Stop Tweeting Me!

    Three slimy uses of the $700 billion bailout

    Remember how urgent the need for the bailout was only six weeks ago? “Experts”, errr, a-holes, like Henry Paulson told us that if a bailout wasn’t passed the world as we knew it would cease to exist.

    Well, it passed. And, low and behold, things have gotten worse. Why? Well, one, bankrupt firms are like Uncle Bernie – dead. And try as you might to make them wave and sunbathe and appear alive, they are still dead. Two, the Treasury is full of bumbling idiots whose primary goal is to keep their pockets, and those of their friends, nicely lined with freshly minted Benjamins. Put those together and you’ve got a recipe for cooking up large amounts of trouble. But don’t take my word for it. In an interview with NPR, Vincent Reinhart, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said “The Treasury is just drifting. It didn’t have a set of principles by which to guide its decision. What that means is they’ve had a very hard time drawing lines, and therefore, it has sort of invited firms to encroach.” So, apparently, the lesson is when you let greedy people who lack principle make decisions they only mess things up more. This is doubly true when the people asked to fix a problem are the same ones who created it. In light of the growing turmoil, while people are beginning to ask the truly deplorable question of “will $700 billion be enough?“, we take a quick look at three slimy ways the bailout is currently being abused.

    1. Bailout money being used to defend the CEOs that are being prosecuted.

    Yep, that’s right. Not only are we footing the bill to prosecute CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other criminally run firms, we are also paying for the fancy defense attorneys hired to defend them. I say we give them the greenest, cheapest, fresh-out-of-law school public defender we can find. If it’s good enough for most of us, why isn’t it good enough for them?

    2. Bailout money being used for compensation and bonuses

    Props go to sometimes quirky (ok, always quirky) Dennis Kucinich for reportedly working to stop this from happening. We can only hope his team’s effort are successful. If you’ve got a minute, drop him a quick note encouraging him to stick with it. Analysts agree that total compensation and bonuses paid from the bailout money could potentially be in the tens of BILLIONS of dollars with some estimates as high as $50 billion. Disgusting.

    3. Bailout money paying for vacations and junkets

    We’ve, no doubt, all heard about the half-million dollar bender AIG’s execs went on at an exclusive resort in California, followed by a eighty-six-thousand dollar hunting trip in England. Too bad Dick Cheney didn’t tag along for the latter. Makes me wonder, if the executives are so busy having fun, who blew through the $123 billion in October?

    Another bailout on the horizon?

    Even with those three abuses taking place, we are hearing chatter about another bailout, this time for the auto industries and credit card companies. While Kucinich gets points for his aforementioned efforts to stop compensation and bonuses, and, for twice voting against the first bailout, he fumbles some of them back for supporting said bailout of the auto-industry. All of this begs the question, if the first bailout isn’t working and has opened the doors for unprecedented abuse of tax payer money, why THE HELL is a second one being considered? Apparently the answer is this gem: “Taxpayers are being asked to step up (again) because, given the high level of risk involved, nobody else will.” Thanks for nothing. How does the old saying go? Measure twice and cut once? Well, it’s obvious that Congress didn’t even measure once and is cutting (read: scrambling to cover their backsides) far more than they ever thought they would. If you remember correctly, we didn’t want to step up in the first place. As a result, every Congressman, Congresswoman and Senator that voted for the bailout should be fired. That includes our newly elected President.

    Moving forward

    How do you fire a Congressman, Congresswoman, Senator or President? You can start by taking your head out of your you-know-where the next time you vote. But you can only do that if you continue to educate yourself on the issues. Bottom line is that while you may love your particular brand of Presidential candidate or political party, both candidates and scores from both parties voted for the monstrosity, and are therefore culpable in it’s abuse. Please remember that when you go to the polls again in two years. Finally, we know that party and personality flavored kool-aid is tasty, but if we keep drinking it, not only will we ensure continued abuse, we will also make it harder to change the system as its rigor mortise stiffens even further.


    0 comments     Nov 12, 2008

      The three-headed monster formerly known as the RNC

      While highly educated, ridiculously well compensated individuals from Think Tanks around the country scramble to find the Republican Party’s identity I offer the following assessment that either, no one else sees, or is not willing to admit – the Republican Party has become one disturbingly ugly monster.

      One with three heads. And terrifying agendas. While all of the talking heads keep insisting the party stands for limited government, fiscal conservancy and individual liberty, the facts indicate otherwise. The monster’s three, equally ugly heads are made up of Religious Right Wingers, Deregulating Money Hoarders Masquerading as Free Marketers and Neo-Con Power Grabbers. For thirty-years or so, ever since the Moral Majority and trickle down economics started to creep in, their only common denominator is that they have become increasingly evil and ruthless in the pursuit of their individual agendas. In doing so they have slowly and unashamedly hijacked the party, all but negating any credibility the historical platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government had with the electorate. But I suspect the gig may be up. Not because they recognize the error of their ways, but because the three heads have become so big and powerful that it is becoming increasingly difficult to peacefully coexist under the same pretenses any longer. Consider the following as evidence.
      This week James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has declared that Obama’s presidency has set the pro-life movement back 35 years. While that may be true, what is even truer is that Dobson and his constituency – the vast majority of mainstream Evangelicalism – are hell, errrr, heaven-bent on legislating a precise set of morals. The letter his political action arm sent out a few days before the election, not only reveals their highly unbiblical approach to “unredeemed sinners”, its vitriolic and offensive tone, no doubt riled up renewed support for their agenda with some in their camp. I almost threw up when I read the letter. And I am a Christian. Contrast that with what leading Republican Think Tanker and deputy director of the Hoover Institution, David Brady said this week and, UH OH!, you’ve got a problem. Professor Brady, who is in Australia as a visiting fellow at the United States Studies Centre at Sydney University, said, “In order for the Republicans to win again they have to drop the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, strict pro-life, no-abortion social positions they have taken.”
      Like I said. UH OH. So while the Religious Right Wingers and the Neo-Con Power Grabbers appear headed towards a wee bit of a tiff, one might be curious to know what the Deregulating Money Hoarders Masquerading as Free Marketers are up to. Surely they can be the mediator that prevents the other two from, well, biting each others heads off. After all, isn’t it the guise of fiscal conservatism and limited government that has held the comical charade together for the last three decades? Hollywood star, and California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an interview with CNN this week encouraged Republicans to, “fund programs if they’re necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility.” Can I get a triple UH-OH? The not-very-hard-to-conclude conclusion of the matter is that only one thing has driven the RNC for the last few decades. And that one thing is winning. For three decades they have run rough shod over their opponents on the left (not to mention some basic tenants of the Constitution.) While this has led to an impressive winning percentage (hey 20 out of the last 28 years is not bad), in the process, the three heads have grown so big and become so out of touch with the heart of what America was founded upon, that the only people left to run over are themselves. We can only hope and pray that all three of the proverbial heads get lopped off the monster as a result of their infighting.

      Moving forward

      How you move forward with this particular issue probably depends largely on your historical party affiliation. If you’re a Democrat, you are probably reveling in the RNC’s downfall. If you’re a Republican you are probably considering what to make of the slew of opinions being thrown around.

      Regardless of your historical party affiliation, I think it is very important to note the dangers of NOT having opposing viewpoints within a government. While I don’t agree those opposing viewpoints should consist of faith based items (that’s the whole point of separation of church and state people – so one religion doesn’t dominate) I do believe that having opposing viewpoints can help keep a government healthy.

      As many Republican analysts make the case for becoming more like the Democrats I submit they need to become more like, well, a sensible party that stops acting like we’re spoiled trust fund kids. (Waaaait. Maybe that’s the problem. I wonder how many elected officials ARE spoiled trust fund kids. But I digress.)

      Diversity of views on government policy, specifically, monetary, foreign and fiscal policy are vital to keeping us from becoming one enormous blob. “Where do I start,” you ask? Block out 30 minutes and watch this. (Ignore the “Inconvenient Truth” correlation in the endorsement on their site as I believe the two documentaries are completely different.)


      0 comments       Nov 11, 2008