Mar 2009
Rove to Speak at Mississippi College
Mar 21, 2009 09:01 Filed in: Bush Administration
Rove is shortly to testify before Congress, under oath, about the firing of U.S. Attorneys insufficiently enthusiastic about bringing frivolous criminal actions against Democrats just before critical elections. Unfortunately, the hearings will be closed, so the public will not be able to see him squirm and attempt to evade questions, the answers to which we all are entitled
to know. Hopefully, transcripts of the hearing will be made available.
Reactionary genius Fred Sullens, editor of the now defunct Jackson Daily News, hated Theodore G. Bilbo, governor and senator, with an intensity matched only by his hatred of Governor Paul Johnson, Sr. Once, when he learned that Bilbo was to deliver a speech in Oxford, he wrote, and the date is illustrative only, “ On May 5, 1943 at 10:00 o’clock A.M., in Oxford, Mississippi, a vulture will puke.” Seems appropriate now.
Comments
Assessing Obama and Other Thoughts
From the first time I heard Obama at the 2004 Democratic convention, I felt that his speeches have lacked a certain substance, a certain gritty edge, a certain rhetorical gesture, that I would have liked to hear. There was a blandness that caused my eyes to glaze over. A real sociopath would have spoken a lot better.
That hasn’t changed.
It probably has something to do with a lack of originality and a failure to leaven his advisory loaf with some truly creative and radical yeast. In the field of economics--a field so corrupted with the largesse of plutocrats, corporations, and wealthy right-wing cranks--the absence of a few brave, if not foolhardy, souls to question the given wisdom can make it difficult for a policy maker to envision practical and necessary—but unorthodox—solutions.
Given the economic advisors that Obama has gathered around him, I suspect that he is overawed by Ivy League intellectualism, even though he ought to be able to see through it, having spent three years at Harvard Law School. He is a very bright and decent but conventional thinker, however, and unless he is violently pushed in a different direction by the unfolding of events, he will follow the conventional wisdom. It is entirely possible that, like Roosevelt, he will ultimately find himself being pushed. Let us hope that we will have not already sunk too far into the abyss by then.
I have been thinking about Bernard Lietaer quite a bit lately. I've also been thinking about banking (who hasn’t?), and have concluded that by increasing banking reserve requirements to 100% and nationalizing the Federal Reserve System, which would prevent banks from creating money, we would solve 50% of our Wall Street banking problems. If we severely restricted margin purchases, options, and derivatives, and raised the top marginal income tax rate back to 90%, we would solve another 40%. Increasing the Federal Estate Tax and eliminating the step-up basis would take care of another 5%. Imposing a Tobin Tax on all monetary transfers would also be a good measure, as well as a 10-year holding period for an investment to be taxed as a capital gain and an end to the investment tax credit. That would take us well over 100%. ;-)
Alternative or complementary currencies, recommended by Lietaer, could be a huge benefit in many instances. I like the idea of eldercare credits. Also, a community mutual credit system could strengthen local connections between people and local businesses. It could also help the community survive bad times when people have less official cash. Alternative or complementary currencies have profound political implications, however, as they circumvent the government's monopoly (currently delegated to the banking system) on creating money and levying taxes. They will therefore provoke opposition from the banks and the government. Pity. We could use the resilience they provide for our fiat currency system.
That hasn’t changed.
It probably has something to do with a lack of originality and a failure to leaven his advisory loaf with some truly creative and radical yeast. In the field of economics--a field so corrupted with the largesse of plutocrats, corporations, and wealthy right-wing cranks--the absence of a few brave, if not foolhardy, souls to question the given wisdom can make it difficult for a policy maker to envision practical and necessary—but unorthodox—solutions.
Given the economic advisors that Obama has gathered around him, I suspect that he is overawed by Ivy League intellectualism, even though he ought to be able to see through it, having spent three years at Harvard Law School. He is a very bright and decent but conventional thinker, however, and unless he is violently pushed in a different direction by the unfolding of events, he will follow the conventional wisdom. It is entirely possible that, like Roosevelt, he will ultimately find himself being pushed. Let us hope that we will have not already sunk too far into the abyss by then.
I have been thinking about Bernard Lietaer quite a bit lately. I've also been thinking about banking (who hasn’t?), and have concluded that by increasing banking reserve requirements to 100% and nationalizing the Federal Reserve System, which would prevent banks from creating money, we would solve 50% of our Wall Street banking problems. If we severely restricted margin purchases, options, and derivatives, and raised the top marginal income tax rate back to 90%, we would solve another 40%. Increasing the Federal Estate Tax and eliminating the step-up basis would take care of another 5%. Imposing a Tobin Tax on all monetary transfers would also be a good measure, as well as a 10-year holding period for an investment to be taxed as a capital gain and an end to the investment tax credit. That would take us well over 100%. ;-)
Alternative or complementary currencies, recommended by Lietaer, could be a huge benefit in many instances. I like the idea of eldercare credits. Also, a community mutual credit system could strengthen local connections between people and local businesses. It could also help the community survive bad times when people have less official cash. Alternative or complementary currencies have profound political implications, however, as they circumvent the government's monopoly (currently delegated to the banking system) on creating money and levying taxes. They will therefore provoke opposition from the banks and the government. Pity. We could use the resilience they provide for our fiat currency system.
Why Geithner, Summers and the Rest Must Go
Mar 19, 2009 15:49 Filed in: Economics
I was perturbed when Obama unveiled his economic team because it was made up mostly of recycled Clintonistas. Most of them had a history of working in the high-flying financial firms of Wall Street, and several had a hand in setting the stage for the current meltdown. Robert Rubin, treasury secretary under Clinton, was the person most responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, probably the single most idiotic, misguided, and cynical act of the eight Clinton years.
Incidentally, Rubin was handsomely rewarded by Citicorp when he resigned from the government a few months later.
It is becoming increasingly clear that these officials have not the slightest interest in restructuring our ailing financial system. Indeed, why would they be eager to change a system that has rewarded them as well as they have been rewarded? Hank Paulson (former treasury secretary) and Robert Rubin grew wealthy at Goldman Sachs, for whose welfare they have been particularly solicitous.
They want to put things back the way they were--to put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall, as it were.
Humpty Dumpty, however, isn’t going to be put back together. Wall Street, having conclusively demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it is incapable of self-regulation, has completely lost the confidence of the public. Corruption matters. Conflicts of interest are inherently corrupt, and ignoring them leads to disaster. Excessive power and wealth corrupt. That is the lesson that has to be relearned every three of four generations.
Obama, if he is to accomplish a true turnaround, will have to clean house. The entire crowd of former Wall Street financiers and bankers will have to go, to be replaced with economists, financiers and bankers not beholden to the former power-brokers. The current financial czars have far too many conflicts of interest. It is only a matter of time before Obama must find solutions beyond throwing money at insolvent banks and insurance companies. As the debacle at AIG over bonuses clearly demonstrates, the present institutions and their kleptocratic managers are simply too corrupt to be allowed to continue business as usual. It is inconceivable in the current atmosphere that AIG would award bonuses for any reason, and the fact that they were awarded shows that they have no intention of changing their ways. Talk about a sense of entitlement!
I suspect that events will force Obama to clean house, and the sooner, the better. He is a quick study, and he is certainly aware that he has a severe problem with the economic advice he is getting.
Tom Lowe
An article by Steve Clemons prompted this post: Alexander Hamilton's Scorn: Reflecting on AIG, Goldman, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin
Incidentally, Rubin was handsomely rewarded by Citicorp when he resigned from the government a few months later.
It is becoming increasingly clear that these officials have not the slightest interest in restructuring our ailing financial system. Indeed, why would they be eager to change a system that has rewarded them as well as they have been rewarded? Hank Paulson (former treasury secretary) and Robert Rubin grew wealthy at Goldman Sachs, for whose welfare they have been particularly solicitous.
They want to put things back the way they were--to put Humpty Dumpty back on the wall, as it were.
Humpty Dumpty, however, isn’t going to be put back together. Wall Street, having conclusively demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it is incapable of self-regulation, has completely lost the confidence of the public. Corruption matters. Conflicts of interest are inherently corrupt, and ignoring them leads to disaster. Excessive power and wealth corrupt. That is the lesson that has to be relearned every three of four generations.
Obama, if he is to accomplish a true turnaround, will have to clean house. The entire crowd of former Wall Street financiers and bankers will have to go, to be replaced with economists, financiers and bankers not beholden to the former power-brokers. The current financial czars have far too many conflicts of interest. It is only a matter of time before Obama must find solutions beyond throwing money at insolvent banks and insurance companies. As the debacle at AIG over bonuses clearly demonstrates, the present institutions and their kleptocratic managers are simply too corrupt to be allowed to continue business as usual. It is inconceivable in the current atmosphere that AIG would award bonuses for any reason, and the fact that they were awarded shows that they have no intention of changing their ways. Talk about a sense of entitlement!
I suspect that events will force Obama to clean house, and the sooner, the better. He is a quick study, and he is certainly aware that he has a severe problem with the economic advice he is getting.
Tom Lowe
An article by Steve Clemons prompted this post: Alexander Hamilton's Scorn: Reflecting on AIG, Goldman, Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin
Frank Schaeffer Speaks
Mar 19, 2009 15:13 Filed in: Republican_Party
Need versus Demand
It is during economic recessions that the difference between need and demand becomes obvious. Demand not only means that people want something but that they have the means and are willing to pay for what they want. The market doesn’t give a fig about need; it is interested only in demand.
During recessions, there is far more need than demand. Not just folks with the gimmes, but people who are destitute or in danger of becoming destitute. The market, however, in its solemn majesty, can allow people to starve or freeze to death without a thought, because without money they simply do not exist from an economic standpoint.
During recessions, there is far more need than demand. Not just folks with the gimmes, but people who are destitute or in danger of becoming destitute. The market, however, in its solemn majesty, can allow people to starve or freeze to death without a thought, because without money they simply do not exist from an economic standpoint.
The CDC Starts Recovering
Mar 15, 2009 09:27 Filed in: Bush Administration Subjects Health
I ran into Sam (not his real name) the other day who was in town on personal business. He has worked for the CDC as long as I can remember, and he was unusually chipper when we met.
According to Sam, things started improving at the CDC on January 20, 2009, and have been getting better ever since, as more and more political/religious hacks depart the agency to crawl back under whatever rocks they came from when they were first appointed by the Bush administration.
“For the past eight years,” Sam said, “management would give us their policy decision and tell us to get the science to support it. Now they are once again asking us to get the science so they can use it as a basis for a rational decision.”
Since the CDC is charged with assessing health threats, including the likelihood of epidemics, politicization is a serious matter. It is good to know that the agency is back in responsible hands.
According to Sam, things started improving at the CDC on January 20, 2009, and have been getting better ever since, as more and more political/religious hacks depart the agency to crawl back under whatever rocks they came from when they were first appointed by the Bush administration.
“For the past eight years,” Sam said, “management would give us their policy decision and tell us to get the science to support it. Now they are once again asking us to get the science so they can use it as a basis for a rational decision.”
Since the CDC is charged with assessing health threats, including the likelihood of epidemics, politicization is a serious matter. It is good to know that the agency is back in responsible hands.
Give it Back
The New York Times reports today that a number of banks, from smaller ones to some of the biggest (Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo), find the conditions for receiving taxpayer bailout cash so onerous that they are talking about returning the money to the federal government.
Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money
If the banks can afford to return the money, it is rather obvious that they never needed it and their CEOs and CFOs were lying when they told Congress that they were about to go under without massive infusions of fresh capital. Something smells unbelievably rotten about what is happening on Wall Street and we need to get to the bottom of it quickly. It’s looking more and more like a shell game designed to benefit the people at the top of the financial sector at the expense of just about everyone else.
Throughout this extraordinary economic episode that began last September, Wall Street (and its mostly Republican allies in Congress) have protested violently at any government effort to help poor and middle-class families that are losing their jobs and their homes. They are choking on the requirement that if they accept public monies they must actually do something in return for the public whose taxes make it possible for the bailouts to happen.
The government should immediately accept--even demand--a refund of the bailout money and begin investigating the banks for fraud, perjury, and perhaps even worse criminal offenses. Thorough audits by independent auditors of all the bailout recipients should be the first order of the day. The FDIC already has the authority to audit and then take over an insolvent bank. The president should instruct them to do so, no matter how large a bank may be.
Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money
If the banks can afford to return the money, it is rather obvious that they never needed it and their CEOs and CFOs were lying when they told Congress that they were about to go under without massive infusions of fresh capital. Something smells unbelievably rotten about what is happening on Wall Street and we need to get to the bottom of it quickly. It’s looking more and more like a shell game designed to benefit the people at the top of the financial sector at the expense of just about everyone else.
Throughout this extraordinary economic episode that began last September, Wall Street (and its mostly Republican allies in Congress) have protested violently at any government effort to help poor and middle-class families that are losing their jobs and their homes. They are choking on the requirement that if they accept public monies they must actually do something in return for the public whose taxes make it possible for the bailouts to happen.
The government should immediately accept--even demand--a refund of the bailout money and begin investigating the banks for fraud, perjury, and perhaps even worse criminal offenses. Thorough audits by independent auditors of all the bailout recipients should be the first order of the day. The FDIC already has the authority to audit and then take over an insolvent bank. The president should instruct them to do so, no matter how large a bank may be.
On the Irby's Febuary 11 Misfortune
Mar 08, 2009 22:33 Filed in: Mississippi/Jackson
It is indeed a sad story. It recalled Thomas Mann’s novel of a Lübeck merchant family, Buddenbrooks. While history does not literally repeat itself, human nature is such that it often seems that way.
I weep for the Irbys, as well as Dr. Mark Pogue and his fiancee, Dr. Lisa Dedousis, neither of whom I knew, who lost their lives in the accident. None of them deserved that outcome.
I weep for the Irbys, as well as Dr. Mark Pogue and his fiancee, Dr. Lisa Dedousis, neither of whom I knew, who lost their lives in the accident. None of them deserved that outcome.