It has been widely reported across the news wires that Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has released a financial regulation reform bill. Through tough regulation, it will seek financial stability and consumer financial protection and justice.
We in the working/middleclass are being stripped of what little equity we have accumulated. We are forced to accept sub-standard wages, less employer benefits and in millions of cases...under/un-employment.
You can bet, the republicans and blue dog democrats are already planning on voting NO and introducing countless amendments to weaken or water down the legislation. You can be assured, they are planning endless delays. They will follow the same game plan as they did and are doing with health care. Joined by the wallets, the republicans and blue dog democrats will be relentless with their shady tactics.
We OFA members must become active again and counter their corruptive efforts. We cannot and should not expect President Barack Obama to fight this second front alone. It is time to gather the troops and bring re-enforcements to the already tired progressives on capitol hill. Stand-up and plan a strategy on how to bring aid to our fellow progressives. I still have hope, I know you do to. Stand-up, smile and be proud of what you are doing. You are not alone.
Due to the recent Recession, there has been a lot of discussion around Regulation, the Banking Industry and various Financial Products. But, there has been little talk of examining the Financial System in its entirety and the risk of the governing Philosophies that dictate the System, Firms, Individual Products and their Impact on Society.
Full Article Below
http://www.costsandprofit.com/decision-securities-lending-mortgage-backed-securities-the-ppip-and-hammers
http://seekingalpha.com/author/barbara-horne/instablog
I am writing this somewhat wordy but pragmatic letter and hope it gets in the hands of someone who can make a clear evaluation and find it helpful or at the least noted as to one perspective to the current Health Care Debacle taking place and under careful consideration, could actually prove very beneficial and part of the future solution. I feel the Democrats are out to make a clear change for the good of the country and the Obama Administration is shaping up to be the best Administration I believe I have seen in my lifetime; however is having a clearly difficult struggle battling the concerns over healthcare. I voted for Obama and even made a contribution to the campaign which was the first time in my life to do so because I believe in his overall vision for the country. Currently I live in Tokyo, Japan, and am exposed to a very different healthcare system as well as have many friends from other developed nations who have socialized medicine, i.e. England, Canada, Australia, etc. I have had various debates and have a good understanding of these systems from the standpoint of their basic citizens and the rights thereof from these systems. Of all the countries, Japan has the most hybrid system between socialized medicine and our current system; however would not be a good political strategy to mention as a talking point. Actually these ideas should be applied as original ideas from the Obama administration to the public and will close this healthcare debate once and for all.
To get directly to my point, I feel the Democrats are doing what they always do, bring a good idea to the table (bring the right idea to the table) but back down based on pole numbers and a clearly, historically based fact, of not managing the emotions of the populous. With that being said, I feel many of Americas fears are superficial in nature and may not address a simple premise of government spending, influence and size. I pose the question, “if you add something, you take something away”, such as adding a public option and taking away the obviously broken, inefficient and burdensome Medicare system. This would have an overwhelmingly favorable impact on republicans and the right compromise with democrats and the masses of people who are looking for that right tax cut would be dancing in the streets. I understand we will be cutting a huge tax generator for the government but we will also cut off and stop the hemorrhaging of a government appendage that is infecting everyone as a whole. It is possible to subsidize those in the current system with the public option, under some “special program” and the democratic party has 3 years to win the Medicare constituency over, plus everyone will be satisfied to know they are not contributing to a possible other welfare system and the welfare system of others, and everyone can take care of themselves. The revenue generated in the public option should closely account for the loss of cutting the program, especially if there is a system where it is an availability for every small business, and for those who may not necessarily be able to purchase the public option program all the time can still fall under a special subsidization program under the public option program but maybe with premium adjustments in time. There could be grandfather clauses to alleviate the “the government is trying to pull the plug on granny“ debate. In order to offset the loss in tax revenue, include a tax incentive for those who have proof of insurance for the tax year and be adjusted accordingly if that is a concern with a favorable adjustment for those who do and an unfavorable adjustment for those who don’t; however if it is going broke it may be best just to cut the losses on it. The IRS has the people and infrastructure and can also be included in the debate to validate proof of insurance. That last point is a little complicated to wrap your head around but could make huge in rows in appealing to those who don’t like any of the current systems, who don’t like picking up the tab from one average American to another and don’t see a clear solution. I feel confident that in 3 years the Administration can satisfy its Medicare constituency and its proponents and this type of drastic change will, and I emphasize WILL, have a huge favorable reaction with the American populous as a whole.
As an additional selling point, Americans should be able to “double down” on their health insurance and drastic changes need to be set in motion as to insurance regulation reform. This is a version of the Clinton play book in areas such as telecom, etc; which WILL be good for the health insurance industry, and everyone as a whole and would probably have them off the governments back for a while because they will be too busy creating/selling and purchasing new products and helping to “stimulate the economy” in many many ways. This is not a non-manageable endeavor, just a little unorthodox. That is one good point about Japan’s current healthcare system, to include insurance products such as hospitalization and rehabilitation remuneration, double coverage, etc. People, in general, like to know they can get something back when paying so much into a system that does just that and actually make some money in the event of such a challenging time in their life and this adds a great since of security and satisfaction in those moments. By the way, this is a homerun idea that will leave a lasting hurt on the republican party and brand because everyone benefits as a whole but carries some of their self-reliance and capitalistic ideals. To add to this point and to expound on the “pre-existing” condition problem of the current system, legislation should also include a wide range of other procedures that are deemed not a necessity and allow coverage of these programs at a price to include allowing the private sector to compete for these dollars and to compensate for the losses they will be incurring with having to cover pre-existing conditions. This could even include aesthetic procedures with a regulatory consultation practice. Deregulating that industry but with the right quality of care in the minds of everyone involved is good for everyone. Personally, I don’t like the whole system but these are the right decisions for everyone as a whole.
I don’t quite agree with this but also monetary penalties could be put in place and deemed necessary by the doctor in the advent of non-life threatening problems clogging the emergency room system. A doctor is qualified to make that decision and should, which would help all commercial entities in the system and help the system as a whole in this day and age in curbing the mass influx of those who use the system. On another point with that debate, people have to work and can’t afford to lose a day’s work when their child has the flu and they sacrifice their sleep and wellness in order to go to work the next day but ensure their child is seen, diagnosed and put on the right treatment regimen. With that being said, maybe a system that rewards afterhours care facilities should be looked at such as a tiered payment system by the industry to the facilitators that addresses this.
I have a few other points to add about this and I don’t want to sound like I’m pulling only the positive points of other systems without recognizing the negative points, yet being that so many systems have been in place and for such a long period of time, I think we can get it right and my points could aid it.
A clear plan needs to be outlined with someone reading charts and tables, pros and cons, and an informative debate needs to be made with a clear vision. There is enough time to regroup and get this done this year and not to be rushed and to have people put in the corner on the issue without all the CLEAR facts. Open debates should be held with the public having easy access to make informed decisions and people should be thinking outside the box such as this letter. I have read the top 5 myths about the new reform and the stats on people polled regarding this debate. I would like to make a statement to the Democratic party as a whole that I am ashamed to see that they cannot debunk the death panel debate and strategically, they should look at and put resources into how to overcome this and future situations such as this. I’m sure they can get a good team of psychiatrists and marketing gurus to look at how their messages get drowned out by basic human emotions of fear and distrust. To add, the immigrant debate is a valid one but no one seems to be showing that who pays into the system only helps support the system in revenue, etc. and should get treatment accordingly. We can look at the Denver Olympics at those facts and it would actually be good for the system for allowing as many of those who can pay into it, do so; to include people with student visas and short term visas, etc. The new program should be run like a private system alleviating people’s fears of the government keeping tabs on them and regulating what they have and don’t have and maybe compare it to the postal system or collegiate education system.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to read this and would personally like to see how these above mentioned points would not work. I have solutions for some of the other internal problems plaguing the system but can’t remember them all at the time I’m writing this; however many of the new options are definitely headed in the right direction. I just felt compelled to offer my “.10¢” after seeing the reform offered getting slaughtered by the American public in the news and it seems more people are buying into the stats shown to them, therefore buying into some of the current falsehoods. By the way, if the right person reads this and finds it beneficial and would like to ask my opinion on other problems facing the system, please feel free to do so or debunk my points.
I was pleased to read on http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alaMtgFAIQoc&refer=home# Bloomberg today that Mr. Geithner has a plan to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. This is so overdue and I have been frustrated for 3 years by various leaders in Washington do anything about this market even though it was largely responsible for the collapse of the global economy.
Not only was it largely responsible for the collapse but very dangerous precedents are being set as I write this where these exotic financial products are being used as a gauge to price debt.
These contracts represent a $684 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market and they are now typically conducted over the phone between banks and customers!
What an absolute trip. I know with the "trillion" word being passed around like water lately another "trillion" figure may not sink in but Think about this number for a moment. What is the US debt, $10 Trillion? We are talking $684 trillion here. Yes, yes many of you will say, "So what." there are trillions of dollars in "derivatives" out there on every other product, commodity, stock etc. traded every day. Yes, "traded" on "open markets" with clear pricing and risks born by those who trade them and these types of "products" are not "insuring" against default of debt.
I was so incensed when I heard a clip by Lloyd Blankfein where he made this point with a straight face. The guy is a raving lunatic in my book to be able to do so. He is a "Hitler" of finance. There is no question. Some may call him a genius but he defends destruction and annihilation of all around him from a financial perspective and as I have said a million times and will continue to say, with 6 billion people on the planet all more interconnected every day, guys like Blankfein and the businesses they run no longer serve any benefit to humanity, on the contrary, they are destructive to humanity, our "capital system" and serve no allegiance to any good on the planet other than to do whatever is necessary to return 30% plus to their investors irrespective to the damage they cause economies and individuals and they operate without rules governed by any sovereign state, territory or jurisdiction (except for the strings now on his firm after taking money from the government and borrowing to feed his machine with the backing of the FDIC).
I have joined Organizing for America not because I intend to be a yes man to everything that Barack Obama says and does, as I will continue to evaulate things for myself as I think everyone should, but rather because I believe that at the moment he offers the best hope that America has of ending the rule of the neo-cons in the U.S. and of setting the nation on a better course. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, the country has seen the progressive de-regulation of the economy, the end result of which has been the financial meltdown that we are witnessing today. Unregulated capitalism does not work and that message should be very evident to all by now despite the catcalls from the political right that even the slighest amount of regulation is "socialism". Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong to think that financial firms could regulate themselves. Boy was he wrong!
We need a new economy at the heart of which is private business but this economy needs to very well regulated. The reforms that where established by FDR need to be re-instituted and more. The salaries of corporate CEOs need to be capped as corporations are running amuck without any oversight or control by the average shareholder. Capitalism needs to be democratic and not controlled by the corporate elite. If anything, Barack Obama's approach to the economy is too conservative for me, but at least he's heading in the correct direction which is not the direction of the "right".
If I make a deal with someone, we both sign an agreement and any amendments to the contract need to be agreed upon by both parties in writing. If the terms of the arrangement change and are agreed upon, the stakeholders sign and the changes are enacted. Why is this not the case with my creditors? It seems that every few months, often even more frequently, I open my credit card statements and find the small print pamphlets with descriptions of the changes to our agreements. These changes are never in my favor. They almost always contain an increase to a fee, and often times an interest rate increase. I usually find myself thinking “That’s not what I signed up for!” The really disheartening part of it all is that if I don’t like the changes to the agreement, I need to contact them within a certain time frame, usually in writing, and “Opt Out”.
It seems to me that any party to an agreement would need consent from all other engaged parties in order to alter any such agreement. Offering someone a revised contract that has no added value to them and requiring that they decline the amendment to disagree is inherently devious. Does it not make sense then that creditors should be required to operate under the assumption that their clients would act in their own best interest when faced with a financial decision? Why would anyone in their right mind want any of the changes proposed in these types of amended agreements? I realize these companies are in the business to make a profit. Why can’t these new terms be implemented in new agreements and not to all the clients that have an existing agreement? Why not require creditors to offer these new terms along with some sort of added incentive, such as a lower interest rate for a limited period of time, after which the new terms go into force? Either way, it is my belief that the “Opt-Out” requirement behind these agreement amendments is unethical and should not be legal.
Thank you for reading…
Joe Faliti
The Audacity of Hypocrisy The Neo-conservative / Religious Right View of Regulation
According to the Bush / Palin right the problem with government is that it regulates business too much and you not enough. When was the last time that a gay marriage resulted in the collapse of our economic system? When was the last time an adult movie caused rolling blackouts throughout California? When was the last time an abortion poisoned a community to the point that the sick and dying residents had to be relocated and the land condemned for generations? Since when did an individual that doesn’t know if god exists or not cause the overthrow of a foreign government and replace it with one friendly to American business?
Listening to the right, one gets the impression that business can do no wrong. But you, oh you are the most dangerous threat to America since bin Laden. The collapse of our economy and the epidemic of foreclosures is not the fault of greedy conmen that created investment instruments that they knew were fraudulent. It wasn’t the fault of Newt Gingrich and Bush deregulating the banking industry. No it was the fault of gays and lesbians marrying and raising children. It is the fault of all of us that want companionship, love, and happiness in our lives. As Falwell, Robertson, and others said, the 9/11 attacks, Katrina, and Rita were God’s wrath for our decadent private lives. That implies that the activities of our public institutions are guilt free. If that were true, why didn’t they attack the Playboy mansion or the bathhouses in San Francisco or Planned Parenthood? No they attacked US military targets. Maybe you didn’t realize how we use economic power as a weapon of war, but the rest of the world is aware of it. That doesn’t make the attacks any less horrific and wrong, but it is not what the rabid right claimed it to be.
It is time we told them enough is enough. If you don’t want your children watching violence or adult situations on TV, turn it off or change the channel. Don’t try to deny me as an adult my choice. If you believe abortion is wrong work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you don’t want to marry another man or woman, then don’t. If the issue affects only those that consent to the activity, back off.
Dear President-elect Obama and supporters,
Our financial system in the U.S. and globally is breaking down as a result of three fundamental causes:
1. Lack of common-sense regulation - Credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligation and other sundry forms of extremely abstracted derivative speculation should never have been allowed to exist. The fact that the $700 billion bailout package didn't include an immediate repudiation and elimination of these toxically unreal financial instruments, indicates a lack of seriousness on the part of those politicians who responded to the economic crisis. To illustrate my point think about a house. A house has a tangible, undeniable value; in physical fabricated materials, labor invested and utility implied. A mortgage has an intangible value, but that value remains realistic because of the mortgage paper's connection to the tangible object of house and the ability of the house's occupants to stay current on the mortgage. Mortgage-backed securities have no tangible or intangible value, they are financially incommensurable with the initial tangible asset, house. Credit default swaps were created to "insure" something already assumed to be secure, mortgage-backed securities. People can also take out credit default swaps on securities or bundles of securities which they can't even claim ownership. It is not just the housing market which is suffering from this affliction. Swaps and CDOs have been written and monetized relating to corporate bonds, state and municipal bonds. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to securitize the pool of lotto money that the state of California anticipates. This is insane. These uniquely psychotic types of financial instruments carry montary obligations in the 100s of trillions of dollars globally. No amount of taxpayer financial bailout will save the system. This system can't be saved. We must, through bankruptcy, declare these toxic, parasitical financial instruments illegal.
2. Dogmatic commitment to "Gloabalization" - Trade is good unless it harms a national self-interest. Historically developed and evolved concepts of "national sovereignty" affords a national government the right to organize their internal affairs to represent the desires and needs of their people. This means the ability to regulate, both the what and the how, things are introduced into their nation from without. We need to return to a commitment to inport tariffs on the industries we wish to maintain and improve. If any American corporation wishes to exploit the cheap and subhuman labor markets of the underdeveloped world, fine. If they wish to import the finished products back into our shores, we should tax the imported product at 20-50% of the retail price.
3. Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure - High-speed, magnetic-levitation rail lines for both freight and passengers. Large-scale water management. Nuclear energy (for all solar/wind fetishists out there, think before you commit to a Pavlovian mind-reaction). Sanitation systems. Comprehensive public transit investments. Levees, bridges and dams (oh my!). We need to create the 25-50 year finance mechanisms to create a first world future for our children and grandchildren. We must invest trillions, not on Wall Street or Baghdad, but on the infrastructure we have taken for granted we the past generation and a half. No oligarchical "public-private partnerships" can be tolerated. Infrastructure, like regulation, is the province of our national government. Do not hand that over to financier control.
My husband and I are wealthy. We are not in that infamous 1%, but we live well off dividend income. But we don't vote Republican because it doesn't matter that our taxes have been lowered when we see the whole world crumbling around us. We both come from middle class roots and understand that without a strong middle class, Democracy cannot survive. The Republican stewardship of this country in the past two decades (remembering that Clinton was a centrist and worked across the isle) has brought us a jobless workforce, people losing their homes in droves, a less educated population than ever before, unjustified war with its inherant death and destruction in foreign lands, unmanaged natural disasters here at home, unaffordable health care, and financial markets in the tank. On top of all that, we are told that we are a nation of whiners.
We have voted for Democrats for years because we've seen this coming. Deregulation is a travesty. So is obsessive privatization of the commons. Free markets don't exist anyway in a world where banks and energy markets are "too big to fail,' and must be subsidized and bailed out when greed overtakes them in order to keep the economy from crumbling. We've had income redistribution for years - income flowing out of middle class pockets into the hoarding pockets of the uber-rich. Is anyone not yet clear that there IS NO trickle down? Instead we have frozen credit, frozen capital, middle class families living on the edge and losing ground daily. We hand the greedy bankers $250 bn in taxpayer money to fix their massive oopsie, and what did they do with it? Instead of making credit available, they used the money to pay off the exiting CEOs and do mergers. And what do the American people get for our investment? An admission form Alan Greenspan that he's "shocked, shocked that greed would see no limits.
Now we see that we have been awaiting Barack Obama for a long time. We believe he will truly make the difference this country has needed for decades. I think Al Gore would have made a difference, but we know what stopped him. John Kerry? Who knows. I hope Obama will take seriously his mandate to develop a new energy infrastructure, keep people in their homes and overhaul health care. Regulate, baby regulate!
I support Barack Obama for his character and his temperament as much as for his stance on the issues. As best I can judge, he is the most intelligent man running for president, and the calmest. He is open-minded without being gullible, and while he is much more liberal than I in his ideology, ideology does not appear to be a prison for his mind as it is for so many politicians both liberal and conservative. On substantive issues, I support him principally because he recognizes the basic fact that government has to be paid for by taxes, and that those taxes should fall chiefly on people most able to afford them. I also support him for his realistic and pragmatic foreign policy and his rejection of theocratic government.
Obama's stance on economic regulation is not among the reasons I support him. He, and many of his supporters, tend to blame the current financial crisis on the Republicans' decision to let the market "run wild." Tighter governmental regulation, it is presumed, must be the answer. Very little is said of exactly what regulation will be imposed or exactly how it will solve the present crisis or prevent future ones.
PLEASE get this talking point into the Debate and the Campaign:
The debate over INCREASED REGULATION FOR WALL STREET is missing a very appropriate metaphor to get our point across.
All sports, from professional to little league, have paid umpires and referees (just like regulators). And the Super Bowl adds more referees and the World Series more umpires during the championships. If we believe our Wall Street financial system to be "world-class", then wouldn't we also have appropriate boundaries just as professional sports do? Americans love sports - so maybe this analogy/metaphor will get the point across. (We can even make reference to "instant replays" like the SEC does when they investigate insider trading.)
Maybe this "umpire/referee" metaphor can get the point across for those advocating a "free for all" - which only leads to abuse, arguments and no boundaries for ethical or moral action. Having grown up playing sports without umps/refs when younger in Chicago, I much prefer the Professional approach. And so should the American and global financial systems.
PLEASE consider this point for the debate and ongoing campaign.
In the latest edition of BusinessVoice (The York County Chamber's newsletter Oct 2008, Vol 5, issue 10, page 4), there is a graphic showing the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on Taxes, Healthcare, Trade, and Startup Incentives. The information provided was an excellent effort by the Chamber to educate business owners and encourage us to get employees registered and out to vote. One major thing lacking in both the article and in the graphic is an explanation of how the plan by John McCain will switch health insurance from an employer based system to an individual system and the impact of the resulting taxes on businesses and our employees.
Health insurance premiums under John McCain's plan will not be pre-tax income. Businesses will thus have a new tax that many of us will not be able to pay. My company's premiums for a single employee are around $200/month. For a family it is close to $500/month. If we had to pay income tax, social security and Medicare on the health insurance premium, a single person would add $100/month in taxes to our business’ bottom line - for a family it would be more than $200/month.
My company as a whole would see $700 per month or more in additional tax. How is this a pro-business plan? As a small business owner my family's insurance is part of that plan. How is this a pro-family plan?
The 2008 Financial Crisis
As a result of Congress's Subcommittee on Financial Service and General Government hearing on Sept. 17, on Sept. 30 the Subcommittee wrote the FCC expressing their concerns relating to telecom (AT&T U-verse) abuse of PEG channel programming. The subcommittee asked the FCC to review these complaints and, where their findings showed illegal behavior of the telecom providers, initiate enforcement proceedings. The letter follows.
--------------------------
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515-6015
September 30, 2008
The Honorable Kevin J. MartinChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street SWWashington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Martin: ·
As you know, the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government heid a hearingon September 17, 2008 on public, educational, and governmentai (PEG) access to cable television.The subcommittee appreciates the participation of the Commissionʼs Media Bureau Chief, MonicaShah Desai, at this hearing.
We recognize that there are considerabie changes occurring in cable television, including thetransition to all digital transmission and the entry of new competitors and technologies into the market.We believe that these changes can deliver improved cable television for millions of viewers. However,we also believe that PEG television is essential to our communities as an outlet tbr free speech, localinformation and opinions, and emergency communications. Changes in the cabie environment shouldnot lead to a dirninishment ofthe accessibility of PEG channels to these same viewers.
The subcommittee heard several concerns relating to PEG at the hearing. These concernsinclude:
• Some cabie operators are moving PEG channels to new locations on the channel dial,including moving them into digitai locations up to the 900 channel block. Witnessesexpressed concern that this places PEG channels well away from the basic tier of channelsand may require some consumers to rent or purchase converter equipment to view PEG channels.
----------------------------------The Honorable Kevin J. MartinSeptember 30, 2008Page 2
• in its U-verse cable service, AT&T delivers PEG programming in a manner that is differentfrom its delivery of commercial channels. The service offers PEG programming via anInternet-based video stream at a single channel location and requires the viewer to loadPEG programming through a series of menus. Witnesses told the subcommittee that thismethod of PEG delivery is siow and technologically inferior to how commercial channelsare delivered over U-verse service. They cited inferior picture quality, lack of closedcaptioning or second audio programming, incompatibiiity with programmable recordingdevices, and absence of program Iistings for PEG programs.
• Concerns also were raised about the degradation of public safety communications onAT&Tʼs U-verse service. U-verseʼs emergency aiert system procedures were described intestimony as "cumbersome and inefficient" and as not supporting emergency alert messagesthat would override or scroll on broadcast channels. If an emergency alert messagedirecting viewers to a PEG channel for more information cannot be displayed, and if aviewer cannot immediately access a PEG channel with emergency information, we questionwhether emergency communications are being delivered effectively.
Ms. Desai made the following statement at the hearing: "The statute requires PEG channels tobe placed on the basic service tier aiong with your local broadcast channeis. So to piace additionalburdens on consumers to have to find their PEG channels seems to defeat the purpose of the basicservice tier."
We agree with this statement and beiieve that the concerns we heard at the hearing representevidence that PEG channels are being assigned a second class status outside ofthe basic service tier.We ask the Commission to asses these concerns to determine whether the situations described arecontrary to federal laws and reguiations and, if so, take expeditious enforcement actions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Regula José E. SorranoRanking Member ChairmanSubcommittee on Financiai Services Subcommittee on Financiai Servicesand General Government and General Government
David R. Obey
Chairman
-----------------------
The Honorable Kevin J. MartinSeptember 30, 2008Page 3
Mark Steven Kirk Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
Peter J. Visclosky Maurice D. Hinchey
Adam Schiff
Cc: The Honorable Michael J. Copps
The Honorable Jonathan S. Adelstein
The Honorable Deborah Taylor Tate
The Honorable Robert M. McDowell
-------------------------------------
It is important to cities, towns, schools, and the general public that the next President of the United States respect the important role PEG access TV plays in free speech and community building processes. The next president should appoint only FCC commissioners who will consider equally the value of this free speech venue with all other media and communications considerations in the Commission's purview.
Dear Senator Obama,
Please take the next step, and show real leadership, by demanding that Congress immediately begin drafting legislation to address regulating the banking industry, so that the current financial disaster will not happen again, and our country's economy can grow in a ethically and fiscally responsible manner. Even the supporters of the financial industry bailout agree that the current legislation before congress does not address the issue long term. It is incumbent on you as a senator, and presidential candidate to take the lead on this issue, and demand, among other things more transparency regarding financial instruments, and tougher truth-in-lending laws.
I think that more transparency is necessary so that banks can more clearly evaluate a particular instrument, so that the markets can more closely reflect reality.
One truth-in-lending regulation that I would like to see is that lenders be required to present borrowers who are considering adjustable rate loans a chart that shows clearly what their payments will be based on the change in the prime lending rates.
I hope you will take this seriously, and step out in front on this issue.
Adam Nisenholz
Dear Citizen,
If you agree with the sentiments in this blog post, please leave a comment. Also feel free to suggest additional or alternative features of new banking regulation.
These two articles were sent to me and outline some scary ideas/actions from the McCain/Palin front. Please notify me if one of these articles is yours/your company's and you wish it removed. I will gladly do so, I am just passing on information.
I want to add that I am a freelance children's illustrator, and my single-payer health insurance costs OVER $12,000 a year. Yes that's OVER TWELVE THOUSAND for ONE PERSON.
Two years ago, it went up 78%, and last year, it went up another double-digit percentage, although I only went in for regular checkups So much for the industry regulating itself. ~Siri
McCain's Radical AgendaBy Bob HerbertThe New York Times - September 15, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.htmlTalk about a shock to the system. Has anyone botheredto notice the radical changes that John McCain andSarah Palin are planning for the nation's healthinsurance system?These are changes that will set in motion nothing lessthan the dismantling of the employer-based coveragethat protects most American families.A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia,Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 millionAmericans who have employment-based health insurancewould lose it under the McCain plan.There is nothing secret about Senator McCain's far-reaching proposals, but they haven't gotten muchattention because the chatter in this campaign hasmostly been about nonsense - lipstick, celebrities and"Drill, baby, drill!"For starters, the McCain health plan would treatemployer-paid health benefits as income that employeeswould have to pay taxes on."It means your employer is going to have to make anestimate on how much the employer is paying for healthinsurance on your behalf, and you are going to have topay taxes on that money," said Sherry Glied, aneconomist who chairs the Department of Health Policyand Management at Columbia University's Mailman Schoolof Public Health.Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have justcompleted an independent joint study of the plan. Theirfindings are being published on the Web site of thepolicy journal, Health Affairs.According to the study: "The McCain plan will forcemillions of Americans into the weakest segment of theprivate insurance system - the nongroup market - wherecost-sharing is high, covered services are limited andpeople will lose access to benefits they have now."The net effect of the plan, the study said, "almostcertainly will be to increase family costs for medicalcare."Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan)employees who continue to receive employer-paid healthbenefits would look at their pay stubs each week oreach month and find that additional money had beenwithheld to cover the taxes on the value of theirbenefits.While there might be less money in the paycheck, thatwould not be anything to worry about, according toSenator McCain. That's because the government would beoffering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit - $2,500for a single worker and $5,000 per family - to be used"to help pay for your health care."You may think this is a good move or a bad one - butit's a monumental change in the way health coveragewould be provided to scores of millions of Americans.Why not more attention?The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get familiesout of employer-paid health coverage and into thehealth insurance marketplace, where naked competitionis supposed to take care of all ills. (We're seeing inthe Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, LehmanBrothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well theunfettered marketplace has been working.)Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first stepin this transition, the equivalent of injecting poisoninto the system. It's the beginning of the end.When younger, healthier workers start seeing additionaltaxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many)will opt out of the employer-based plans - either tobuy cheaper insurance on their own or to go withoutcoverage.That will leave employers with a pool of older, lesshealthy workers to cover. That coverage willnecessarily be more expensive, which will encouragemore and more employers to give up on the idea ofproviding coverage at all.The upshot is that many more Americans - millions more- will find themselves on their own in the bewilderingand often treacherous health insurance marketplace. AsSenator McCain has said: "I believe the key to realreform is to restore control over our health caresystem to the patients themselves."Yet another radical element of McCain's plan is hisproposal to undermine state health insuranceregulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance fromsellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement inone state that insurers cover, for example,vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breastexaminations, would essentially be meaningless.In a refrain we've heard many times in recent years,Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the marketof these "needless and costly" insurance regulations.This entire McCain health insurance transformation isright out of the right-wing Republicans' ideologicalplaybook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; andsend unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.You would think that with some of the most venerablehouses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles rightbefore our eyes, we'd be a little wary about spreadingthis toxic formula even further into the health caresystem.But we're not even paying much attention.A version of this article appeared in print onSeptember 16, 2008, on page A29 of the New Yorkedition.More of Bush? It Could be Worse.By Carl Bloice BlackCommentator.com<http://www.blackcommentator.com/291/291_lm_more_bush_worse_palin.html>It's not clear whether or how long the Republicans canmaintain this pretense. Stretching this stage-managedABC-TV 'interview' over four episodes will not hide thefact that the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate isbest kept away from microphones and tough questionsabout government policy. Still, one never knows - theway the major U.S. mass media seems to go along sowilling with the charade takes one's breath away. As oneBritish correspondent put it 'the format was more akinto a celebrity interview than a forensic analysis of avice-presidential candidate 55 days before an election.'But, never mind that. The Charles Gibson interview withAlaska Governor Sarah Palin, on the seventh anniversaryof the Sept. 11th, had a lot of substance. And it wasscary.'Sarah Palin shows hawkish streak in first interview,'ran the headline in the British newspaper The Guardian.Palin didn't just threaten Russia with war in her firstinterview; she echoed her running mate's call for'victory in the war' in Iraq. She linked the war in Iraqwith the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks, something theBush administration no longer does. Palin backs militaryaction in Pakistan even without the support of thatcountry's government. And, she's come close to endorsingan Israeli bombing attack on Iran.Palin spoke strongly in favor of talking Georgia intothe North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) andindicated that the U.S. would have to become involvedshould that county become embroiled in a militaryconflict with Russia. 'There are numerous problems withthis statement,' wrote Ilan Goldenberg in The Guardian,'the most important element is that it sends a verydangerous and extreme signal to the world - especiallyother nuclear powers. This type of dangerous talkreinforces the militaristic saber-rattling of the McCaincampaign. From joking about bombing Iran, to talkingabout invading Iraq, Iran and Syria weeks after 9/11 tothe misguided 'we are all Georgians now,' the McCaincampaign is sending all kinds of horrifying signals tothe world about the types of wars it would fight.Leaders in other capitals are paying attention and wordsmatter.'The consequence of Governor Palin's woeful lack ofknowledge and experience is that her pronouncements arenot nuanced as Senator McCain's but they do representthe tenor of the ticket. As a clearer picture emerges ofwhat the foreign policies of a McCain-PalinAdministration would look like, it has promptednervousness and concern elsewhere on the planet. One ofthe reasons for Obama's popular support over much of therest of world is that the substance of the McCain- Palincampaign is scaring the bejesus of out of people.Much has been made of Palin's apparent lack of knowledgeabout the 'Bush Doctrine,' but that might not carry theweight with the public some observers think it might.Most people don't actually know what the term means andpliant Big Media can hardly be said to have spelled itout clearly when it mattered, before the invasion ofIraq.After she arrived in St. Paul and before she wasnominated, she met behind closed doors with officials ofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),the powerful lobby group tied to the Israeli rightwingand supporters of the occupation. Big Media didn't tellus much about that huddle although there is not a chancein the world that it was not highly significant. In herinterview, Palin said she would not second guess howIsrael should respond to a nuclear Iran and that theU.S. doesn't 'have to stand for that.'If any more indication were needed that the neo-conservative hawks have embraced the RepublicanPresidential ticket, one only had to watch the neoconsgo into rapture after Palin's nomination. They have notbeen happy campers in the post-Cold War world. The 'waron terror' is a bit nebulous and its execution can causethe kind of conflict the chieftains of the oil industrydon't want to have with the autocratic governments ofthe Middle East. Better a real international enemy:Russia.'And we've got to keep an eye on Russia,' Palin toldGibson. 'For Russia to have exerted such pressure interms of invading a smaller democratic country,unprovoked, is unacceptable,' she told Gibson. Ofcourse, Russia invaded Georgia after the latter attackedSouth Ossetia.Palin was evidently unmoved by the ridicule alreadyvisited on the notion that she somehow knows how to dealwith Russia because she lives so close to it. She hasinsights into U.S. relations with Moscow, she said,because 'they're our next-door neighbors, and you canactually see Russia from land here in Alaska ... from anisland in Alaska.'About Palin's discussion of going to war, the Britishcommentator Goldenberg noted that 'there is a nomineefor the vice presidency of the United States who may oneday have her hand on the button and she is casuallytalking about potential catastrophic nuclear war.''Saber rattling matters,' wrote Goldenberg. 'Wordsmatter. We've learned that from the past eight years.When George Bush said `With us or against us,' itmattered. When he referred to a `crusade' it mattered.When McCain jokes about war with Iran, calls our allies`vacuous and posturing', says that Iraq is building aweapons assembly line for al Qaeda, it matters.'And when Sarah Palin, a first term governor with nonational security experience or expertise, talks abouthypothetical nuclear war it really matters. It reflectsbadly on her and her readiness. It reflects even worseon John McCain who thought that she was qualified to beCommander in Chief.'Qualification aside, what has many observers outside theU.S. greatly disturbed is the content of the recentpronouncements coming from both spots on the Republicanticket. Speaking in Hamburg last week, Michael Schaefer,Germany's ambassador to China, drew attention to theincreasingly bellicose rhetoric emerging in the USpresidential campaign. According to the Financial Times,he cited the McCain's candidate's proposal to line upthe US with other governments in a quasi- institutionalframework to oppose countries like China and Russia.'That would be ... a very dangerous course within thetransatlantic alliance,' he told a Europe- Chinaconference.Referring to 'the muck being hurled by the McCaincampaign is preventing a debate on real issues - onwhether the country really wants, for example, tocontinue the economic policies of the last eight years,'wrote New York Times columnist Paul Krugman last week.He went on to suggest 'the Obama campaign is wrong tosuggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just bea continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCainand Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, itwould be much, much worse.' It sounds like a lot ofpeople abroad are concluding this might also be true inthe area of foreign affairs.'Americans have been warned,' wrote Jacob Heilbrunn onthe Huffington Post the day the Palin interview aired.'If John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected, they willmake the Bush administration look like a dress rehearsalfor what's coming. McCain and Palin aren't as bad asBush. They're worse. By treating Russia like an enemy,they will turn it into one. An American attack on Iran,which McCain is thirsting for, could lead to a widerconflict with Russia that has incalculableconsequences.'The U.S. has had eight years of a government that hasheld views similar to those expressed by Palin, wroteGoldenberg. 'The result has been to put ideological andemotional distance between it and large parts of Europe,Asia and Latin America. Apart from isolationistRepublicans, this is bad news both for America and therest of us. America needs a friendlier world to doeconomic and political business. The world needs anAmerica more in tune with its natural friends andallies.' __
I have a master of arts in organic chemistry and earned a's in micro and macro economics, but I am at a loss to understand the argument for deregulation in the economy. Maybe I'm stupid. Could someone correct me in my thinking. Here is how I see it.
Humans regulate every aspect of their personal lives and as a species their environment as best they can. We regulate the temperature of our homes. In fact we live in buildings to regulate our environment from the wild swings of the natural environment. We regulate our behavior when it comes to how fast you can drive your car. Zoning codes and building codes regulate where, what and how we can build and utilize our land. Farms regulate the production of their farms by deciding what and when to plant, preparing the soil, using fertilizers, irrigation, and pest/weed control, instead of relying on wild production controlled by nature alone. I could go on but do I need to?
What is so sacrosanct about capital? Please, someone explain to me how what has occurred with this current mess and those that proceeded it (S and L, 1929, Enron, MCI, etc.) is not analogous to being a hunter/gatherer society. Let me warn you, if you succeed in that argument then you leave me no choice but to consider those decision makers involved to be traitors to the country and guilty of crimes against humanity as grievous as Idi Amin, Po Pot, Milosivich, and Stalin to name afew. To say they didn't know the risks is to acknowlege their total incompetance and drive home the need for extensive regulation. Or they are competant and know what they are doing and the risks involved and don't care if it destroys the economy, national security, and human lives, in which case they are criminals and should be prosecuted. How many people have died from the loss of their retiremnt income, homelessness after the forclosure of the homes, loss of their jobs for billions made by a handfull of big investors.
