Here’s a terrific way to help bailout the bailout.
We can stop throwing taxpayer money at bankers who pay themselves billions in bonuses and give elaborate super bowl parties by investing in products and services that not only provide income and dignity for families but also improve the quality of life for all Americans.
Why not invest taxpayer funds with the Big Three Detroit automakers to utilize their resources, capabilities, and potential to design, develop, and produce Multiple-Fuel internal combustion engine powered vehicles, Electric Vehicles, and Mass Transit systems?
Think about the possibilities here . . . we could help ensure the Big 3’s ability to pay back taxpayer supplied loans; we could save and add thousands upon thousands of good, long term jobs; we could generate millions of dollars in offsetting revenues to the treasury and to states from additional payroll and income taxes; and, we could invest in green, clean transportation systems to improve the environment while we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
No matter which side of the so-called ‘bailout’ argument you’re on, it’s important to remember that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors do not just build cars and trucks . . . they create, design, manufacture, sell and deliver a broad range of vehicles for a variety of applications at various price points.
These capabilities, developed and delivered by thousands upon thousands of educated, experienced, skilled, talented people working with an incredible array of advanced mechanical and electronic tools and high-tech facilities, are too valuable for the nation to ignore or reinvent.
BIG 3 CORE CAPABILITIES
1. Concept & Design . . . The Big 3 automakers are experts at creating and designing a variety of vehicles for a variety of applications; skills which can quickly be transferred to the creation and design of ‘Green’ vehicles required to break our dependence on foreign oil
2. Prototyping parts, components, and completed assemblies . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the experience, capabilities, and tools necessary to produce computerized models of 3-dimensional prototype parts prior to dynamic elastic analysis in preparation for casting, forming, and/or machining
3. Fabrication . . . The Big 3 have the proven ability to produce parts, components, and assemblies utilizing a variety of specialty processes, including computerized press brake forming, computerized precision laser cutting and machining, Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) technologies, and computerized MIG and TIG precision welding processes
4. Assembly . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors employ thousands of men and women who know everything there is to know about manual and automated precision assembly processes
5. Distribution . . . the Big 3 Detroit automakers have perfected the logistical infrastructure necessary to efficiently and consistently deliver millions of cars and trucks to every town, village, and city throughout the country
6. Parts and Service Support . . . The Big 3 have successfully provided parts and service support for tens of millions of vehicles in tens of thousands of configurations in thousands of locations for decades
7. Warranty, Repair, and Service . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have created, written, and distributed printed and electronic service and repair protocols for numerous varieties of millions of increasingly complex vehicles produced over decades
UTILIZING TAXPAYER INVESTMENTS TO DEVELOP A NEW, 3-PART BUSINESS MODEL
1. MULTIPLE-FUEL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE-POWERED VEHICLES – Each company would develop fuel-efficient internal-combustion engines which run on bio-fuels, natural gas, hydrogen, and blended fuels for their existing lines of hybrids and non-hybrid cars and light trucks.
a. Technical Goals: Reduce time to design, prototype, acquire or modify capital equipment, and manufacture new products from the current industry standard of 48 months to 24 months. This reduction in product development time would come from strengthening relationships with suppliers and partners. New efficiencies would be built-in to the manufacturing process by utilizing advanced technologies such as intelligent flexible assembly processes, virtual manufacturing, ceramic injection, metal injection, powder metal processing, precision forging, squeeze casting, and reactive molding, improved precision tooling, net-shape forming, and the expanded use of high-tech lightweight materials (ceramics, polymers and specialty metals)
b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): Each company would implement a ‘build-to-order’ matrix which would allow consumers to order certain models with specific options direct from the factory to eliminate dealer inventory costs, minimize dealer inventories, and reduce consumer acquisition costs. ‘Build-to-Order’ vehicles would ship from the factory along with dealer inventory units and would be prepared and delivered to each consumer by the nearest factory authorized dealer
2. ELECTRIC VEHICLES – Each of the three companies would cooperate to design, prototype, and produce new battery/charging technologies to power pure-electric vehicles (similar size and design as the hybrid Chevrolet Volt) with extended range (up to 250 miles) at reasonable delivered price points.
a. Technical Goals: Improve pulse battery chargers to decrease time required to recharge electric vehicle batteries to 15 minutes or less with a full-charge battery range of 200 miles; establish a network of electric charging stations to facilitate long-distance trips in all regions of the nation
b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): The same ‘build-to-order’ matrix would apply to Electric Vehicles as would apply to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
3. MASS TRANSIT – Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the people, tools, and design and manufacturing facilities necessary to create, design, prototype, manufacture and deliver Hybrid buses, GLT buses, light rail ‘Trolley’ cars, commuter rail engines & cars, and high-speed rail conventional and Maglev train cars
a. Conventional (Green-Power) Buses: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would design, prototype, produce, and deliver Hybrid buses which operate on bio-diesel, fuel cells (a reactant fuel is converted to electrical power), fuel generated from renewable energy sources, or electric motors charged by wind-driven generators
b. GLT (Guided-Light-Transport) Buses: The Big Three would design, prototype, build and deliver GLT buses in two modes: In ‘Bus Mode’, the GLT operates like any other bus, powered by a CNG or Natural Gas burning internal combustion engine or by electric motors. In ‘Guided Bus’ mode, the GLT tracks a central rail (guide) imbedded in the roadway to allow it to function as a ‘ground-bound monorail’
c. Light Rail (Streetcar, Tram, or Trolley) Cars: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would collaborate on the design and manufacture of Light Rail cars (Powered by overhead electric line via a ‘trolley’)
d. Commuter Rail Engines & Cars: The Detroit 3 would design, build, and deliver multi-level, light weight, computerized, energy-efficient engines and cars for urban passenger train service
e. High-Speed Rail (Conventional & Maglev) trains: The Big 3 would design, build, and deliver self-propelled, electric cars which draw power from a GPS-controlled remote ‘3rd’ rail. Maglev trains use electromagnetic power to literally ‘float’ over rails. Maglev trains rely on electrified coils in rails and guide way walls for ‘magnetic’ propulsion at speeds in excess of 300 miles per hour
EPILOGUE – If we take an objective, non-partisan look at the Big Three Detroit car companies, we have to admit that they design, test, produce, and sell lots of vehicles . . . even in tough economic times.
In 2007, the Big 3 Detroit automakers sold 8½ million cars and trucks in the United States and millions more in countries around the world.
General Motors outsold Toyota by 1¼ million vehicles last year and even in 2008, when the entire free world seems to be decrying General Motors’ ability to give the buying public what it wants or needs, GM managed to outsell Toyota by nearly 600,000 units.
Worldwide, General Motors sold nearly 9.4 million vehicles in 2007 – more than any other manufacturer, including Toyota.
In the U.S., Ford outsold Honda and Nissan, combined, by about a million vehicles in 2007.
And, Chrysler outsold Hyundai and Nissan, combined, in the U.S. in 2007.
Why?
Because, contrary to ill-informed hype, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors build high-quality, market-priced vehicles that offer exceptional fuel economy.
The Chevrolet Malibu is 2 miles-to-the-gallon better than the Honda Accord; the Ford Focus matches the fuel economy of the Toyota Corolla; and, the Chevy Cobalt offers better overall fuel economy than the Honda Civic.
This message was sent to 48 Senators yesterday.
Only Senator Shelby even bothered to acknowledge having received the message and his was an automated response.
But if Senators are serious about using taxpayer dollars wisely, if they truly support the ‘greening’ of American industry and all forms of transportation produced in this country, if they trust millions of American workers, and if they believe in American technologies, and American production capabilities to keep the American Dream alive, they will amend the bailout bill to invest in our own Big Three automakers and clean up our environment while we finally turn the page on our dependence on foreign oil.
Won’t they?
If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Thursday, January 15, 2009 – George W. Bush gave his farewell, ‘feel-good’, address to the country tonight to defend his version of his record over the past eight years.
So, what’s the truth?
Let’s compare what he said to what he did . . . and then, you tell me . . . am I wrong when I say, The Smirk is real?
WHAT HE SAID: “For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President.”
WHAT HE DID: The man who said tonight that ‘it has been my honor to serve as your President’, told FOX News on December 18, 2008 that he didn’t care about what the American people thought of his decisions and policies. In fact, he said, “I’ve had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.”
WHAT HE SAID: “The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart.”
WHAT HE DID: The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence primarily because George W. Bush lied to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without cause, killing over 4,200 Americans, injuring more than 30,000 Americans, killing and wounding a hundred thousand or more Iraqi men, women, and children, and costing American taxpayers $588,525,042,916.99 as of 9:32 PM, EST, January 15, 2008.
WHAT HE SAID: “And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me.”
WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush took an oath, twice, to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet he violated the trust of the American people when he worked behind the scenes to dilute or even get rid of constitutional protections for U.S. citizens and purposefully circumvented constitutional protections by authorizing a secret program to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of an existing law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
WHAT HE SAID: “This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house - September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son's police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.
WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush failed to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite the fact that U.S. intelligence sources were reporting higher-than-normal levels of terrorist communications around the world, as of June, 2001, there had not been a single Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism. On September 4, 2001, Bush administration Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke urged officials to prepare for a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans. George W. Bush refused to acknowledge Mr. Clarke’s warnings and within a week, thousands of American heroes and their families would pay the price for his refusal.
WHAT HE SAID: “And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.”
WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s lopsided vision of establishing a democracy in Iraq on the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings was mismanaged from day one. If he was truly honored to serve as Commander in Chief, why did he send too few troops to Iraq in 2003, why did he allow his dim-witted Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to disband the Iraqi army and leave caches of weapons all over the country for militias, Al Qaeda, and other warring factions to use to kill and wound American troops? Why did he allow hundreds if not thousands of precious U.S. troops to be killed and wounded in Iraq because they were not issued body armor? And, why did his administration allow wounded veterans to be neglected and mistreated at the Walter Reed National Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.?
WHAT HE SAID: “When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy.”
WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s failed policies caused the ‘challenges to our prosperity’ (challenges, after all, do not ‘emerge’, they are caused). This is the president who wasted the budget surplus left by Bill Clinton and more than doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion with year-after-year deficit spending. George W. Bush caved into lobbyists, backed away from proposed regulations on easy-credit, interest-only, no money-down mortgages, and helped precipitate the ‘mortgage meltdown’. And, what about the ‘decisive measures to safeguard our economy’ George W. Bush sounds so proud of? Those measures simply put American taxpayers in debt to the tune of more than $1 trillion in bailouts to pay for Bush’s failure to protect the economy in the first place.
WHAT HE SAID: “America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.”
WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush wasn’t worried about ‘good and evil’ when he supported ‘rendering’, ‘water boarding’ or the arrest and illegal detention of suspected terrorists for years. And, when George W. Bush said tonight that, ‘Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere,’ how does he square that statement with the forced imposition of American-style democracy on innocent Iraqis?
AND THEN HE SAID: “And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next president. And may God bless you and our wonderful country.”
AND SO WE SAY: “And, so, George W. Bush, for the final time: Good night and good riddance. May God forgive you for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries you’ve caused . . . but, most of all, may God make you go away – quietly – while we pray we never see your kind again.
Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, January 12, 2009 – George W. Bush held his final news conference today, played fast and loose with the truth as he defended his eight year record, and no one in the room had guts enough to challenge him.
George W. Bush opened the door wide several times for tough questions, but reporters didn’t dare rush in.
Why, I’ll never know . . . it’s not like any of these reporters had to worry about being barred from the next Bush Press Conference for having committed the mortal sin of asking a tough question.
Bush was aggressive, arrogant, and even joked about the incredible mess he’s left this country in.
And the White House Press Corps laughed with him.
Not one professional journalist had the courage to challenge Bush when he commented on his presidency’s record by saying, “I think it’s a good, strong record. You know, presidents can try to avoid hard decisions and therefore controversy. That’s just not my nature.”
With America mired in two wars, with our military nearing the breaking point, with our infrastructure falling down, with unprecedented deficit spending adding up to a $10+ trillion national debt, with unprecedented mismanagement of American resources in Iraq, with our economy in shambles, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure, with millions more out of work, with our banking system on the edge of failure, and with our manufacturing base nearly destroyed, why wouldn’t at least one journalist challenge that statement?
Who in the room, who in the nation, who in the world sincerely believes George W. Bush’s record, is ‘good and strong’?
When asked about America’s image around the world, Bush said, “I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom.”
Of course, eight years of George W. Bush’s arrogant, detached, incompetence has damaged America’s image around the world.
Did the reporters at Bush’s final press conference truly believe that our image around the world has been strengthened by his mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did those reporters believe our image has been helped by Bush’s lack of leadership in coping with the ongoing nuclear threat in Iran? Did any of those reporters seriously believe that the Bush administration strengthened America’s image by ‘rendering’ and ‘torturing’ suspected terrorists in secret prisons in foreign countries and at ‘Gitmo’?
Yet not one reporter challenged him.
George W. Bush then defended his record in the Middle East by justifying his failure. “It’s been a long time since they’ve had peace in the Middle East,” Bush said. “The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. Will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we’ve advanced the process.”
No reporter pointed out the fallacy of his argument or asked Bush to explain how his administration had ‘advanced the process’.
Bush then said he’d “thought long and hard about Katrina. You know could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge.”
Bush was revealing that the most important thing on his mind when Katrina hit was where to have a photo op . . . in New Orleans or Baton Rouge . . . yet no one in the room pointed out that he was talking about something completely unrelated to the question of his administration’s abysmal response to a national tragedy.
Bush then said something absurd . . . even for him. He said, “Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?”
That Bush could get away with making a statement like that . . . in front of experienced journalists was unbelievable.
It is well documented that George W. Bush failed to take charge; that he failed to make certain that every federal resource was utilized to quickly and effectively save lives and property throughout the Gulf Coast after Katrina. His failure cost lives and seriously delayed the rebuilding effort. George W. Bush and his minions failed to anticipate the scope of the disaster (despite very clear warnings from the national weather service) and they failed to react and they failed to follow-through.
Three and a half years after the fact, damage done by Katrina is still impacting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the Gulf Coast.
Yet not one reporter pointed out that the Coast Guard’s valiant efforts to save 30,000 Katrina victims had absolutely nothing to do with Bush’s leadership or with his administration’s response to the tragedy.
Not one reporter asked George W. Bush to explain or justify why his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, threw the first $350 billion of the financial bailout at banks with no accountability.
The outgoing president stood at that podium in front of the White House Press Corps for three-quarters of an hour so it wasn’t like reporters didn’t have time enough to ask the tough questions.
If the media exists only to serve as a conduit for truth between us and them, why didn’t reporters hold George W. Bush accountable for his failures today?
Were those reporters more concerned about playing by the unspoken rules of presidential press conferences, which are designed, first and foremost, to protect the president’s image or were they more concerned about honoring their obligation to report the truth?
After today, we know the answer to that question.
Don’t we?
CHICAGO, IL – Wednesday, November 26, 2008 – Ain’t it nice to finally have a smart guy in (coming in) to the White House?
Think about it . . . compare the way President-elect Obama handled himself in today’s press conference to the way George W. Bush muddled his way through eight years.
You remember, don’t you?
George W. Bush, the genius, was actually reelected after he said, "My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."
And, despite the fact that there was no doubt about George W. Bush’s intelligence or lack thereof, voters sent him back to Washington for a second four year term after he said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
It is eminently refreshing that President-elect Barack Obama is more than able to string an entire series of sentences together to create cohesive paragraphs to convey a logical series of meaningful thoughts and ideas . . . a skill that is critically essential to anyone who aspires to the highest office in the country.
His ‘Help is on the way’ press conference today reassured the American people and financial markets around the world that a thoughtful, intelligent, resourceful, committed, dedicated man has arrived to lead the nation out of the morass created by eight years of the meanderings of a failed frat boy who couldn’t convey a meaningful idea on his best day.
President-elect Obama said, “I was elected with the charge of getting this economy back in shape. We are going to implement starting day one when I come into office.”
Nice political statement . . . but he then went on to support that statement by conveying the following meaningful thoughts and ideas:
He announced the creation of the ‘President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board’ (not made up of old friends from college or campaign contributors or incompetent political hacks) headed by 81 year old Paul Volker, an epitome of Washington experience whose leadership will be augmented and balanced by top staffer, 39 year old Austin Goolsbee, a well-respected, visionary, economist from the University of Chicago.
In Monday’s news conference, the President-elect announced that he would nominate 41 year old Tim Geithner, current New York Federal Reserve President, to be Treasury Secretary and on Tuesday, Obama announced he would nominate Peter Orszag to manage the Office of Management and Budget with the immediate responsibility of evaluating the federal budget, ‘page-by-page, line-by-line’, to eliminate wasteful spending and realign how taxpayer dollars are spent.
In the coming week, President-elect Obama is expected to move on from putting together his economic team to naming his national security and foreign policy team, including the vaunted, but not yet confirmed nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. He is also expected to confirm publicly that current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates will stay on for the first year of his administration.
In response to a tough question from CNN’s Ed Henry about ‘playing musical chairs’ by recruiting people who worked in the Clinton Administration, Obama said, “The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.”
“What we are going to do,” Obama went on to say, “is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the vision for change comes from. First and foremost, it comes from me. That’s my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing.”
Lest we forget how George W. Bush handled a similarly tough question in a press conference, permit me to take you back to April 3, 2004, when the 43rd President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, George W. Bush answered a question about whether he’d ever made a mistake in his presidency by saying, “I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet . . . I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t . . . you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”
Huh?
President-elect Barack Obama, unlike his soon-to-be predecessor, has demonstrated that he is a man of action . . . holding three press conferences in as many days to send a clear message to not only millions of shaky Americans worried about their economic futures but to the world in general.
Be advised, America and the world, there is a new man taking the helm of democracy in America, an intelligent man, a man unafraid to work at being President, a man willing to reach out to the best and the brightest the nation has to offer to build not only a better nation but a better world as well.
Maybe I’m amazed, but I’m also relieved.
Aren’t you?
Copyright 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Less than a month ago you said government purchases of stock in banks stuck with so-called ‘toxic assets’ (talk about an oxymoron), represented a good investment for taxpayers. You said the government (nee taxpayers) would own shares in the form of warrants issued by banks. “This is an investment,” you said, “not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything.”
Your immediate plan was to spend $250 billion in direct stock purchases; half of those dollars would go to the nine largest banks in the country and the other half would go to buy stock in thousands of other banks. Though the big nine banks would be receiving nearly $14 billion each, you didn’t require them or any of the other thousands of banks and other financial institutions to lend any portion of any of those taxpayer billions to business and/or consumers.
You said that taxpayer cash handed out by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), would increase banks’ confidence so they will “deploy, not hoard, their capital,”
TRANSLATION: If we give banks billions of dollars, they’ll lend it!
Okay . . .
Given everything you said up to October 20, thinking taxpayers would think your plan was working . . . that business and consumer lending would begin to ‘free-up’; that the hemorrhaging of jobs would slow or even stop; that the rate of foreclosures would begin to decline; that some of us might even be able to sleep the whole night through.
Then, on Wednesday, November 12, you suddenly announced that you were abandoning the idea of purchasing bank stocks (aka ‘toxic assets’); you said, however, that you were going to continue to use (the balance of) $250 billion (36% of the $700 billion) to buy stock in banks to ‘encourage them to resume more ‘normal lending’.
And, if I was confused before Wednesday (and I was), I’m really confused now, Hank.
Does your turnabout mean the original plan, your plan, was the wrong plan?
If so, why did you present it in the first place and why did the House and Senate go along with it?
You told CNBC today that the ‘facts had changed’ which caused you to abandon your original plan.
Okay . . . does that mean the banking system that was in such bad shape less than a month ago is now in good shape?
If that’s the case, why not put our checkbook away, finish your work with the transition team, and finalize your post-January 20 vacation plans?
But, wait a minute, you are still Secretary of the Treasury and, despite the quarter of a trillion dollars you’ve doled out to banks, the economy is still in the tank (not for you, not for the big shot Wall Streeters who’ll run like rats with million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes, not for George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or any of the rest of the Bush bunch who will ride off into the Washington, D.C. sunset with cushy pensions, book deals, and lives of privilege and ease) for the millions of hard working Americans and their children who are paying and will continue to pay with lost jobs, savings, retirement accounts, homes, and dignity for Wall Street greed and Washington incompetence.
So, what will you do with the remaining 64% of the $700 billion to protect millions more businesses, jobs, families, and homeowners who’ve been put at risk by greedy financiers and inept politicians?
At this point, Hank, you may be wondering (as I’m sure you’ve wondered thousands of times in the past several months), how did you become responsible for saving the entire economy of the United States of America?
In other words, who died and made you the big economic Sheriff of America?
Well, Sheriff Paulson, you got yourself in this spot by accepting a job with an administration too stupid, too incompetent, and too short-sighted, for too many years to build a strong, vibrant, flexible economy.
And, while we all understand that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, et al, were stupid, we can’t ignore the fact that the House and Senate were even stupider.
The House and Senate allowed all those stupid people, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and the rest of the Bush bunch, to run the country into the ground . . . for nearly eight very long years.
So, here we are . . . relying on you and the best and the brightest in the Department of the Treasury to save the nation and what have you done?
You’ve spent more than a third of the $700 billion and the credit crisis is still in crisis, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs each week, foreclosures continue to climb, bankruptcy filings continue to increase, and there is no reason to believe anything will change any time soon.
Doesn’t sound like we’re getting much for our money, does it?
Mind if I ask a question?
If I worked for you at Goldman Sachs and I handled my job like you and your group have handled this bailout mess, would I still have a job?
And, if not, why not?
Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved
Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – November 5, 2008 – Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." – ARTICLE II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
Good stuff.
An essential element of our democracy: The leader of the nation stands before the world and affirms he (or she, some day soon) will preserve, protect, and defend our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
No wonder we’ve survived as a nation for 219 years since George Washington first spoke those words on April 30, 1789, followed by 42 subsequent Presidents who’ve repeated that oath of office.
The first inaugural was actually held on March 4, 1801 (the 20th Amendment to the Constitution changed the inaugural date to January 20 in 1937) when Thomas Jefferson, our third President, was sworn in.
But what’s with these inaugural balls . . . you know those extravagant parties newly elected Presidents typically throw for themselves?
Why do they cost so much and why have costs escalated so dramatically over the years?
Let’s go back 35 years and track who spent what and when.
· Before they both resigned from office, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew spent about $4 million to congratulate themselves in 1973.
· In the 1977 Inauguration Day parade, Jimmy Carter not only delighted thousands of spectators by walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, holding hands with Rosalynn, he also cut inauguration costs to $3.5 million.
· Ronald Reagan rolled out his revolution by raising the inaugural ball bar to $16 million in 1981.
· The Reagan group then bumped the inaugural ball bar to $20 million in 1985.
· Not to be outdone by his former boss, George H.W. Bush spent $30 million on self-congratulations in 1989.
· Bill Clinton’s first inauguration in 1993 cut inaugural costs to a mere $25 million.
· But in the second Clinton term, in 1997, inaugural costs jumped to $29 million.
· George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent $30 million congratulating themselves for taking a court-ordered election in 2001.
· Bush and Cheney really went wild in 2005 after they actually won an election and spent $40 million on 9 lavish inaugural balls.
Okay . . . so how much do taxpayers pay for all this political partying, glad-handing, back-slapping, and access-creation?
We pay direct and indirect costs for House and Senate members and staff to come up with a joint House and Senate committee to plan and budget inaugural ceremonies, to prepare the Capitol Rotunda for use in the case of bad weather, and to provide money to archive inaugural documents, files, and records. We also pay direct and indirect costs for security (Secret Service, Capitol Police, U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard).
If that isn’t enough, Congress also generously devotes $1 million of our money for the swearing-in ceremony (why it would cost $27,771.78 per word to administer the 36 word (including the President-elect’s first and last names) oath of office is beyond me).
Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Inauguration day should be a paid-holiday for thousands upon thousands of taxpayer-paid federal employees who work ‘“in the District of Columbia, Montgomery or Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Fairfax in Virginia, and who [are] regularly scheduled to perform non-overtime work on Inauguration Day”.
Though we may never know exactly how many millions of taxpayer dollars go to support all those Federal employees who cool their heels on the ‘Inauguration Day Federal Holiday’, I’d bet it’s a bunch.
So, who pays the balance of the bills for all that inaugural partying?
You won’t like the answer because . . . despite volumes of campaign rhetoric every candidate spews about the evils of influence peddling, despite every candidate’s cries about how ‘it’s time to throw out the lobbyists and special interests’, every President (so far) has launched his presidency by sending out legions of surrogates to beg and borrow cash, products, and ‘in-kind’ services from individuals, corporations, labor, lobbyists, and other special interests to pay for inaugural parties (aka ‘balls’).
Booze makers donate cases of champagne sporting the Presidential Seal, car makers happily loan hundreds of cars and trucks, hair care product manufacturers fall all over themselves to give free hair styles to politicos and journalists, HBO buys televised performances of celebrities for rebroadcast for profit, TV networks create special productions for sale with profits going to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and on and on. Cash also pours in from tax-deductible donations from individuals, corporations, and labor unions, short-term, interest-free loans from the same groups to Inaugural organizers, ticket sales to inaugural balls and events, plus sales of inaugural trinkets (everything from medallions to temporary tattoos to umbrellas to yo-yos).
I know what you’re thinking.
But it is all legal (remember who’s writing the laws).
So, why would wealthy individuals, corporations, labor, lobbyists, and other special interests give up millions of dollars for inaugural balls?
Just because they were asked to?
Couldn’t be they’re trying to ‘buy’ access, could it?
Hmmmm.
President Obama . . . forget the inaugural balls and ask all the individuals, corporations, and labor unions who would otherwise have danced the night away to do something better with their money, products, time and efforts . . . like rebuilding homes and neighborhoods along the Gulf Coast still devastated three years after Katrina.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, November 3, 2008S – Millions of Americans are not only upside down on their mortgages, they’re also upside down on credit card debt, car loans, student loans and other debt, and have no way to create any more buying power. So, if consumers can’t borrow to buy, how on earth do the Washington gurus who engineered the $700 billion bailout think freeing up the credit markets will have any meaningful impact on the economy?
Auto sales in October were down by 45% for General Motors, down by 30% for Ford, and down by 23% for Toyota.
Circuit City announced today that it is closing 20% of its stores nationwide, costing more jobs and reducing sales tax revenues.
The Institute of Supply Management reported today that its manufacturing index fell to 38.9, the lowest reading since September, 1982 when the United States was in the depths of a recession.
Why all the bad news? Because consumers can’t tap credit cards and they sure as heck can’t rely on home equity any longer, now can they?
If consumers – homeowners plus nearly 100 million renters – are buried under mountains of debt, how do Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, et al, expect them to take advantage of the freer credit supposedly created by the $700 billion bailout and spend the economy out of recession?
Bernanke, Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, said Friday that “The boom in subprime mortgage lending was only part of a much broader credit boom characterized by under pricing of risk, excessive leverage, and the creation of complex and opaque financial instruments that proved fragile under stress. The unwinding of these developments is the source of the severe financial strain and tight credit that now damp economic growth.”
Translation into plain English: The Wall Street bailout won’t be enough to turn the economy around because subprime mortgage lending is only part of the problem.
Consumers need a restructuring of a variety of types of debt, including car loans, credit card debt, mortgages, student loans, and other debt.
Because trillions of dollars of current debt prevents consumers from purchasing future trillions in products and services.
So, how do we restructure consumer debt?
We turn it into a profit center for the federal government by purchasing all forms of consumer debt at a discount and restructuring that debt to be paid over extended periods of time, plus a fair rate of interest.
Let’s say that a consumer owes $25,000.00 in credit card debt, $10,000.00 in student loans, and has a $15,000.00 car loan. The total debt of $50,000.00 would be purchased from creditors by the federal government for $40,000.00 and would be secured by tangible property (in this case, the car would be released to the consumer upon receipt of a cash payment or cumulative monthly payments equal to its appraised value). The debt would be paid back by mandatory withholding of monthly payments of $421.93 from the consumer’s paycheck income and/or business income and tax refunds for a period of fifteen years at 6%. This example would generate a gross profit for the taxpayers of $35,947.40.
If a homeowner owed $300,000.00 on a mortgage, $25,000.00 in credit card debt, $10,000.00 in student loans, and had a $15,000.00 car loan, the total debt of $350,000.00 would be purchased from creditors by the federal government for $315,000.00 and would be secured by tangible property (in this case, title to the home and the car, either or which would be released to the consumer upon receipt of a cash payment or cumulative monthly payments equal to the appraised value of either item). The debt would be paid by mandatory withholding of monthly payments of $2098.43 from the consumer’s paycheck income and/or business income and tax refunds for a period of thirty years at 6%. This example would generate a gross profit for taxpayers of $439,434.80. If the home is sold prior to repayment of the loan, the federal government would be entitled to half of the profit but would not sustain a loss.
Consumers, irrespective of current credit rating, would qualify provided they can prove the ability to make monthly payments, agree to attain a minimum 700 FICO score within 24 months, maintain all appropriate forms of insurance on collateral, and file state and federal tax returns, subject to annual audit, on time. There would be no prepayment penalties.
Consumers who serve the nation would be credited with a portion of the monthly payment, dependent upon service rendered. For example, those who serve in the armed forces could receive 75% credit of monthly payments for their period of service, without limitation. Others who teach in inner city schools or practice medicine in rural communities could receive 50% credit of monthly payments for their period of service, without limitation. If then, a homeowner served in the military or taught in inner city schools or served in another approved vocation for thirty years, he or she would able to retire, debt-free, with a paid-for home, and with a substantial retirement income. Done right, we could create a generation of financially secure retirees in this country by 2038.
This approach strengthens the economy in a number of ways:
1. Billions of dollars in buying power are freed up for consumers
2. Consumers who take advantage of the program will manage future credit wisely
3. Banks and other financial institutions are relieved of potentially devastating losses and exorbitant collection costs
4. Small, medium, and large businesses – including service, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and retailers – benefit from immediate, managed consumer purchasing power
5. Credit markets are stabilized and become predictable and profitable
6. Taxpayers become shareholders in the U.S. economy because they accumulate profits that can be used to lower taxes, offset government spending, and pay down the national debt
Because a consumer bailout is politically distasteful, it would take courageous, thoughtful, intelligent leadership and cooperation on the part of government, business, and consumer groups to fashion a viable program . . . but the risk of not creating a meaningful way to unburden the primary source of economic driving power in this country – the everyday, average consumer – may be fatal for the nation’s economy.
So, it’s time to make a decision . . . which way do you want to go America . . . up or down?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sunday, November 2, 2008 – WHO WANTS GEORGE W. BUSH, DICK CHENEY, OR THE BUSH CABINET TO HANG AROUND AFTER TUESDAY? Bush has been a complete bust as President; his level of incompetence is unprecedented, his total lack of commitment to serving the real needs of real Americans is well-known, and his complete inability to communicate with the American people makes him complete useless.
Dick Cheney, by any standard, has been a total waste. He has no credibility, no public support, and has not, in any way, done anything in eight years to improve the lives of Americans. A more useless human being has probably never existed within the Washington beltway.
Let’s face it; George W. Bush (who gets $400,000.00 a year) and his puppet master, Dick Cheney ($221,100.00 a year), offer nothing, except an eight year history of deceit, incompetence, lack of direction, and abject failure, to the people of this country.
So, why would we want either of these boobs to hang around after Tuesday?
Okay . . . so what about anyone else in the Bush administration?
Any help there?
Not hardly.
Not one of Bush’s cabinet secretaries (each of whom costs taxpayers $191,300.00 each and every year), except for Treasury Secretary Paulson, has done anything to help the nation cope with the current economic crisis.
Because Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is actually doing something to help the economy, he can stay after Tuesday. Whether you agree – or not – with the government ‘bailout’ of financial institutions, Congress authorized the ‘bailout’ and Paulson’s actually working at it . . . something Bush, Cheney, and their people are not known for.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman hasn’t said anything about how he plans to use any portion of the $25 billion taxpayer dollars he got in 2008 to reduce exorbitant fuel costs that have crippled our economy and killed so many small businesses and cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. This is a man who said, “Under President Bush’s leadership, this budget” (the 2008 budget) “builds on our commitment to strengthen our nation’s energy security by diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on foreign sources of energy.” Bodman made that statement a year and a half ago – after he spent $49 billion in 2007 and 2008 – and, yet the nation can’t see where he’s done anything to diversify energy resources or reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. So, why would anyone believe Bodman could or would direct his department to make any effort whatsoever to help turn our economy around? In any case, if Secretary Bodman actually cared about helping to revitalize the economy, one would think he would have already made an effort to do so.
Where has Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao been since the economic collapse? In 2008, she spent 50 billion taxpayer dollars this year and used 17,000 employees to run her department, a department that is supposed to “foster and promote the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, and helping employers find workers” . . . yet, we know absolutely nothing about what she’s doing with the $50 billion to help Americans stay in their jobs, get new jobs, and maintain health care coverage for themselves or their families. If Secretary Chao cared about the American worker, wouldn’t she use her economic and political power to help more people hang on to more jobs?
What has Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff done to streamline his department’s $46.4 billion dollar budget and help reduce the federal deficit? What has Chertoff done to improve economic opportunities for Homeland Security contractors and employees? What is Secretary Chertoff’s plan to utilize his department’s human, financial, and infrastructure resources to help rebuild and revitalize our economy? We don’t know . . . because we haven’t heard anything from him.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates hasn’t said a word about where his department stands on the economic crisis. Has Secretary Gates considered how the economy might improve if he directed National Guard and Reserve units to expedite rebuilding in New Orleans and other areas of the country that have been devastated by natural disasters? If Secretary Gates is truly interested in supporting our gallant troops serving around the world, why hasn’t he announced a plan to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to come up with innovative ways to transition returning veterans into good-paying jobs in the public and private sectors?
Where has Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez been? His department employs 41,000 people and will take $6.5 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers this year. According to it’s Mission Statement, the Commerce Department is supposed to work with other Government agencies to create national policy, through the President’s Cabinet to increase international trade, strengthen the international economic position of the United States, promote progressive domestic business policies and growth, and assist communities, individuals, and states with economic progress. So, why hasn’t Secretary Gutierrez made a public commitment to use every resource at his disposal to create more economic opportunity for small, medium, and large businesses throughout the country? Doesn’t Secretary Gutierrez care? Or is he just incompetent?
With a budget of $707 billion and 64,000 employees, Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt spends more money than even the Defense Department ($647 billion) . . . in fact he controls nearly one-fourth of all the money spent by the Federal Government. What has Secretary Leavitt done with any of the $700 billion he received from the taxpayers this year to help Americans who’ve lost their jobs to retain health insurance? If Secretary Leavitt has done anything at all to reduce his operating budget to help reduce our $500 billion deficit this year, he hasn’t bothered to tell us about it. Has Leavitt made every effort to make sure that Americans who’ve lost their jobs and are about to lose their jobs in the most serious economic crisis to hit the nation since the Great Depression have access to continuing health care for themselves and their families? If so, why don’t we know about his efforts?
How about Attorney General Michael Mukasey? The Department of Justice cost taxpayers $26 Billion in 2008 and employs multiple thousands of people in all sorts of jobs all across the nation. So, where does the Attorney General stand on the economic crisis? Why hasn’t he stepped up to reassure us that the Department of Justice will protect our investments in Wall Street and in Main Street as well? Why hasn’t Mukasey come up with any initiatives to introduce, implement, and enforce new and more effective oversight regulations for the financial services industry?
Dr. James Peake, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, spent $84 billion in taxpayer money this year and we have no idea whether he has any interest cutting his department’s operating costs to help reduce the federal deficit. There’s also been no word from Dr. Peake about what he intends to do to make sure returning veterans can find good jobs in a declining economy. If he has a plan to provide good-paying, secure jobs with health and retirement benefits to returning veterans in this economy, why hasn’t he told us about it?
Where does Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters stand on the economic recovery? Is she for or against using the resources the taxpayers have given her to help improve economic conditions? She has 55,000 employees who work for 14 separate departments (from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Federal Railroad Administration to the Office of the Secretary) and she spent $67 billion this year alone. What has Secretary Peters done to invest in the transportation infrastructure to create new jobs? What has Secretary Peters done to streamline her 14 agencies to cut expenditures and return taxpayer dollars to the treasury? We don’t know . . . because we haven’t heard anything from her.
Secretary Condoleeza Rice has demonstrated a level of incompetence that leaves her completely out of any solution-making process, foreign or domestic. She has failed to make any progress in the war of terrorism. She has failed to make any meaningful progress in the Middle East. In terms of assisting the nation to recover from the current economic emergency, Secretary Rice has consistently failed to build or strengthen relationships with our allies around the world, thereby failing to create or develop bilateral import/export economic protections for our economy. Her record proves she would be of no use whatsoever . . . especially when it comes to managing the international implications behind our current economic crisis.
What has Education Secretary Margaret Sellings done to mobilize her department to help the people of America get through the current economic crisis? Out of the $66 billion she spent in 2008, she received $447 million for administrative support alone. How many of those taxpayer dollars has Secretary Sellings directed to create new investments to stimulate the economy? Why hasn’t Secretary Sellings been a leader in introducing initiatives to rebuild and revitalize schools across the nation . . . from inner cities to rural communities to the suburbs . . . to not only improve educational opportunities for our children but to also create new, good-paying jobs for Americans who need them?
Given the dismal history of these Cabinet Secretaries, why would we want to waste another taxpayer dollar on any of them?
There isn’t a winner in the bunch and Americans have no reason to limp along for more than two and a half months between Election Day and inauguration day with Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their incompetents.
We’ll want to rely on the President-Elect, the Vice-President-Elect, and their advisors for the critical leadership (guidance and reassurance) the nation so desperately needs . . . starting Wednesday morning.
Won’t we?
MSNBC NEWS – Friday, October 24, 2008 – Here we go again . . . another day, another hour, another minute, and another talking head comes on the air to ‘answer’ questions asked by a cable news host.
In this case, we’re watching ‘Race to the White House’ hosted by David Gregory on MSNBC.
By way of full disclosure, I am an avid MSNBC and CNN watcher, often flipping between both channels at a frantic rate, trying to catch as much of Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, Chris Matthews, and David Gregory as I can.
So let me ask you (again), are you as sick of listening to lying political hacks as I am?
If so, let’s take a listen to Senior Economic Advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, ‘answering’ David Gregory’s questions.
Who is the real Douglas Holtz-Eakin?
Though he’s an incredibly bright guy (Senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Senior Staff Economist for President George H.W. Bush, etc.), he’s probably best known for having imputed the creation of the BlackBerry to John McCain.
Hmmm.
In any case, we need to know . . . Is Douglas Holtz-Eakin just another lying political hack?
Let’s see how he did in an interview with David Gregory this afternoon.
David Gregory: “I want to welcome Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senior Economic Advisor to the McCain campaign who joins us this evening. Doug, it’s good to see you.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “Good to see you, Dave.”
David Gregory: “L-let me follow on this point, this ad that the McCain campaign is running in the context of an international crisis. Let me ask you the question in terms of an economic crisis, you’ve seen the polls, I don’t have to remind you of those . . . the advantages of taxes and the economy goes (sic) to Barack Obama. That’s in our poll. So if it comes to a test, what to you point to, to show the voters, the undecided voters, that John McCain has passed and that Senator Obama has not?”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “I think there are three or four key points here. The first is that Barack Obama is firmly aligned with the Bush administration in not getting it that the key to this financial crisis is taking care of the housing market. Keeping people in their homes will help stabilize the real economy, help keep unemployment from going up, keep consumers spending. Stabilizing the housing market will take care of the banking sector and the idea that you just want to throw the cash at banks is really, uh, uh, uh, an incomplete and mistaken policy. I think the second major point is on the substance, Barack Obama is bad news for the economy. The kinds of things he wants to do, misplaced tax policies that hurt small businesses, trade policies that are protectionist, bad health policies are all going to hurt jobs and John McCain is not going to turn this recession into a depression like Barack Obama is.
“Third key point is, you know, Barack Obama’s got more money. He gave up the, uh, the pledge for public financing in the general election. He’s trying to buy this election by running misleading ads about all this and, and the question is, can he get away with it?”
AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Holtz-Eakin failed to answer David Gregory’s question . . . which was, ‘What do you point to, to show the voters, the undecided voters, that John McCain has passed the test and Senator Obama has not?’ Holtz-Eakin threw out some unsubstantiated stuff about Barack Obama being ‘firmly aligned with the Bush Administration’. He lectures on the obvious benefits of stabilizing the housing market and he gives us a few more unsubstantiated claims, says Obama will turn the recession into a depression (again, without substantiation) and complains that Barack Obama has raised more money and is running misleading ads. Translation: Who put a gun to the McCain campaign’s head to force them to take public financing and the limitations thereof? And, is Holtz-Eakin calling the kettle black when he accuses the Obama campaign of running ‘misleading ads’?
David Gregory: “Let me ask you the question about tax policy and the debate that’s being framed here in the, in the, closing days. Explain to me why this pitch about Joe the plumber and about tax cuts is anything more than a play for non-college educated, working class voters in a state like Pennsylvania which is key on the electoral map for the McCain campaign.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “People tried for months to get Barack Obama to reveal, A, the details about what he really plans to do and, B, what exactly was the philosophy that somehow underpinned it. Without success . . . I mean, you still cannot get the Obama campaign to tell you what is the definition of a small business that gets the differential tax treatment. They, they, refuse to actually come clean.
“Joe the plumber in Ohio got Barack Obama in a moment of losing his verbal eloquence to actually lay it out. What he believed. And the American people don’t like his agenda. Ah, that’s not, ah, ah, a judgment made by this campaign. It’s a judgment made by the American people. And all we’ve done is see it exposed.”
AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Again, Holtz-Eakin failed to answer David Gregory’s question . . . which was, ‘Explain to me why this pitch about Joe the plumber and about tax cuts is anything more than a play for non-college educated, working class voters in a state like Pennsylvania which is key on the electoral map for the McCain campaign?’ Holtz-Eakin opened with a vague criticism about Obama’s alleged refusal to reveal something about ‘what he really plans to do’. He expresses a concern about the definition a small business, criticizes Obama’s loss of ‘verbal eloquence’, and closes with a blatant lie when he says the ‘American people don’t like his (Obama’s) agenda’.
David Gregory: (interrupting): “. . . Are you saying they don’t like his agenda on taxes? On general handling of the economy, Barack Obama gets the higher ratings. The polls show that . . . “
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: (Interrupting) “ . . . Barack Obama has gotten, B-Barack Obama has gotten the higher rating but this election is not over. If you look at the only poll, the only poll that called the 2004 election right, Investor’s Business Daily, this is a 2 point race. And we shall see whether Barack Obama, uh, by revealing exactly what he’s up to, which is, let’s spend a lot of money, let’s raise taxes to, to pay for and let’s not worry about economic growth, let’s not worry about prosperity that’s generated by ss . . . having a jobs, saving for college, saving for retirement, uh, we’ll see if that plays so well.”
AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. For the third time, Holtz-Eakin did not answer the question . . . which was, ‘Are you saying they don’t like his agenda on taxes? On general handling of the economy, Barack Obama gets the higher ratings.’ Holtz-Eakin tells us the obvious – the election is not over – and then dismisses every other poll in the nation by claiming that the only accurate poll is the ‘Investor’s Business Daily’ poll because it happened to call the 2004 election right (unsubstantiated). Holtz-Eakin then makes a few more unsubstantiated claims about a secret Obama agenda to spend a lot of money, raise taxes, not worry about economic growth, not worry about prosperity generated by having jobs, saving for college, or saving for retirement.
David Gregory: “Right . . . you know, I-I was asked by, uh, uh, a voter the other day, uh, w-who was not necessarily coming from, from the other side of the aisle, but who said, look, ‘cause I-I often will say in covering the, the Bush White House that I can remember well John McCain bucking President Bush and bucking the Republican party, uh, but the facts are also clear I remember covering John McCain when he did talk about voting with the Bush Administration ninety percent of the time. So, how do you reconcile that . . . in our polling that shows nearly six in ten voters think that McCain would be more Bush at a time when you’re saying that the Bush Administration doesn’t get it. You’re going for separation pretty late in the game.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “Well, I mean, the reality is it’s not the number of votes, it’s, it’s what votes matter. Uh, a-at key moments, John McCain has in fact done the right things standing up to the Bush Administration. He’s done the right thing at times in standing up to the Republican party, uh, and he, he will continue to do that for the American people. That’s the key moment. The leadership moments. That’s what the ad was about today.
“Barack Obama has never displayed one moment of leadership . . . when he said that his party or his political backers, ‘no I won’t do that for you because there’s an important issue that the American people need for me to deliver on’. He’s never shown any, uh, uh, ability to do that and without that, he is truly untested and dangerous.”
AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Once again, he failed to answer the question . . . which was, ‘You’re going for separation (from the Bush Administration) pretty late in the game (aren’t you)?’ Rather than answer the question, Holtz-Eakin talks about John McCain’s ‘maverick’ image and refers to an unknown ad. He then goes on to criticize Barack Obama for never having displayed even ‘one moment of leadership’ and he warns us that Obama is untested and, moreover, dangerous.
David Gregory: “Al right, we’re going to leave it there. Senior Advisor on the economy, uh, Doug Holtz-Eakin. Doug, uh, good to see you. Thank you for being here.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: "Thank you."
Though David Gregory, an experienced, well-respected journalist asked a series of insightful questions, Holtz-Eakin didn’t answer even one of them.
If Holtz-Eakin was hired by John McCain to give folks like you and me reasons to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin, he didn’t earn a dime’s worth of his pay today . . . unless bad-mouthing Barack Obama works for the McCain campaign.
But I’m curious . . . why on earth wouldn’t Douglas Holtz-Eakin take this opportunity to tell hundreds of thousands of MSNBC viewers why they should vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin?
Why would he waste your time, my time, David Gregory’s time and his time by leveling a bunch of unsubstantiated attacks on Barack Obama?
Could it be that Douglas Holtz-Eakin is just another lying political hack?
Good question . . . what do you think?
P.S. Doug . . . take a shave, willya?
By l.t. Dravis
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Hempstead, New York – Wednesday, October 15, 2008 – Let’s answer the first question first . . . did Senator McCain say anything in this debate to change his position in the polls?
No.
Second question . . . did Senator Obama say anything in this debate to change his position in the polls?
So, what happened?
Senator John McCain started out talking about the anger of American voters but he spent most of the debate showing his anger toward Senator Obama . . . as if McCain is more against Obama becoming President than he is for McCain becoming President.
In response to Obama’s point about McCain policies being the same as Bush policies, McCain said, “Senator Obama, I’m not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”
Senator Obama apologized for confusing McCain with George W. Bush but pointed out it was hard to tell the difference because McCain voted so often with Bush policies.
John McCain attacked, attacked, and then attacked some more, working hard, playing catch up, trying his best to bad-mouth Barack Obama out of his lead in the polls. McCain was clearly angry and sounded petulant as he worked through his litany of complaints about Senator Obama and his campaign.
When McCain brought the old Weatherman Bill Ayres into the debate, CNN audience reaction dropped dramatically . . . making it clear that the ‘guilt-by-association’ tactic used so often by McCain and Palin may well have backfired.
Obama simply explained the Ayres relationship for what it was: He served on a board with William Ayres along with a number of other people like the President of the Chicago Tribune and the President of Northwestern University and that was that.
The McCain campaign failed to ask and answer an important question: On a day when the Dow Jones average dropped more than 700 points, were people watching this debate really concerned about Senator Obama’s ‘relationship’ with a man who committed crimes when Obama was eight years old?
Though he tried to explain his health care plan through gritted teeth, McCain did not say anything specific to convince anyone that his plan was superior to the Obama plan.
While Senator McCain rolled his eyes and scowled, Senator Obama calmly detailed his health care plan and assured voters that the McCain claim that the Obama health care plan fines small business and individuals was totally false.
McCain gave us a number of platitudes about how we ‘have to improve education’ and ‘we need to encourage businesses’ but he didn’t say anything specific about what he would do as President to resolve any of the domestic or foreign issues we face as a nation . . . so there probably won’t be a shift in the McCain poll numbers as a result of this debate.
While Senator McCain was busy trying to score ideological points to please the Republican base, Senator Obama talked about how his economic plan would create jobs, eliminate penalties for early withdrawals from IRA and KEOGH accounts, increase federal assistance to cities and states, and postpone foreclosures for ninety days.
By the way, what am I talking about when I say that ‘Joe the plumber’ won the debate?
I’m talking about Joe Wurzelbacher (referred to as Joe Wurzberger by John McCain), a plumber who caught up with Barack Obama recently at a rally in Ohio to express his concerns about how Obama’s tax policies might prevent him from buying the company he works for.
McCain used ‘Joe the plumber’ to accuse Senator Obama of proposing tax increases and a health care plan that would prevent working men and women from becoming entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, the fact checkers have proven that the Obama tax and health care plans do nothing to increase the cost of doing business for all the ‘Joe the plumbers’ of this country.
Who spent more time attacking in tonight’s debate?
Eighty percent of voters surveyed by CNN said John McCain spent more time attacking while only seven percent said Obama spent more time attacking.
And did the attacks help or hurt the candidates?
According to a CBS poll of uncommitted voters, 53% said Obama won, 24% said the candidates tied, while 22% said McCain won.
I’m reminded of the infamous Al Gore/George W. Bush debate where Gore lost the edge with a sigh; in fact, I’m thinking that McCain lost all three 2008 presidential debates because of affect . . . the scowls, the eye rolls, the grumpy grunts, etc.
And now, I’m wondering, did John McCain seem more like a ‘President’ tonight or did he seem more like the grumpy old man next door who used to shout at you to get off his lawn?
If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .
So we can send your concerns to 435 Representatives
and 100 Senators until they listen . . . and then, we’ll do it some more
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - The McCain campaign is talking ‘comeback’ and I wonder, how’s the media reading that message?
Are newspaper, radio, and TV editors hoping for hope or hoping for promise?
Hope won’t create enough drama to capture the public’s attention so editors understandably hope it isn’t hope.
Promise, on the other hand, implies drama so the media will want to jump on the promise story, create lots of interest, and continue to enjoy exceedingly profitable ratings.
Barack Obama leads John McCain by fairly good margins in most polls today so the 2008 Presidential Campaign isn’t providing enough drama to attract enough listeners, readers, and viewers, ratings are at risk of dropping and the media worries it could find itself in a world of economic hurt . . . kind of like the rest of us . . . and who wants that?
Let’s go back to that golden moment in time, just about six weeks ago, when John McCain introduced Sarah Palin, the great GOP Hope, to the world and lead Barack Obama in most polls.
Who was more excited . . . the McCain campaign or the media?
Because a switch in the polls – either way – creates drama and drama creates increased ratings and increased ratings create increased advertising revenues, the media was thrilled beyond compare.
The media, especially the 24/7 cable news networks, live or die by ratings and any drama they can dig out of the 2008 Presidential Campaign is as good or better for ratings as any national tragedy (Madonna’s divorce, Nancy Reagan’s pelvic fracture, a drop on the DOW, an earthquake, a hurricane, etc.).
If this wasn’t a campaign year, what would Bill Bennett, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Bill ‘Cussman’ O’Reilly, or Rush ‘Oxycontin’ Limbaugh be talking about today?
Janet Jackson’s bout with vertigo?
Whether or not the Phillies can put the Dodgers away in five?
Who was dropped from ‘Dancing with the stars’?
Or the economy?
The economy . . . for sure.
But is there enough economic news to fill up 24 hours a day of air time, seven days a week?
And, how willing would advertisers be to spend big bucks to have their sales pitches surrounded by doomsday news that sends a clear message to viewers: Don’t spend!
Not very . . . so, what is the media to do?
Continue to cover the boring fact that Obama leads McCain in the polls while ratings and revenues drop?
Or try to convince the public to watch and listen because there’s reason to believe McCain can ‘comeback’ to beat Barack Obama?
The answer is obvious.
So, how would the media’s ‘McCain-can-comeback’ campaign shape up?
You’d see more “Breaking News” coverage on even the slightest positive movement in McCain’s numbers.
You’d see and hear more talking heads talking more about every possible way McCain could improve his chances to beat Obama.
You’d see more columnists write about every possible angle on how the McCain campaign might ‘comeback’ to win the election.
And, you’d see and hear more promotional spots created to convince you to watch and listen to more news stories about how McCain can win.
I know what you’re thinking . . . it’s not impossible for John McCain to ‘comeback’ and win the election . . . no matter what the media does.
And you’re absolutely right.
If the economy somehow takes a positive turn, if McCain and Palin tone down the negative rhetoric and actually tell voters how their lives would be better if they vote Republican, if John McCain can convince voters that he is not ‘erratic’, or if there was some sort of national emergency that made McCain look like the better candidate to protect us, he could very well ‘comeback’ to win the election.
Nevertheless, since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, no matter what the circumstance may be, John McCain is not likely to demonstrate the kind of consistent leadership the country wants and so desperately needs.
So, I’m not at all convinced anything is likely to change for John McCain and his running mate until after the votes are in and they both go home.
But that won’t stop me from tuning in to every bit of media drama – real and otherwise – about McCain’s ‘comeback’.
How about you?
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Monday, October 13, 2008 – What’s the real reason behind McCain’s drop off in the polls?
Are voters turned off by the content of his message?
Are they bummed about his tax policies?
Perhaps they don’t like his $5,000.00 dollar taxable health care credit?
Are they concerned because Senator McCain doesn’t seem to have any plan to ever get us out of Iraq?
Are voters turned off by the negative McCain ads and rhetoric?
Are voters turning away from McCain because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a guy who would 75 years old in the last year of his first term?
But wait a minute . . . maybe it’s not McCain; maybe it’s Sarah Palin.
Could it be that millions of McCain supporters and undecided voters finally got tired of the big insult?
You know . . . the insult foisted on us by John McCain when he nominated a pathological liar to be his running mate.
What am I talking about?
I’m talking about the fact that the person John McCain selected to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States is a proven liar.
Don’t agree?
Okay, then, let’s talk about the fact that Governor Sarah Palin was found to have abused her power by ‘violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act” in a report issued by a bi-partisan panel of eight Republicans and four Democrats.
Clear enough . . . right?
Maybe not . . . if you listen to Sarah Palin.
Palin, supposedly everyone’s ‘hockey mom’, cheerfully lied through her teeth when she said, “There was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.”
“In fact,” Palin said, “remember, Officer Wooten is still an Alaska state trooper, which is up to the commissioner and the personnel top brass in the Department of Public Safety that decides who is worthy of a badge and carrying a gun in the state of Alaska.”
Whew!
“If they think that Trooper Wooten is worthy of that” (a badge and carrying a gun), “that’s their decision. I don’t micromanage my commissioners and ask them to hire or fire anyone.
“And, thankfully” Palin lied, “the truth was revealed there in that report that showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.”
Though Governor Palin obviously believes the American people are too stupid to know that she’s lying . . . in light of an official report that has been pasted all over the internet, printed in every newspaper and magazine, and talked about on every imaginable radio and television program . . . the truth is simple: Voters are too smart to buy that load of baloney.
Could it be that millions of prospective McCain voters agree with a piece on today’s Anchorage Daily News that said,
“Sarah Palin’s reaction to the Legislature’s ‘Troopergate’ report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation. She claims the report ‘vindicates’ her.
“She said that the investigation found ‘no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.’ Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.
“You asked us to hold you accountable, Governor Palin. Did you mean it?
“Perhaps Governor Palin has been too busy to actually read the Troopergate report. Perhaps she is relying on briefings from McCain campaign spinmeisters.
“That’s the charitable interpretation.
“Because if she had actually read it, she couldn’t claim “vindication” with a straight face.
“Palin asserted that the report found “there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.”
“In fact, the report concluded that impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired.
“Palin’s response is the kind of political ‘big lie’ that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.
“Governor Palin and her husband were obsessed with Wooten the way Captain Ahab was obsessed with the Great White Whale. No Wooten, no peace.
“Has Governor Palin committed an impeachable offense?
“Hardly.
“Is what she did indictable?
“No.
“But it wasn’t appropriate, especially for someone elected as an ethical reformer.
“And her Orwellian claims of “vindication” make this blemish on her record look even worse.”
Yeah, Governor Palin . . . we got tired of the big insult and understand this: We’re too smart to believe you - anymore - about anything.
Copyright © 2008 by l.t. Dravis. All rights reserved.
By L.t. Dravis
After the Bush/Cheney administration sat around and stroked itself for 7½ years while the economy of the United States cracked and collapsed under the weight of skewed tax policies, wasteful deficit spending, short-sighted deregulation policies, some pundits seem surprised that the world doesn’t care anything about anything George W. Bush has to say.
Why would anyone, much less a pundit, be surprised that Bush has absolutely no credibility?
Most Americans agree that the Bush/Cheney administration has been ‘managed’ by the most inept, most corrupt, most out-of-touch, lying bunch of political hacks ever to crawl on to the public scene in the history of the United States of America.
How George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could ever have been elected and re-elected to the White House is a question most thinking Americans cannot understand, much less answer.
Bush and Cheney got everything wrong . . . from how tax cuts for the wealthy would impact the economy to how their oil industry friendly energy policies would impact our economic interests around the world to the economic and political damage caused by the deception they laid on the world to justify starting the Iraq war to the ultimate destruction of our banking system as the collective result of 7½ years of short-sighted, self-serving Bush/Cheney policies.
Could any two men be any stupider than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney?
Could any two human beings on the face of the earth have screwed things up worse than these two?
Aren’t these the two who put Alberto Gonzalez into the Attorney General’s office?
And, aren’t these the two who allowed Gonzalez to stumble around for years while he destroyed morale by playing games with the careers of United States Attorneys for political purposes?
If that wasn’t enough, aren’t these the two yokels who decided that that rambling old fool, Donald Rumsfeld, was the best qualified person in the nation to be Secretary of Defense?
And, aren’t these the two who cheered Rumsfeld on while thousands upon thousands of American troops were maimed and killed by the old man’s unbelievably incompetent ‘management’ of the Iraq War?
If you think it isn’t fair to couple Cheney and Bush together as dual dolts, let’s look at them individually.
So, why would anyone care about anything Dick Cheney might say?
Isn’t he the genius who told us that Iraqis would greet us as liberators?
And, who would trust George W. Bush to tell the truth about anything?
He’s the fool who told us just a few months ago that he wasn’t aware that gasoline had reached $4.00 a gallon at the pump.
Dear Lord . . . could these two be any stupider?
Kinda makes you wonder whether these two might suffer from some form of weird brain damage, doesn’t it?
So, what is the Bush/Cheney legacy?
Read on . . . let's let the facts speak for themselves:
THE ECONOMY
FOREIGN WARS
WHAT NEXT?
So what do we do now? Blindly elect another President, Vice-President, and another batch of Representatives and Senators, then get back to 'Dancing with the Stars’ and ‘American Idol’ while we hope for the best?
Isn’t that what we did in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006?
How’s that working out for us?
Look . . . we’re Americans . . . we don’t have to get ripped off by our so-called leaders. We have the power to put a stop to this cycle of incompetence and graft!
The founding fathers didn’t constitute the government of the United States of America to be the playground of multi-millionaire politicians, lobbyists, and crooks who play at governing and steal us blind while we sit back and download our iPods and play the ‘Legend of Zelda’ and ‘Grand Theft Auto IV’.
The power of government comes from ‘consent of the governed’ (that’s us) which means we’re supposed to assign and monitor the powers we give to Representatives, Senators, and the President.
If every Congressperson, every Senator, the President, the Vice-President, and the Cabinet knew we were monitoring their initiatives, schedules, voting records, work habits, and their sleazy 'behind the scenes' deals, they wouldn’t have time or energy to waste on lobbyists, special interests, or self interests.
Would they?
Copyright © 2008 by Bonita Goldsmith. All rights reserved.
ST. LOUIS – Thursday October 2, 2008 – LOW EXPECTATIONS, PALIN HELD HER OWN . . . Is that all we want in a President?
With no surprise questions and no follow-up questions from Gwen Ifill (Republicans everywhere must be thanking the good lord), Palin was able to ask and answer her own questions.
Did we learn anything more about Sarah Palin beyond her ability to recite talking points?
No?
Okay . . . did we learn anything about how John McCain will fix the problems that face the nation tonight?
When and how will John McCain end the war in Iraq?
Sarah didn’t tell us . . .
When and how will John McCain fight and win the war against terrorism in Afghanistan?
How will John McCain stabilize Israel’s position in the Middle East?
What will John McCain do to provide the regulatory network so necessary to prevent a future mortgage/Wall Street meltdown?
What will John McCain do to make the country energy independent and when will we be 100% free from foreign oil?
What will John McCain do about Immigration?
How will John McCain stop the loss of jobs across the nation?
How will John McCain strengthen the middle class?
How will John McCain improve education to make us more competitive around the world?
How will John McCain make sure families can afford to send their children to college?
How will John McCain rebuild the infrastructure?
How will John McCain eliminate budget deficits?
How will John McCain pay off the national debt?
So, who won the debate?
An early CBS poll of uncommitted voters read it this way: 46% thought Biden won, 33% thought it was a tie, and 21% thought Palin won.
What did we learn about Governor Palin?
We learned that she wants to expand the power of the Vice-Presidency.
We learned that she doesn’t grasp the issues well enough to address them extemporaneously.
We learned that she was able to memorize Republican talking points well enough to recite her way around the predicted catastrophic meltdown.
We learned that her greatest strength was to not answer the questions that were asked by the moderator. For example, when she was asked about her greatest weakness, she answered by talking about her greatest strength.
So, what does it all mean?
Not much . . . really.
A week from now, this debate will be nothing more than a cultural artifact from the 2008 election . . . people will remember this was the night Governor Palin didn’t completely fall on her face.
What can I say about Joe Biden?
He did what he was supposed to do.
He spelled out the Obama/Biden campaign’s positions on everything from the economy to energy independence to historical lessons from past interventions to foreign policy in general.
Where do the campaigns go from here?
Back to the battleground states . . . at least the ones McCain hasn’t pulled out of.
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL – Tuesday, September 30, 2008 – If past behavior is really the best predictor of future behavior, voters across the country must be wondering, “Does John McCain really think we can be fooled again?”
The failure of Congressional Republicans to pass the bailout package yesterday not only cost Wall Street a trillion plus dollars, it also gave us a preview of what John McCain would be like as a President faced with a crisis.
What?
McCain’s response to the Wall Street meltdown gives voters a frightening insight into the character, temperament, and capabilities of the 72 year old man who would be President . . . an insight that ain’t giving Americans any reason to trust McCain.
Okay . . . let’s look at what McCain has said – and done – over the past few weeks.
At a campaign stop in Jacksonville just two weeks ago, despite the failure of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and other ominous signs of turmoil on Wall Street and on Main Street, Senator McCain declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”. Ironically, at the same time he made that statement, the McCain campaign was running a TV ad that opened with a poignant phrase: “Our economy is in crisis.”
Less than two weeks later, without having a clear idea of where his campaign was headed on the economic crisis, McCain told the nation that he’d decided he had no choice but to suspend his campaign so he could immediately return to Washington to provide the leadership necessary to resolve the Wall Street meltdown.
This is what Senator McCain said: “Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday nights debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.”
And this is what Senator McCain did: With cameras flashing, McCain attended a highly promoted White House meeting with George W. Bush, House and Senate leaders, and Barack Obama, with the promise of bringing everyone together to create a quick, resolution to the economic crisis. The Senator from Arizona added absolutely nothing constructive to the proceedings and the meeting ended in chaos.
Then, despite his commitment to remain in Washington until the economic crisis was resolved, despite his initial decision to stay away, McCain suddenly changed his mind and flew to Mississippi to debate Barack Obama.
Fast forward to yesterday morning when John McCain bragged to the world how his leadership brought the bailout bill to victory . . . only hours before the bailout bill was defeated.
Later yesterday, after it was clear that dissident Republicans effectively killed the bailout bill, McCain distanced himself by saying the bill failed because, “Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process.”
Despite McCain’s rhetoric, everyone knows that Senator Obama didn’t defeat the bailout bill; everyone knows that the bailout bill was defeated because John McCain wasn’t capable of persuading 133 of 199 Republican Representatives to support it.
If McCain had the ability to bring politicians together to put the bailout bill over the top, don’t you think he would have done it yesterday?
Woulda, coula, shoulda . . . but he didn’t
So, what does John McCain’s behavior over the past few weeks tell you, me, and the rest of the country?
It tells us that when faced with a crisis, a President John McCain would work the cameras, play the media, and talk the right talk while failing to provide the leadership necessary to unify opposing factions to provide a viable resolution.
Seems like we’ve been there and done that.
After two terms of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I’m betting we won’t get fooled again.
What do you think?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, September 29, 2008 – The House of Representatives voted down the $700 billion bailout bill by a vote of 228 to 205, taking the wind out of the Bush administration’s sails and seriously questioning the power and authority of the House of Representatives.
The democracy we’ve known and loved for more than two centuries has been forever changed.
Because the power of the people has finally been felt.
Too many voters sent too many very clear messages to too many representatives to not be heard.
And the lesson is?
The people have the power to set not only the direction of legislation but also the tone of the debate in this country.
Don’t believe it?
Look at the political weight that was thrown behind the bailout bill.
The entire leadership of the Democratic Party has been promoting the bailout to anyone and everyone who would listen for the past ten days . . . yet it failed.
The Bush administration has put more time and energy into warning us about the dire consequences of the failure of this bill than they ever did with those yellow-orange-red alerts they used to throw around for whatever reason . . . yet it failed.
Democratic and Republican leaders argued before the public that the bailout was essential to the very survival of the American economy . . . yet it failed.
Before the vote today, the White House, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Josh Bolton were on the phone, twisting arms, trying to convince representatives on both sides of the aisle to support the bill . . . yet it failed.
During the 40 minute long roll call, several representatives on the House floor were shouting warnings about how the Dow Jones Average was dropping precipitously . . . yet it failed.
The American people let their representatives know that they didn’t trust their government, especially President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, enough to support the bailout.
And their representatives listened.
Talk about the power of the people.
Let’s hope we never forget today . . . the day the democracy we’ve known and loved for more than two centuries has been forever changed.
How about that?
WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, September 24, 2008 – Aren’t you sick and tired of political hacks who give convoluted, lying answers to straight questions asked by journalists?
If you are, permit me to introduce you to Nancy Pfotenhauer.
And once you know who she is, you may wonder why you should care about anything she has to say.
Nancy Pfotenhauer is an educated (Master’s Degree in Economics from George Mason University), accomplished woman with an impressive resume which includes a number of responsible positions with organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Independent Women’s Forum, and the Republican National Committee.
Nancy Pfotenhauer was also the number one Washington lobbyist for Koch (pronounced ‘Koke’) Industries, the largest privately held conglomerate in the United States, employing approximately 80,000 people in 60 counties, with annual revenue in excess of $110 billion.
Pfotenhauer, who divorced her first husband and married top mortgage industry lobbyist, Kurt Pfotenhauer, now works for the McCain campaign as a spokesperson and top policy advisor.
So, what kind of spokesperson is Nancy Pfotenhauer?
Is she just another lying political hack?
Let’s judge Nancy Pfotenhauer by how she answers straight questions asked by a well respected journalist.
In an interview this morning on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell asked Pfotenhauer to respond to recent reports in the New York Times and Newsweek magazine that, despite John McCain’s denial this past Sunday, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis’s lobbying company received $15,000.00 monthly payments from Freddie Mac until it was seized by the Federal Government last month.
Here’s how the Mitchell/Pfotenhauer question and answer went:
Andrea Mitchell: “The campaign has come out again today very aggressively against the New York Times. Now, the New York Times is not alone. It was Newsweek and Roll Call reporting on at least payments made,” (Ms. Pfotenhauer laughs nervously) “to campaign manager Rick Davis’ firm. And you pointed out, the campaign, you have pointed out that Rick Davis did not lobby, did not take money from the firm, has not been not been involved in anything involving Fannie or Freddie. Can you guarantee that, you know, the voters, the American people, that even though Rick Davis has not taken any money and you say has not lobbied, that he will not sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest?”
Nancy Pfotenhauer: “Well,” she said, with a stunning smile, “y-you know, Andrea, you at least you, you, at least are, are presenting it even-handedly. Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and let’s, you know, that, I don’t think they reported the story. I think they engaged in activist journalism that’s more of the Huffington Post, uh, caliber, than certainly should be expected from a, a, major newspaper outlet. The, the story is that Rick never took any money from Fannie, never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and that John McCain actively fought for reform versus Barack Obama who took record number, amounts of money from Fannie and Freddie and looked the other way on reform. That, you kn . . , that’s the story. And as far as potentially benefitting in the future, the McCain campaign has the highest level of standards ever applied in Presidential election history that precludes us bene . . . , uh, eh, lobbyist involvement and, uh, any potential future benefit. And we challenged the Obama campaign repeatedly to comply by the same rules, and, rules, and they won’t do it and they won’t release their list of advisors even though they acknowledged there are lobbyists on that list.”
Did Mrs. Pfotenhauer give a convoluted, lying answer to Andrea Mitchell’s question?
Let’s see . . .
Andrea Mitchell wanted to know whether Davis would “sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest”.
Though the answer to this question is obvious (Since Davis is still an equity partner in the lobbying firm, Davis-Manafort, he will of course benefit from $180,000.00 a year received from Freddie Mac), Mrs. Pfotenhauer completely ignored the question.
Was Nancy Pfotenhauer lying when she said, “Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie”?
According to Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff, Rick Davis’s lobbying firm did in fact receive $15,000.00 monthly payments for the past three years, long before and long after Rick Davis joined the McCain campaign.
If, according to Nancy Pfotenhauer, Rick Davis ‘never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie’, why on earth would Freddie Mac pay $15,000 a month to Rick Davis’ lobbying firm?
What do you think of Nancy Pfotenhauer now?
And, what do you think of a campaign that would hire Nancy Pfotenhauer to be its chief spokesperson?
Hmmm?
NEW YORK – Tuesday, September 23, 2008 – Why did the McCain campaign try to prevent the press from witnessing Sarah Palin’s vaunted meetings with a world leader in New York today?
As the Governor of Alaska was about to sit down for a face-to-face meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Palin’s handlers suddenly decided to ban everyone but camera operators from the room.
The whole world knows that the McCain campaign orchestrated this series of meetings with world leaders to try to fill-in a huge gap in the rookie Governor’s foreign policy experience . . . so this last-minute tactic came as a complete surprise.
But, when the media threatened to take its cameras and go home if reporters weren’t allowed to ask questions, the campaign caved in.
After all, what is a photo-op with no photos?
The campaign desperately needs film and still photos to try to convince voters that a couple of minutes of idle chit-chat with a foreign leader, any foreign leader, transforms Sarah Palin into a foreign policy expert (they do think we’re stupid, don’t they?).
But, like her or not, Sarah Palin, everyone’s favorite hockey mom, is by no means a sophisticated, educated stateswoman.
So the McCain campaign is justifiably worried that voters will see her as an ‘empty dress’, completely incapable handling the foreign policy aspects of the Presidency should a President McCain ever be unable to handle the job.
Lest you think that the McCain campaign did the right thing and let reporters in to ask questions so voters could learn how candidate Palin handles herself, it didn’t . . . in fact; the campaign showed its true colors and conned the media.
The con worked like this: Palin’s handlers allowed cameras, camera people, sound folks, and reporters into the room for the Karzai/Palin meeting for all of 29 seconds . . . just long enough to get the film and stills they wanted, but not long enough to risk the media catching Sarah with her mouth open.
The question that begs to be answered is, why is the McCain campaign so afraid of the press witnessing a simple photo-op conversation between Sarah Palin and a foreign leader?
For the same reason the campaign won’t let her hold a press conference . . . it knows she doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about.
Now, before millions of Palin-ophants start praying for my demise, I’ll ask you to objectively consider the following exchange between a voter and Sarah Palin at a Town Hall Meeting in Michigan on September 18:
The voter asked, Governor Palin, there has been quite a bit of discussion about your perceived lack of foreign policy experience. And I want to give you your chance. If you could please respond to that criticism and give us specific skills that you think you have to bring to the White House to rebut that or mitigate that concern.
The best the could-be-next President of the United States could come up with was to give the following non-answer: Well, I think because I’m a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.
Come on . . . you’d expect a better answer from someone running to be 8th grade class president!
If Palin really was the best qualified person in the United States to be John McCain’s running mate, she would have answered the question, directly, concisely, and intelligently by listing the specific foreign policy skills she would bring to the White House.
But she didn’t.
So let’s not pretend the truth is something other than what it really is . . . Sarah Palin was a political choice; she gave John McCain a way to get lots of media attention along with the hope that she might attract enough women voters to make a difference on November 4th.
No thinking American actually believes Palin was chosen because she’s the best qualified person in America to be Vice-President.
If the McCain campaign really believes in her, it would prepare Sarah Palin to learn everything possible about foreign affairs . . . not with meaningless two minute ‘meet ‘n greets’, not by sending her for a tutoring session with Henry Kissinger, but by sending her to meet with world leaders where they live.
Why not send Governor Palin to Israel to meet with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni . . . the woman who just might become the next prime minister?
Why not send her on a fact-finding trip to North Korea to talk with Kim Jong Il’s regime about its plans to renew activities at the nuclear weapons facility at Yongbyon?
Why not send her to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to learn more about his recent diplomatic initiatives in Georgia and Syria?
Why not send her to meet with President Felipe De Jesus Calderon to gain some insight into Mexico’s perspective on illegal immigration?
Why not send her to meet with Prime Minister Gordon Brown to discuss ways to strengthen economic ties between the U.K. and the U.S.?
Why not?
Unless the McCain campaign decides to help Sarah Palin acquire the foreign policy knowledge, understanding, and wisdom she would need to be a fully functioning President, it is setting her up for failure.
And I wonder, how does that put “Country First”?
We want to hear BOTH SIDES NOW© so we can send your concerns to
WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, September 22, 2008 – Don’t mean to be nosy, but how much did you make last year?
Did you pull in anything close to $400,000.00?
Why do I ask?
Because that’s the amount of money John McCain wants to take out of our pockets to pay each CEO of each Wall Street firm as part of the $700 billion (or more) Wall Street bailout.
If I could interview Senator McCain, I’d open with, “Come on, Senator McCain . . . on your idea to compensate Wall Street senior executives as part of the bailout . . . you can’t be serious!
“You’re talking about giving $400 grand to each of the same people who caused the Wall Street crisis!
“This is nearly as unbelievable as the statement you made a week ago today when you told us that the fundamentals of the economy were good - barely about 24 hours before the Wall Street meltdown!
“Senator McCain . . . if you sincerely believe that taxpayers should spend up to $400,000.00 per person to reward or pay-off or support the people who brought down Wall Street, I wonder, would you advocate that victims pay burglars for their creativity, time, and efforts?
“Though you’ve tried to distance yourself from George W. Bush, you’re obviously in lockstep with the Bush administration’s press release today that criticizes any plan to limit compensation for those inept, greedy executives.
“Do you have any idea how much in bonuses these people paid themselves in just the past year?
“If you’re not up to speed on this, Senator, permit me to tell you that ABC News reported that CEOs employed by Bear Sterns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley paid themselves nearly $40 billion in ‘bonuses’ last year.
“And the $40 billion in bonuses these people paid themselves came out of the nearly $75 billion lost by shareholders in those companies in 2007.
“Do you think these same CEOs spent the $40 billion they collected last year and now need another $400,000.00 to tide them over until they can get jobs with the Department of Treasury as ‘consultants’ hired to tell the government how to ‘manage’ billions of dollars worth of worthless securities?
“Now, it isn’t like I’m making any of this up . . . I’m simply reacting to your words at a campaign stop today when you said, My friends, the top executives are asking for two and a half billion dollars in bonuses after they ran the company into the ground! The senior executives of any firm that’s bailed out by the treasury should not be making more money than the highest paid government official. We should have that criteria (sic).
“Since the highest paid government official is George W. Bush and we taxpayers pay him $400,000.00 a year to do whatever he does, it is reasonable to deduce that that is the compensation package you want to hand over to a bunch of inept Wall Street bigwigs.
“Thank you, Senator McCain, but no thanks. We can’t afford to waste our hard-earned or, in this case, our hard-borrowed money, on a bunch of losers, but most of all, we can’t afford to have a man in the presidency who is so willing to throw good taxpayer money after bad.”
To taxpayers, I would say, “This is a bad deal . . . don’t let McCain get away with it. The group who brought down Wall Street should go home, without applause, without notice, and most of all, without taxpayer money in their back pockets. Contact your Representatives and Senators – today – and tell them you don’t buy the McCain's idea to bailout disgraced Wall Street senior executives!”
To burglars, I would say, “Take heart . . . if John McCain becomes President, his kind of ‘change’ could mean a bright future for you.”
And, to you dear reader, I ask, “What do you think?”
NEW YORK – Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – Is Sarah Palin the real deal or just another mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, self-serving politician who will say or do anything to get elected?
The experts say that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so let’s look at Palin’s past behavior.
On July 11 of this year, she fired Walter Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner of Alaska.
According to Commissioner Monegan and others in Alaska’s Public Safety Department, the Governor, the Governor’s husband, and some of the Governor’s staff had been pressuring him for months to fire Michael Wooten, an Alaska state trooper who’d been involved in a nasty divorce and custody battle with Palin’s sister.
Monegan believes he was fired because he refused to fire Wooten, saying, “It was a significant factor if not the factor.”
So, the Alaska State Legislature decided to investigate the Governor, her husband, and some of the Governor’s staff members.
If the investigation determines that the Governor is guilty of pressuring Monegan or causing others to pressure Monegan to fire trooper Wooten, she could be charged with abuse of power. If true, beyond the legal ramifications, this past behavior gives us a scary insight into Sarah Palin’s character . . . that the Governor of Alaska would misuse the power of her office to ‘get even’ with a former brother-in-law is reminiscent of another republican politician, Dick Cheney, and his petty peeve against Ambassador Joe Wilson which resulted in Cheney getting ‘even’ with Wilson by outing Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Palin has contradicted herself more than once on the Monegan firing. For example, just after she fired Monegan, Palin said she never pressured him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. Within a month, however, she backtracked on that statement and admitted that some of the people who worked for her and her husband had contacted Monegan twenty-five times or more, to ‘talk about’ Wooten. Since Palin denied knowing anything about any of those contacts, we would have to believe that Palin’s husband would never have talked to his wife about telling Monegan to get rid of Wooten.
In August, Governor Palin publicly committed to fully cooperate with the Alaska legislature in its investigation. “Hold me accountable,” she was quoted as telling the people of Alaska and she agreed to testify.
But then, after having been picked by John McCain to be his running mate, Palin has suddenly reversed course and decided not to cooperate with the investigation.
The Anchorage Daily News, evidently more honorable than the Governor, doesn’t like hypocrisy or deception and said in an Op-Ed piece that since Governor Palin takes every opportunity to tell the public how she honest she is and how she stands for transparency in government, she should honor her original commitment to fully cooperate with the investigation.
But political observers from both sides of the aisle agree that the Governor and the McCain campaign have decided to stonewall the investigation in an effort to prevent the voting public from learning the truth about Palin’s behavior until after they go to the polls on November 4.
Though the investigation is nowhere near being concluded, the McCain campaign has already determined that Governor Palin is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. “The Governor did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide,” the campaign said in an August 29 statement.
Moreover, the McCain campaign, without citing any supporting evidence, claims that the investigation was not initiated by the Alaska State Legislature but was initiated by the Obama campaign. To support its position, the campaign issued the following unsubstantiated accusation: “It’s outrageous that the Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue. As a reformer and a leader on ethics reform, she has been happy to help out in the investigation of this matter, because she was never directly involved.”
So what would she do if she was ‘directly involved’?
Okay . . . let’s ask a couple of salient questions.
Does Sarah Palin seriously believe that we can’t see that she’s trying to block the investigation because she in fact does have something to hide?
Does the McCain campaign seriously believe that we’ll actually buy the “Obama campaign is trying to attack her over a family issue” line?
Do we really want another double-speaking, innuendo-dropping, hypocritical, self-serving politician to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
And how about John “I approve this message” McCain? He picked Palin and he allows his campaign to come up with lies that insult the intelligence of every voter . . . is this kind of character we want to assume the power of the Presidency?
We’ve already seen this act . . . it’s been running night after night for seven and a half years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Shouldn’t we put up the closing notice on the Palin/McCain act before opening night?
If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com
