Forming new policy on Piracy, specifically Somalia.
1) Clarify (to Somalis and the world) WHY those 3 pirates lost their lives: The US was willing to negotiate and requested that if the pirates were given safe passage to shore, that those leaders on land would allow the US to arrest those 4 pirates - a standard expectation for their criminal act in International waters. With that request denied, and by attempting to send in reinforcements to the pirates, they left the US little option, but to take military action once the opportunity was available. As a result those 3 pirates paid the price of their criminal actions with their lives. The blood and burden falls to the Somali leaders that failed to cooperate. Criminal acts MUST be punished and addressed. Policies of lawlessness serve no one in the international community. Such policies break down the opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness around the world.
2) Remind them that the US and other countries are NOT their enemy. We did not ask to be attacked nor our vessels and citizens to be held for ransom. Our ships are traveling through International waters that are open to anyone. If Somalis wish to dispute that, then lets bring it to the table and try to reach an agreement on what is and is not acceptable and where the lines may need to be drawn.
3) Let them know that we understand some of the concerns that may have led to the rise of piracy in Somalia, specifically dumping and environmental abuses that have affected the fishing in that area. Again, let's bring those concerns to the table and establish fair rules and policies for that area that will be bound by all international countries that use those shipping routes.
4) Work with the existing Somali 'government' and offer international aid to try to address the root cause of the issues: poverty, economic breakdown, lawlessness, etc. Find diplomatic solutions that can improve our relations and establish a trust-based relationship that fosters support against criminal activity internally and externally. In addition to expecting them to address their internal turmoil, We should offer to defend them against unjust acts as well. Ultimately, they need to establish a working government entity that has influence and is accepted by their people. Request assistance from the international community to help Somalia rebuild.
Side notes: Many nations in Africa suffer at the hands of those who hold guns or machetes. Power is establish by brute force and constant tribal warfare ensues. Any successfull progress we make in Somalia may be helpful in establishing justice and better governments across that continent, one nation at a time. Africa needs to be addressed by the international community and internally by other Africans.
Somalia is just one of many places that need to be addressed in the years to come. However it is currently a good place to start. To counter terrorism and lawlessness in the region, we MUST address the social-economic woes. Otherwise, anything else is a band-aid at best. If Al-qaeda makes strong roots there, it will only be harder to resolve later on. NOW is the time.
In some ways, the issues we face in the middle east may have been exported to Africa, much in the same way the Islamic religion was exported to Africa hundreds of years ago: via Yemen. Perhaps we need to work on relations there as well.
5) Come to an agreement with Somali leaders and the international community on the immediate piracy taking place. Decide on what is the best method to address this issue as we strive towards improving the root causes(above). Allowing the piracy to continue as-is is not acceptable. However perhaps we can come to an agreement or 'cease fire' as we work on other positive change in the region. Without such an agreement in place, military actions taken by international bodies to free their people/ships taken hostage will result in anger and may disrupt peaceful efforts to resolve the problem. However at the same time, make it clear ransom money will no longer be paid. Pirates will be captured and held accountable individually. An eye-for-an-eye is also not an acceptable policy.
The President needs to read this article by Senator Coburn.
All members of Congress need to read it.
Every American needs to read it.
Let's get behind the President (whether you fully agree with him or not) and make his plans happen. You may question why he wants to take a certain path, that's fine - feel free to speak up and state why, but also be willing to submit to his final decision. Do not disrespect our President just because he's not doing it YOUR way. The partisan bickering MUST stop. I blame CONGRESS for this mess above all others. Act like we belong on the same team or you need to be put on the bench or kicked out of the game completely.
Stop worrying about who will get into office in the next elections. Focus on the team effort of developing solutions based on the President's vision.
Americans need to make it clear to our members of congress that this partisan bickering and posturing MUST END. A new era must emerge. The credit will go to Americans, not just Obama.
FOXNews, O'reilly, Limbaugh, Olbermann, etc... take a break from the faux news and editorials. Stop digging the wedge deeper between the Republicans and Democrats. As Americans, we have a common cause, focus on that for a bit. Even as entertainment, the constant back & forth drudge is getting old.
Americans, take our country back.
=========================
April 02, 2009 Budget Debate Shows Washington Politicians in DenialBy Tom Coburn
Americans who are looking to Washington for leadership in a time of economic turmoil are likely going to be disappointed by this week's debate on the budget. Instead of seeing a new kind of politics and an honest debate that asks hard questions and contemplates tough choices between competing priorities, taxpayers will see more partisan role-playing and accounting sleight of hand. Before the budget debate even began, the script was already written.
In the majority's war room, aides are continuing the script of 2008 presidential campaign. In this script, every decision that contributed to our budget and economic challenges occurred during George Bush's tenure. President Obama, as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said this week, inherited this mess and is merely "part of the clean-up crew."
Finally, in this script, the congressional majority has no real responsibility for any of the fiscal mess in which we find ourselves. Anyone who counters this script is merely recycling old ideas and old talking points.
In the minority war room, aides are arguing that the president's budget taxes, borrows and spends too much. All of this is true but the minority can best demonstrate its commitment to limited government by leading by example. We can do far more in this respect, first by limiting our own earmark requests and by identifying specific areas of the budget that need to be scaled back. Doing anything less will reduce these legitimate claims to partisan chatter.
What the American people want, and what they voted for in November, is an end to the petty, partisan and pre-scripted exchanges in Congress. The American people want a real debate and a fair fight between competing philosophies. What they detest from both sides is hypocrisy and partisan gamesmanship.
The challenges facing our country are too great for Congress to continue business as usual. Our task is urgent not just because we are in the midst of a financial crisis but because we are on the cusp of an even more severe crisis when baby boomers retire en masse in the next few years. Even before Congress contemplated this current budget that runs $1 trillion deficits every year we knew that the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security would create deficits of the same size.
Yet, instead of having an honest conversation with the American people about the need for restraint we are continuing to indulge in the bad habits of the past. President Obama was elected on pledges to go through the budget line by line, eliminate failing programs and end the abuse of earmarks and no-bid contracts. Congress, however, has little interest in change, unless it comes from the taxpayer's pockets. In this Congress' first ten weeks it has spent more than $2 trillion and funded more than 8,000 earmarks. Congress continues to do the easy work - nothing unites politicians more than the pleasure of spending other people's money - and still refuses to do the hard work of setting priorities and living within our means. With this budget the perfect political moment for fiscal responsibility continues to be a mirage just beyond the horizon of the next election.
As a first step, Congress should drop its intellectually dishonest and hypocritical rhetoric. President Obama, is not merely part of some "clean-up crew," but, as President of the United States, has offered a sweeping and bold budget. I believe President Obama has proposed the most significant shift toward collectivism and away from capitalism in the history of our republic. I believe his budget aspires to not merely promote economic recovery but to lay the groundwork for sweeping expansions of government authority in areas like health care, energy and even daily commerce. If handled poorly, I'm concerned this budget could turn our government into the world's largest health care provider, mortgage bank or car dealership, among other things.
I recognize that others have a different view and sincerely believe these policies are investments. That is the debate we should be having. But, as we do so, we should remember what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." The fact is, we are on an unsustainable course and have been for many years.
The American people want us to take the long view. History does not begin and end with each president, each election cycle, or each news cycle. It's time we look at the policies of the past 80 years, not eight years, because the challenges before us have been brewing for decades. Claiming that one president is the focus and genesis of all that is irresponsible and dysfunctional in government is asinine, particularly when this claim comes from members of Congress from either party who so strenuously defend their so-called constitutional right to spend money however they please.
The American people are still waiting on change. We can't afford to put off the hard choices any longer, and those choices are clear. We can grow the government or shrink it. We can eliminate wasteful programs or leave them on autopilot. We can live within our means or charge our excess to future generations. It's time for politicians in Washington to be honest with themselves and the American people, and write a new script so future generations can enjoy the blessings and responsibilities of liberty.
Tom Coburn, M.D. is a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma
Reading the article below, certain concerns come to mind:
Trust - I understand that the US doesn't really trust IRAN, or the current Afghanistan government led by Karzai, or even the intelligence and leadership elements of the Pakistani government.
However unless they plan to wipe out all 3 governments, or even one of them, the US should step back and look at what is the most important step to take:
1) Under Obama, I pray that we do not attempt to forcibly remove any leadership in any of those governments. We ought to have learned from Iraq and our past attempts at replacing governments. That would sink our reputation further in the mud.
2) With 'brute force' off the table (except in extreme situations where DEFENSE is called for), we should focus our efforts on diplomatic measures that may improve our INFLUENCE and OUR IMAGE in the Middle East and among the entire world.
3) By the statements given by those 3 government during this recent meeting, I sense that they want to take more ownership of the problem with as little military interference from the western world as possible. Then LET THEM. Don't just LEAVE it to them, but have them help formulate the plans to rebuild Afghanistan. The US, the UN, and all other world parties should offer assistance in those rebuilding efforts.
OUR GOAL is NOT to impress the leadership of IRAN, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but to demonstrate to their people and to the world that we are here to help, not hurt. And that we do not have to dictate, we can listen and follow as well.
If these efforts succeed in improving Afghanistan's situation, everyone involved gets credit. Win-Win in that respect. Granted, it may establish trust of the people with those leaders, but our goal is not to undermine their leadership. Our goal should be to demonstrate we are world citizens, not a dominating force, so that we can refocus our efforts on our own country's ails.
We need an exit strategy. Allowing them to take ownership gives us an exit strategy to work from.
Let those leaders hang themselves with their own future mistakes. Do not wish it on them, but allow them to succeed or fail on their own grounds. The change we seek in the Middle East must come from within. We cannot force it upon their people. It will only backfire on us if we try to dominate like we did in Iraq.
The end does NOT justify the means.
Clinton should ease up on the tough talk with the Middle East. Our mentality should be to cooperate with the Middle East and focus on defense, not offense. We should be ready to defend if they choose to stab us in the back, but demonstrate we are willing to work together despite that possibility.
Let the bad guy be the bad guy. If we try to to assume they are evil without their actions to back it (just cause), we become the bad guy in the mindset of the world. That is what happened in Iraq.
As for terrorism and the "War on Terror":
Terrorism thrives where people are desperate and injustice thrives. Our goal must to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan to reduce that desperation. Basic needs must be met and the infrastructure to sustain living put in place.
Injustice is trickier to address. However by ultimately removing US and NATO forces, we will largely remove western countries from the pool of those 'causing the injustice' (civilian casualties, etc). In addition, checks and balances should be put in place, that give the common person a way to report injustice and seek assistance both internally (from their government) and externally (from other nations), especially if their government proves to be corrupt.
The focus on Bin Laden should be downplayed. The search can go on, however building alliances and improving the lives of others should be our priority. If he is the only one creating chaos and death, people will WANT to see him captured or dead. Then where will he hide? However if we chase him and in our path create more injustice, who would support us?
In time, he will be brought to justice or die off as a lost cause. We should move forward; Drop his name, thereby allowing his cause to become lost as well. Our own government has been the greatest marketing tool for their cause and their organization. Stop supporting them unintentionally.
==============================================
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_re_eu/eu_afghan_conference
Uneasy rivals US, Iran meet at Afghan conferenceBy ARTHUR MAX and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Top U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial meeting with Iran's deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan, marking another modest step in unlocking 30 years of tense relations.
The meeting between Holbrooke, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Mehdi Akhundzadeh came on the sidelines of a meeting where Iran pledged to help the reconstruction of its neighbor but criticized U.S. plans to send in more troops.
Holbrooke's meeting "did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch," Clinton told reporters as the day-long conference was winding down.
The gathering was being closely watched for signs that the U.S. and Iran can work together on a common problem after years of hostility. The two countries cooperated in 2001 and 2002 after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban government. But relations were frozen during the administration of George W. Bush, who referred to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil."
Washington broke diplomatic ties with Tehran after the U.S. Embassy was overrun and diplomats taken hostage during the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought to power a government of Islamic clerics.
Clinton said she also sent Iran a letter concerning three U.S. citizens unable to return to from Iran: Robert Levinson, Roxana Saberi, Esha Momeni. Their return would be a humanitarian gesture, the letter said, in a rare direct communication with Tehran.
The private meeting between the U.S. and Iranian officials was the first sign of cordiality at the conference. Although they sat at the same horseshoe-shaped table, neither Clinton nor Akhundzadeh made mention of the other in their speeches Tuesday.
The U.S. and Iran were among more than 80 countries summoned at the initiative of the United States to raise Afghanistan's profile on the international agenda. It comes days after Obama unveiled a revamped U.S. policy calling for another 17,000 troops, 4,000 military trainers for Afghan security forces, and hundreds of civilians to assist in Afghanistan's development.
The U.S. had been underscoring the importance of Iran's attendance as part of a regional effort to help Afghanistan.
"The range of countries and institutions that are represented here shows the universal recognition that what happens in Afghanistan matters to us all," Clinton told the gathering.
Iran highlighted its history of helping Afghanistan with cash and infrastructure development and with sheltering 3 million Afghan refugees at its own expense. It shares a 600-mile border with Afghanistan.
"Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghanistan," Akhundzadeh said.
However, Iran was critical of the dispatch of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, saying military expenses should be redirected to building Afghanistan's own forces.
"The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country, and it seems than an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too," Akhundzadeh said.
Clinton said one goal of the revised U.S. strategy was to strengthen Afghan security forces.
"Security is the essential first step. Without it, all else fails. Afghanistan's army and police will have to take the lead," she said, though they must be supported by the NATO-led international force. The U.S. contributes about half of the force's 70,000 troops.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Clinton said Afghanistan would welcome Taliban fighters who embrace peace, reject al-Qaida and pledge to abide by the Afghan constitution.
Clinton said most of the Taliban fighters have allied with anti-government forces "out of desperation" rather than commitment, in a country that has barely made inroads against poverty and lack of development.
"They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al-Qaida, and support the constitution," Clinton said.
The United States is starting cautiously down a path in Afghanistan that proved helpful in Iraq, where former insurgents joined forces with U.S. troops and a U.S.-backed government.
Although the conference was devoted to Afghanistan, Clinton said it should also focus attention on the lawless border regions of Pakistan that provide a safe haven for the insurgents.
"Our partnership with democratic Pakistan is crucial. Together, we must give Pakistan the tools it needs to fight these extremists," Clinton said.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, however, warned against interfering in his country.
A regional approach to Afghanistan must include "respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and noninterference," he said.
Akhundzadeh, too, cautioned against losing sight of the conference's objectives of providing security and reconstruction for Afghanistan, "and refrain from any kind of deviation from this motto."
Karzai said any increase in military action against the insurgents must avoid further civilian casualties. He also pledged to heighten the campaign against the endemic corruption that riddles the Afghan bureaucracy, and against the narcotics trade that finances al-Qaida operations.
The Obama administration is less enthusiastic about Karzai than the Bush White House, and during her public remarks Clinton skipped what used to be a ritual praising of his courage and leadership. The two were meeting privately later.
"Corruption is a cancer, as dangerous to long-term success as the Taliban or al-Qaida," Clinton said in clear reference to charges of rampant graft and cronyism in Karzai's government. "A government that cannot deliver accountable services for its people is a terrorist's best recruiting tool."
Karzai also promised a free and fair vote when he stands for re-election later this year. Clinton pledged $40 million dollars and the European Union promised euro60 million ($79 million) to run and monitor the election.
Karzai also pointed out some of his government's achievements: more than doubling per capita income, the extension of health services through much of the country, the highest school attendance in history and the presence of women in universities "which was unthinkable a few years ago."
Anyone ever notice that it's more complex to save money than it is to spend it?
You want to save money to address medical needs and take advantage of tax breaks, you open an MSA account or obtain an HSA plan and put money into an account linked to it.
Retirement? IRAs, 401K plans, etc.
Education? 529 plans, etc.
Now what happens to that money you didin;t use in your medical account at the end of the year? In some cases you lose it, at the least, it can ONLY be used for that function - medical-related expenses. Sure, it's great to have a lot of money in your medical account, but you don't have a medical crisis, you have a need to get a better education or send your kids to college, but hardly any money in your education fund (because initially medical security came first in your list of priorities).
Why should we be penalized for trying to save money and take advantage of tax incentives?
Why can't we have a SINGLE savings account that handles that?
Simply pool our savings into a single account. Invest it however you prefer: 10% high risk stocks... 20% bonds, 40% mutual funds, 30% in an FDIC insured-no risk savings rate, etc.
Whatever fits their prefered savings strategy.
Taxation should then only be applied based on how that money is SPENT.
Spend it on tuition and books for college, tax it at the education discounted rate.
Spend it on a medical procedure or copay, etc. Tax it at the health-care discounted rate.
Spend it during your retirement, tax it according to the retirement rate.
Spend it on starting a new business, tax it at the business-rate.
Hell, assign each group a special card and/or code. Blue for health, yellow for education, red for retirement, etc.
The point is, make SAVINGS simple. Spending may be a bit more complex, but not much different than we already deal with. Empower our citizens by giving them the tools to become financially secure simply by saving their money.
The government should provide incentives for citizens to save, because stable families spend more. Period. The simplicity of the system, encourages savings. Spending your money is where the focus of how to tax it and greater complexity should remain.
Simply be making savings easier and allowing us to access ALL of our money, instead of what is in a certain type of account, gives us a greater advantage to become financially stable and less likely to fall victim to poverty, low education, homelessness, or simply being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Our nest egg should not be forced to exist among a plethora of different accounts that cannot be intermingled. That only helps the banker, not the consumer. Our focus should be on the consumer, the homeowner, the family-provider, the American citizen and how they can become stable in our economy first and foremost. Then we will see this economy grow like it never has before.
Just my 2 cents.
I'm fed up.
I'm tired of seeing articles and new reports from FOX News, claiming to be fair and balanced, yet smell anything but that. They range from subtle jabs to outright heavy punches, often pitting a 'heavyweight' Republican against a 'lightweight' Democrat intentionally to give the Republican the edge and final word on the discussion before they cut away or before the FOX host interjects, primarily on the side of the GOP.
While it is clear FOX News is part of the GOP propaganda machine, they still try to pass themselves off as 'fair and balanced'. Cut the act FOX News, you are neither. You have a specific agenda, to forward the efforts of the GOP. Period.
Your wide marketshare of the nation's news and entertainment may give you an edge in terms of viewership, however that fact should also remind viewers of current events where corporate greed has spread rampantly across our nation. FOX fits that mold, only they not only want money, they want to use their media power to influence the direction of this country.
The problem with this is their current alignment with the GOP. While the Republican party was never the enemy of the common American, the current Republican party and their twisted efforts should be deemed a threat. Aside from the failed policies of the past 8 years, they continue to hang onto failed idealogy that places the importance of the market and Capitalism over the best interests of the American public and our Democracy.
Their recent arguments reak of partisanship, finger-pointing, and intentionally misdirect our people away from the policies that the Obama Administration is trying to put forth. I'm sorry, but our country IS in a war. An economic war that requires the strength of all Americans to rally behind the President to solve this problem, much as we have done in our past during WWI and WWII.
In a time of properity (economic peace), the GOP might have something worthy of a good discussion. Unfortunately their current agenda is so obvious and apparent. Instead of coming across as being genuinely concerned for the average Joe, they use the average Joe as a tactic to further their agenda.
Much of their philosophy and tactics are based on the Karl Rove mentality of divide and conquer, used during G.W. Bush's campaigns and for the past 8 years. Heck, even FOX News has hired Karl to be an advisor on thier 'News'/entertainment shows.
If only the Republican Party dropped much of the garbage they picked up along the way over the past 8-12 years, they might returns to their roots and re-image themselves. Right now, they are part of the problem, not the solution. Every word that comes out of them, aside from a select handful of Republicans, reaks of the Karl Rove tactics and misaligned view that Capitalism can operate without the proper checks and balances in place. If we have learned nothing in the past several years, it is that the nature of mankind will seek power and greed over what is right.
This doesn't mean I agree 100% with Democrats. This means that while we NEED the opportunity and economic strength of Capitalism, we also NEED the checks and balances of our Democracy to protect the interest of the common man and woman. The interest of Democracy should not choke Capitalism, and Capitalism should not dominate without proper checks and balances to prevent abuse. It is that balance we need to seek.
In the meantime, FOX News needs to realign themselves. Putting the economic power of corporate influence behind our media has only proven to corrupt their message. Our news should be unbiased. It is very sad that many of our new organizations maintain a certain bias and political preference (ABC, NBC, etc). We need objectivity. We need true fair and balanced reporting.
Republicans need to re-invent themselves. The GOP is too entangled with the corrupt examples of capitalism and power. They're afraid to let go and realign themselves. They shouldn't let their egos and the power of the corporate entities cloud their judgement. They need to let it go and move on. It has put them at odds with the American people.
Many Democrats need to re-evaluate themselves as well. In their efforts to stand up to the corrupt dominance of the Republican party, they themselves have taken extreme measures that put them at odds with the best interests of this country.
The time for change is now. We need to fix that which has strayed and get back on track.
Geithner & Bernanke need to read these articles. I don't pass them on as a way to bash their efforts or criticize them. I feel the points made in these articles are worth evaluating:
Ben Bernanke Is Still Stuck in the 1930s
Posted Mar 16, 2009 03:47pmEDT
by John Carney
Amid growing concern about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared on “60 Minutes” over the weekend to explain recent financial rescue efforts.
When asked about whether letting Lehman Brothers collapse last year was the right move, Bernanke replied: "There were many people who said, 'Let 'em fail.' You know, 'It's not a problem. The markets will take care of it.' And I think I knew better than that. And Lehman proved that you cannot let a large internationally active firm fail in the middle of a financial crisis. Now was it a mistake? It wasn't a mistake for the following reason: we didn't have the option, we didn't have the tools. All the Federal Reserve can do is make loans against collateral," Bernanke said. In other words, it wasn't my fault.
From The Business Insider, March 16, 2009:
Today's crisis isn't a replay of the problem in the 1930s, but last night's 60 minutes interview with Ben Bernanke made it clear that our central bankers don't understand the distinction. Bernanke's academic career was spent studying the policy responses to the Great Depression. His analysis suggests that the Fed made two errors:
· Central banks allowed the money supply contract sharply. "Price fell. Deflation. So monetary policy was, in fact, very contractionary. Very tight– during that period," he said last night.
· They permitted bank failures. "And then the second mistake they made was they let the banks fail. They didn’t make any strong effort to prevent the failure of thousands of banks."
The first point, about money supply, is a rather orthodox position that was popularized by the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in their book "A Monetary History of the United States." They argued that in the 1930s, the country and the Federal Reserve were faced with a liquidity crisis in the banking sector. As banks failed, depositors panicked and bank runs began. This led to a cycle of bank failures.
"If the borrowers hadn't withdrawn cash, they [the banks] would have been in good shape. But the Fed just sat by and did nothing, so bank after bank failed. And that only motivated depositors to withdraw funds from banks that were not in distress," Schwartz explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal several months ago.
Notice that there is a subtle--but extremely important--difference between Schwartz's analysis and Bernanke's. In Schwartz's view, healthy banks were failing due to a liquidity crisis. This could have been prevented by adding more liquidity. For Bernanke, even the failure of unhealthy banks should have been prevented. This is a serious departure from the historical precedent.
Bernanke's approach is premised on the idea that there will be a crisis if you don't rescue a failing firm. But there's no evidence for that. In fact, Bernanke's approach probably makes the problem worse. If bank runs were caused by an inability of depositors to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy firms, Bernanke's approach is actually creating this same confusion.
"The market knows when a firm isn't sound," Schwarts told William Cohan in a separate interview. "And if the Fed didn't behave as if every failing firm is too big to fail, then it would permit the exit of firms that weren't really viable and the market would recognise this as a just decision. It's not the job of the Fed to be intervening to help such firms. People are knowledgeable. They knew that there were troubles with Lehman."
"If they're going to go into the business of rescuing every failing firm," Schwartz said, "we won't have a capitalist system . . . People are responsible for the decisions they make. If they've made wrong decisions, lost money and don't have the funds to operate, well, it's time to leave the market. And that's what the Fed's responsibility is, not to shore up firms that have no reason to continue."
Way back in October we described this approach as fighting the last depression while ushering in the next one. Unfortunately and depressingly, it seems that Bernanke is immune to evidence or argument on this subject.
Fighting The Last Depression While Ushering In The Next One
John Carney
Oct. 16, 2008, 1:52 PM
So why isn't the bailout working? They say generals are always fighting the last war. Now Ben Bernanke, who was a financial historian before he became a World Saver, may be fighting the last depression. Unfortunately, our current economic crisis is not like the one we faced in the 1930s. It's almost its photographic negative. Policies designed to avert the last depression may actually be prolonging this crisis.
In the Great Depression, banks that were otherwise solvent, if not entirely healthy, were being brought down by panic driven bank runs and a lack of liquidity. That truly was a liquidity crisis. The Federal Reserve had it within its power to support the banks by adding liquidity but it refused to do so. Since then an academic consensus has developed around the theory that it would have been better for the Fed to take an active role in preventing the crash of solvent financial institutions.
Our problem is very different. As we've seen from the wreckage of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, many of our financial institutions are insolvent. They aren't healthy victims of bank runs. They are ailing institutions barely kept alive by frantic rounds of capital raising. The lessons of the Great Depression simply don't apply here. In fact, we're probably making things worse. Allowing insolvent institutions to fail and requiring worthless and worth less assets to be fully written down would provide transparency to the market. Instead, we're dedicated to the post-Lehman proposition of "Never Again." The various programs of our government continue to obscure asset pricing and conceal insolvency. This means that you can't trust the market to tell you which firms are failing.
Twisting the arms of bankers to lend to institutions that may be insolvent is a recipe for deepening the crisis. We've just been through a period of malinvestment--we spent too much borrowed money on junk. Borrowing more to spend on junk only digs us in deeper.
Bank lending won't get going again until trust in the markets can be restored. Fighting a Great Depression era problem probably won't help. More transparency, which means more write-downs and failures, is probably necessary if we're going to get through this. Unfortunately, we're still sailing in the opposite direction.
Hello:My name is Allie Feldman, and I'm helping Ben Baruch with Organizing for America here in New York. We just wanted to make sure everyone sees the email and video below discussing OFA's next nationwide initiative -- the Pledge Project. Please feel free to contact me or Ben if you have any questions or concerns.Stay tuned for more updates coming by the end of the week!Thanks,Allie--Allie FeldmanVolunteer Organizing for America | New Yorkallie.feldman@gmail.com 908-370-2689
Ben BaruchVolunteer LiaisonOrganizing for America | New York
bennett.baruch@obamaalumni.com
Just over a week ago, President Obama submitted his first budget and made it clear he was ready for the fight to come.The President isn't alone. We're ready for that fight too -- it's what you built this movement for.Watch a video I recorded announcing our new initiative, the Organizing for America Pledge Project:Americans are ready for the bold new direction this plan offers. It's what they voted for in November, and it's needed now more than ever as we continue to face an unprecedented economic crisis.But the special interests and old ways of Washington won't go away easily. In fact, they'll only fight back harder.It's up to you to organize support for President Obama's plan throughout the country. It's the only way we'll get the change this country needs.Take the next step now in our fight to bring change:http://my.barackobama.com/pledgeprojectThanks,MitchMitch StewartDirectorOrganizing for America
WE DID IT!!!!!
Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America!!!
Joe Biden our next Vice President!!
WE DID IT!!!
To me, this election is not about experience, because frankly, where was "experience" when G.W. Bush was elected or any previous President. HOW DO YOU BECOME experienced in a way that preps you for President of the USA? As a CEO of a fortunate 500 company? Wait, wasn't Dick Cheney one of those? Hmmm... and what is HIS approval rating now?
And how is it they feel McCain is soo experienced and tested? Because he's been in congress for 20+ years and was a POW 40 years ago??? Are you kidding me?
Here's how I weight it out:
We have a choice between 2 people:
- McCain: Military brat that didn't really settle on what it was he wanted in life. Was pretty much a screw up, even while in the military; he focused more on partying than studying or improving his flying skills/knowledge (wow, kinda sounds like GW Bush). Bottom of his class and not a very good pilot. He says after having been a POW, he emerged a changed man, yet those close to him disagree on that window of time. In fact, he went back to some of the same behaviors that got him in trouble before he was a POW. And of course, there was the whole intramarital affair; Great example for the Christian base to identify with. Often described as one who operates like a true 'fighter pilot', because he trusts his instincts and gut feelings. Unfortunately, this did not serve him well during his 2008 campaign to become the Republican nominee. He nearly went bankrupt due to poor planning.
- Obama: May not have gone into the military, but he became focused on Political Science and Law throughout his college years until finally achieving a degree at Harvard Law School, top of his class. He had been involved in community organizing and dealing with the struggles of every-day Americans. He has been described as being very methodical and a good planner. A man who is skilled in problem solving and strategy. This became far more evident through his campaign to become the Democratic nominee and now the general election.
With the issues our country is facing, who do we want at the helm? Someone who shoots from the hip and acts on instincts, risking our future on someone who has proven to act erratically and hastily, jumping from one concept to another, hoping to find the right mix through trial and error? Especially one that has made so many public mistakes doing just that throughout his long career as a senator?
Or should we elect someone that has proven to study the information in advance, develop a strategy and exceute that strategy effectively? One that stays consistent with his message and doesn't change as the wind changes like McCain? One that doesn't have a similar background to GW Bush and actually plans ahead before he acts or speaks. One that has proven to have a natural ability to communicate with others?
I think the choice is clear: Obama.
This is it!
We're coming down to the final stretch and Barack Obama needs your help now, more than ever before!
Please bring your cell phone, a charger and a few fun friends who care about change and join with thousands of your neighbors in the largest ever-attempted phone bank effort in New York state history. The Obama campaign is hosting several of these "mega call centers" all over New York, so invite your friends and family to make calls to voters in key battleground states and change America for years to come.
Visit http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/nylastcall to find a location near you.
There are a lot of voters out there who are still undecided. If you or someone you know hasn't made up there mind yet and cares about a specific issue, check out the campaign’s new website on Barack’s plans for the issues that matter to Virginians.
The site allows voters to easily get more information on Barack’s policies, watch a video on each issue, and best of all easily share the plan with friends.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, born and raised in Virginia, is a big fan of the site:
The second half of this video mentions 2 dirty tricks being distributed to voters, especially minority voters, aimed at suppressing their votes. Based on their targets and content, it is clear they are coming from Republican supporters trying to disrupt Democratic votes:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=10472379
Trick #1:
A paper is being distributed around to minority communities, claiming to be coming from a black organization (that doesn't even exist). The instructions on the paper state that if you voted during the primaries, you cannot vote during the general election. The fact they are targeting black communities with these kind of lies, knowing that about 95% of black voters will support Obama, suggests that this is a Republican tactic to suppress votes.
Trick #2:
Another paper being distrubuted claims that Republican voters are required to vote on Tuesday, Nov 4th, while Democratic voters are required to vote on Wednesday, Nov 5th. Clearly, Nov 5th, is too late to vote, and therefore indicates a Republican tactic.
In both cases, sharing knowledge is the key to preventing these kind of tricks from having any kind of effect. Less informed Democratic voters are likely to fall victim to these tactics. Our goal should be to spread the truth and help new voters find the answers they need on when and how to vote.
We can only hope that more serious efforts to suppress voting do not enter into this election. We should be cognizant of these dirty tactics and take measures to foil their efforts.
http://ny.barackobama.com/NYlastcall
