, but make no mention of this section of the legislation. On TV, cable news networks are stuck in the fog of the ongoing presidential campaign.
Throughout the coverage, one catches a whiff of what seems like substantive pushback on this power grab, but it largely amounts to a facsimile of journalistic diligence. Most note, in general terms, that the bailout represents a set of "broad powers" that will be granted to the Department of the Treasury. Yet the coverage offsets these concerns through the constant hyping of the White House's overall message of "urgency."
But one cannot overstate this: Section 8 is a singularly transformative sentence of economic policy. It transfers a significant amount of power to the Executive Branch, while walling off any avenue for oversight, and offering no guarantees in return. And if the Democrats end up content with winning a few slight concessions, they risk not putting a stop-payment on the real "blank check" - the one in which they allow the erosion of their own powers.
Over in the Senate, Christopher Dodd has proposed a bailout legislation of his own, which critically calls for "an oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials" and would require the President to appoint an "independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program." In Dodd's legislation, Section 8 is effectively stripped from the bill.
Nevertheless, the fact that Section 8 of the Paulson plan seems to strike few as a de facto dealbreaker can and should astound. The failure of Congress to hold the line on this point would be truly embarrassing. But if we make it through this week with nobody in the press specifically informing the public about the implications of this single sentence - in the middle of a complicated bill, in the middle of a complicated time - then right there, you have the single largest media failure of this year.
Time For Leadership
OBAMA TIME !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Dedicated To TRUTH !

Sunday, September 21, 2008


Time For Judgement
TIME FOR OBAMA !
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make The Difference !
SUNDAY...New Show TODAY !
All Obama Warriors !
Independents, Republicans and Undecideds
Listen/Call-In ! LIVE !
SPECIAL EDITION !
TODAY ! Sunday 6-7:30pm (est)
THE NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
RADIO SHOW
LIVE TALK ! with Greg Jones
LISTEN/CALL-INSPEAK YOUR MIND !
Just "
CLICK HERE" Sunday
TODAY at 6pm (est)
Listen/Call-In. LIVE !
REPRESENT YOUR GROUP....CALL-IN TO SAY
I'm fired up and ready to WIN !!!
We say.....SPEAK OUT !

We Want To Hear From YOU ! Join Us ! LIVE !
TODAY
!

What MSM omits...you'll hear on
The NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH Show

Saturday, September 20, 2008




Republicans Blocking Wall Street Bail-Out

In Refusal To Help Homeowners In Need






From Politico

Democrats are drafting a joint House-Senate bill to expedite action on the Treasury Department’s $700 billion rescue plan for the financial markets but want the government to use its new leverage to slow foreclosures and cap compensation for the Wall Street chiefs whose companies are being bailed out.There will be provisions as well in either the core bill or side deals asking the White House to accept new economic stimulus spending and bankruptcy court relief for homeowners, a legal issue long opposed by bankers yet now championed by leading Senate Democrats as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

But House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he was prepared to move quickly next week in tandem with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). And Frank said he has assured Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that he will publicly support them if they decide that they must take further ad hoc steps before the final package is completed.“I called Ben and said, 'Just because I’m giving you a new gun, doesn’t mean I don’t want you to use the one in your holster,'” Frank told Politico.


This assurance reflects the immense sensitivity of the political and market situation, given the turmoil of the past week. While not predicting the need for more ad hoc interventions, a Treasury official said “the markets may not wait for Congress to act.” And Paulson, who appears to have encouraged Frank to call Bernanke, is pushing hard for lawmakers to move quickly.In this spirit, the Treasury draft bill is short and to the point: authorizing purchases of up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any given time and giving the department sweeping authority for at least two years to carry out the enterprise.Frank will clearly add more to the dozen sections penned by Paulson’s legislative office and delivered to Capitol Hill early Saturday morning. How far he and fellow Democrats can go and not drive off Republican conservatives will be a critical question in the week ahead.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) followed Pelosi last evening, saying that the “American people have every right to be outraged that we are at this point.


But Reid cautioned “We cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic." Reid promised to work with Treasury but asked in turn that the White House and Republicans “work with us to address the crisis facing the middle class. Democrats believe we must provide real relief to working families before we adjourn."


Frank said there is a strong sense that the government should use its leverage to prod investors to be more willing to write down mortgages rather than pursue foreclosures. The massive housing bill approved by Congress this summer held out the promise that the Federal Housing Administration could help a homeowner find government-insured refinancing and such write-downs. But the relief will never be realized unless the financing industry is more willing to come forward and negotiate reductions.Frank, who has been in phone discussions with Paulson, said the secretary appeared receptive to adding some foreclosure-relief language. The second Democratic proposal — to impose compensation limits on Wall Street executives — is meeting more resistance.“Hank says it’s a poison pill,” Frank said. “I say I don’t think it’s very patriotic for someone to not give up his golden parachute when we’re trying to save the markets.”As now drafted, the bill increases the U.S. debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion to help accommodate the financing arrangement, but further modifications may be needed to ensure that this extra borrowing authority is dedicated to the rescue plan and not eaten up by other spending.All of the purchases would be limited to assets held by financial institutions headquartered in the United States.


But Treasury officials said Saturday that this would also apply to American subsidiaries of foreign companies, leading Frank to argue that those governments should also share in the financial commitment now being shoulder by U.S. taxpayers.Apart from the price tag, the bill is striking in the authority that would be vested in the Treasury Department.Rather than create a separate entity, as some lawmakers have suggested, Paulson clearly feels that he can move faster alone and asks for power to issue such regulations as needed, appoint employees to carry out the authorities and designate “financial institutions as finance agents of the government.”


The secretary would have the authority to manage the mortgage-related assets purchased by the government and may “at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined” by him “ sell or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions” in regard to the purchased assets.The hope remains that, by reselling the assets when the housing and financial markets have recovered, the taxpayers’ exposure will be greatly reduced. And for this reason, the two-year sunset provision does not appear to apply to the department’s authority to hold onto assets after two years, and therefore better manage future sales.It is possible that Congress could shorten the window for purchases still further in order to prompt banks to come forward faster with their bad debts.



But learning from the experience of the Resolution Trust Corporation in the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s and early '90s, there is general agreement that the government should have flexibility about selling.Paulson and Bernanke are slated to appear before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, but that schedule may also be moved up given the pressure to move quickly. And the whole process is extraordinary in that the administration wants such quick action on such a large commitment by taxpayers.Punctuating this is the fact that the bill has a rather delayed schedule of reporting back to Congress. For example, the first report from Treasury need only be “within three months of the first exercise of the purchase authority.”



That could mean almost Christmas.In a conference call with reporters Saturday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said there is discussion of creating a “supervisory authority” to report back to Congress on the Treasury bailout program, but he declined to discuss too many details on that effort at this point.Schumer, who also spoke to Paulson on Saturday, said Congress must move quickly.“This crisis is very, very serious,” Schumer said. “It not only affects Wall Street but all of America — people with credit cards, auto loans, the whole economy.”After a dramatic Capitol meeting Thursday night, Paulson and Bernanke won pledges of bipartisan support. And true to this commitment, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) predicted Friday the full House will vote by the end of next week.




At the White House, President Bush said Saturday morning it was “necessary to get something done quickly” and predicted that Congress would do so."Look, I'm sure there are some of my friends saying, 'I thought this guy was a market guy — what happened to him?'" Bush said. "Well, my first instinct wasn't to, you know, lay out a huge government plan. My first instinct was to let the market work, until I realized, being briefed by the experts of how significant this problem became. And so, I decided to act and act boldly.“It turns out that there's a lot of interlinks through the financial system. The system had grown to a point where a lot of people were dependent upon each other and a collapse of one part of the system wouldn't just affect a part of the financial markets, it would affect ... capacity to borrow money, to buy a house or to finance a college loan.


It'd affect the ability of a small business to get credit. In other words, the systemic risk was significant and it required a significant response. And Congress understands that and we'll work to get things done as quickly as possible.”Mindful of the huge financial commitment, Hoyer and other Democrats have been careful to underscore the fact that the massive government intervention is very much a “Bush administration” plan that the president and Republicans must own up to politically. And playing to the left in her caucus, Pelosi ended a party conference call Friday with a strong attack on the administration’s economic record.For Republicans, it may be even more complicated, since just days ago many conservatives were in revolt over the government’s intervention to shore up the ailing insurance giant, AIG, at a price tag of just $85 billion.



And Paulson has had his own troubles with the House Republican leadership in the past.But thus far, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has been supportive, and the more interesting tensions have been between different factions on the right.Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas conservative with leadership ambitions, has been among those most outspoken, skirmishing with Paulson in a party conference phone call. “My fear is that taxpayers will be left with the mother of all debts, the federal government becomes the lender and guarantor of last resort, and our nation finds itself on the slippery slope to socialism,” Hensarling said Friday.But other conservatives have tempered their remarks.



"What's going on right now is an education process," said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who is typically outspoken. "We need to take dramatic, complete and immediate action."
Time For Leadership
TIME FOR OBAMA !
Visit Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE
A Multi-Racial Net/Grassroots Org...
Together, We WILL Make The Difference !