Andrew Jeffery
A Second Stimulus Package?
California Democrat and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is urging lawmakers to push through a second stimulus package in short order. Arguing economic conditions have deteriorated such that waiting until President-Elect Obama takes office in January would be unwise, Pelosi floated a $60 to $100 billion relief package to be passed by the end of the month. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Speaker believes tax cuts implemented by adjusting tax-withholding tables, rather than more rebates or reductions in capital-gains taxes, would immediately inject cash into the economy.

The proposal comes in conjunction with the convening of Obama’s 17-member economic advisory board, which includes such notables as Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker and others. Pelosi is also busying herself with the troubled automakers, meeting with representatives from Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, over their request for federal money to stay afloat. More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under Finance. Date: November 7, 2008, 8:34 pm | No Comments »

Patrick Martin
On the eve of the US elections
In the run-up to Election Day, with polls pointing to a lopsided victory by the Democratic Party, both Barack Obama and leading congressional Democrats are making it clear in advance that a popular repudiation of the Bush administration will not determine the policies of an Obama White House or Democratic Congress. Having capitalized on popular hatred for President George Bush and mobilized working and young people on the basis of calls for “change” and “new politics” and invocations of the “fierce urgency of now,” Obama and the Democratic leadership are taking pains to reassure the ruling elite that if they win the election, they will carry out a thoroughly conventional and conservative agenda that upholds the interests of the financial aristocracy.

The mantra of spokesman after spokesman is that the Democrats should not “overreach,” that they should disavow “one-party rule,” and that bipartisan consensus should be the goal of the new administration. They are, in other words, repudiating the most fundamental precept of democracy—that the decision made by the voters on Election Day should determine public policy. Tens of millions of people are going to vote for Obama in the hope that this will lead to a rapid end to the war in Iraq and to domestic policies that promote jobs and decent living standards, as opposed to the unrestrained profiteering by big business and the wealthy fostered by the Bush administration.

The policy of the incoming administration will not be guided by these popular illusions, however, but by the reality of a worldwide financial crisis, a deepening slump in the United States, and the ongoing resistance to imperialist military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A principal concern of Obama and his key strategists is that a large-scale Democratic victory will arouse popular expectations that they have no intention of meeting. The disavowal of any political mandate in Tuesday’s voting was spelled out by the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, in an appearance as an Obama surrogate on the NBC Sunday interview program “Meet the Press.” Program host Tom Brokaw asked Kerry about statements from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, that Obama should move rapidly on tax cuts for middle-income and low-income families, health care reform and a substantive program to promote alternative energy.

Asked how he would pay for such policies, Rangel had replied, “Don’t ask me where the money will come from. I’m going to go to the same place that Paulson went”—referring to the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street authored by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Brokaw asked Kerry, “Is that responsible fiscal policy?” The senator responded, “I don’t agree with all of that and nor does Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the person running for president and he’s made it very clear we’re going to have to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.”

Kerry added that Obama would seek significant Republican input and involvement in his administration. “He’s going to govern in a way that brings the country together, and no matter what our majority, he’s going to seek to reach a broader consensus because that’s the only way we can govern America at this time.” The senator suggested that the Democrats would not seek to use their majority to push through policies opposed by the Republicans. “We don’t need to pass things by 51 votes or 60 votes,” he said, referring to the Senate. “We need to build 85-vote majorities.”

This statement deserves serious consideration. Insistence on “85-vote majorities” in the Senate means giving the Republican minority veto power over government policy. It amounts to a repudiation of any conception of democracy. If the Democrats win on Tuesday, it will be because of broad popular sentiment for a reversal of the policies of war and social reaction pursued for the past eight years by Bush. But Kerry insists that it would be wrong for the Democrats to govern as though they had a mandate.

The anti-democratic character of this stance was underscored as Kerry voiced his agreement with comments by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who declared recently: “By my lights, the primary threat to the success of a President Obama will come from some Democrats… emboldened by the size of their congressional majority… Obama will need to communicate the following to Congress, in no uncertain terms: The Democrats have not won a mandate for all their policies. Rather, the American people have resoundingly registered their frustration with a failed status quo, and the next president must chart a new, less partisan course.”

Such a position is in stark contrast to the way the Republicans governed after Bush was installed in the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Although Bush had lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent Al Gore, and the Republicans had far smaller majorities in the House and Senate than the Democrats will enjoy after November 4, the incoming administration boasted that the election had delivered it 100 percent of the power.

Bush proceeded to make policy accordingly, ramming through (with significant Democratic support) massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and then embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a host of other policies that were widely opposed by the American public.

Kerry’s remarks are an indication that an incoming Democratic administration will do as the Democrats did after their sweeping victory in the 2006 congressional elections, which was propelled largely by popular hostility to the war in Iraq. The newly installed Democratic majorities in the House and Senate pledged to work with President Bush on a bipartisan basis. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, immediately ruled out any effort to impeach Bush and eventually agreed to continue funding the Iraq war throughout the remainder of Bush’s presidency.

The comments by Kerry and other Democratic spokesmen underscore the essentially fraudulent character of the entire 2008 election. Despite large increases in voter turnout and widespread involvement by new layers of the population, particularly youth and students, the American people will end up serving as little more than extras in a conflict within the ruling elite. Once Election Day is past, Obama will put “hope” and “change” back in his briefcase and go about his real business: defending the interests of corporate America.

The Democrats responded with alacrity to the danger of a meltdown in the financial markets, turning over trillions in public funds to bail out the banks and speculators. The same political figures will turn to working people after the election and tell them that there is no money to provide health care, jobs, education and other social benefits, especially given the need to spend even more for wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under Politics/Religion. Date: November 3, 2008, 11:53 am | No Comments »

Barry Grey
Democrats take charge of pushing through Bush’s bailout of Wall Street
In all essentials, the bill drawn up by the Democrats in closed-door negotiations with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Republican congressional leaders, and in direct consultation with some of the most powerful figures on Wall Street, conforms to the plan first proposed by Paulson on September 19.

It gives him virtually unlimited powers to use public funds to buy mortgage-backed securities and other worthless bank assets whose value has collapsed as a result of the implosion of the housing bubble and the vast edifice of debt that was built up by Wall Street.

The Democrats’ press conference was an exercise in deceit. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, flanked by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the chairmen of the House and Senate banking committees, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, presented the windfall for the richest people in the country as though it were a punitive measure aimed at reigning in corporate greed.

“The party is over,” she proclaimed. “No longer will tax payers be forced to bail out reckless investors.”

Both candidates of the two major political parties, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, signaled their support for the bailout bill on Sunday. They echoed the line of President Bush, who said in his weekly radio address on Saturday, “The rescue effort we’re negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street; it is aimed at your street.”

Obama boasted on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” that he has been in constant communication with Paulson on the progress of the bailout bill.

The myth that the Democratic Party represents a “lesser evil” to the Republicans, let alone a “party of the people,” is being shattered by its emergence as the most servile defender of the interests of the financial oligarchy.

The remaining obstacle to obtaining quick passage of the bill comes not from the Democratic Party, but rather from right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives. They represent an ultra-right libertarian wing of the party which identifies social spending and government intervention in the capitalist “free market” with what they consider the ultimate evil—socialism.

The emergence of the Democrats as the leading protagonists of the administration’s bailout scheme has enabled the House Republicans to posture as opponents of Wall Street and appeal to popular opposition, while demanding billions of dollars in tax cuts for the banks and further deregulation as an alternative to using taxpayer funds to cover Wall Street’s bad debts.

The content of the proposed legislation agreed upon by the Bush administration and the Democrats exposes the lies that are being employed to defend it. It contains no provisions to provide relief for homeowners who have been victimized by predatory lending practices and face foreclosure.

The two token measures initially proposed by congressional Democrats—enabling bankruptcy judges to amend mortgage terms to allow distressed homeowners to avert foreclosure and allotting 20 percent of any profits accrued by the government from the resale of bank assets to a housing fund—were stricken from the final deal under pressure from Wall Street and the Republicans.

Obama personally intervened last week to oppose the inclusion of the bankruptcy court provision, which has been fiercely opposed by the banking industry.

The Democrats dropped a proposal to impose a fee on the banks that will sell their junk assets, at inflated prices, to the government, and then profit from the eventual resale of the assets.

Supposed restrictions on pay and incentives for executives of firms that offload their debts to the government are toothless. There is no cap on salaries or other basic forms of compensation, and nominal limits on severance packages for “some” executives of “some” of the companies can be easily circumvented.

The so-called “independent oversight” panel of the bailout program is a fraud. It consists of the treasury secretary himself, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency and the secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department. All of these agencies are pliant tools of Wall Street and all have been instrumental in pushing the bailout plan.

The “Congressional Oversight Board” will consist of five “financial experts”—i.e., Wall Street bankers and big investors—chosen by the House and Senate majority and minority leadership. They are entrusted with overseeing the Wall Street firms that will be hired by the treasury secretary to manage the bailout program.

Much has been made by the Democrats of the fact that “only” the first $250 billion of Paulson’s $700 slush fund will be allocated with the passage of the bill. This is being presented as a major protection for taxpayers.

In fact, the next $100 billion will automatically be allocated once Bush requests it, and Congress’ ostensible power to withhold support for the final $350 billion is rendered meaningless, since it will be subject to presidential veto.

The text of the measure declares that Congress authorizes Paulson or his successor to spend the full $700 billion, and the figure of $700 billion is itself a fictional limit. A more realistic estimate of the sums to be handed over to Wall Street can be seen in the bill’s provision to increase the US public debt from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion—a rise of $1.3 trillion.

The bill includes huge windfalls for the banks that are being concealed from the public. It authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend accepted accounting standards in order to permit the banks to value their asset-backed securities at the price of purchase, rather than their actual market value.

And it includes tax breaks for companies that hold preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that were taken over by the government earlier this month.

These two provisions alone will give the banks a freer hand to engage in accounting fraud and speculation and reward them with billions in windfall profits.

The corrupt character of the process by which this handout to Wall Street is being carried out was indicated in a report in Saturday’s New York Times. The article dealt with the lobbying campaign of the American Bankers Association, and noted: “As of Friday night, it appears the association got nearly everything it wanted.”

It gave a small glimpse of Wall Street’s bribery of congressmen, including those spearheading the bailout. “The association also hosts many fund-raising events,” it said, “like a $1,000-a-ticket fund-raising luncheon last March at Johnny’s Half Shell Blue Room on behalf of Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a key player in the bailout package.”

What is taking place is a vastly undemocratic process. As even the US media has acknowledged, the bailout is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. They, however, have absolutely no say in the matter.

In secret discussions, behind the backs of the people and within a few weeks of a national election, an unprecedented bailout of the most powerful financial interests is being rammed through. Its content and far-reaching implications are being concealed by a barrage of banalities and lies.

This infusion of cash into the US banks will do little if anything to stave off an economic catastrophe that is enveloping the working people of the United States and the entire world. Tens of millions face the loss of their jobs, their pensions and their life savings. But their crisis is not addressed by the bailout program.

Moreover, the bailout has set into motion a further monopolization of financial resources in the hands of a few banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup. What is being presented as a solution to the financial crisis is a reorganization of power within the ruling class that will lead to an even greater concentration of wealth and a further deterioration of the conditions of working people. More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under Finance. Date: September 29, 2008, 1:24 pm | No Comments »

Dave Lindorff
The sorry performance of the US corporate media, which blacked out stories questioning the official line on the so-called “Iraq Threat” until the nation was deeply mired in to pointless, bloody war in that country, and which has almost completely ignored a three-year, nation-wide movement calling for the impeachment of the president and vice president, has continued.

Search far and wide, and you will find no reporting on the fact that Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has filed a total 36 proposed articles of impeachment against President Bush, is finally going to get to formally present his case to the House Judiciary Committee, beginning on July 25. Although this is not an impeachment hearing, it is putting impeachment “on the table,” from which it has been banned for two years by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although the House last week voted 251-166 to send Kucinich’s articles to the Judiciary Committee for hearings, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the nation’s television news organizations ignored this breakthrough (which included 24 Republicans voting for the measure). Only USA Today, at least in its online edition, even mentioned it, with a headline saying “Pelosi cracks door open on impeachment resolution”–and that was just a five-sentence story. More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under Media, Politics/Religion. Date: July 21, 2008, 12:34 pm | No Comments »

Nancy Pelosi’s dialogue epitomizes the insanity of political double talk. Translation—Sexism was responsible for Hillary’s defeat, but I don’t have scientific data to support what I just told you I believe.

Suntimes
“I’m a victim of sexism myself all the time,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) discussing Tuesday morning whether sexism played a significant role in the defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) by presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

At a reporters’ breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor, Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House reflected on the White House bid by Clinton, who would have been the first major party nominee if her bid had succeeded.

“Is there sexism? Probably so,” said Pelosi.

“Is it responsible for the defeat? I really wouldn’t have the scientific knowledge, all of the information to know that. But I do think that being a woman has a positive upside in the campaign, probably offset by more sexism. I don’t know. Of course there is sexism, we all know that. I mean but it is a given, it is a given….” More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under News, Politics/Religion. Date: June 24, 2008, 4:27 pm | No Comments »

Alternet
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that a key positive feature of the new wiretap “compromise” is that the bill reaffirms that the President must follow the law, even though the same bill virtually assures that no one will be held accountable for George W. Bush’s violation of the earlier spying law. In other words, in the guise of rejecting Bush’s theories of an all-powerful presidency that is above the law, the Democratic leadership cleared the way for the President and his collaborators to evade punishment for defying the law.

So, why should anyone assume that the new legislative edict demanding that the President obey the law will get any more respect than the old one, which established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the “exclusive” means for authorizing electronic spying? It wasn’t that Bush and his team didn’t understand the old law’s language; they simply believed they could violate the law without consequence, under the radical theory that at a time of war — even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” — the President’s powers trump all laws as well as the constitutional rights of citizens. More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under Politics/Religion, Privacy. Date: June 22, 2008, 3:56 pm | No Comments »

By introducing 35 thoughtful and detailed articles of impeachment against President Bush on June 9, Dennis Kucinich has put Conyers on the spot. It’s “to be, or not to be” time. And Conyers knows what’s right. He himself introduced a bill to explore grounds for impeaching Bush-but that was in 2005, before the Democrats came to power.

Lewis Lapham of Harper’s interviewed Conyers and wrote about his brave and quixotic stance back then. Why was Conyers for impeachment then? ” ‘To take away the excuse,’ he said, ‘that we didn’t know.’ So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, ‘Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?’ when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that ‘somehow it escaped our notice’ that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.”

So why is Conyers doing nothing now, when, as the Supreme Court ruled again this week, the President has essentially set himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law? Because Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, the cowardly leaders of the Democratic Party in the House, have told him to. They claim, in public, that it would be a waste of time, since Bush’s term is running out, or that they have more important things to do. But privately I’m sure they are saying it might not be good for the party in November. I believe they are wrong about that, since Bush is extremely unpopular, and impeachment would galvanize the progressive base. But even if they’re right, they’re putting petty party politics above the Constitution. Read More

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by markw, filed under News, Politics/Religion. Date: June 15, 2008, 4:53 pm | No Comments »