They Did What !

Congratulations to the American people! We just showed what “the power of the people” can do. Whether or not it turns out to be the right decision, we let our elected representatives know that we were strongly opposed to the Paulson bailout plan. They heard us and in numbers large enough to defeat it, they followed our demands when they voted. These representatives are all up for reelection this year and that gave us a lot of leverage – actually that leverage is always there if we would but use it. The House members, because they come up for reelection every two years, are more susceptible to pressure from their constituents than Senators who only come up every six years.

Now that we are on a roll, let us continue to use our power to assure that whatever plan is finally passed will be in the best interests of we the people. Toward that end, we should insist that opinions other than those of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Henry Paulson be considered in structuring the plan.

Joseph Stiglitz, most cited economist in the world, as of June 2008, stated on 60 Minutes Sunday that he does not agree with the Henry Paulson bailout plan. Stiglitz predicted two years ago that we could not sustain the financial market as it was going and warned about an impending market meltdown. Paulson, on the other hand, in July 2007 said that the market impact of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage fallout was largely contained and that the global economy was as strong as it has been in decades. (REUTERS/Rick Wilking)

So why is it that we are spending all our time tweaking Paulson’s plan instead seeking advice from economists like Joseph Stiglitz? In a recent article, Stiglitz pointed out:

There are four fundamental problems with our financial system, and the Paulson proposal addresses only one. The first is that the financial institutions have all these toxic products--which they created--and since no one trusts anyone about their value, no one is willing to lend to anyone else. The Paulson approach solves this by passing the risk to us, the taxpayer--and for no return.

The second problem is that there is a big and increasing hole in bank balance sheets--banks lent money to people beyond their ability to repay--and no financial alchemy will fix that. If, as Paulson claims, banks get paid fairly for their lousy mortgages and the complex products in which they are embedded, the hole in their balance sheet will remain. What is needed is a transparent equity injection, not the non-transparent ruse that the administration is proposing.

The third problem is that our economy has been supercharged by a housing bubble which has now burst. The best experts believe that prices still have a way to fall before the return to normal, and that means there will be more foreclosures. No amount of talking up the market is going to change that. The hidden agenda here may be taking large amounts of real estate off the market--and letting it deteriorate at taxpayers' expense.

The fourth problem is a lack of trust, a credibility gap. Regrettably, the way the entire financial crisis has been handled has only made that gap larger.

The administration is once again holding a gun at our head, saying, "My way or the highway." We have been bamboozled before by this tactic. We should not let it happen to us again. There are alternatives. Warren Buffet showed the way, in providing equity to Goldman Sachs. The Scandinavian countries showed the way, almost two decades ago. By issuing preferred shares with warrants (options), one reduces the public's downside risk and insures that they participate in some of the upside potential. This approach is not only proven, it provides both incentives and wherewithal to resume lending. It furthermore avoids the hopeless task of trying to value millions of complex mortgages and even more complex products in which they are embedded, and it deals with the "lemons" problem--the government getting stuck with the worst or most overpriced assets.

Finally, we need to impose a special financial sector tax to pay for the bailouts conducted so far. We also need to create a reserve fund so that poor taxpayers won't have to be called upon again to finance Wall Street's foolishness.

We cannot just ignore what is happening on Wall Street, but that does not mean we have to rush into a bailout that primarily benefits them while offering taxpayers nothing but crumbs. We have shown what the power of the people can do, now let’s keep doing it until we get the best deal possible.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From everything I have been able to grasp in reading about the economic meltdown and bailout it seems pretty clear there is no painless way out of this mess. Obviously any kind of bailout is not fair to the taxpayers but who said life is fair. We have two choices: we can waste our energy resisting what is – a looming economic collapse – and rail against those who brought it about; or we can use our energy to find a solution that is as equitable as possible. Seems like a no-brainer.

The first thing needed by the people is truthful and detailed information as this deal is structured. Our representatives and the administration can meet behind closed doors to hammer things out, but before any vote is taken the details agreed upon must be made public and the people must be given the opportunity to express their agreement or opposition. Secrecy is one of the things that got us into this mess.

It certainly seems a good move to parcel out the money as needed rather than to just dump $700 billion in the pot all at once. It sounds like there is some agreement on this point, but we have been given very little in the way of details about how the outlay would be structured. We need to hear that.

It also seems prudent to have the price we pay individual institutions for their “stinky mortgages” determined by people who can balance the taxpayers interests with the cash flow that is needed to restart credit. That automatically eliminates anyone who is talking to financial services lobbyists. Lobbyists contributed hugely to the problems we have. Their job is to advance the interests of the company they work for. In this situation, those interests are important only in regard to how they will contribute to restarting the flow of credit. If we pay too little, it will not have the desired effect. If we pay too much, the company profits, the taxpayers lose.

The goal of this bailout is not to make a profit for financial services; it is to restart the economy. That is what the taxpayers should be willing to pay for. If a financial company is not willing to cooperate in that, then just eliminate them from the equation. Let them try to find money somewhere else. Or let them sit and hoard what cash they have. How long can a lending organization stay in business without lending? And if they go under – so be it. It is reminiscent of the knot heads in Galveston who recently refused to evacuate and then called 911 expecting others to risk their lives to save them.

There should not even be a question about the taxpayers having the opportunity to recoup some if not all of what they put in the pot; and if, due to an improving housing market, they should even make a profit, all the better. It is after all the taxpayer who is taking the risk. Perhaps this scenario would be more understandable to Wall Street if we stopped calling this a bailout and started calling it a taxpayer investment. People always expect a return on their investment, those making it and those with whom it is made. On the other hand, if they are just looking for a handout, forget it!

A solution for the problem of continuing foreclosures needs to be looked at by people who understand mortgages and can also think out of the box. It seems reasonable that it might take a new kind of mortgage structured in steps with the goal of initially stopping foreclosure by making payments affordable now, then increasing the payments as housing values increase perhaps with a cap at the property’s value at time of purchase. People who got in over their heads will have the possibility of keeping their homes but should not expect to profit at taxpayer’s expense.

And that statement about profiting at taxpayer’s expense goes for Wall Street executives as well. It goes without saying that golden parachutes should be a thing of the past.

Many of us ordinary folk have more common sense than our representatives and we are not influenced by lobbyists or worried about pleasing big donors. So we need to voice our opinions and contribute our ideas. It is after all our money, our economy, our jobs, that are at stake.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

… why Sarah Palin isn’t just being ignored by the media – no photos, no commentary, no attention at all. If she is not available to answer reporters’ questions why in the world do media continue to give her photo ops coverage? It is astounding that a “public” figure can run for “public” office all the while refusing to allow “the public” the right to hear what she thinks and what she will do if elected. Phooey lady! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

…why John McCain would not only suggest deregulating health insurance companies, but use “as we have done over the last decade in banking” as an example of why it should be done. We can see how well deregulation worked in banking so is this man stupid or just unaware of what is going on around him?

…why the McCain campaign would think that announcing Sarah Palin’s agreement to cooperate with the “troopergate” investigation by the Personnel Board would impress anyone. Palin refuses to cooperate with the investigation being done by the Alaska legislature claiming IT is biased but the Personnel Board appointed by and accountable to Palin, is the perfect choice to be in charge of an investigation of her. Right! I’m under whelmed by this obviously phony show of “honesty” on the part of the governor.

… why people continue to accept the GOP technique of not answering questions by rattling off a long string of words that amount to a mini “speech” of talking points that do not answer the question asked. Do they give training classes in doing this? It seems like they must, because all the Republican Stepford Wives do it with the same expression on their faces and pretty much the same words pouring rapidly out of their mouths. As an example of lock-step performance, it can’t be beat. As a source of real information it rates a minus ten.

…how John McCain can claim to be a reformer and agent of change when he supported Bush policies 90% of the time. Most people believe that actions speak louder than words. Why then are so many oblivious to the disconnect between McCain’s actions over the past eight years and his words now? Getting angry and lashing out when questioned about the inconsistencies does not prove McCain’s words are true. It proves he is temperamentally unsuited to lead our country.

…what is going on in the financial world right now but there is an article in the New York Times that explains more clearly than most, what has happened. It is a fairly long article but worth the read. Taking the time to follow some of the links makes it that much more informative. Diamond and Kashyap on the Recent Financial Upheavals

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

YES, there is a financial crisis and action is required to keep our economy from collapsing. NO, it is not necessary to make a hurried decision out of fear that is going to create a debt that burdens generations to come without some built in safeguards and punitive measures for those who caused this mess.

If taxpayers are expected to finance the bail out, then taxpayers should have a very big say in how it is structured. To leave that decision in the hands of people like Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs is sheer stupidity. Wall Street created these problems; Wall Street should not be allowed to design the fix without considerable input from those who will be footing the bill.

Our “representatives” in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have shown themselves to be totally inept or unconcerned about representing our interests. They have a proven record of failing to do due diligence before voting on bills, of allowing themselves to be manipulated by fear and special interests, and of putting politics before the good of the country. NOT THIS TIME!

We need to be very careful with the government taking over failing banks and mortgage companies that we do not wind up with socialism for the wealthy and banks running our country. If the structure of this fix is left up to Wall Street, whose interests do you think will take precedence?

I am not an expert in finance but with a little attention and an ounce of common sense anyone can see that there are big risks on both sides of this equation. To do nothing is inviting a continuing downward spiral. No one wants that. But allowing our representatives to once again be rushed into passing legislation is the height of foolishness. What is done must be done with careful consideration and foresight lest we regret in hindsight.

We need to speak out, long and loud, insisting that Congress actually represent us and our interests in this fix. They need to make sure the government has an equity stake in every company we bail out so that any future benefits will come to us and not those who caused the problems. The CEOs and executives of bailed out companies should forfeit bonuses, stock options, perks and salaries. All future executive salaries at all levels should be linked to profitability. No more golden parachutes – if companies can take away worker pensions to reduce company expenses, then the same should hold true for the big wigs. No money from bailed out companies should be used for lobbyists or political contributions. Regulations and strict oversight should be implemented immediately and enforced. Bankruptcy laws should be changed to help homeowners, not creditors.

We have the leverage to demand these kinds of ideas be a part of the bail out agreements. If a company refuses to accept these restrictions, then there should be no bail out from us. Let them try to find their money some place else. If Congress even looks like they are allowing this leverage to be squandered, a great public outcry should arise and continue until Congress does what it is paid to do – represent the people.

For our part, we the people cannot sit quietly by and just expect things to work out. This is our country, our government, our responsibility. If we don’t learn from our mistakes, we will repeat them. Fool us once (the Iraq war) shame on them, fool us twice (this financial crisis) shame on us!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“With seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists running his campaign from the top, taking on the old boy’s network isn't a fight -- it's a staff meeting”

That has to be one of Obama’s best quips, but it also points out a truth that belies McCain’s claims to be a reformer who will change the way business is done in Washington. How can you promise to solve a problem when the people working to get you elected are a big part of the problem? It is like putting a gun turret in the Statue of Liberty to “welcome” the huddled masses.

We have heard over and over during this campaign that McCain is a hero; a man of honor descended from a long line of honorable men. Men of honor usually have the courage of their convictions. If a man had the courage of his convictions, wouldn’t he campaign on those convictions? If he truly believed that his policies and beliefs were better for America than his opponent’s, wouldn’t he be honest about what those policies and beliefs are?

Do you see that kind of conviction and honesty in what McCain says and does? I don’t. And as a former admirer of John McCain, it is sad to see what he has become:

• A man who claims to put “Country First” but who wants the presidency so badly he will do anything to win it including an opportunistic rather than a reasoned choice of a running mate
• A man who blames his false and sleazy ads on his opponent for not agreeing to Town Hall meetings
• A man who has preached against government regulation and interference, now calling for regulation and government buy outs to solve the problems caused by his supported lack of regulation.
• A man who, with honesty admitted he is not knowledgeable about economics, but now claims expertise gained through a committee (Commerce) that doesn’t even oversee the financially troubled areas of the economy
• A man who admitted the Bush tax cuts helped only the wealthiest but supports making them permanent while lying about his opponent’s tax plan which would actually help the middle class
• A man who rejected, out of hand, even the idea of America using torture, now voting against banning CIA use of torture and using double talk when questioned about it
• A man who claims to care about the middle class but whose voting record consistently favors big business and the wealthy.
• A man who claims to empathize with veterans but whose voting record shows repeated votes against funding and benefits for them.

This list barely scratches the surface of the obvious contrast between McCain’s words and his record on the issues. So where exactly do we see examples of McCain’s honor? Where are the indications that he has the courage of his convictions? Where are the signs that integrity takes priority over expediency? I don't see them.

That leaves us with the question: What can we really expect McCain to do if he is elected President? Judging by past actions, his words paint a fantasy future not to be believed. Judging by what he has done in the past, his actions paint a future that is pretty much like the present.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Some of the things we should be talking about in this election are a trillion dollar war, rising unemployment, a deregulated and crashing housing market, failing banks, global warming, and a 22% increase in the number of uninsured since 2000.

What are we talking about? We're talking about Sarah Palin - was she or was she not a good mayor? Is she, or is she not a good mother? Do we like her hair style? What about her glasses? And when we talk about John McCain, we are talking about what he did 35 years ago.

Probably the worst offenders are the pundits who take the position that it's all just a game and say phrases like "getting a post-convention bump" or "playing to the soccer Moms." This isn't a game of Monopoly or Survivor. There are real truths that exist outside of the spin they are given and have an effect on lives. 250,000 Iraqi civilians are dead because we let our reality be distorted by the most effective propaganda machine in fifty years, the corporate American press. Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran.*

Is it possible that the people of this country, over the last two weeks have forgotten about 4000+ dead soldiers, mounting numbers of homeless families due to foreclosures, the highest unemployment rate in five years, Katrina, four dollar gas, and a president and vice-president disrupting global relationships by goading Russia, and intent on starting a war with Iran before leaving office. Could Americans possibly think a single individual and what may or may not be true about her life, is more important than all these national interests?

Have we really become such a nation of sheep that we can be so easily distracted from the issues that will determine the survival of our country, not only in our lifetimes but in those of our children and grandchildren?
Is Sarah Palin or anything about her so important that it should decide who we choose as president?

The people did not choose Palin, they chose John McCain. Let’s look at him, at who he is, what he believes, what he will do for us. And the people chose Barack Obama. Let’s look at him, at who he is, what he believes, and what he will do for us.

Let us compare these two candidates that we chose and decide which of them is most likely to do what we need done – bring our troops home, restart our economy, help save our planet, developed innovative energy alternatives, undo the damage done to our governemt by reinstating habeus corpus, depoliticizing the Justice Department, and repopulating the FDA, FCC, EPA, SEC and FTC with personnel who will actually work for consumer protections.

Bush/Cheney have done horrific damage to America and its people and they continue to do damage each and every day they remain in power. John McCain has supported Bush 90% of the time. That is what we need to talk to him about. That is why we need to ask John McCain what he means when he claims to be an agent of change. What change? Do ads that minor in issues and major in character assassination indicate change? Or are they proof of lack of character – a win at any cost mentality that duplicates the GOP campaigns of the past and promises to continue the broken government of the present.

So let us put Sarah Palin in the context in which she belongs. She is not a superwoman, a savior, or the next president. Sarah Palin is a running mate for John McCain. One who agrees with his policies. And it is those policies that need to be examined, discussed, and debated.

If we don’t get down to the important business of really evaluating the change these two candidates will bring, we will face, as we did in 2004, an election that shocks the world with our stupidity.


* Adam McKay, Huffington Post, Sept 8, 2008

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Obama is lambasted for something he didn’t do, McCain is pretending outrage over something that wasn’t said, the media is in a frenzy about what wasn’t done and what wasn’t said.

Lipstick on a pig is what is at issue. And we need to pay attention because this must be really important. It is taking precedence over two wars, a failing economy, rapidly increasing unemployment, and millions of uninsured Americans.

Obama, talking about McCain and Palin calling the same thing something different when they refer to their policies as “change” used an analogy – you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

McCain and company, feigning outrage, demand that Obama apologize to Palin because they say he was calling her a pig. Well, perhaps ole John is just having a senior moment - that happens at his age (and mine).

Why? Because McCain used the same analogy in 2007 in reference to Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan when he said “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.” I looked and looked but couldn’t find any reference to an apology to Hilary – neither demanded nor offered. Oops!

Now that we know the context of Obama’s statement don’t you think it's really hysterical that the Republicans all thought of Sarah Palin when Barack Obama mentioned a lipstick-wearing pig. Sort of hoisted by their own petard don’t you think?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

McCain said, "In all due respect to my colleagues, they’re drinking the Kool-Aid that somehow I have changed positions on the issues." Well, Senator, here is what the facts say about what you said and what you did.

SAID: "It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers.” (Los Angeles Times, Mar 25, 2008)

DID: Supported bail out of Bear-Stearns

SAID: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 26, 2005)

and said "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff." (Chicago Tribune, Dec. 18, 2007)

and then said “I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics.” (Meet the Press)

DID: Supports making Bush tax cuts permanent to fix the economy. Probably because the tax cuts have worked so well for the economy thus far.

SAID: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." (McCain Senate Website, May 26, 2001)

DID: Voted in 2006 to extend tax cuts. Now supports making them permanent. So much for his "good conscience."

SAID: "One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us" (NY Times, Nov 16, 2007)

DID: Voted against a ban on CIA torture.

SAID: "I'm the only one special interests don't give any money to" (Town Hall, New London, NH Nov 18, 2007)

DID: McCain's campaign manager and many key campaign officials are telecom lobbyists, who have given at least $765,000 to his campaign (and that's just one special interest)

SAID: McCain singled out the evangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "corrupting influences on religion and politics" and called them "agents of intolerance." (International Herald Tribune, Feb 29, 20000)

DID: Gave May 2006 commencement speech at Falwell's Liberty University, cozies up to Falwell.

SAID: “The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them… I’ve been endorsed in every election by every veterans organization that do that, I’ve been supported by them, and I’ve received their highest awards from all of those organizations.”

DID: McCain received a “D” rating from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; a 20 percent vote rating from Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans noted McCain voted against their interests in 15 key votes; American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars supported the Webb New GI Bill, McCain did not.

When questioned about his lack of support for veteran funding bills, John McCain pulls his POW trump card out and doesn’t really answer the question. If pushed, he grows angry and answers with sarcasm such as his response to one veteran who questioned him, “Well, I thank you and I'll be glad to examine what your version of my record is."

Well, Senator, this is not a “version,” this is your actual record:

McCain opposed the Webb 21st Century GI Bill, skipped the vote on the bill, and then took credit for it when it passed. June 2008

McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.
September 2007

McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities. May 2006:

McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. April 2006:

McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. March 2006:

McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. McCain must think more highly of corporations than veterans since he voted for tax loopholes for corporations over our veterans' needs. March 2004:

McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322 million for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322 million. October 2003:

McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests. April 2003:

McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. August 2001

Kool Aid notwithstanding, it sure looks like a lot of positions changed… or did you just not mean what you said in the first place? That wouldn’t look good for your “straight talk.” Maybe we better just stay with changed positions. What do you think, Senator?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 03:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Did you watch the Republican Convention? It was truly astonishing. Listening to the speakers and seeing the reactions of the audience, you could not help but notice the amazing case of collective amnesia. It was as if no one knew that Republicans were in control of both the executive and legislative branches of government from 2000 through 2006. Or that even since then they control enough Senate seats to keep the Democrats from getting 60 votes when needed.. Conversely, they showed a firm though false belief that with the current congressional majority the Democrats could have done whatever they wanted and simply chose not to.

This collective amnesia was particularly apparent as Republican speakers talked about how they would take on the establishment, bring change, and fix the economy - statements met with wild cheering from the crowd. I couldn’t help but wonder… Who do they think they are they going to take on…aren’t they the establishment? What are they going to change… the things they did in the last eight years? How will they fix the economy…aren't the housing crunch and financial crisis results of their policies and legislation?

Equally noticeable is the collective denial of reality. It seems impossible that this convention audience is unaware of what their party has done for the last 8 years. And how could they be ignorant of the proven and oft stated falseness of most of the speakers' assertions about Obama’s plan for taxes, for oil subsidies/giveaways, and for increasing the size of government? Could it be because they surround themselves with media that never allow objective reality to impose itself on their consciousness? Huffington Post’s Oliver Willis put it well,

“Rush tells them it's a liberal plot of the drive-by media. Fox assures them that they are in the mainstream of public opinion no matter how fringe their beliefs. The Heritage Foundation and (American Enterprise Institute) AEI show them cooked up numbers with "research" backing their assertions.”

So, with all this obvious historical amnesia, denial of reality, and meanness of spirit, what are we to make of the claims that country comes first, that the interests of the American people are important, and that they are best suited to lead our country out of its present turmoil? In my world actions speak louder than words and past actions of Republicans in power incline me to question future actions if they are in power. Added to that concern is their glaring blindness to their own past actions and the consequences we, as individuals and as a country, are suffering. For all their high sounding words, you cannot correct your mistakes until you own them.

Ignoring the truth and covering it with platitudes will not put our country back on track.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)