Bailout Talks Collapse. Will Carmakers be Next?

To almost no one's surprise, the Senate couldn't agree on a compromise plan to provide $14 billion dollars in loans to GM and Chrysler. The Upper House voted 52-35 to bring the measure for a vote, but that was 8 short of the 60 needed to move the bill forward. As was the case in the financial bailout, it was Republicans turning on their own president that doomed this bill. Bush managed a compromise with Senate Democrats, but in the end, the GOP wouldn't go for it.

At issue was the demand by Republicans that the United Auto Workers agree to what's called "parity pay" with non union plants operated by foreign carmakers. The UAW agree, but by no means should the blame for not getting this done be put on them. From the very beginning there were Republican senators who balked at help Detroit because they had foreign car plants in their states. Don't think for a moment those carmakers didn't have lobbyists on Capitol Hill fighting for their interests.

Now the question is, how bad will the fallout from not getting this done be? Even though it's still possible negotiations could get jump started somehow, it's not likely. GM in particular says it doesn't have the cash to operate much longer. Even if you oppose the bailout on principle, the collapse of one or two of the Big Three can't be an appetizing prospect.

It's almost as if members of the current lame duck Congress want to leave as large a mess as possible for the next one to clean up. Of course, the new president will also have that task. On top of all the other bad economic news, bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler could well turn a recession into something no one wants to contemplate.

Could we be using the "D" word sometime in 2009? You tell me.

Still at Work?

With all the unemployed Americans facing tough times, it's just galling to know that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich went back to work yesterday, and shows no sign that he's thinking of quitting. As the details of the case against him come into sharper focus, it's also obvious why he's staying. It's his only leverage against what looks now like a long stretch in prison stripes. Again, the man is innocent until proven guilty, but it's his own words that are damning him.

There is more information about the depth and breadth of both Blagojevich's greed, and the efforts to take him down. We now know that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is the potential senate appointee identified as "Candidate #5" in the criminal complaint. That would be the one whose "associate" allegedly offered a half million dollars for the appointment.

The congressman held a press conference to angrily denounce Blagojevich, and to deny he ever authorized anyone to make that kind of offer on his behalf. If he's lying, he ought to remember that the prosecutor in this case if one Patrick Fitzgerald, who nailed ex-Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby for doing the same thing.

Also exposed yesterday was the identity of "Individual A", a central figure in the complaint. He's lobbyist John Wyma, a close adviser to Blagojevich. He's also apparently the guy who ratted him out, not about the senate seat, but a different shakedown scheme the governor had concocted. It seems there was no government allocation too small, no appointment too big, no matter too trivial for Blagojevich not to attempt to profit from.

And in the end, that's why he was still in his office yesterday. Despite calls to quit from just about every politician in the state of Illinois and President-Elect Obama, Rod Blagojevich remains defiant, and by all accounts unrepentant. Short of calling a special election the Democrats might lose, there seems to be no way to force him to give up the only bargaining chip he still has....that senate appointment.

However, he won't hold that for long. The Illinois political apparatus that Rod Blagojevich was elected to reform will find a way to snatch the appointment right out from under his nose. Either that, or he's actually going to try and bargain with the feds for a lighter sentence in exchange for a quick exit.

If he thinks he can pull that off, he doesn't know Patrick Fitzgerald. What do you think? How long does Rod Blagojevich last?

Arrogance, Idiocy, or Both?

Now that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has made himself the poster boy for political greed, avarice, and just plain stupidity, it may be time to sit back and contemplate just what kind of people we elect to public office in this country. To do that properly, we have to take a look at just what this "reform" governor from Illinois has allegedly done. For sheer gall, it makes NFL miscreants like Plaxico Burress and Pac Man Jones look like mere amateurs.

Perhaps we should preface all this by saying Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty, as are all Americans accused of crimes. Yet there are some things we do know, based on federal wiretaps of his phone. To take the sports analogy one step further, the governor himself likened the selection of someone to take Barack Obama's place in the US Senate to a sports agent shopping a free agent at the highest price possible. Such was his arrogance, prosecutors say, that he even thought about naming himself to Obama's old job.

Then there are the profanity laden rants that have been released to the public. No need to detail them here, but suffice to say this guy could give the late John Gotti a run for his money for most expletives caught on a wiretap. Even his wife Patrti got into the act, telling her husband to go after the now bankrupt Tribune Company, whose newspaper the Chicago Tribune, has suggested he be impeached. They've no doubt been proven right about that one.

As Illinois politicians try to figure out how to snatch the power to name Obama's successor from the unrepentant Blagojevich, (his lawyer says he won't quit, and as long as he's in office he gets to choose) the question on a lot of minds in Washington is whether or not any of this mess will blow back on the president-elect. The immediate answer might be no, since Blagojevich was taped fuming that the Obama people weren't about any quid pro quo when it came to naming the new senator. Yet Republicans love a scandal that doesn't involve one of their number, so expect them to make the attempt to link Obama to all this.

Maybe the irony in all this aside from providing much fodder for late night tv shows, is that Rod Blagojevich's lawyer says all these charges will come to nothing because it just politics. If he's right, we're all in deep, deep trouble.

What do you think? Will Blagojevich fold and leave the Illinois Governor's office, or will he stick it out and actually try to name Barack Obama's successor? You tell me.

Old Story, New Twist

We've been seeing and hearing about shuttered factories, businesses, and laid off workers with frightening frequency lately. And so the closing of Republic Doors and Windows on Chicago's North Side might have escaped our attention, except for one thing. Workers there decided to occupy the factory. In doing so, they've become national news, even earning praise from Chicago's favorite son, Barack Obama. Their beef is legitimate, their cause is peaceful. They've met with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who took action on their concerns.

The 300 workers were due vacation and severance pay, as are many (but not all ) workers who are losing their livelihoods on the cusp of the holiday season. Trouble is, the company shut down abruptly last Friday because Bank of America canceled Republic's line of credit due to a downturn in the firm's business. That would be the same Bank of America that received billions in taxpayer dollars as part of the great financial bailout of 2008.

The best the bank could come up with is they're not responsible for the company's obligations to their workers. Yet they are responsible to the American people. What exactly did they think the $25 billion dollars they got in the bailout was for, anyway? In the face of this arrogance, Governor Blagojevich has ordered the state to stop doing business with BoA. Score one small one for the workers.

What the employees of Republic Doors and Windows are experiencing is being felt by businesses, big and small, all over America. This factory occupation could well be a template for other workers who find a bunch of high rolling bankers have their foot on their necks. Imagine a taxpayer revolt against banks that take government money yet refuse to use it to keep otherwise profitable businesses alive.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson understands the stakes here. That's why his Rainbow-PUSH Coalition handed out free turkeys and bags of food to the workers inside Republic Windows and Doors. And the empathy shown by our president-elect can't be underestimated either. It's not often we see people taking direct action to protest their circumstances.

Let's hope it spreads, don't you think?

Liberals Worried about Obama?

The issue has been on the down low, and the concern has been incremental. Does Barack Obama really represent the change he talked about during the campaign? For some liberals/progressives, the answer is at best hazy, and at worst no. The president-elect's cabinet choices, and his switch on reversing tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year are giving some folks pause. For his part, Obama and some of his supporters say it's way too early to judge. Is it?

His backers in the labor movement point out that when he introduced his economic team, he didn't appoint a labor secretary. Some think that omission signals a lesser role for a constituency that backed him with votes and money. Then there's the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon. The grumbling here is that Obama could be waffling on his pledge to start ending the Iraq war on his first day in office.

Of course, he hasn't had a first day in office yet. And no matter what his economic and national security teams look like, it will be Barack Obama setting policy. Still, the man who promised change as a candidate doesn't seem so committed to change as president. Then there's the question of what change was promised, and what was expected. If the change is from the Bush years, a case can be made he's setting about that, even with the retention of Gates. After all, does anyone think a massive economic stimulus package would be on the current president's agenda?

However, if people interpret Obama's promise of change to be something more fundamental, it should come as no surprise that some people find him lacking. Right now, every appointment and utterance from this president-elect is going to be heavily scrutinized. The nation's economy has fallen down a deep hole, and in the end, that's the change people will most want to see. Last month, the number of people losing their jobs jumped to 533,000. Change may best be measured not in cabinet appointments, but in putting people back to work.

What do you think?

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls?

The transit commission empaneled by Gov. David Paterson here in New York has come back with a report that, while promising bus and subway riders a break, is being met with skepticism by that same public. The plan would drastically cut the amount of a fare increase, from 23% to 8%. Plugging the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's yawning budget gap would fall to two major revenue generators. One is a payroll tax on employers in the region. The other is tolls on on East and Harlem River bridges that are now free to cross.

You can imagine the reception the latter got. Lawmakers from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx screamed bloody murder. This they've done every time the notion of tolls on those bridges has come up. That's precisely why they' re still free. Yet we live in different times. Although a New York Times analysis says the payroll tax alone would plug the budget gap, the tolls would serve another useful purpose. It's proposed to use that money to fund an expansion of existing bus service, from the creation of new depots to the creation of dedicated bus corridors that would be separate from other traffic.

This proposal is intriguing, and worth a look of its own. Many cities already have these corridors, and they reportedly make bus travel a faster and more efficient experience. As it stands now, vehicular traffic over the East River has no rhyme or reason. The RFK Triboro Bridge, Battery and Midtown Tunnels already charge to cross into Manhattan. The 59th St., Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges don't. There is, of course, no feasible way to install toll booths at these crossings without creating perpetual gridlock. Technology being what it is, however, that problem can likely be overcome.

In the interest of fairness and the future of the city's transit system, this plan should be implemented, but with modifications. All bridges and tunnels over the East River should cost no more to cross than it does to come into Manhattan from New Jersey. That's not currently the case. This means they should all cost no more than $8 dollars round trip. The Harlem River crossings should be nominal, since the bridge spans are much shorter, no more than $5 dollars round trip.

Yes, it's going to hurt, but a 23% increase in the subway and bus fare would hurt more. What do you think?

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls

Hardball in the Senate? Nah!!!

We saw an item recently about Hardball's Chris Matthews thinking about running in 2010 for the Pennsylvania seat in the US Senate now held by Arlen Specter. Didn't think much about it at the time. Now it seems he's serious. He's reportedly shopping for a house in the state where he was born. It's also true that he's harbored a boyhood dream to be a senator. I've always wanted to be a subway motorman. That doesn't mean I'm looking to take the test.

Chris Matthews wouldn't be the first tv personality to run for political office. Gee, there's the late Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy from the Love Boat, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura. And they all won! But seriously, Chris Matthews would have a hard road to Capitol Hill. For one, he's been hosting a political talk show, which means he's got friends for sure, but also enemies in Washington. Also, despite having been born in Pennsylvania, he's most closely associated with DC.

Then there's his ill advised slam of Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary. You may remember he said she got where she was because "her husband messed around". Chris Matthews may find out that the Clintons have a long reach, and long memories. Then there are those who view the noise about a Matthews senate run as merely a negotiating ploy to get more money from NBC when his contract expires next June. Don't laugh. It's been done before.

Matthews doesn't face an open road even to the Democratic nomination for the job he covets. Should he get past potential challengers in his own party, he faces a venerable opponent in Arlen Specter. True, the incumbent will be 80 years old in 2010, but Frank Lautenberg just got re-elected in New Jersey, and he's 84. Would Chris Matthews dare bring up the issue of age?

The MSNBC host has always been an acquired taste, but one who has a following despite being pilloried on occasion by the right. He should stay where he is, and do what he does best. Boyhood dreams don't always work out.

What do you think? Should Chris Matthews run for the Senate?

Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money!

The Big Three came back to Washington Tuesday, and this time they seem to have gotten the message about those corporate jets. Now the only question is whether Congress will buy their plea for a bailout before one or more of them goes broke. Instead of the $25 billion they were asking for just two weeks ago, GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $34 billion. But hey, what's $9 billion among friends?

Detroit came to the table this time with plans. GM's seems to be the most detailed, probably because they're in the most trouble. They say they'll cut as many as 30,000 jobs by 2012, close 11 factories, trim about 1700 odd dealers, and sell off Hummer and Saab, while shrinking Pontiac and getting rid of it;'s its Saturn brand completely. And like the other two CEOS, GM's would take a $1 dollar annual salary. Chrysler is in similar straits but is asking for $7 billion rather than the $18 billion sought by GM.

Ford says it can be profitable by 2011, and only needs $9 billion to use if necessary. Ford is in an interesting position here. While all three automakers say they'll focus on making more fuel efficient cars to sell here in the US, Ford already sells a number of such vehicles in other parts of the world. In fact, two Ford cars get better than 40 miles per gallon, with one getting an astonishing 63.6! Sadly, both are diesels, and neither is available here in the US.

Yet as we ponder whether the Big Three's commitment to more fuel efficient cars and leaner operations is real, consider this. The average fuel consumption figure for US cars, minivans, and SUVs stands at 22.6. In Europe the figure is 40.3, and in Japan it's 40.6. Maybe Detroit ought to come up with plans to raise the US number. For years, they've been resisting such calls, arguing the cost is prohibitive. Maybe the need to borrow $4 billion dollars from US taxpayers to survive the rest of the year ought to change that attitude.

One attitude has changed, for sure. The Big Three CEOs will all be driving hybrid vehicles fro Detroit to DC later this week. No more corporate jets, not after people noticed.

So, the question is, did the automakers make their case? You tell me.

Burress Shoots Himself- Career in Critical?

By now most people know that New York Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shot himself with a gun he was carrying in a New York nightclub in the wee hours of last Saturday morning. The media frenzy that followed as entirely predictable. Burress has had trouble follow throughout his pro career, but nothing quite like this. On Monday, he was arraigned on a pair of felony weapons charges that could land him in prison for a mandatory minimum of 3 1/2 years. That would be on each count.

The reaction of the sporting press was outrage, the kind of outrage reserved for athletes they consider pampered who do something inarguably stupid. Sports journalists all too often ignore the presumption of innocence that is the foundation of our country's legal system. In the case of Plaxico Burress, no less a personage than the Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, weighed in. He says Burress should be prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law". For Bloomberg, that means three and a half years in prison. After all, he was the one who successfully lobbied the state to increase the punishment for illegal weapons possession from a year.

You can argue all day whether Burress deserves jail time or counseling, but a few things need to be established here. Athletes and celebrities often walk around armed, and don't get caught. That's because they fear being robbed, as several have been leaving clubs or even in front of their own homes. Why Burress didn't simply hire a legally armed bodyguard is anybody's guess. It's a delicious irony that Plaxico Burress, a man who makes a really good living catching a football, couldn't manage to hang on to a gun in his own pants.

The central question here, whether you're outraged by what he did or just think he's an idiot (or both) is whether he's offered a plea bargain or if he actually goes to trial. in the case of the latter, a mandatory minimum sentence wouldn't likely be imposed. Perhaps proper punishment for Plaxico Burress is a trip out of town. The New York Giants won this past weekend without him. For all his skills, he is in fact expendable. Voiding his contract for misconduct would cost him the better part of $35 million dollars.

Then let Plaxico Burress go out and make a living like the rest of us.

Will Fine Tuning be Enough?

As President-Elect Obama rolls out his national security team Monday, the Big Three automakers are preparing for their second plea to Congress for money. You may remember their first trip to DC didn't turn out so well. Not only did they come to then nation's capital in private jets, they came without a plan about how they'd spend the money if they got it. The money in this case is $25 billion dollars.

Reports say GM, Ford, and Chrysler all worked feverishly through the weekend to come up with plans to restructure the way they do business. At the top of their list ought to be how to create a quantum leap in fuel efficiency for their vehicles. A recent online article made the point that miles per gallon figures in Europe and Japan far surpass even the best projections of Detroit. What's ironic is several of the cars mentioned in that article are made by Ford yet are unavailable here in the US.

One silver lining in Detroit's cloud is the willingness of he United Auto Workers to offer concessions in an effort to convince the Congress to come up with the money. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says the union will do its part if they see sacrifices on the part of management. One can hardly see how the bigwigs can say no to that. After all, a cap on executive compensation is something Democratic members of Congress will demand.

The down side is that the carmakers will be coming to Capitol Hill on the same day sales results for last month will come out. They expected to only be marginally better than October, when sales were at a 25 year low. The crucial question is whether the plans, which vary somewhat among the three automakers contain enough detail to sway those members of Congress who thus far have been less than inclined to help. There are still some lawmakers who see Detroit's problems as being of their own making, which, to be blunt, they are.

However, if Ford, Chrysler, and GM come to the table Tuesday with a plan that makes sense, they should get the money they are looking for. What do you think?

Who is Responsible for Mumbai?

The chaos in India's commercial capital of Mumbai continues, and although reports say police are making progress against the terrorists, it's not over after three days of violence. Reports of casualties fluctuate as more are discovered. And the looming question on the minds of people across the globe is who bears responsibility for this carnage. The answer to that question could create an entirely new area of instability that President-Elect Obama's soon to be unveiled national security team may have to deal with as a first priority.

Maybe it should come as no surprise that US media has been speculating throughout this horror that the attacks were somehow linked to al-Qaeda. After all, it's the terrorist group we're most familiar with. Plus, it's easy for an analyst sitting in a New York studio to take the fact of the complexity of the attacks and spin that into a series of questions about al-Qaeda's involvement. It's certainly true that militant groups inside India have never pulled off the series of coordinated attacks on hotels, the main railway station, and a Jewish center before. Yet does this mean the well equipped and armed young men who did this were acting on orders of Osama bin Laden?

Right now, the correct answer is nobody knows. The Indian government has begun pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan. Media reports have some of the gunmen arriving on a ship from Karachi. If this is true, or if most Indians believe it is, a new and potentially dangerous round of tensions between these two countries could follow. There have been six decades of conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

One thing is for sure. No matter where these gun men come from or what cause they espouse, they were extremely well organized and well trained. That they held Americans and Britons hostage, and attacked a Jewish community center must make intelligence agencies in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv more than a little nervous. However, if there's one lesson to be learned by media from this conflict that isn't over yet, it is this.

Don't oversimplify.

Is Keeping Gates Wrong?

He's a yes man and a panderer, who backed Bush when it suited his purpose and will do the same with Obama. He's on the same page as Obama on a number of broad policy issues, and is the best person to maintain continuity. Yes, both the previous sentences are talking about the same man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Make that the once and future defense secretary. Gates will stay on in his current job, confirming numbers of earlier reports that this was what Team Obama wanted.

It's not, however, what many of his supporters on the left wanted. Some feel betrayed, not just by this decision, but by the seeming "business as usual" look to the team working for the man who promised change. In Gates' case, they point to his slavish advocacy of the surge in Iraq as proof his agenda isn't the same as that of the new commander in chief. Gates, while certainly not the polarizing figure his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld was, needs to clarify his stance on things like torture, eavesdropping on innocent Americans, and the like.

When word first leaked that Gates would stay on, the conventional wisdom was that Obama wanted to maintain good relations with Gen. David Petraeus. Why Petraeus rates such consideration is a good question, but no matter. Gates doesn't need to be reconfirmed, and unless media reports are totally messed up (and they have been lately), this is Obama's choice. Quite frankly, I don't think it was his best choice.

If Obama wanted both change at the Pentagon and to show he'd pick a Republican for a powerful job in his cabinet, the choice should have been Chuck Hagel. Unlike Gates, Hagel is as vocal an opponent of the Iraq war as Obama himself is. His knowledge of issues pertaining to the military is widely respected. He also obviously isn't afraid to take a stand at odds with his own party.

Barack Obama has with this decision, as the British put it, "put a foot wrong". Keeping Robert Gates on sends the wrong signal to those millions of Americans who bought into his mantra of change and hope. One doesn't have to feel betrayed to call this a mistake. What do you think?

Profiling Nixed?

A federal judge here in New York City has issued a ruling that's sure to be a topic of discussion in law enforcement and civil liberties circles. The ruling said the government can't use ethnicity as justification for detaining two Arab men questioned for four hours following a cross country flight. The pair sued the government, alleging the detention was unjustified. The judge apparently agreed.

Black people have understood for years the injustice of racial profiling. The term "driving while black" has become a cruel joke, one that unfortunately is all too real. The ruling in this case, which involves a pair of Egyptian born men, centers on the government's contention that they acted strangely during the flight from San Diego to New York. Uncle Sam's undoing, however, was in asserting that the men's ethnicity was a factor in deciding to detain them, and that it was an acceptable factor.

As it turns out, one of the men held was a former New York City police officer, the other employed by GE in Egypt. At no time during their detention were they charged with any crime. Civil libertarians are hoping this means the beginning of the end of the ethnic profiling that began in the wake of 9-11.

I wouldn't count on it. Besides the possibility of an appeal, the fact is that law enforcement has shown an amazing elasticity when it comes to profiling. The fall back position will likely be a simple denial that ethnicity has anything to do with the decision to detain someone.

That leads, of course, to the preferred rationale for stopping someone, black or Arab. It's the famous "acting suspiciously". Whether in a car or on foot, it works for cops in black communities. My guess is they'll tell counterterrorism agents to drop any verbalizing of ethnic profiling, and simply say a detainee was speaking in Arabic, or changing seats, both of which raised red flags in the case of the two Egyptian men.

The fact is, most Americans don't have a problem with ethnic profiling. We've been lead to believe it keeps us all safer. I don't think so. What do you think?

Too Big to Fail?

America wakes Monday morning to the news that one of it's biggest banks, Citigroup, is to be bailed out by the federal government. It's almost as if Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke are operating a pinball machine. First, Uncle Sam was going to buy troubled assets from banks. Then they began putting money directly into these financial institutions. It seems neither strategy has helped Citigroup, whose stock has declined from $30 a share one year ago to $3.77 this past Friday.




It's said this financial behemoth is too big and too international to be allowed to die. Maybe so. Yet the government is guaranteeing about $306 billion dollars worth of toxic loans Citigroup put on its books. A legitimate question might be, how did that happen? After all, Citigroup always marketed itself as a pillar of the American banking system. As was the case with the first two bailout efforts, the taxpayers underpinning this government largesse will learn little or nothing about how all this came to be.

It's ironic in a way that Citigroup's headquarters is right here in New York. While a consensus has been reached that a bank is too big to be allowed to fail, our city's transit system has been calling for help. Those call have fallen on deaf ears. So while government can underwrite $306 billion dollars for a bank, when it comes to plugging a $1.2 billion dollar budget gap for New York's transit system, there's no money.

Well, not really. In this case, the money will be coming from the city's taxpayers in the form of a fare increase (maybe two). New Yorkers will also have to put up with more crowded trains due to decreased service, and severe cuts in bus service, in many cases to already underserved neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

I'm sure there are financial experts who can explain why a bank gets so much sympathy while transit users in the nation's largest city are left to fend for themselves. To me, it's inexplicable.

And unacceptable. What do you think?

I've Got a Really Bad Feeling About This

I've written blog items before warning about the perilous state of the US economy. However, Paul Krugman in the New York Times writes a piece that really scares me. He talks specifically about the period we're now in, that is, the time between the exit of Bush and the entrance of Obama. if we stand back and look at things objectively, Bush has done little more than thrown obstacles in the way of help for hard working Americans (the unemployment benefit extension notwithstanding).

Congress has thrown the ball for bailing out the auto industry right back in Detroit's court. They've got until December 2nd to come up with their own rescue plan. Hopefully they're asking themselves whether it made sense to fly to DC in private jets. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Most forecasters have already predicted a bleak holiday shopping season. That means fewer retailers will hire fewer people. Jobless claims skyrocketed last month, and it looks like there's more to come.

Then, contemplate this. The $250 to $300 billion dollars already spent from the $700 billion dollar bailout package hasn't had the desired effect. Credit markets have yet to thaw, and financial stocks in particular have been hammered all this week. That means, put simply, the banks still don't trust each other, no matter how much money you throw at them. And speaking of banks, we have seen over the past few months a staggering series of events that have shaken the confidence Americans have had in our financial institutions.

I've said before that 2009 looks anything but appetizing. Now we hear forecasts of an 8% unemployment rate, a spiral of possible home foreclosures, bank failures, and the very real possibility of one or more carmakers going belly up, and laying off all their workers. Those people who thought the markets were tanking because of Barack Obama's election ought to be feeling like fools about now. He's in fact the one who the nation will look to in order to get us out of this mess, a mess not of his creation.

The only question is how severe will the pain be before we see light at the end of this tunnel?

Three Private Jets? No Bet!

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised anymore that corporate America is clueless. First there was AIG, with it's lavish conferences, and now the Big Three automakers all fly from Detroit to DC by private jet. For the record, their names are Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler. They want $25 billion dollars of taxpayer money or, as Nardelli told Congress, national security could be compromised. Okay, they either need the government to fork over or their companies will go broke. So what's the logic in flying by private jet at a cost of around $20,000, when a commercial flight costs anywhere fro $228 coach to $837 first class?

Some members of the House Financial Services Committee had legitimate questions about this. Especially since the carmaker CEOs were talking about coming out of their near death experience leaner and more cost efficient. Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York said, "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo". The automakers, of course, had a defense to all this. They say like many corporations, GM, Ford, and Chrysler require their top executives to fly private for safety reasons. If that's true, why didn't all three fly in one private jet? After all, hat in hand is hat in hand.

GM even had the guts to go on the offensive. "Making a big to do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans, blah blah blah blah....." In other words, ignore our free spending, just give us the money. They may not get it, at least not now. Congress goes home today for the Thanksgiving holiday. There's a compromise in the works, but getting it done in one day is way beyond the capacity of lame ducks.

Besides, if the Big Three really had any empathy with the workers they employ, they'd stop trying to quietly scapegoat them as the source of the current car crisis. Labor agreements may need to be reworked, but job one for Detroit is to make vehicles that are more road reliable and get better gas mileage.

So we've got Congress eyeing the exit, carmakers still bleeding green, and the fate of 5 million American workers still on shaky ground. And all three CEOs flew their private jets back to an economically devastated region, no doubt pondering that to do next.
Nice.

Hillary's Hamlet

What is going on here? First Rahm Emanuel gets offered the chief of staff job in the new Obama Administration, and he hesitates before accepting it. Now, after rampant speculation that Senator Hillary Clinton was the odds on choice for secretary of state, she too is hedging her bets. The story was first reported by Politico Tuesday, and it characterizes Senator Clinton as agonizing over whether to take the job.

There are a number of reasons given for her hesitation, but the Clinton camp doesn't want anyone to think it has to do with her husband's financial dealings. Better to think it's because in the Senate she'd remain her own boss, or even that it's some type of bargaining tactic. Political skeptics, and I count myself as one, look at former President Clinton's finances as the primary reason for Hillary Clinton's agony no matter what her people say. Despite reports of progress in the vetting process, there could be a stumbling block. After all, much of the former president's finances aren't a matter of public record.

There's also the little problem of the senator's campaign debt from the '08 presidential run. She still owes $7.6 million dollars, not counting what she lent herself. As secretary of state, a federal employee, she'd be prohibited from personally soliciting money to retire it. Keep in mind the Clinton camp has reportedly been less than thrilled with efforts by the president-elect to help her in this regard. Could this be the bargaining tactic people are talking about?

No matter how you slice it, Hillary Clinton's Hamlet-like behavior has got to be a major embarrassment to the incoming president. I'm not sure how much longer he'll twist in the wind, or if he should at all. He's got several other people, most notably New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would jump at the job. His credentials are as strong as Senator Clinton's, maybe stronger. After all the one area Clinton and Obama disagreed about most during their bruising primary battle was foreign policy.

If I were Barack Obama, I'd punt on Hillary Clinton now. Somebody on his transition team must have Bill Richardson's phone number. What do you think?

Who Gets Helped?

While the parlor game about whether Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State continues, Congress and the Bush Administration play a dangerous game of chicken on two fronts. The emergency bailout for Detroit's Big Three automakers is one, the other is an economic stimulus package. It looks like the latter will have to wait until President-Elect Obama is in office. That's sad, since there is a bill on the table, introduced Monday by Senate Democrats. In the case of help for the auto industry, it's a test of wills between the White House and Congress about where the money will come from. Let's take the cars first, since it will most likely be acted on before the stimulus bill.

Ironically, there appears to be bipartisan support for some sort of action by year's end. GM in particular says it's burning through cash so fast it might be forced into bankruptcy before President-Elect Obama is inaugurated. The difference isn't over whether to help, it's over thew form the help takes. Democrats want the money, $25 billion in all, to be taken from funds not yet spent in Treasury's $700 billion dollar financial rescue package. The White House and some Republicans want an existing Energy Dept. loan program to be the source of funding. That money was originally supposed to be used for long term investments in producing more energy efficient vehicles.

If it sounds complicated, it is. The core question is whether this money will come with enough strings to make Detroit change the way it does business, and the types of cars it produces. That's much more likely under the Democrats' plan. However, there's no guarantee compromise will be reached in this lame duck session of Congress.

a compromise agreement is even less likely in the case of the economic stimulus package. Republicans in Congress and the White House don't like the price tag, and Democrats resent President Bush's attempt to tie help for American jobseekers to a trade pact with Colombia. It seems both sides are adopting a "leave it for Obama" stance, which means lawmakers risk a further decline in the nation's economic fortunes in the interim.

This is precisely the kind of DC gridlock that Obama was elected to end. Can he? You tell me.

Hillary to State?

Of all the subjects covered during the Obama's interview on 60 Minutes, the most fascinating for political junkies had to be whether he'd name Senator Hillary Clinton to his cabinet, specifically Secretary of State. The president-elect was coy, neither confirming nor denying the possibility. The Clinton camp has also not said much. If you look across the arc of the presidential campaign, you'd see Senator Clinton denying several times she was interested in a cabinet post. That was then, this is now.

Certainly she's got the chops for the job. There would be no worries about on the job training. The only problem for Barack Obama is the fact that there appears to be a crowded field of hopefuls. Senator John Kerry, an early supporter, has reportedly lobbied for the job. Latino groups are lobbying for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Still others are being touted as dark horses for the job.

Hillary Clinton, if she really wants it, will probably be Obama's choice. What better way to end all those media reports about lingering tension from the campaign trail? Despite all that, there's ample evidence Senator Clinton and the president-elect share similar views on foreign policy matters. She'd have no problem articulating his agenda. If offered, the job would be too tempting for her to resist, despite all the talk about wanting to remain in the Senate.

Should she be appointed, there would be an interesting scramble here in New York to succeed her. The choice would be up to Gov. David Paterson, and already there's speculation he'd name Cong. Nydia Velasquez to Clinton's seat. The Latino community in New York has been unhappy about what they feel is insufficient representation in top state positions. What better way to mollify Latino elected officials than to name one of their number to the Senate? It doesn't hurt that Cong. Velasquez was a vocal Clinton supporter during the primaries.

But all that is down the road. The question now is, should President Elect Obama name Hillary Clinton Secretary of State?
You tell me.

Bail Out the Auto Industry? Maybe Not

Wasn't it just 48 hours ago that we heard the lame duck session of Congress would ditch an economic stimulus package in favor of trying to provide $25 billion dollars to help the crippled auto industry? Now there's news the car bailout may not happen. It seems Republicans in the Senate have some problems with helping the so-called Big Three. Far be it from me to agree with them, but GM, Ford, and Chrysler seem to be suffering from the same corporate brain lock we see in the financial sector. They just don't get it.

How else to explain their hesitance, even as they have their hands out, to pledge to produce more fuel efficient vehicles? This resistance gives fuel (no pun intended) to lawmakers who say problems in Detroit began well before the current economic meltdown. Fact is, American carmakers have been fighting off efforts to produce vehicles with better gas mileage for decades. They say they need bailout money not to retool their factories, but to deal with rising labor and pension costs.

As a person who believes in the value of unions and workers, it's hard to sit back and say let the Big Three fend for themselves. That usually means massive layoffs and plant closings. If any of the carmakers goes bankrupt, things will be even worse. On top of that, Republicans in Congress seem willing to gut the fuel efficiency requirements in order to expedite the $25 billion dollar loans currently in the pipeline. Yet there are still fundamental questions that require answers.

Why can't the auto industry commit to making more fuel efficient vehicles? Is there something in their DNA that makes them deaf to what the American people are telling them with their pocketbooks? Do they marvel at the sight of gas guzzling SUVs sitting in car lots, unsold and unwanted? It's like a drowning man refusing a life jacket because he doesn't like the color.

Auto industry executives will be coming, hat in hand, to Capitol Hill next week. That is, if there's a lame duck session of Congress to lobby. If economic stimulus and a car bailout are both off the table, why bother?

AIG-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E!!!

Let's pray that American corporate culture isn't embodied by the mammoth insurance firm AIG. This company, the recipient of first $85 and then $40 billion dollars from US taxpayers, seems clueless about the crippling effects of the economic downturn on everyday, hard working citizens. How else to explain AIG's secret gathering for financial planners held at a posh resort near Phoenix last week?

Now, in case you forgot or think we're repeating ourselves, this isn't the well publicized week long party AIG executives treated themselves to in southern California last month. It seems the company's one concession to the flack they got for that one was to tell the hotel in Phoenix to keep this one on the down low. A hotel worker told a reporter they weren't even allowed to use the word AIG. He may have meant acronym, but you get the point.

When asked about the secrecy, AIG CEO Edward Liddy came up with the preposterous notion that this was an example of cost cutting. How much is hotel signage going for these days? Then, the company went into full damage control mode. What else are you supposed to do when you're begging for all this money from Uncle Sam? AIG says reports about the Phoenix conference are "misleading". And imposing a code of secrecy about it wasn't? A statement from Liddy went on to say the cost to his company was minimal, paid for by in part by the financial planners who attended, and that these seminars were crucial to helping to repay the taxpayer.

So, they couldn't have held the conference in their own offices, either here in New York, or in someplace a little cheaper than the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort? No matter how Edward Liddy slices it, AIG is now the poster child for corporate culture run amok. Does he realize there are Americans who can't even plan to spend a paltry amount of money on gifts for loved ones over this holiday season? Would he like to tell them how important it is to fly first class, get driven around in limousines, and eat in fancy restaurants?

Think these are the only executives who haven't gotten the message the country is in trouble? You tell me.

Windfall for Lobbyists/Shaft for Us?

Now we know why there seems to be so little information available on just how the $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry will be doled out. The DC lobbyists, those folks everybody loves to hate, are swarming over the initial outlay like sharks after blood. That's right. The banks, savings and loans, and insurance companies that look to benefit from the bailout package have procured the services of what the New York Times calls "an army of hired guns" to make sure they get their fair share.

We also know this. All but $60 billion of the original $350 billion freed up by Congress has already been spoken for. The Treasury Department, the target of the lobbying zeal, has already had to pump an additional $40 billion dollars into AIG. Now they're hearing from, among others, boat manufacturers, Latino plumbing and home heating specialists, and even car dealers. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out.

Everyone, that is, except hard working Americans. Sure, President-Elect Obama has promised tax relief for the middle class. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are promising new, better deals for struggling mortgage holders. Yet it seems for many people, the government gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Here in New York, the people that run the transit system are talking about closing a yawning, $1.2 billion dollar gap by raising the subway and bus fare by as much as a dollar a ride. That would be coupled with service cuts, by the way. City and state governments across the country are making hard decisions about education, health care, police and fire protection. The list goes on and on.

Sure, the financial system needs help. So does the automobile industry. But when all is said and done, how much will the shills, the lobbyists make? Isn't the feeding frenzy that has followed the bailout just business as usual? Will anything ever change?
You tell me, because to me it sounds like more of the same.

Should Joe Go?

So it seems one of the thorniest problems the incoming Obama Administration must face isn't whether to bail out the auto industry, or even how to distribute the $700 billion dollars that's going to the financial sector. It's what to do about Joe Lieberman, the so-called independent senator from Connecticut. Lieberman, aas we all know, backed John McCain in the presidential race. Not only that, he spoke at the Republican National Convention! Remember, this is the guy who was Al Gore's running mate just eight years ago.

Here's the crux of the problem. Since winning re-election as an independent in '06, Lieberman has caucused with the Democrats. That means he's risen to become chair of the Homeland Security Committee. There are those who want to see him stripped of that post for his extraordinary lack of loyalty. In fact, some progressive Democrats want him run out of the caucus. They aren't worried about needing Lieberman's vote to move legislation to the floor.

Lieberman, for his part, is playing cagey. He's publicly toyed with the idea of caucusing with the GOP, saying in effect if he's stripped of his committee chair that's just what he'll do. Interestingly, there's a cadre of prominent Democrats who want to keep Lieberman in the fold. They include former president Clinton, and, get this, president-elect Obama. Neither has much to say about the turncoat's staying on as Homeland Security Committee chair.

To allow Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms of remaining with Democrats in the Senate is an affront. Had he remained neutral in the presidential race he might have had a case. He didn't. He became John McCain's moderate shill, perhaps on promise of a juicy cabinet post had McCain won. Lieberman has been holding a grudge against a number of Democrats since they abandoned him when he lost his state's primary two years ago. So why on earth should he be rewarded for treachery?

One would think it's the Democrats who have the upper hand here. It would seem simple enough to say to Joe Lieberman you can stay with our caucus, but you have to give up your committee chair. If not, see ya!

What do you think? Should the Democrats play hardball with Joe Lieberman?

Pomp, Circumstance, and Tension?

The Obama family will be meeting the Bush family at the White House today. There will be a tour of the president-elect's new home, and one figures all will be cordial, with plenty of smiles to go around. Yet published reports and statements by the Obama transition team indicate there's another agenda afoot. His advisers are compiling a list of Bush Administration policies that could be reversed by the new president.

This is nothing new. In his first full day in office, President Bush reinstated a global gag rule banning taxpayer dollars from going to family planning groups that performed or gave counsel on abortion. That rule had been overturned by President Bill Clinton. The Bush people had been dropping hints the past few weeks that he might use his executive powers to enact certain policies the president to be might find hard to reverse. The Obama team seems to be saying go ahead and try it.

Stem cell research limits, as well as proposals to drill for oil and gas in sensitive areas of Utah are two actions that could be reversed quickly. Transition co-chair John Podesta was blunt on Fox News Sunday, saying Bush is making moves that are "probably not in the best interest of the country". Some reports say Obama is looking at as many as 200 Bush policy positions, with an eye toward change. Those changes won't be announced, however, until Obama confers with his new cabinet, meaning not for awhile yet.

The other area of concern is the auto industry. New chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is lobbying the current president to help Detroit, and fast. Bad news at the end of last week from both Ford and GM bolsters his case. At the same time, Emanuel is linking any financial help from the government to forcing the industry to build more fuel efficient vehicles. This is something that's quite doable, and smart policy as well.

Obama and his team are moving fast. In fact, today's White House visit will last only 90 minutes. They're leaving immediately afterward, heading back to Chicago, and the business at hand.

Can Obama get Bush and the lame duck Congress to bend on some of these issues? You tell me.

Echoes of Excellence

If there's one thing I've heard consistently from black Americans since the election of Barack Obama, it's that he'll stand as a role model to young black men. No longer will they have to feel their only pathway to excellence is through hip-hop or athletics . But the question must be asked, haven't there been other black men who have achieved excellence in their chosen fields prior to the meteoric rise of our President-Elect ?

The answer is an emphatic yes! I say this with some passion because I have had the privilege to associate with and be mentored by many black men who have overcome the obstacles we all face and risen to the top of their game. This comes to me with remarkable clarity because last night I talked to three of them. I began my radio show talking to the iconic choreographer Garth Fagan. Here is a man who, through brilliance and perseverance has carved a legacy in his field that would be the envy of any choreographer, black or white. He's won a Tony award for his work on "The Lion King", but it's his company, Garth Fagan Dance, that truly amazes. Yet you ask black folks on the street who Garth Fagan is, all too often you get a blank stare.

Later in the evening, I spoke to Professor Ron Walters. He is without doubt one of black America's finest academic minds. He managed the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaign for president in 1988. Countless young people have had their skills challenged and honed under his tutelage at the University of Maryland. In a just world, Ron Walters would have his own television show, not Bill O'Reilly. Yet like Garth Fagan, Ron Walters labors in relative obscurity in terms of recognition in our own community.

My final example of an excellent black man is most personal to me, since he mentored me for the entire time I've worked in radio. Hal Jackson is 90 plus years of age, has worked in radio for nearly 70 years, and is still on the air every Sunday on WBLS here in New York. Last night, after my show, I went to the Apollo Theater in Harlem to witness a celebration of his life and his work. This is a man who once told me in a fiery voice, "Mark, don't ever, EVER compromise your integrity in this business. All you've got is your good name, and don't ever let me hear about you staining it!" That was back in the mid 1970s, and his admonition has stayed with me through the years. He is, along with the others mentioned, an icon of excellence who was once told no "N word" would ever work at the radio station where he sought a job. That was in 1939. He's been confounding skeptics ever since.

All this is to say if Barack Obama's rise to the highest office in the land should teach us anything, maybe it's that we ought to recognize black excellence when it's been staring us in the face all along.

Currying Favor While the Economy Lurks

It's hard to believe there's almost two and a half months to go before Barack Obama is inaugurated. Already, people and interests are maneuvering, schmoozing, and fighting to curry favor with the new president. There are some hard facts as to appointments. We do know he's offered Rahm Emanuel the job of chief of staff. He's also got the outlines of a transition team in place. He knows he's got to hit the ground running, and the economy will be his first priority.

If there's a subtext to the way out of the current economic mess, it would have to be what to do with that $700 billion dollars that's supposed to buoy the financial markets. Remember that at first, the money was supposed to be used to buy up bad assets of financial institutions. That mission has obviously changed. At least some of that money will be used to capitalize the banks. Our president-elect will have to figure out how it will be disbursed, and to whom. Will he change the initial terms and outlays the banks were told about a few weeks ago?

And what about the possibility of another economic stimulus package? Democrats in Congress, lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have this as a priority. It's not known yet if Barack Obama shares the immediacy of that agenda. He might, since all signs point to a grim 2009 on the economic front. There will be layoffs, and they could reach huge numbers all across the country. People thrown out of work will have problems paying their bills, meaning the mortgage crisis will continue, and consumer spending will continue its decline.

All of this speaks to the hard work ahead for the incoming president. George W. Bush hasn't left him much to work with. If there's a silver lining to all these clouds, it's contained in what a friend told me at the gym earlier today. "Barack is a smart man. He's going to surround himself with smart people. They'll figure a way to deal with this".

Is my friend right? You tell me.

An American President

There will be much analysis of Barack Obama's historic victory last night. How he pulled off wins in states that usually vote Republican. How his campaign ignored the skeptics, stuck to its course, and has now been vindicated. It's all true, and it's all good. Yet this campaign has been about a story, uniquely American story that ought to be told to generations who are now too young to vote.

It starts with two crowded fields in the race for the presidency. There was much conventional wisdom 20 odd months ago, and it focused on who would capture the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Barack Obama and John McCain were two candidates that few thought would be facing each other November 4th. For Obama, conventional wisdom was he'd make a respectable showing, one that would position him to run again further down the road.

Barack Obama didn't see it that way, and he promoted a vision of hope and change that connected not just with young people, but with Americans who believed change was necessary for the sake of the republic. He spoke to the best instincts of millions of us, hard working people who were smarter than the pundits believed. His campaign sent people from one part of the country to neighboring states, to talk to folks and deliver his message.

It worked. It all worked. And in the end, he gave a speech that made Colin Powell weep. It won't be easy to implement his agenda, even with the gains his party made in Congress. The American economy is ailing, and it will take the best minds of the country to make it better. And yet, there is belief that if anyone can bring those minds together, it's the guy who won last night, a guy whose inspiration was, among other things, a 106 year old woman in Atlanta.

A page turned in America last night. What lies ahead will make for some interesting reading.

Are You Taking it Personal?

So, it's Election Day across America. I woke up this morning with a knot in my stomach. It's a familiar thing, one that comes when I think something should happen, will happen, but may not. I woke up with that same knot back in 1989, when David Dinkins became New York City's first black mayor. I felt it again four years later, when he lost by a razor thin margin to Rudy Giuliani. Forget 2000. That feeling stayed around for more than a month.

So here we are, on the precipice of history. That sick feeling in my gut was exacerbated when I arrived early this morning at what I thought was my polling site with my daughter. She's 11, and has been voting with me since she could walk. We got to the site, and there was no one there! It was then I realized I simply mistook the municipal building for City Hall. At my actual polling site, the line stretched a block, and this was at 7:00AM.

When I saw the line, and the rainbow of people waiting to vote, that feeling in my gut vanished. I said hello to several folks I knew, and waited. Someone mentioned the line was even longer earlier in the morning when the polls first opened. Anecdotal evidence from the cable networks echo what I saw in my local community. It all looks good, but my political instincts tell me this thing won't be over until we hear a concession speech.

It has truly been one extraordinary election cycle. What started for Democrats as a coronation ended up being something very different. For the Republicans, a candidate who had been written off came back and won his party's nomination. Today we'll find out if Barack Obama's meticulous campaign will win out, or whether John McCain will make one final comeback. Either way, I already know I'll be taking this one personally. It's not easy to admit, since during my younger days I thought politics was the final province of uncool fossils.

Things have changed for me. Have they changed for you? Are you taking this personal?

Done Deal?

First, many thanks to all of you who have posted, e-mailed, texted, and phoned your condolences on the loss of my brother Clayton. He wanted so much to live to see Tuesday's election. His spirit will be watching over all that happens.

The eve of this 2008 presidential election feels more and more like the night before Christmas. Never in my lifetime have I seen such interest and excitement about any election. And on election eve, we see a more relaxed John McCain, and a serene Barack Obama. Both will be hop-scotching across the country trying to wring out every last bit of support. The media, meanwhile, is licking its collective chops.

For this has been an election cycle to remember for those who have been covering it as well. Punditry has reached a new high (or low), as more and more people made good money handicapping the race. And don't let those right wing talk hosts fool you. They may rail against Obama and mean what they say, but they also know where their bread is buttered. Suffice to say its no accident that a couple of prominent conservative talkers signed four year deals recently. That takes them right into the next prsidential cycle.

For Barack Obama, the only remaining question is whether the nation has in fact changed enough to embrace him as its leader. He has run a campaign for the ages. Disciplined, focused, and virtually leakproof, the Obama campaign has provided a blueprint for campaigns of the future, no matter who wins Tuesday. And, while you can fault the McCain operation for a lot, it must be said that John McCain himself refused to use Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama, and he stuck to his word, even if those around him did not.

Now, all that's left is for the polls to open Tuesday morning, and for the American people to speak. An electorate that's been studied, analyzed, poked, prodded, and polled to death will finally register the only poll that matters.

Are you ready?

Won't be Blogging for Awhile

I won't be blogging for about a week. My brother Clayton passed away early this morning. I will miss him terribly.
Mark

Out Sick

Not feeling well today. Back tomorrow.
Mark

Who's the American?

We've bee hearing quite a bit lately about America. Most of it is coming from Republican lugnuts trying to whip up an us-against-them frenzy as the election cycle comes to a close. There's pro- American (them), anti-American (anybody who disagrees with them), and real American (as opposed to unreal American?). As one might expect, Sarah Palin started this nonsense when she characterized one part of the country as more pro-American than another. She had to back off that assertion, but for others, the game had begun.

Take, for example, Cong. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Leave aside for a moment the fact this person has appeared on cable network shows 23 times since the beginning of September. Never mind that the McCain camp suggests her as a valid surrogate to these same programs. On MSNBC's Hardball last Friday, she made the incredible statement that Barack Obama may hold anti-American views. What those views were, she didn't say. Then she went further, saying the media should investigate her colleagues in the House, and determine who was for or against the nation.

Her words set off a firestorm that was the last thing John McCain needed. In fact, her opponent in the race to hold onto her congressional seat raised $800,000 dollars after her appearance. She's tried to back away from her remarks, saying Chris Matthews of Hardball laid a trap for her. Whatever.

Then there's Cong. Robin Hayes of North Carolina. At a rally in his home state, he "warmed up the crowd" by telling them liberals hate real Americans. Very nice. THen, after the New York Observer printed his remarks, he denied making them. When the Observer reporter stuck by his story, Hayes' spokesperson called it "irresponsible journalism". That is, until a radio reporter turned up with an actual tape. Then the spokesperson said Hayes misspoke. Then Hayes himself came up with a bizarre mea culpa, to the effect that he didn't remember saying it, but he was sorry he did. Say it, that is.

Folks, the wheels have come off the rails. These people, all elected officials, believe they have the corner on what an American is. Stranger still, they think most Americans agree with them. Is there a danger in this type of mentality?

You tell me.

Who's the Socialist?

As the McCain campaign flails around like a fighter trying to land a lucky punch on Barack Obama, the dreaded word socialist began to be used to describe Obama's tax policies. It came from Obama's comment about "spreading the wealth around". McCain's people figured that was the opening they needed to cast Obama as someone who would take money from those who earned it and give it to those who hadn't. It's also the perfect catchword for conservative talk radio, even better than liberal.

That's because socialism scares people in this country. It represents, wrongly, the killing of incentive to produce. After all, why work hard if you won't see the fruits of your labor? This is especially true if people are made to think their hard work will benefit some lazy, shiftless person who doesn't have the same level of ambition (they never say opportunity). Anyway, McCain and those who wanted to see him elected thought they had lightning in a bottle.

That is, until someone pointed out to McCain that he'd voted for the biggest socialist program in American history. That's right, the $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry. After all, that's what some of his GOP friends in the House called. That's why a good number of them wouldn't vote for it. It was socialism, pure and simple. Americans have until this point been made to believe that socialism involves the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor individuals. Now, hopefully, they know better. The bailout represented taking wealth from taxpayers and giving it to banks.

And so, the word socialism was quietly dropped from the McCain campaign lexicon. You'll still hear criticism about the Obama tax plan, but you won't hear the word socialist. That's now reserved for people in diners to yell at Obama. Just plain folks get the talking points, but not the memo changing them.

It's ironic that, as the "s" word comes and goes, the New York Times does a piece on the one group for which socialism isn't a four letter word. The Socialist Party USA still exists, it's national office located in lower Manhattan. They ought to be having a chuckle about all this.

You tell me. Is the bailout an example of American socialism, and if so, why isn't anyone calling it that?

Powell Endorsement a Factor?

So Colin Powell did what many expected him to do, endorse Barack Obama. Yet it was the way he did so that spoke volumes about where this campaign is now, little more than two weeks away. Say what you will about the former Secretary of State. His words on Meet the Press Sunday should resonate far beyond the current election. The McCain people, as expected, went on the Sunday talk show circuit to downplay the importance of the powell endorsement. If the best they could come up with is yet another reference to Joe the Plumber, they ought to pack it in.

It wasn't just Colin Powell calling Barack Obama a transformational figure. In fact, it wasn't for the most part what he said about Obama at all. It was his forthright condemnation of religious intolerance that sticks in the mind. Powell mentioned the fact that Obama critics, some of them at McCain-Palin rallies, continue to promote the lie that Obama is a Muslim. But he went further. He asked a fundamental question that hasn't been posed nearly often enough during the current election cycle. What exactly is wrong with being a Muslim?

Colin Powell said demonizing Muslims isn't what America is all about. He used a single example of a woman at Arlington National Cemetery grieving for her son, an American born Muslim who was killed in action in Iraq. That example was worth a hundred Joe the Plumbers. It should give pause to reflect on just what we're prepared to do to win an election. Colin Powell served the last three Republican presidents. He himself is a lifelong Republican. No one can argue he made the endorsement for racial reasons. That's just not Colin Powell.

He may be pilloried for the rest of his life for that speech he gave at the United Nations. He acknowledged he got it wrong on Meet the Press. But Colin Powell got it right when it comes to this election.

Will Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama make a difference in the upcoming election? You tell me.

Will Powell Take the Plunge for Obama?

He's worked for the last three Republican presidents. His credentials on foreign policy and national security (with the notable exception of the Iraq war) are unassailable. He's Colin Powell, and there's increased speculation he'll make an endorsement for president, perhaps during an appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Speculation is he'll back Barack Obama, and not John McCain, the man who some thought might ask him to be his running mate.

Make no mistake. A Powell endorsement this close to election day would be a body blow to the McCain campaign. The retired general is worth at least three Joe the Plumbers. It would mean a man the nation still respects took a long hard look at both candidates, and chose the Democrat.

Before anyone goes off the deep end, however, it's not necessarily a done deal. There is, according to published reports, an aura of mystery around Powell's Sunday appearance, announced Friday morning on the Today Show. There's still a chance he won't back either hopeful.

And yet, the prospect fascinates. What does the military man see in the young senator from Illinois? Would he take another cabinet position if asked? How many times has he sat with Obama and McCain since the national conventions, if at all? And most important, what is his rationale? Guess we'll have to wait for Sunday to find out.

Even with a Powell endorsement and frontrunner status in the national polls, Obama knows better than to get complacent. Presidential races tend to get tight in the home stretch. No one can predict where the economy will go, and John McCain has been written off several times before, only to re-emerge victorious. Not to use a sports metaphor, but this will be a sprint to the finish.

It may come down to who has the better track shoes.

The Joe the Plumber Debate

I thought for a moment I'd missed something. I'd expected last night's third and final presidential debate to include at least one question about the second bank bailout plan put forward by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just the day before. Silly me! The three guys at the table at Hofstra University last night had other things to discuss. They had to talk about Joe the Plumber!

He's this guy, you see, who Obama met on the campaign trail. They talked about his desire to buy the business he'd been working for. Joe the Plumber favors John McCain's tax proposal. Maybe that's why McCain brought him up several times. After the first time, when he mispronounced his name, he simply became Joe the Plumber, like he's a mob guy or something (PS- the plumbers union has endorsed Obama).

Anyhow, here's a short list of McCain gaffes last night, courtesy, in part, of ThinkProgress.org. Keep in mind this isn't all of them, just some of the more obvious, in no particular order.

1) He called the idea of equal pay for equal work for women "A trial lawyers' dream".

2) He slammed Obama for voting present on several bills before the Illinois legislature. He, of course, has been absent from the US Senate 64% of the time in the past year.

3) McCain mentioned more than once Sarah Palin's son's autism. Actually, the boy has Down Syndrome (my 11 year old picked up on that one before I did)

4) McCain accused Obama of voting against the confirmations of justices Roberts and Breyer to the Supreme Court. I guess one out of two isn't bad. Breyer was nominated by President Bill Clinton more than a decade before Obama made it to the Senate. Earth to McCain: You meant Alito
.
5) McCain asserted the average health care plan costs Americans $5800 a year. The actual cost is $12,680. Obama got that one right.

6) McCain said he'd use a line item veto to cut spending. Sorry, it was declared unconstitutional a decade ago.

7) McCain said he'd condemned every out of bounds remark Made by Republicans about Obama. He must have forgotten the statement made by the chair of the Virginia GOP that compared Obama to bin Laden. That one he didn't condemn.

And so, the debate season is done. Except, of course, for the 24 hour news outlets, which will still be talking about it through at least Friday. Oh yeah, and the students and alumni of Hofstra University, where the debate was held.

They get to hold their heads up high.

The Last Debate- It All Comes Down to This

By most media accounts, John McCain will have to hit some kind of home run to turn the tables on Barack Obama in tonight's final presidential debate. Obama has brought together his domestic advisors a day early to prepare. McCain and his handlers face a difficult choice and a difficult task. Does he continue the personal attacks that recent polling says isn't working? Or does he face down Obama squarely on the economy, where it's presumed the Democratic nominee has an edge?

McCain did in fact offer his own economic prescription for the nation's woes on Tuesday. It promptly got foreshadowed by the announcement the government is injecting $250 billion dollars into the coffers of the nation's banks. Expect at least one question about whether the candidates agree with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's move in that regard. Most important for both, however, is not to act as though they don't really understand the economic moves Uncle Sam is currently making.

Even though McCain needs a game changer, don't expect too many fireworks at this last encounter. McCain will likely say Obama's economic proposals will raise taxes, and Obama will counter that he's got an online calculator that compares the plans of both candidates for voters to decide for themselves. McCain will say elements of Obama's latest economic proposal are dangerous to the economy, and Obama will respond in kind.

Yet here, in a nutshell, is John McCain's biggest problem. How can he attack Obama as a tax and spend liberal when the administration in power, that of his own party, has spent like drunken sailors on two wars, and now an economic bailout that could cost in the trillions? And he signed off on it, remember? Those earlier words about the economy not being his strong suit now come back to haunt.

Or does he think people forgot?

Wall St. Got Theirs. What About Us?

If you want to know why the stock market rebounded so vigorously on Monday, look no further than good old Uncle Sam. The three headed hydra of the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Treasury threw everything but the kitchen sink at the financial markets. You need money? No problem. Expanded deposit insurance? You got it. Guarantees on bank debt? Here it is. Capital for healthy banks? Just say the word. And all those investors on the street breathed a collective sigh of relief.

This begs the question of whether we as taxpayers ought to share in their joy. As Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post puts it, now that the nation has done so much for Wall St., what is Wall St. ready to do for the nation? Pearlstein says, not much. He then chronicles some of the things these titans of industry could do to repair the damage their greed has wrought. It's an interesting list, to say the least. That the banks in particular haven't seen fit to adopt one of these promises speaks volumes as to their absolute moral bankruptcy.

As America bails out the banks, why can't they pledge to keep lines of credit open to good customers? Why can't they pledge not to foreclose on homeowners who are able to refinance into government guaranteed fixed rate mortgages? How about volunteering some of their number to help administer the distribution of all this money? Ooops, maybe not. They'd only mess that part up like they've messed up the American economy.

All this taxpayer money is going to people who act like their doing someone a favor by taking it. That's why people like Howard Zinn and John Nichols may be right when they say the bailout should have gone to the American people rather than these clueless, self absorbed, financial geniuses who seem to be most adept at keeping their own heads above water.

Hey fellas! Don't miss your tee times!

I'm Gonna Whip His You Know What

As the final debate between John McCain and Barack Obama looms large, we hear, as always, an awful lot from the "strategists". Of course, a strategist can be almost anybody with an opinion on what either candidate should do. The loudest noise is coming from those in the McCain camp. His campaign seems to be a bit confused as of late, veering back and forth between ill received economic proposals and William Ayers. The big news over the weekend was McCain's pledge to "whip his you know what" on Wednesday.

It's ironic in a way that some of the same pundits who told him to attack Obama's character a couple of weeks ago are now saying he's got to sharpen his focus on the economy. There appears to be a little discord within the campaign itself, leading to rumors of a last minute shuffling of advisors. We'll see.

For the Obama camp, the worst enemy would appear to be thinking it's done already. A quick look at John McCain's recent history should tell the Democrat's campaign it isn't over till it's over. That would be when the last vote is counted. After all, the economy could stabilize, Obama could turn in a lackluster performance at the final debate, and McCain could finally come up with an economic proposal that passes rudimentary muster.

And then there's the issue of actual voter suppression. There have been numerous allegations of same, right now flying under the radar, but which collectively could make a giant difference in a close race. A case can be made the Obama campaign will be able to fight these efforts off, but it will be a battle. Then there is the unknown factor of what Barack Obama will do with that chunk of airtime he's buying.

But that's not for awhile yet. Let's see if McCain can truly open a can of whup-a** this Wednesday.

A New Kind of Ugliness on the Campaign Trail

It's getting close, this presidential election we've all followed for so long. With Barack Obama showing strength in recent polls, the Republican Right has begun begging john McCain to take the gloves off and really go after Barack Obama. That's why you've been hearing Sarah Palin, and now lately McCain himself bring up Obama's alleged friendship with William Ayers. The clear inference is there's more to this story than the media has reported. What that is has become anybody's guess.

Yet Ayers is only part of a larger picture. Politico.com reports that as the McCain campaign founders, supporters at Republican rallies are starting to get ugly. There has always been an edge to those opposed to Obama becoming president. To say the edge is getting sharper the past few days is the height of understatement. There's the "kill him" reference at a rally at which Sarah Palin spoke, to the constant Barack Hussein Obama references by local officials, to a woman calling out "Obama Osama" at a Wisconsin rally.

It's no longer just political mocking, it's outright rage. And it's dangerous. John McCain knows this, and to his credit, has tried to temper his more rabid supporters. That effort is in part political, because he knows such nonsense turns off the very independent voters he must have to win. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, ignores the damage this rage may inflict on the campaign. In fact, she encourages it.

That stoking of the fires of blind anger has had horrible consequences in America's past. John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, understands this when he talks to Politico about the "protection of our civil society" as a principle reason this rage must be tempered.

He might well have added, it doesn't appear to have made most Americans stop thinking about their economic well being.

Support Your Local Banker?

Oh, how the media love to tell us things in language that hides what's really going on. Today's headline in the New York Times (the paper of record, you understand) says "US May Take Ownership Stake in Banks". What they mean is, the Treasury Department, newly omnipotent since the bailout bill passed, is going to try to nationalize the American banking system. Notice, however, they don't call it nationalization.

It's not like they can't spell the word. When it comes to an identical plan by the British banking system, they call a spade a spade. They use the word nationalize. When it comes to American banks, the word is recapitalize. All this, of course, is trying to defrost the credit markets. In short, the banks don't trust each other enough to lend each other money. Which then leads to the following question. If banks don't trust banks, why should we trust banks? Or hedge funds? Or insurance companies like AIG?

You've doubtless heard about the group of AIG executives who had the bad taste (not to mention sense of entitlement) to go on a $440,000 dollar spa vacation AFTER their company was bailed out by taxpayers. Even the White House couldn't stomach that one. But I digress. The world's major central banks took the unprecedented step of lowering their interest rates by one half percent. Oh yeah, and the People's Bank of China was one of the participants. When it comes to money, ideology and human rights will just have to take a back seat.

So what does all this mean here in the States? It means even before the $700 billion dollar bailout is implemented, officials are scrambling for a Plan B. Remember, we told you not too long ago there was no Plan B. Well, now we know. It's official. There is no Plan B! There's also no miracle cure for a downturn that has become worldwide.

Don' be surprised if Uncle Sam comes right back to the taxpayer to fund yet another rescue scheme. And don't be surprised if there's a run on banks sometime in the near future. And finally, don't be surprised if the media won't call it what it is.

Who Won? That One!

Debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama had a different format than the first one. The candidates took questions from the audience in Nashville and from the Internet. Tom Brokaw fretted too many times about how long their answers were. And John McCain came nowhere near scoring the knockout the pundits said he'd need to revive his sagging fortunes.

He did have one interesting new proposal. Well, not really new. He'd have Uncle Sam buy up all those toxic mortgages out there, keeping homeowners in their houses. It would cost about $300 billion dollars. It's also not that different from a proposal floated by congressional Democrats.

If last night's debate was notable for anything, it was two words that seemed to be a mirror into McCain's soul. When firing back on energy policy, McCain talked about the Bush-Cheney energy bill of '05. He said, "You know who voted for it? That one". That one! For many people, that bit of objectifying was beyond an insult. Dollars to donuts McCain will have to answer what he was thinking when he said it later today.

Maybe he wasn't thinking at all. Maybe his contempt for Obama is so great that the phrase just came tripping off his tongue. Or, as some black folks have posited on blogs and boards this morning, did McCain actually mean "That one, the Negro guy"? Some people will argue black Americans are far too thin skinned about such slights. However, substitute any other candidate who has run for president in the past, and ask yourself if McCain would have used the same language.

John McCain sees the unique opportunity to become president fading before his very eyes. No matter what his spinners say, he knows he didn't win the hearts and minds of independent or undecided voters last night. That was his mission. He didn't succeed. Now, one supposes he'll have to go back to the well worn attacks on Obama's "associations", at least until his handlers wake up and realize that won't work either.

Who lost last night's debate? That one!

Debate Looms as Attacks Increase

It's time for debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama. This time around, the stakes have been raised. A flurry of attacks over the weekend first by McCain, then by Obama, could make this the face-off where there are fireworks. It's been common knowledge for awhile now that the Republican standard bearer would try to shift the focus of the campaign from the economy to Obama's character. So that's exactly what McCain and his minions did over the weekend. Former radical William Ayers was resurrected as if he and Obama together were plotting together to blow up buildings in the late '60s. When Obama was eight years old.

Not content to bring up Ayers, Sarah Palin, who just told an audience a day earlier that Americans want to focus on the economy, health care, and jobs, brought up the need to further discuss Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Back in April, McCain said he didn't want his campaign using Rev. Wright against Obama. I guess Palin didn't get the e-mail.

Obama responded in kind, for a change. His campaign brought up McCain's membership in the Keating Five, that group of Senators who got caught up in the late '80s savings and loan fiasco that cost US taxpayers billions. McCain trotted out his former lawyer, who said the entire affair was a plot by Democrats. Huh? Four of the five senators cited were Democrats. So much for logic.

As has been the case throughout the campaign, the timing of McCain-Palin couldn't have been worse. They go after character on a day the stock market dropped 800 points in midday. It was a day the experts could say with a straight face that a 363 point final decline was good news. And McCain and Pali are talking about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

That's why much is at stake tonight when the pair get together in Tennessee. It's a town hall setting, supposedly McCain's strong suit.

But that was before the economy went south, along with McCain's poll numbers.

Bailout or Not, Americans Close Their Wallets

It actually started earlier this year (you know, when we weren't in a recession), but the economic maelstrom of the past couple of weeks has caused consumers to rethink spending in some very basic ways. Cars sales are dropping like a stone, causing numbers of dealerships to close up shop. Airline traffic is also slowing, as is discretionary spending on items like electronics and even out of home meals.

It wasn't just the financial markets that got spooked in recent days. Trouble is, if consumers keep holding on to their money, it will take that much longer for the economy to rebound. Experts are saying consumer spending for the quarter just ended will shrink, the first time that's happened in nearly two decades. The negative news about the financial markets is being taken to heart across America, and it doesn't bode well for the upcoming holiday season.

Lagging sales has a domino effect. Retailers will start laying people off. Empty tables in restaurants means fewer waiters, busboys, dishwashers, and the like. The economy lost 159,000 jobs last month before all the chaos happened. The current month could be worse. And the $700 billion dollar bailout package just signed into law? It won't help spending in the short term. After all, $1 trillion dollars of household net worth has disappeared in the past four weeks.

Americans are resourceful people. Unlike the banks that got us into this mess, we'll cut our spending, make do with less, and move forward, in the main without the help from Uncle Sam the big boys are getting. Yet if we don't buy, some of us don't work, and businesses that are the life blood of our communities suffer.

Talk about being being between a rock and a hard place.

Palin's Performance a Victory? You're Kidding, Right?

Only in America could a candidate for high office like Sarah Palin win by not losing like she did last night. Her debate performance evoked comments like "folksy", and "connecting with average people". The fact she made no major errors other than not knowing the name of the US commander on the ground in Afghanistan is seen by some as a victory. Really? Was there anything in her arsenal other than stock answers? Was she that much better than she was in that series of awful interviews with Katie Couric?

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Scan the breadth of American media Friday morning, and you might easily conclude Palin won, Biden won, and they both lost. Spin is an amazing thing to behold, whether it comes from spiders or pundits. Was I the only one that thought not nearly enough time was spent on the economy? Would it have been totally out of line to ask about equal pay for equal work for women? Did I miss the part where Palin was asked about her views on abortion in the case of rape or incest?

The very concept of winning a debate by not looking like a complete idiot should shame us all. It's the ultimate expression of style over substance. As soon as the debate ended, I turned the television to something other than analysis. I would recommend this for all Americans. The punditocracy should not control how you analyze what you see and hear for yourselves. I waited until this morning to look at any debate analysis at all. This way, my own opinion was formed without input from people whose agendas I don't know (and don't care about).

My conclusion about last night was much the same as it was after the first presidential debate. Joe Biden, like Barack Obama, did a serviceable job. He could have done better, much better. That doesn't mean browbeating Sarah Palin. It means articulating a vision for the future that Americans believe can be accomplished. In these tough economic times, we deserve at least that.

What we got last night was genial sparring around the edges.

Palin vs. Biden- As the House Turns

Two things on the agenda make this a very special Thursday for political junkies like me. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden meet in their one and only debate in St. Louis. This one has all the trappings and metaphor of a boxing match. Palin comes in with low expectations. If she holds her own, she wins. If Biden is seen as bullying her, she wins. If she can pronounce the name of one world leader (you see where I'm going with this?) she wins.

Joe Biden comes into the debate with most people believing he's better suited to be president than Palin, but at the same time less likable. Never underestimate likable. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's fluent on issues that Palin appears to be just learning about.

Biden's best strategy is to take advantage of Palin's attempts to soft peddle her most extreme positions. When Katie Couric asked her about her position against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, she responded with some nonsense about counseling for life. Joe Biden needs to take advantage of that, and Palin's attempts to focus on Obama rather than him.

The other agenda item probably won't get finished until Friday, but is no less important. The House is taking up the bailout bill later today. After Monday's drama, an awful lot of people are hedging their bets on whether the Senate version passed last night will make it through the House. There are sweeteners for those Republicans who scuttled the bill Monday, but there are questions about whether all the Democrats who voted yes will do so Friday.

And then, of course, there are the American people. Many folks still aren't happy with this bill, in part because it hasn't been properly explained any better than the one voted down Monday. There is a profound lack of trust in this country. It extends from politicians, to bankers, to the media, and nobody wants to adjust their thinking to take it into account. That's too bad.

It will be here long after the current economic crisis is history.

Now the Senate Goes First- Meaning What?

I was in on a conference call with Senator Hillary Clinton Tuesday morning when she let drop that the Senate, rather than the House, might vote first on a revised bailout (Did I say bailout? They're calling it rescue) plan. Sure enough, by day's end, that was the plan. That, and a lifting of the insurance on bank deposits by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. In that same conference call, Senator Clinton talked about the possibility of "commerce grinding to a halt". The full court press by lawmakers supporting a bailout seems to have worked, just a little. Voters who gave an unequivocal thumbs down the other day are reporetdly starting to change their minds.

Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.

Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?

I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.

Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.

Splat! Bailout Fails, and So Do Stocks

In the end, it wasn't just House Republicans who had a problem with the Bush crafted $700 billion dollar bailout of US financial markets. 95, count 'em, 95 Democrats also failed to get on the bus, sending the bill to a crashing defeat. So confident were most people the bill would pass that John McCain was bragging about his role beforehand on the campaign trail. But then, he also placed an ad saying he won Friday's debate before it happened.

The financial mess is now rippling across the globe. The inability of banks to raise capital has hit European and Asian markets, causing both to skid as credit dries up. What's worse, politicians here are waking up to the very real question, "Now what"? There seem to be no easy answers. Some, like Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, think there ought to be more hearings on crafting a better bill. Some social Darwinists among the House Republican block say simply that the markets need to correct themselves.

Others, in particular those who crafted the bill that went down, want to go back to the drawing board quickly and come up with another measure to vote on this week. One thing is for sure. Too many more days like yesterday and the New York Stock Exchange will need a full time staff of grief counselors.

How about doing something that directly benefits the American people? My good friend John Nichols at The Nation says split the bailout 50-50. Give half to the bankers and let them generate the rest through smart investing that's not exploitative. Use the rest to help homeowners, fund job training and creation, improve health care, the environment, education, you know, the things ordinary Americans are having to pay more for every day. Part of the reason why this bill failed is because the average person saw nothing in it for them.


Why not invest in Americans for a change?

Deal on Bailout? Yeah, Sort Of

So they worked all weekend, those cabinet and congress people struggling to craft a bill to bail out the US economy. In the end, they gave Bush something to say at 7:35AM Eastern, when he addressed the nation on the need to get the bill through the House and Senate. It took him all of four minutes. Meanwhile, world markets don't seem impressed. Most are down, and a couple more banks have been nationalized.

The US bailout has been made to sound like the risk to taxpayers is minimal. It doles out up to $700 billion dollars in stages, $250 billion here, $100 billion there, the rest later. There is some help for homeowners facing foreclosure, but not too much (that would be socialism)! And all this, as best I can tell, to get banks to trust each other enough to lend each other money. Maybe it's a lot more complicated than that, but who knows?

Speaking of which, who knows if it will actually work? The House is expected to vote later today, but who knows whether the Republican block, which last I checked is a minority, will go along? Most of the fighting here has been GOP against GOP. That battle is almost as interesting as Obama vs. McCain.

Around the world, some nations are putting out harsh critiques of this peculiarly American financial mess. China has called for a new world economic order, one that's less dependent on the US. Their central bank ordered a halt to business with their US counterparts last week. Brazil's president says the bailout is for the rich, not the poor. Iran's Ahmadinejad, never one to miss an opportunity, slammed this country from the podium at the UN.

These are the real wages of greed. Those that got the country into this mess don't really care. Their salaries may be limited if the bill passes, but it won't make them miss a tee time at the country club. Real and imagined Masters of the Universe don't go out that easily.

Why? They've got us!