More foxes in charge of bigger henhouses

I swear, some days I think I'm in bizarro world. And not the generic bizarro world either, the specific Seinfeld bizarro world, where George is an expert in Risk management. And then, some other days, I think that the world is being run by people who have truly run out of ideas, and so resort to TV scripts as guidance for actual real world events. How else do you explain the latest move at the New York Fed? Apparently, Michael Alix is such a colossal failure at Risk Management that he's helped drive Bear Stearns AND Merrill Lynch out of business. That's exactly the kind of skill-set that screams for a job supervising banking regulations for the New York Fed.

Another thing: whenever someone points out that there are massive conflicts of interest, not to mention the (now) horrible track records these guys have, the standard Treasury apologist response is that nobody other than top Wall Street guys know enough about these financial instruments of mass destruction to be able to suggest effective regulations. I disagree. I say that nobody INCLUDING Wall Street guys understand them. Trillions of dollars in losses later, maybe everyone's starting to get it?

From Seinfeld:

George: Alright. Listen, I gotta get some reading done. You mind if I do this
here? I can't concentrate in my apartment.

Jerry (checking out George's textbook): Risk management?

George: Yeah. Steinbrenner wants everyone in the front office to give a
lecture in their area of business expertise.

Jerry: Well what makes them think you're a risk management expert?

George: I guess it's on my resume.

NY Fed's Bear Stearns hire draws fire:

By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa
NEW YORK, Nov 4 (Reuters) - The New York Fed has hired the former 'chief risk officer' of fallen investment giant Bear Stearns as a top bank regulation adviser, prompting outrage among investors.
Numerous analysts say the government is effectively rewarding Michael Alix, an individual deeply involved in fomenting the worst credit crisis in generations, with a taxpayer-funded salary.
At Bear Stearns, the investment bank that collapsed in March and has become hallmark of the global credit crisis, Alix served as chief risk officer from 2006 to 2008 and global head of credit risk management from 1996 to 2006.
'It's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house,' said Malcolm Polley, chief investment officer at Stewart Capital Advisors in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
The appointment goes to the heart of a growing problem that has cropped up along with the myriad rescue efforts aimed at reviving the financial system: few people actually know what was in the risky mortgage bonds that brought the system to a halt.
Analysts say this makes efforts at resolving the problems ripe for conflict of interests, or impropriety at the very least. This certainly seems to be the case in the New York Fed's new hire.

The New York Fed declined to comment on Alix's appointment.

The Fed made the announcement on Halloween, with little in the way of fanfare or alerts to the press. Alix will serve as a senior adviser to William Rutledge in the Bank Supervision Group. His appointment is effective Nov. 3.

Before working at Bear Stearns, Alix spent eight years at Merrill Lynch, the investment bank that faced massive losses and was subsequently purchased by Bank of America.

The Fed would not immediately disclose how much Alix would earn in his new post. But many investment strategists around the country said giving him even a single penny would be too much.

"He should at least do it pro bono," said Beth Malloy, bond market analyst at Briefing.com in Chicago. (Reporting by Pedro Nicolaci da Costa; Editing by Dan Grebler)

The Chomsky: United States Has Essentially a One-Party System

Chomsky nails it again. All emphasis mine.

The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Gabor Steingart

Der Spiegel Online, October 10, 2008

SPIEGEL: Professor Chomsky, cathedrals of capitalism have collapsed, the conservative government is spending its final weeks in office with nationalization plans. How does that make you feel?

Chomsky: The times are too difficult and the crisis too severe to indulge in schadenfreude. Looking at it in perspective, the fact that there would be a financial crisis was perfectly predictable, its general nature, if not its magnitude. Markets are always inefficient.

SPIEGEL: What exactly did you anticipate?

Chomsky: In the financial industry, as in other industries, there are risks that are left out of the calculation. If you sell me a car, we have perhaps made a good bargain for ourselves. But there are effects of this transaction on others, which we do not take into account. There is more pollution, the price of gas goes up, there is more congestion. Those are the external costs of our transaction. In the case of financial institutions, they are huge.

SPIEGEL: But isn't it the task of a bank to take risks?

Chomsky: Yes, but if it is well managed, like Goldman Sachs, it will cover its own risks and absorb its own losses. But no financial institution can manage systemic risks. Risk is therefore underpriced, and there will be more risk taken than would be prudent for the economy. With government deregulation and the triumph of financial liberalization, the dangers of systemic risks, the possibility of a financial tsunami, sharply increased.

SPIEGEL: But is it correct to only put the blame on Wall Street? Doesn't Main Street, the American middle class, also live on borrowed money which may or may not be paid back?

Chomsky: The debt burden of private households is enormous. But I would not hold the individual responsible. This consumerism is based on the fact that we are a society dominated by business interests. There is massive propaganda for everyone to consume. Consumption is good for profits and consumption is good for the political establishment.

SPIEGEL: How does it benefit politicians when the populace drives a lot, eats a lot and goes shopping a lot?

Chomsky: Consumption distracts people. You cannot control your own population by force, but it can be distracted by consumption. The business press has been quite explicit about this goal.

SPIEGEL: A while ago you called America "the greatest country on earth." How does that fit together with what you've been saying?

Chomsky: In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free society. In America, the professor talks to the mechanic. They are in the same category.

SPIEGEL: After travelling through the United States 170 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville reported, "the people reign over the American political world as God rules over the universe." Was he a dreamer?

Chomsky: James Madison's position at the Constitutional Convention was that state power should be used "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." That is why the Senate has only a hundred members who are mostly rich and were given a great deal of power. The House of Representatives, with several hundred members, is more democratic and was given much less power. Even liberals like Walter Lippmann, one of the leading intellectuals of the 20th century, was of the opinion that in a properly functioning democracy, the intelligent minority, who should rule, have to be protected from "the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd." Among the conservatives, Vice President Dick Cheney just recently illustrated his understanding of democracy. He was asked why he supports a continuation of the war in Iraq when the population is strongly opposed. His answer was: "So?"

SPIEGEL: "Change" is the slogan of this year's presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the United States? Or, to use use Obama's battle cry: Are you "fired up"?

Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion.

SPIEGEL: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society.

Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues.

SPIEGEL: Do you prefer the team on the other side: the 72 year old Vietnam veteran McCain and Sarah Palin, former Alaskan beauty queen?

Chomsky: This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane.

SPIEGEL: Arch conservatives and religious voters seem to be thrilled.

Chomsky: One must not forget that this country was founded by religious fanatics. Since Jimmy Carter, religious fundamentalists play a major role in elections. He was the first president who made a point of exhibiting himself as a born again Christian. That sparked a little light in the minds of political campaign managers: Pretend to be a religious fanatic and you can pick up a third of the vote right away. Nobody asked whether Lyndon Johnson went to church every day. Bill Clinton is probably about as religious as I am, meaning zero, but his managers made a point of making sure that every Sunday morning he was in the Baptist church singing hymns.

SPIEGEL: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you?

Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest even though they see it the same way.

SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions -- from the taxation of the rich to nuclear energy -- there are different positions. At least on the issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.

Chomsky: Let us look at the "differences" more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.

SPIEGEL: Who prevents intellectuals from asking and critically answering these questions? You praised the freedom of speech in the United States.

Chomsky: The intellectual world is deeply conformist. Hans Morgenthau, who was a founder of realist international relations theory, once condemned what he called "the conformist subservience to power" on the part of the intellectuals. George Orwell wrote that nationalists, who are practically the whole intellectual class of a country, not only do not disapprove of the crimes of their own state, but have the remarkable capacity not even to see them. That is correct. We talk a lot about the crimes of others. When it comes to our own crimes, we are nationalists in the Orwellian sense.

SPIEGEL: Was there not, and is there not -- in the United States and worldwide -- loud protest against the Iraq war?

Chomsky: The protest against the war in Iraq is far higher than against the war in Vietnam. When there were 4,000 American deaths in Vietnam and 150,000 troops deployed, nobody cared. When Kennedy invaded Vietnam in 1962, there was just a yawn.

SPIEGEL: To conclude, perhaps you can offer a conciliatory word about the state of the nation?

Chomsky: The American society has become more civilized, largely as a result of the activism of the 1960s. Our society, and also Europe's, became freer, more open, more democratic, and for many quite scary. This generation was condemned for that. But it had an effect.

SPIEGEL: Professor Chomsky, we thank you for this interview.

Nader congratulates Obabma

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM

Independent candidate for President and Vice President, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez, congratulated Senator Barack Obama on his decisive victory today to succeed the notorious regime of George W. Bush.

——

Senator Obama led a campaign of tactical brilliance that appears to be bereft of specific mandates. It is up to an aroused citizenry to organize behind these mandates which we were privileged to advance. These progressive mandates (living wage, Medicare for all, and a just foreign policy, and many more) reflect majority support and our long overdue redirections and reforms in our country.

Senator Obama will be President-elect Obama soon to preside over what our founders described as a representative government under our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once said that the function of representative government is to "curb the excesses of the monied interests." The corporate dominated government that Senator Obama inherits includes what President Dwight Eisenhower cautioned the nation against in his farewell address — the military industrial complex. It includes many other priorities entrenched by "the monied interests," or global corporations, to drain and strip-mine the necessities and deserved justice long denied to so many Americans in their various roles.

Such challenges to apply available solutions to stagnant injustices and deprivations require a transforming leader who speaks truth with democratic power to falsehood and plutocratic power. This in turn demands a deliberate, thoughtful and challenging personality.

The Nader/Gonzalez campaign joins other Americans in wishing you well in the White House. We will remain alert to opportunities that advance those final words of the pledge of allegiance — "with liberty and justice for all."

Struggling Lower-Class Still Unsure How Best To Fuck Selves With Vote | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

As with all great satire, there are elements of truth here:

Struggling Lower-Class Still Unsure How Best To Fuck Selves With Vote | The Onion - America's Finest News Source:

WASHINGTON—As election day nears, millions of the nation's poorest voters have reportedly yet to settle on the most profound and enduring way to completely fuck themselves over when they head to the polls this year.

'On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Barack Obama will undermine my best interests by maintaining the same centrist, pro-corporate policies of previous Democratic administrations,' said Jim Estey, 34, a recently laid-off assembly-line worker. 'Conversely, I agree with McCain and Palin on abortion, which might just balance out the fact that they'll further marginalize people like me by supporting deregulation and slashing social programs. So it's pretty much a toss-up at this point."

Though such behavior appears to directly undermine their own well-being, lower-income voters have historically supported candidates determined to screw them six ways to Sunday, including Bill Clinton, who incarcerated them in record numbers and cut the welfare benefits many depended on for day-to-day sustenance, and George W. Bush, who widened the gap between them and the rich and sent thousands of them to die in Iraq. This year's election is reportedly unique in that the nation's poor must not only weigh how deeply and painfully their chosen candidate will penetrate their rectums, but must also consider unforeseen outside circumstances—such as economic collapse and terrorism—that might allow the next president to bend them over and brutally rape them in ways they never thought possible.

The latest polls indicate that a majority of lower-class citizens might choose not to vote at all Nov. 4, preferring instead to leave the details of how they get fucked to the moneyed classes.

Atheists should get out of the country?

I often wonder if people think about the things that they say. Even in an environment like a local "letters to the editor" column in a newspaper, sloppy thinking abounds. I've seen this before, but it showed up on Digg again today, and I got curious where "Soldotna" is. Turns out, it's less than 200 miles from Wasilla, land of Sarah Palin. I don't mean to impugn all of Alaska with these two examples of morons, but it certainly does make me wonder...

AIG should have been allowed to go bust

Effectiveness of AIG's $143 Billion Rescue Questioned

Ann Rutledge, of R&R Consulting, gets it right when she says, "What we see now are a lot of games by the government to keep these institutions going with a lot of cash," she said. "This is to fill holes in companies' balance sheets, and they're trying to hold at bay the charges that our financial system is insolvent."

See what she said there? A clue: it's not what most other talking heads are saying. The debate is no longer between recession vs. no recession, it's now an argument as to whether the SYSTEM ITSELF is solvent. Meaning the debate is a lot bigger than most people are letting on. If the system itself cannot be salvaged, then the debate should become more about what takes its place, and less about how the chairs ought be arranged on the deck of the Titanic.

"AIG is nothing more than a pass-through being charged 14 percent interest," Wolosky said. "Company assets are eroding on a daily basis; asset sales have not begun and can only be at fire-sale prices in the current market. "

But David Schiff of Schiff's Insurance Observer said he could not see how bankruptcy would have been a better solution.

"The point isn't to save AIG; it's to save the U.S. financial system. I think they were afraid to find out who else goes under if you let AIG fail," he said. "But right now, no one knows if this is going to work."

White House Defends Billions To Banks

White House Defends Billions To Banks, Bipartisan Congressional Criticism Aimed At Possible Use Of Funds To Reward Executives - CBS News

If this whole bailout thing doesn't get you angrier by the day, then you are not paying enough attention!

The White House on Thursday was forced to defend banks doing whatever they want with the (taxpayer's) money after several reports that banks would still pay obscene bonuses to executives, pay billions in owed compensation to executives, as well as issue regular quarterly dividend checks to shareholders, and even use the money to finance mergers & acquisitions.

Let me put this as simply as I can: if these huge financial institutions have money to REWARD stockholders despite incredibly dismal performance and complete lack of fiduciary duty, then they DO NOT NEED TAXPAYER MONEY. If things are really as bad as Paulson, Bush & Co. made it seem, then they should be using every spare penny to shore up their balance sheets and/or get lending going again.

Of course, if you see this bailout as I do- as a naked grab for money- then none of this is surprising to you. In fact, I'm going to go way out on a scary limb and issue a prediction: there will be many more abuses of taxpayer money. Shocking, I know... just remember you heard it here first.

War & Reason

Norman Mailer: The Quotations Page: "Any war that requires the suspension of reason as a necessity for support is a bad war.
Norman Mailer, Armies Of The Night
US journalist & novelist (1923 - 2007)"

Treasury to need "Unprecedented" financing

The dazzling incompetence and lack of understanding of financial markets would make me laugh, if it weren't so sad.

Bloomberg.com: quotes White House Press Secretary Dana Perino:

``What we're trying to do is get banks to do what they are supposed to do, which is support the system that we have in America''

Actually Dana, what banks are "supposed" to do is make money for the shareholders. They sure aren't stopping their dividend payments, so how bad could this crisis really be? They did that quite well the last several years- first through widespread use of dubious financial instruments, and now by getting the taxpayers to finance their mergers. It's everyone else that's in trouble. And by the way, if you wanted banks to actually lend with the money that we were so generously giving them, perhaps you should have made that explicit in the legislation that you rushed through. The fact that you designed this plan so vague that anyone can qualify and do anything with the money is your fault, not the banks'.

And just what system is it, that we have in America? If it's the system where there income inequality has reached record levels, Wall St. pays obscene bonuses that they didn't earn, companies legally pay no taxes and everyone else gets screwed, seems to me like it's working the same as it always has.

"Talking points" much?

The two major party candidates are robots, parroting lines they are given that they desperately hope will turn into conventional wisdom. Maybe it will work if they say it over and over and over again?

Obama Aides Diss Atheists!

NoGodBlog.com - Obama Aids Diss Atheists! [sic]

Carl Silverman describes attending a "Presidential Forum" at the Christian Life Academy. Full text of the email is below, but there are a few things that I want to highlight.

Don Miller of the Obama campaign responds to a question directed to the McCain campaign,

"Senator Obama has a policy director and an advisor for many different faiths. He has nothing on atheists or agnostics. There's not this grand effort for the Democrats to reach out to a group of pagans to try to get them to vote for Senator Obama."

I guess admitting that Obama's all set to ignore atheists didn't go far enough for D. Paul Moneiro, Obama's National Deputy Director for Religious Affairs. Side note: why is it that campaigns need "Directors for Religious Affairs", and are the Directors really so overwhelmed with Religious Affairs that they require Deputies????? Anyway, Monteiro continues (referring to Obama), "This is not some crazy wacko atheist trying to make sure that your children grow up to marry trees."

That's good to know! Nothing gets under my skin more than those damned atheists and their persistent attempts to get children to marry trees! Not just American trees either, they actually want children to marry DUTCH ELMS or JAPANESE MAPLES!! *gasp* These foreigner trees have been luring our young people away for far too long. If you elect me as president, I vow to keep American children marrying American trees!

OK then, I have a question: is Obama some kind of KrAzY KrIsTiAn that is trying to get your children to grow up to hate gays? Does he want your children to grow up to hate science? Is Obama at least willing to accept godless money? I bet he is! Once again, it proves that atheists are one of the few groups that it's still considered permissible to slander. For shame.

Friends,

First let me say that, despite what you are about to read, I still encourage everyone to vote for
Obama. As we all know, we must focus on the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless.....

My wife and I went to the "Presidential Forum" http://www.christian-life.com/calendar/forum.html
last night (Wednesday 10/29/08) at the Christian Life Academy, a megachurch here in Camp Hill, PA,
expecting to be offended by the McCain-Palin surrogates. The event was being recorded/televised,
probably for podcasting on the Christian Life website, but I'm not sure. I have listed the
participants at bottom of this page.

I submitted a question, specifically for the McCain-Palin people. Here's the question, as asked by the moderator, who only slightly rephrased it from the original:

"With at least 8% of Pennsylvanians being atheists, agnostics, and humanists, what are the McCain-Palin campaign going to say tonight to attract any undecided voters from that group of Pennsylvanians?"

McCain's National Evangelical Director, Marlys Pompa, said that McCain was going to be a president
of all the people, people "of all faiths and no faiths." She mentioned the "wonderful melting
pot" of America, and generally emphasized the inclusiveness and unity of a McCain presidency. She, of course, did not mention Palin.

The moderator then proceeded to ask another question, this time directed to the Obama campaign, but the Obama representatives insisted on responding to my question first.

Don Miller, an author and social conservative who delivered a prayer at the Democratic convention, said, "Senator Obama has a policy director and an advisor for many different faiths. He has nothing on atheists or agnostics. There's not this grand effort for the Democrats to reach out to a group of pagans to try to get them to vote for Senator Obama."

D. Paul Monteiro, Obama's National Deputy Director for Religious Affairs, then said, "Senator Obama has a twenty-year history, a twenty-year testimony" and described Obama's support for Bush's "faith-based partnership program" and how Obama said "no" to those who distributed flyers at the Democratic National Convention urging him, on the basis of church-state separation, to oppose public funding of faith-based initiatives.

Then, referring to Sen. Obama, Monteiro proclaimed, "This is not some crazy wacko atheist trying to make sure that your children grow up to marry trees."

Yes, Obama's aides not only gloated that they were not actively seeking the votes of atheists, agnostics, and pagans, but delivered a slur of such an egregious nature that, if targeted against Christians or Jews, would have likely been fatal to Obama's campaign. I can't imagine Barack himself making such a grossly insulting statement.

In addition, there was a dispute over whether Obama supported or opposed discriminatory hiring by publicly funded faith-based programs. David Barton, founder of the WallBuilders organization, claimed that Obama opposed discriminatory hiring, but Obama's National Evangelical Coordinator Shaun Casey claimed that was untrue. To my recollection, based on Obama's past statements, Barton was correct and Casey was wrong.

In the future, I think atheists and other rationalists should create their own political party, not in the hopes of winning in this "Christian nation," but at least to act as a spoiler against any candidate who does not treat us with the same respect to which believers feel they are entitled.

Again, please vote for Barack, if only because Palin must be stopped.

Feel free to forward or publish this message, but only IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Carl H. Silverman
Camp Hill, PA

[apologies if this email is poorly formatted]

Copyright 2008, Carl H. Silverman. All rights reserved, except permission is granted to forward
(or publish) this message in its entirety.

I FIGURED IT OUT!!

Paulson and his Goldman Gang: they're aliens! Or possibly members of some kind of bald-head cult! The pieces are starting to come together....

From L to R: Neel Kashkari, James H. Lambright, and Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
From BailoutSleuth

Bailout: more bad policy on top of horrible policy

I've been against the bailout from the beginning, as have most right-thinking folks. Daily, more evidence piles up that the bailout was a bad idea, and the implementation is leaving a sour taste in everyone's mouth.

As a refresher: Sec. Paulson assaulted Congress and the American public and demanded $700 billion and unlimited power to do with it whatever he wanted, or else the economy would take a giant shit and we'd all get splattered. Nevermind that the giant shit was going to happen anyway, and we're all starting to get splattered. Predictably, the American public gave their collective middle fingers to that plan, and he was forced to say something about what he'd do with the money. His brilliant idea was to buy the worthless (err..... "troubled") "assets" from the crooks (err... bankers). OK, remember that plan (conveniently named "Troubled Asset Relief Plan- get it? It's a tarp, to cover up the giant shit). Presto-change-o the banks have adequate capital and crisis is averted. Oh, and he needed the money IMMEDIATELY, there was absolutely no time to look at alternatives. Congress decides to give Paulson the middle finger, the stock market drops 700 points, there was a bunch of secret late-night meetings held at the White House, they threaten to declare martial law, and then the bailout passes. With me so far?

Now, the secret reasons behind the bailout have started to come out, but you've got to put the pieces to the puzzle together. OK, remember the reason for the bailout? Banks couldn't lend because they've got all this worthless stuff that somehow magically ended up on their balance sheets, causing them to have to write all the worthless stuff down to it's value (0), which causes them to have to increase their reserves to compensate for the loss of these "assets". Banks weren't lending to each other, because they all knew that they all had this worthless stuff they were hiding and didn't know which one would be the next to go belly-up because of it. Paulson's theory was that the government would take all this worthless stuff off their hands, freeing the banks to start lending to each other again. But, as soon as the bailout passed, the plan morphed from buying "assets" from banks to straight liquidity injections, whether they wanted it or not. The idea this time was to cut out the middle step of buying the bad assets and just shore up the balance sheets immediately, thereby mitigating the need to raise more capital, even if the worthless (oops, I mean "troubled) assets come to light.

Now, it seems the plan has morphed again, albeit in a way that nobody's acknowledging. Now, the plan is to nudge the big banks to use that fresh liquidity to buyout smaller banks. Smaller banks didn't have the same exposure to these worthless derivatives, as a result of their need to actually serve their customers, so the smaller banks have excellent balance sheets compared to their larger brethren. Unfortunately for them, the big guys need that capital, so it's going to be merger time! Remember two weeks ago, when Citigroup was hoving over Wachovia, all set to go ahead with the buyout, when Wells Fargo swooped in? The Motley Fool breaks it down:

Why was Wells Fargo so eager to ante up a deal that was leaps and bounds sweeter than Citi was willing to pay? After all, Wells Fargo has a stellar reputation of keeping underwriting standards in check, so why would it want anything to do with a shoddy bank drowning in subprime mortgages?

Taxes. It was all about the taxes.

The day after Citigroup made its bid, the Treasury changed a tax rule that lets banks accelerate the losses and writedowns on banks they acquire against their own net income, offsetting the charges as tax write-offs.

Wells plans on writing off some $74 billion of Wachovia's $498 billion loan portfolio -- an insanely large amount that reflects just how poisoned Wachovia's books really were. With the new tax rules, it gets to use all of that $74 billion as a charge against its own net income, which means one thing: Wells Fargo's going to be a tax-write-off machine for years to come.

Just how much will it save? The Wall Street Journal, citing an independent tax analyst, estimates Wells Fargo could reap a tax savings of about $19.4 billion. To put that in perspective, the 0.1991 shares of its own stock Wells Fargo is offering Wachovia comes out to around $6.24 per share, or roughly $13.8 billion. Yes, Wells Fargo gets a $19.4 billion tax break for a company it'll pay just under $14 billion for (if the deal closed today).

In other words, Wells Fargo didn't pay anything for Wachovia: The IRS paid it more than $5 billion to take it. Who ever said you have to fear the taxman?

Nary a peep from Treasury on the deal, so the big guys figure it's a merger green-light. The Guardian reports:

A Californian lender, City National Bank of Beverly Hills, made it clear it would consider using its $395m capital infusion to make purchases. Its chief executive, Russell Goldsmith, told the Los Angeles Times the money "clearly enhances our financial capacity to make acquisitions and to lend to a larger degree".

The pace of deals in the banking industry has already picked up. On Friday, Cleveland-based National City Bank agreed to a $5.6bn buyout by a competitor, PNC, which is getting $7.7bn from the Treasury.

Keith Horowitz, a banking analyst at Citigroup, said National City did not need capital but had found itself vulnerable as a result of the bail-out.
"We believe [the bail-out] in a perverse way pushed/forced National City's management to sell the bank into a buyers' market," said Horowitz in a note to clients.

Not brazen enough for you? I agree- here's a more brazen example.

In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.

(He [JP Morgan executive] didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

I think former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has good suggestions on his blog, too bad nobody in charge is listening. He argues that

the big bank beneficiaries of the bailout should be barred from (1) paying lobbyists who have anything whatever to do with administration or implementation of the bailout; (2) buying up other financial institutions; (3) paying dividends to shareholders; or (4) paying any bonuses or severance packages to any executives -- as long as the bailout continues. There's simply no excuse for using taxpayer dollars for any of these purposes.

This whole bailout has been a scam from day one, and I become more certain of that by the day. If they were committed to transparency and oversight as was promised, why would there be the secrecy and redacted documents?

The Freakonomics blog today asked a similar question to the one I posed yesterday. They just didn't take it as far... they were only wondering why there weren't any riots, I was wondering when the full-scale revolution is going to happen?

For those in love with Obama

As I've been trying to remind people, Obama may be better than the other big alternative, but he's still not what you want if you believe in real change. Coke may be better than Pepsi, but not if you're looking for locally-produced organic orange juice.

Two quick articles that caught my attention today on the very same subject:First: Obama campaign doesn't mind skirting campaign finance rules. Not really surprising, given that he's raised more this month than George W. Bush did during the entire 2004 election cycle. He's also opted into and then out-of the public finance system, subject to allegations of "secret, foreign donors", not to mention that the influence-peddling has already begun. All of that's not to say that he's any better than John McCain, given that McCain's found several new ways to tap extra donations and skirt campaign finance laws he helped to create. To me, the question is not who's the more egregious violator of campaign finance laws, it's the simple fact that the system as it exists right now is unquestionably broken.

Second, I'm reproducing this full article here, because Mr. Joshua Frank makes all the right points. I was discussing the issue with my wife the other day, and she made an argument that since Obama was more aligned with progressive causes during the primaries, he's more likely to return to those positions once in the White House. My contention: doesn't that prove the point that he's not such a different type of politician after all? If he moves so easily and seamlessly from progressive to center-right within a matter of months and based upon the particular demands of whatever constituency he's courting at the moment, then as far as I'm concerned, the calls for "change" are more empty promises. Indeed, generic "change" is coming- regardless of which major-party candidate wins this election. (Barring some kind of last-minute power grab from the Bush administration, and I'm still not ruling that out completely). The key is getting change that goes far enough, change that restores some kind of faith in the system. Senator Obama certainly can talk the talk, but I'm concerned that the actual business of governing will not allow for platitudes of "change" or "hope".

Note to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?

by Joshua Frank / October 29th, 2008

Unless John McCain has a bombshell of a scandal to drop on Barack Obama at the 11th hour, this election is beginning to look like it’s in the bag for the Democrats. The Republicans will finally be kicked out of the White House and peace and calm will slowly return to Washington.

At least that’s the message reverberating across the progressive landscape these days. One can almost hear a collective sigh of relief. Darth Cheney will be gone. Karl Rove will be forced to recoil, and President Bush can retire in ignorant bliss to his ranch in Crawford.

Ahhhh…

It is certainly comforting to believe the stars have aligned and progressive values are about to flood the Beltway. Barack Obama has campaigned on “Hope” and “Change” and we all but believe the guy is actually going to deliver on his varied promises.

But believing is what’s caused so many to fall victim to Obama fever. You know the signs: they send you emails from MoveOn.org (claiming you’re to blame for Obama’s fictional loss) and hope-filled rants from Norman Solomon. They talk about Obama as if he’s the next messiah, their wardrobe consists of more than two Obama shirts that they’ll wear every day leading up to the election. They have a “Change” sign in their window and one in their front yard. It’s as if they’ve become more or less Obama-zombies, just in time for Halloween.

No question the Obama strategists have accomplished what they set out to do. Just look at all they’ve achieved thus far: antiwar activists have exchanged their slogans for pro-Obama refrains despite the fact that their candidate inflates the alleged threat of Iran, wants to put more troops in Afghanistan and won’t pull out of Iraq anytime soon.

Environmentalists have come out for Obama in large numbers, even though he thinks coal can be clean and nuclear energy can be safe. No big deal that he wants to drill baby drill off our coastal shores. At least the guy believes in global warming.

Or take the civil rights champions who have few qualms about his rabid support for FISA and the PATRIOT Act or social justice activists who aren’t overly concerned that Obama condones the execution of convicts who have never murdered. Economic progressives, who would be the first to say the economic I.V. pumped into the Wall Street bloodline was hastily passed and rips off tax-payers, are the first to defend Obama’s economic platform. No matter he supported the bailout without reservation. No matter his team of economic hit men includes a whole slew of Clintonite neoliberals like Robert Rubin. Obama is still their guy.

All of this wouldn’t bother me much if it weren’t for the overt hypocrisy so many progressives, and a few radicals, are exhibiting with their blind support for Obama. It’s one thing to embrace pragmatic voting and lesser-evilism on the grounds that we don’t really live in a true democracy. It’s quite another to be excited about the prospect of electing a man who doesn’t stand for the issues you do, and is in fact campaigning against them.

What will happen if Obama wins the electorate? Progressive Group Number One seems to believe he’ll magically move left once inaugurated and is only running to the right in order to win the election. That position is a non sequitur and not worthy of real discussion as it’s based on wishful thinking.

Progressive Group Number Two knows Obama is pretty damn conservative but is planning on voting “strategically,” arguing that change comes in baby steps, yet they assure us they’ll apply pressure once Obama’s elected to get the little toddler strolling. A friend, who happens to be a professor at a large university, recently told me that he plans on coercing Obama by pressuring elected members of congress. He’ll be “making a stink” and “scene,” he assured me.

What a relief.

“The forces arrayed against far-reaching progressive change are massive and unrelenting. If an Obama victory is declared next week, those forces will be regrouping in front of our eyes — with right-wing elements looking for backup from corporate and pro-war Democrats,” Norman Solomon recently wrote in an article advising progressives to vote against their interests. “How much leverage these forces exercise on an Obama presidency would heavily depend on the extent to which progressives are willing and able to put up a fight.”

Does Solomon even understand what it means to “put up a fight”? And what’s with the notion that progressives will “apply pressure” once Obama wins? They have no cash and he’s already going to receive most of their votes. What are they going to do to pressure him, poke him in his ribs? Cause a stink by farting through the halls of Congress? Obama may actually listen to us if he thought progressives were considering to vote for a guy like Ralph Nader, which is the point Nader seems to be making by campaigning in swing states this week. Nader knows how to put up a real fight, one not mired in hypotheticals and fear-mongering, so he’s pressuring Obama where it matters most.

Of course, such a direct confrontation to Obama’s backward policies ruffles the slacks of many devout liberals. But that is the point. Progressives are not flush with cash and as we all should know, flashing the almighty buck is usually the best way to grab a politician’s attention. But the only thing we have at our immediate disposal now is votes. These crooks need us to get elected. Obama already has the majority of left-wing support shored up despite his resistance to embrace our concerns. Imagine if he had to earn our votes instead of receiving our support without having to do a thing for it?

So let’s prepare for what’s ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama’s quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?

These are but a few of the questions I’d like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I’ve yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don’t think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more.

What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve our support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush’s increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we’ve had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time and again supporting increased war funds.

I hope I’m not alone in saying that we deserve more than lofty rhetoric about “action” and “hope.” We deserve a program for real progressive change — the kind Democrats and Barack Obama will not bring as long as we give them our unconditional support.

It's never enough

Is anyone else noticing a pattern?

AIG Bailout was originally set at $85 billion, but that wasn't enough, so the government generously added $37.8 billion (of your money), but now that's not going to be enough either. I guess all those spa parties and hunting trips are getting expensive.

The magic $700 billion number for the bailout was picked because "they just wanted a really big number", but it clearly wasn't enough.

While you were struggling to understand how the government could want to spend $700 billion, and despite promises to the contrary, they gave a quick $25 billion to the automakers (ostensibly to help them create more fuel-efficient cars) but guess what? It's not enough, and now they're going to use it for mergers & acquisitions instead.

Today, the Telegraph reports a couple of staggering figures:

• worldwide, the various national bailouts have cost over $7 trillion, so far!
  
• That number is 12% of the entire global"real" economy.
• The "real" economy is vastly overwhelmed by "the unregulated shadow banking market, where the Bank estimates $14,500bn of "toxic" assets responsible for the financial crisis have proliferated"

The translation is this: if they are estimating $14.5 trillion of "toxic" assets, and we've spent $7 trillion without even making a dent, then what does that say about how much further we have to go? Of course, they are only estimating how much of the shadow banking market is toxic. If they are wrong by even a fraction, we are really in for it. Remember, the global derivatives market was "valued" at $1.14 quadrillion dollars this summer.

Thomas Jefferson on Banks

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

Greenspan says nobody could have forecast this, everyone else disagrees

Greenspan's testimony caused me to actually laugh out loud. You get choice soundbites like these:

• ``Yes, I found a flaw,'' Greenspan said in response to grilling from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``I was shocked because I'd been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.'' Greenspan added he was ``partially'' wrong for opposing the regulation of derivatives.
• Greenspan, responding to questions, said only ``onerous'' regulation would have prevented the financial crisis. Stifling rules would have suppressed growth and hurt Americans' standards of living, he said.

• ``We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience,' he said.

  Part of the problem was that the Fed's ability to forecast the economy's trajectory is an inexact science, he said.

  ``If we are right 60 percent of the time in forecasting, we are doing exceptionally well; that means we are wrong 40 percent of the time,'' Greenspan said. ``Forecasting never gets to the point where it is 100 percent accurate.''

• Greenspan, 82, reiterated his ``shocked disbelief'' that financial companies failed to execute sufficient ``surveillance'' on their trading counterparties to prevent surging losses. The ``breakdown'' was clearest in the market where securities firms packaged home mortgages into debt sold on to other investors, he said.

By the way, here's 10 people who predicted the financial meltdown, and as a special bonus person- Ralph Nader!

Dean Baker nails it:

Greenspan Says, 'Who Could Have Known?'

by Dean Baker

That's right, the former Maestro told Congress last week, when asked about the meltdown of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis, "we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

Unfortunately, this sentence is even worse in context. Greenspan told the committee about the brilliant economists on staff at the Federal Reserve Board. His point was that if this group could not see the housing bubble, and the risks it posed to the economy, then it was not humanly possible to see it.

The reality is that it was possible -- in fact, easy -- to recognize the housing bubble as early as the summer of 2002. House prices nationwide had substantially outpaced inflation in the years since 1996 (coinciding with the stock bubble) after just tracking the rate of inflation for the prior hundred years. There was nothing in the fundamentals of supply or demand that could explain this run-up.

Furthermore, there was no corresponding increase in rents. Since people always have the choice to buy or rent, house sale prices and rents should rise and fall together over time, although not necessarily at the exact same pace. In the years since 1996, rents had only modestly outpaced inflation. And they had begun dropping in real terms by 2002. This was not consistent with house prices being driven by fundamentals.

It was also easy to see that the collapse of the housing bubble would cause enormous damage to the economy. Housing itself accounted for more than 6 percent of GDP at the peak of the boom in 2006. Today, it accounts for just over 3 percent.

More importantly, housing wealth provided the base for the consumption boom of this period. Research from the Federal Reserve Board and elsewhere shows that annual consumption is increased by 5 to 7 cents for each dollar of housing wealth. This means that the collapse of a bubble that eventually grew to $8 trillion would lead to a reduction in annual consumption on the order of $400 billion to $560 billion (2.6 percent to 3.7 percent of GDP).

In addition, housing is a highly leveraged asset. In normal times, buyers typically borrow 80 to 90 percent of the purchase price. Of course, housing became much more highly leveraged during the bubble with many borrowers putting zero down.

The heavy leverage in the housing market meant that it was inconceivable that a collapse of the housing bubble would not lead to serious consequences for the banking industry. I first warned that the collapse of the bubble would imperil the survival of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September of 2002.

Greenspan would have been correct if he said that we are not smart enough as human beings to know when the bubble would finally burst. I did not expect the bubble to last as long as it did.

Of course, I did not bet on there being such a vast reservoir of foolish investors, not only in the United States but also in Asia and Europe, willing to buy garbage mortgages buried in complex derivative instruments. I also didn't imagine the Fed and other regulatory agencies would ever be so completely out-to-lunch in policing mortgage issuance and the practices of the investment banks.

But the basic story, that there was a housing bubble that would burst, and that it would cause enormous damage to the economy, was completely knowable to any competent economist long ago. The failure of the economists at the Fed, as well as the vast majority of the economists elsewhere, to see the housing bubble and to recognize the damage that would be caused by its collapse, is a testament to the failure of the profession.

Greenspan's claim that the crisis was not foreseeable is a cover-up for a profession that has badly failed the public. If factory workers or custodians had failed so miserably in their jobs, they would quickly find themselves unemployed.

Remarkably, in economics, the people responsible for this easily preventable disaster are suffering no negative consequences and, in fact, are still the ones designing the nation's economic policies. Economists believe that if workers are not held accountable for their performance, then they will not do good work. If economists are not held accountable for their performance, then we should not expect good economic policy.

Contrary to what Greenspan told Congress, "we" are smart enough as people to see asset bubbles like the housing bubble. If his "we" are not smart enough, as he claims, then the current group of economic policymakers must be replaced with people qualified to do the job.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer". He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.

High time to boycott elections?

It seems more and more people are coming to a similar conclusion:

High time to boycott elections

The only choice: Don't vote!

A Former Voter is Rehabilitated

Not voting, or voting third-party?

Accountant by Day has a great post up, you should read the whole thing, but I wanted to highlight just a bit that goes along with the "voting/not voting" theme week I guess I have going on. She explains that she was voting by mail-in ballot, and had spent some time agonizing over the decision for which presidential candidate to vote for or to vote against: (emphasis mine)

After a long time I ended up darkening the oval next to Barack Obama’s name, which in a way is a sad thing, to vote for a candidate you don’t really believe in to avoid voting for a candidate you’re genuinely afraid is a threat to your civil rights. It’s too bad to have to choose between spending policies you agree with and social policies you don’t consider fascist. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Obama is the worst, just like I don’t think McCain is the worst. I think he’ll probably do mostly fine and we’ll pull through like we always do. But it makes me feel bad to always be stuck with candidates I can’t really root for. It would be cool to get to be one of those people who can be full-throttle rah-rah for somebody. I never quite get there. I always seem to wind up either abstaining out of principle, like when Pat Roberts ran unopposed in the primary, or voting for the person who scares me less.

Sebelius ‘12?

Anyway, so after I mailed the ballot I began to regret my vote. Not in the sense that I wished I had voted for McCain and the deerslayer instead. No, I think not. But having reflected on the fact that, particularly in this state and in consideration of the miserable disgrace the electoral college makes of our voting system, my vote basically counts for nothing, I wish I’d decided to throw it away on the Libertarian party. I think Bob Barr is basically an asshole and I don’t like him any more than the other two, but at least I agree with Libertarian principles in general. Lacking interest or faith in Republican or Democrat and considering I think my vote is a waste anyway, I now think I should have gone moderate and voted Libertarian so that I could have made some pathetic stand against a two-party system that does exactly the opposite of representing me. For once, it’s a comfort to think about the fact that nothing I do really counts in this political system. My misfire won’t really have an impact anyway.

I think that encapsulates so much of the sentiment that I feel, and that I pick up from so many others this year. We are all waking up with this profound sense of alienation from our government. Perhaps our "government" is too abstract, we're actually alienated from our "representatives", from our "leaders", and from each other. What was once a badge of civic pride- the vote- has now become an onerous and guilt-inducing reminder of just how far removed our government is from anything resembling fairness, equality, engagment, representation, truth, justice and the American way. I hope that the situation is changing this cycle, that more and more people are realizing just how far we've come from representative democracy.

Not voting withholds consent from a government that desperately craves it. Our "leaders" govern based on the polls. The legacy of the Bush administration is not just the wreckage of the global economy, the destruction of America's image around the world, or the loss of so many lives. It's also in the brazen and willful determination to do whatever they want, despite the polls. It's almost to the point that I wonder if they trying to find out where the breaking point is? So many of their policies have angered the world, not to mention the American public. They've flouted international and domestic law for years, and despite blatant and rampant corruption they managed to secure congressional approval for $700 billion in additional money to Wall Street on top of already obscene bonuses. I wonder if they are curious just how far they can push before an actual, literal revolution happens?

Not voting sends a signal, just the same as voting does. It sends a signal that you are aware of all the shenanigans and will not give the fraudsters the authority, the legitimacy that they crave. If nobody voted, they would be forced to change things, I can only assume. Is it possible that voting third-party sends a similar signal? At least, in my mind, some of the third-party candidates are at least talking about bigger issues than "socialism" vs. Joe the Plumber.

Excerpt of an interview with James Cromwell

James Cromwell is playing Bush Sr., in W, the new movie from Oliver Stone. The movie is not the interesting part, this interview with James Cromwell is. (emphasis mine)

Ryan Stewart:

You've been politically active for quite a long time -- does the moment we're at right now parallel anything you've seen in the past?

James Cromwell:

Well, for those people who went through 1931, it would be incredibly reminiscent. I don't know of that, but I think this is unprecedented in its condemnation of...I don't know what to call it...it's not capitalism. When you say 'capitalism' to Americans they think 'My god, that's small businesses, that's working folk!' and I don't mean that at all. I mean that large, predatory, multinational capitalism and the markets it supposedly regulates -- or doesn't -- is now defunct.

A new system will have to be developed. Will we have the will? Has this ever happened? On the radio they were talking about Lincoln in the midst of the Civil War; the dilemma for Lincoln was profound, so much so that it made the topic of slavery secondary in his mind to maintaining the union. The union was at stake. I believe the survival of this country is definitely at stake, and not only with the economic crisis.

The pursuit of American empire -- the plan laid out by Cheney for American bases from the Tigris to the Euphrates because we basically have no friends and in order to maintain our supremacy we need to control the energy resources in that area of the world -- is a collision course with the rest of the world, which we'll ultimately lose. It'll either destroy us or the entire planet. It also takes away from the multitude of issues also involving the survivability of the planet, which we should be facing with every resource at our command. How do we shift this lifestyle of consuming the world's resources and spitting them out into the atmosphere as pollutants? We're watching the biosphere die in front of us.

RS:

So maybe not the best time for the media to be focusing on things like the Weather Underground, in your opinion?

JC:

Of course it's not the time. Listen, I understand they're gonna run that out. If you wanna talk about things I condemned the elder Bush for, that campaign against Dukakis and the use of Willie Horton and the tank ad are two prime examples of Atwater-Rove manipulation of media that we are now experiencing again. I understand that McCain's ads are now 100 percent negative, but that's only a minor thing that involves one candidate. The fact that Obama can stand up there and answer questions that have been screened in a debate forum controlled by both parties and under a contract that they will not release to the press, and that they will not include Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader...the issues have nothing to do with goddamn terrorists –– they have to do with the terrorists who run our country. They are not allowed to ask or answer those questions appropriately in this forum. That is the crisis of this country. Not only do we know that the last two elections were basically stolen, we're watching them being stolen again right from under our noses! No one says fuck all about it!

RS:

I don't know, there's a pretty healthy alternative media in this country for those who want it.

JC:

I totally agree. Bless our hearts, that is quite true, but when I say that no one says fuck all about it, the mainstream media that reaches the majority of the people.... as almost anybody who tends to agree with us says, they're asleep, they're shopping, they're numb, they're distracted, they're lazy, they're stupid, they're unwilling, they're uninformed. Those people don't know what we know. Those people don't hear the truth. Only those people are gonna make a difference. We have to move them to action!

RS:

Does the presumptive Obama victory in a few weeks give you any hope?

JC:

I have hope. The conditions are so bad from this administration that, much like the country that Roosevelt inherited, I hope that Obama is a big enough man to respond to the needs of ordinary American people, and that ordinary Americans learn that it is not our leaders who lead us. All substantive change in this country has come from the people, not the leaders. The leaders don't lead -- they follow.

Now, the question is will we abdicate the way we've abdicated for the last eight years and probably the last forty years? Will we abdicate to the money forces, the Wall Street forces, the multinationals and the military-industrial complex? Or will we finally say, "This is it!? This is our country. We are taking it back. We believe in habeas corpus. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to maintain these rights, governments are instituted among men, who derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when these powers threaten these rights it is the duty and it is the obligation of the people to throw off this government."

I believe that. That's what this country is founded on and that is what we have to rediscover. Barack Obama? As the Black Panthers used to say, you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. He has the choice. If he wants to be part of the solution, he has to listen to more rational voices. He has to listen to more progressive voices. He has to listen to his heart. He has to listen to his wife. He has to listen to his children and all of our children and do the right thing. That's the key, he has to do the right thing.