People, it is time to call, write, or Email your representatives in government office. We are getting ripped off big time over this bailout deal. According to an Associated Press article the banks and institutions that have received part of the first half of the $700 billion government bailout package are saying that they don't know what they are doing with the billions they have gotten from American taxpayers. They claim that they are not even tracking that money which is pretty sad and unbelievable. You can read the article from the Associated Press here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets
Here is a copy of the Email I sent to one of my representatives:
Dear Congressman Obey,
I have just read an Associated Press article about the unaccountability the banks and financial institutions have with the almost $350 billion dollars they have received from American taxpayers in the form of a government bailout. Here is a link to the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets
This is totally unacceptable and I would hope that there are going to be some accounting for the money these institutions already have received before they get a dime more out of the second half of $700 billion earmarked for bailing these businesses out. It's unacceptable and unbelievable that these businesses would receive billions without tracking what they are doing with the money, if this is really the case they are not fiscally responsible enough to receive any more taxpayer money. If they were lending money out you better believe that they would want to know what the intended purpose of that money was and they would keep track of it.
It burns me that Bush had to have the line about the businesses that have their troubled assets bought up in the government bailout scheme have to follow the rules of the bailout bill, but then Mr, Paulson instead bought up stocks in their companies effectively voiding out any oversight or accountability for the money they received from taxpayers. What the heck is that Paulson guy doing anyway? The Bush administration and Paulson basically got what they asked for in the first place, a large amount of money with no restrictions on what was done with it or who it was given to. Something is wrong when the administration asks Congress for that much money to do one thing and then after they get the money they do whatever they want with it anyway, don't you guys feel like you been hoodwinked? I do, even though its what I expected in the first place. You people in the House and Senate better be getting together and demanding information and accountability about the first half of the $700+ billion before you release any of the second half of the money or you all are going to have as high of approval ratings as Bush enjoys, and that wouldn't be good for your future elections. I just find this totally unacceptable.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Update:
This is the letter I received back from Congressman Obey:
Dear Mr. Chapek:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about how the Treasury Department is implementing the bank rescue program.
I absolutely share your concern. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is holding a series of hearings, with some already underway, about the implementation of the program. This is going to continue to be a challenge in the coming months and will be one of the many major issues President-elect Obama will face when he takes office in January.
Please be assured I will keep your views in mind if further legislation is brought to the Floor of the House this year and also into the next session of Congress.
Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.
Sincerely,
David Obey
Your Congressman
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Throwing Money to the Wind
What a mess this country is in. It's not all this country though, it's countries around the world. The economic situation is pretty bad all over. There are many countries where it's worse than it is in the United States. In a lot of other countries people and police are protesting and battling in the streets. Thinking back to hurricane Katrina, it really does not take long for all for lawlessness to break out when society starts to fall apart. We are learning that there are many different ways a society can fall apart too.
In Katrina it was the lack of services because they were knocked out from the storm. No electricity, no power for lights cooking, security, or most importantly refrigerators, because of no refrigeration people ran out of food very quickly. Because of no electricity for refrigeration stores didn't have food either, trucks could not bring in food and supplies because of the flooding. Hunger is a really powerful motivator. If you don't have food, you are going to try to get it one way or another even if you have to steal it and if it gets bad enough, to kill for it. Another drive that overrides all else is survival for your self and loved ones, if you or your love ones need medical supplies you are going to do everything in your power to see that they get the help they need.
Other causes of society breakdown is when the government breaks down. When this happens individuals and small groups start taking things into their own hands, and nothing is off the table when survival is at stake. Money can be another reason for a breakdown of a society, either too much of it, or too little of it, either way it leads to eventually not being able to afford the basic necessities. There are numerous other ways that a society breaks down including racism, difference in moral standards, religion, to much of a gap between the haves and the have nots.
The U.S. government has decided to throw money at the situation. First it was the financial institutions. It was decided that it would take at least $700 billion to set these Wall Street businesses right. I think giving out any money for them was a mistake. I did not agree with bailing them out in the first place and I am even more convinced that my thoughts were correct now that half of the $700 billion has been distributed.
I knew when the Bush Administration first came out with this plan that it was going to be no good. They first wanted the money to dole out with no restrictions, no oversight, and no legal or financial accountability. President Bush just wanted that amount to give to Mr. Paulson from the treasury to hand out to whichever companies or institutions he saw fit to do with whatever he thought would help the economy. Luckily, or maybe not depending on your opinion, Congress got involved and decided that they would need to have some oversight and not just cut Mr. Paulson a blank check. After some hemming and hawing they came up with a bill to give half the money to Mr. Paulson and have some oversight and restrictions on top executive salaries and bonuses. The whole idea of the plan was that Mr. Paulson would use the money to buy troubled mortgages and when the price of real estate recovered the mortgages could be sold for a profit and the money paid back to taxpayers where it was going to come from in the first place. When the bill went to the president he wouldn't agree unless there was one line stating that institutions that had their mortgages bought up would have to abide by the rules in the bill. Funny thing though, after getting Congress's approval for the $350 billion Mr. Paulson decided on his own not to buy up troubled mortgages. Instead he decided to just inject the money into the companies by buying stock in their companies and because of the line Bush made sure was in the bill, it pretty much voided any restrictions or oversight as to how the bailout money would be spent. It wasn't long before Bush and Mr. Paulson were on television pleading with the institutions to use the money given them to loosen up more money for lending, but of course there wasn't much they could do except plea at that point. Now if the economy gets even worse and these companies that we have bailed out go under what will their stock be worth, nada, just what the American people will get back from bailing out these companies. By the time the economy straightens out these companies have a good chance of being liquidated or will change hands and their original owners will be on to the next big thing, or perhaps starting new financial companies and there will be no entity to pay the tax payer back.
Next in the line of people wanting the government to bail them out was the big three auto manufacturers. Executives from the big three flew their private charter jets to Washington to ask for their share only to be mocked for flying their private jets into town. After a stern scolding from Congress the executives were sent home without a deal with the instructions to come back after they show how they would tighten their belts and restructure their companies so they could compete with the non union car manufactures in the United States and foreign car manufacturing companies. After what happened with the bailout money given financial institutions it looked like Congress was maybe getting smarter, but Bush stepped in and after scaring the big three talking about maybe letting them have a controlled bankruptcy decided that he would bail out Detroit with some money from the $700 billion gotten to prop up the financial institutions.
We should have never started giving money away. I believe that we are going to hit bottom anyway the only difference is that we are going to have at least $700 billion less when the dust clears. The free market system is supposed to be that, a free market. The financial institutions at least would have never took such chances if they weren't counting on the government bailing them out if it hit the fan. The auto companies have been fighting all the way of having higher mpg standards and alternative energy autos, the very issues they will have to address if they are to be able to compete with foreign auto manufacturers.
We started down a slippery slope now that we started giving money away. In the past weeks I have heard of many other big businesses jumping up shouting that they too will need government bailout money to keep their workers working and their companies above water too. There are many voices calling out for money because they are all thinking, "Well if they are bailing out them guys I should be able to get something too." How many more companies can we not afford to bail out? I think this is a big mistake, it's like throwing money to the wind.
In Katrina it was the lack of services because they were knocked out from the storm. No electricity, no power for lights cooking, security, or most importantly refrigerators, because of no refrigeration people ran out of food very quickly. Because of no electricity for refrigeration stores didn't have food either, trucks could not bring in food and supplies because of the flooding. Hunger is a really powerful motivator. If you don't have food, you are going to try to get it one way or another even if you have to steal it and if it gets bad enough, to kill for it. Another drive that overrides all else is survival for your self and loved ones, if you or your love ones need medical supplies you are going to do everything in your power to see that they get the help they need.
Other causes of society breakdown is when the government breaks down. When this happens individuals and small groups start taking things into their own hands, and nothing is off the table when survival is at stake. Money can be another reason for a breakdown of a society, either too much of it, or too little of it, either way it leads to eventually not being able to afford the basic necessities. There are numerous other ways that a society breaks down including racism, difference in moral standards, religion, to much of a gap between the haves and the have nots.
The U.S. government has decided to throw money at the situation. First it was the financial institutions. It was decided that it would take at least $700 billion to set these Wall Street businesses right. I think giving out any money for them was a mistake. I did not agree with bailing them out in the first place and I am even more convinced that my thoughts were correct now that half of the $700 billion has been distributed.
I knew when the Bush Administration first came out with this plan that it was going to be no good. They first wanted the money to dole out with no restrictions, no oversight, and no legal or financial accountability. President Bush just wanted that amount to give to Mr. Paulson from the treasury to hand out to whichever companies or institutions he saw fit to do with whatever he thought would help the economy. Luckily, or maybe not depending on your opinion, Congress got involved and decided that they would need to have some oversight and not just cut Mr. Paulson a blank check. After some hemming and hawing they came up with a bill to give half the money to Mr. Paulson and have some oversight and restrictions on top executive salaries and bonuses. The whole idea of the plan was that Mr. Paulson would use the money to buy troubled mortgages and when the price of real estate recovered the mortgages could be sold for a profit and the money paid back to taxpayers where it was going to come from in the first place. When the bill went to the president he wouldn't agree unless there was one line stating that institutions that had their mortgages bought up would have to abide by the rules in the bill. Funny thing though, after getting Congress's approval for the $350 billion Mr. Paulson decided on his own not to buy up troubled mortgages. Instead he decided to just inject the money into the companies by buying stock in their companies and because of the line Bush made sure was in the bill, it pretty much voided any restrictions or oversight as to how the bailout money would be spent. It wasn't long before Bush and Mr. Paulson were on television pleading with the institutions to use the money given them to loosen up more money for lending, but of course there wasn't much they could do except plea at that point. Now if the economy gets even worse and these companies that we have bailed out go under what will their stock be worth, nada, just what the American people will get back from bailing out these companies. By the time the economy straightens out these companies have a good chance of being liquidated or will change hands and their original owners will be on to the next big thing, or perhaps starting new financial companies and there will be no entity to pay the tax payer back.
Next in the line of people wanting the government to bail them out was the big three auto manufacturers. Executives from the big three flew their private charter jets to Washington to ask for their share only to be mocked for flying their private jets into town. After a stern scolding from Congress the executives were sent home without a deal with the instructions to come back after they show how they would tighten their belts and restructure their companies so they could compete with the non union car manufactures in the United States and foreign car manufacturing companies. After what happened with the bailout money given financial institutions it looked like Congress was maybe getting smarter, but Bush stepped in and after scaring the big three talking about maybe letting them have a controlled bankruptcy decided that he would bail out Detroit with some money from the $700 billion gotten to prop up the financial institutions.
We should have never started giving money away. I believe that we are going to hit bottom anyway the only difference is that we are going to have at least $700 billion less when the dust clears. The free market system is supposed to be that, a free market. The financial institutions at least would have never took such chances if they weren't counting on the government bailing them out if it hit the fan. The auto companies have been fighting all the way of having higher mpg standards and alternative energy autos, the very issues they will have to address if they are to be able to compete with foreign auto manufacturers.
We started down a slippery slope now that we started giving money away. In the past weeks I have heard of many other big businesses jumping up shouting that they too will need government bailout money to keep their workers working and their companies above water too. There are many voices calling out for money because they are all thinking, "Well if they are bailing out them guys I should be able to get something too." How many more companies can we not afford to bail out? I think this is a big mistake, it's like throwing money to the wind.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Impeachment: It's Still an Issue
A few days ago I received an Email from an activist group called The Pen. It talked about impeachment and the possibility of Bush pardoning the whole bunch of his click up on the hill including himself. The Email was set up in a form that you could send your comments to your state representatives, your senator and a local paper in your area. I typed in my comments, answered a few questions, included a zip code, and hit send. A couple of days later I received an Email from my U.S. Senator, Herb Kohl, and then I got a call from the paper in Chippewa asking if it was my own words and then tell me it would be included in the letters to the publisher part of the paper within a couple of days. Following is that letter:
Bush and Cheney Should be Impeached
People, my fellow Americans, I can not stress this enough. If we don't stand up for our rights and freedoms, well then that Constitution is just what Bush called it, "The constitution is just a piece of paper." If we think of it that way, then we don't very much value the live's of the people, who faught for those rights and the ideals for which they stand, and who paid the ultimate price for those rights and ideals that are spelled out on, "just a piece of paper."Everyone, not only in our country but around the world, is celebrating the U.S. election of Obama for president, but we shouldn't lose track of why it is that we are so happy to get rid of Bush.
The Bush Administration will be a dark chapter in American history. If we don't impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal acts while in office I believe that there is a good chance that Bush will pardon everyone involved, including himself, forever closing the chance to ever bring to justice these people who did more harm to America's constitutional rights than all the dictators and communist leaders combined.
It is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and pretend this will never be an issue again, because it will be. If we don't make sure that these people are brought to justice, we guarantee that our rights and freedoms will be assaulted again from the inside, from the very people who take oaths to defend the constitution of the U.S. when they take office.
We've had the elections, so let's stop using the excuse that no one wants to do anything because it will effect the presidential elections. Lack of action on Impeachment and the Iraq war is the reason Congress has such poor ratings. We were promised action when they ran and we elected them, so they need to do their jobs.
===========================================================
Here's the reply I received from Herb Kohl:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your
views on the current administration. I appreciate hearing from you
and welcome this opportunity to respond to you.
As a means of checks and balances, the Constitution
permits Congress to remove Executive Branch officials from office
if they are found to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." This critical power allows the
Legislative Branch to protect the nation from the abuse of
executive power.
As you may know, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-
OH) introduced H.Res. 1258, 35 articles of impeachment relating
to President Bush, on June 10, 2008. Additionally, Rep. Kucinich
previously introduced H.Res. 799, three articles of impeachment
relating to Vice President Cheney, on April 24, 2007. These
resolutions seek to remove the President and Vice President from
office on the grounds that both of them intentionally deceived
Congress and the American public during the events that led to the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. House possesses the sole power of impeachment.
H.Res. 1258 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on
June 11, 2008, and H.Res. 799 was referred to the same committee
on November 6, 2007. Should the Committee determine that there
are grounds for impeachment, the resolution will be considered by
the full House. A simple majority is required to impeach. In order
for an official to be involuntarily removed from office,
impeachment by the House must be followed by conviction in the
Senate; this requires a two-thirds majority. I will be certain to
keep your thoughts in mind should this matter come before the
Senate.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this very serious
matter. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator
===========================================================
The following are my words: The Northern Politic
The Bush Administration will be a dark chapter in American history. If we don't impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal acts while in office I believe that there is a good chance that Bush will pardon everyone involved, including himself, forever closing the chance to ever bring to justice these people who did more harm to America's constitutional rights than all the dictators and communist leaders combined.
It is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and pretend this will never be an issue again, because it will be. If we don't make sure that these people are brought to justice, we guarantee that our rights and freedoms will be assaulted again from the inside, from the very people who take oaths to defend the constitution of the U.S. when they take office.
We've had the elections, so let's stop using the excuse that no one wants to do anything because it will effect the presidential elections. Lack of action on Impeachment and the Iraq war is the reason Congress has such poor ratings. We were promised action when they ran and we elected them, so they need to do their jobs.
===========================================================
Here's the reply I received from Herb Kohl:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your
views on the current administration. I appreciate hearing from you
and welcome this opportunity to respond to you.
As a means of checks and balances, the Constitution
permits Congress to remove Executive Branch officials from office
if they are found to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." This critical power allows the
Legislative Branch to protect the nation from the abuse of
executive power.
As you may know, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-
OH) introduced H.Res. 1258, 35 articles of impeachment relating
to President Bush, on June 10, 2008. Additionally, Rep. Kucinich
previously introduced H.Res. 799, three articles of impeachment
relating to Vice President Cheney, on April 24, 2007. These
resolutions seek to remove the President and Vice President from
office on the grounds that both of them intentionally deceived
Congress and the American public during the events that led to the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. House possesses the sole power of impeachment.
H.Res. 1258 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on
June 11, 2008, and H.Res. 799 was referred to the same committee
on November 6, 2007. Should the Committee determine that there
are grounds for impeachment, the resolution will be considered by
the full House. A simple majority is required to impeach. In order
for an official to be involuntarily removed from office,
impeachment by the House must be followed by conviction in the
Senate; this requires a two-thirds majority. I will be certain to
keep your thoughts in mind should this matter come before the
Senate.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this very serious
matter. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator
===========================================================
The following are my words: The Northern Politic
Saturday, November 15, 2008
T. A. R. P. = Covering Over Taxpayer's Eyes
Troubled Assets Relief Program (T. A. R. P.) should stand for tarp, a covering over the taxpayer's eyes so they don't see that this is just a wealth distribution scheme for big business. This whole thing is such a mess, first the administration asked for $700 billion dollars for a bailout program and said that they would create accountability by buying up bad mortgage assets to hold until such a time that the mortgages would increase in value and be able to be sold to pay back taxpayers who are ultimately paying the bill to bail out Wall Street.
Earlier this week Mr. Paulson from the Treasury said he decided that that was a poor plan to buy bad mortgage debt and instead told us, that after getting this money, he decided to just buy stock in the failing companies to faster inject cash into the failing institutions. The problem with that is instead of having some land or property that would eventually be worth something again when the market recovers, Mr. Paulson has basically a handful of worthless pieces of paper bought from failing institutions that have a good chance of filing bankruptcy in the future leaving the taxpayer with worthless paper in exchange for $700 billion dollars. The other problem with just buying worthless stocks is that Mr. Paulson, the President, or the Congress has no way of restricting what these institutions do with the money that they are given.
It was never the Administration's intention to hold these institutions accountable for the money in the first place. If you look at what President Bush and Mr. Paulson originally asked for it was for $700 billion dollars to spend in which ever way they see fit, to anyone they see fit, for whatever way the institutions that receive the money see fit. Are the American taxpayers the only ones that saw this for what it really was, a wealth distribution program where every man woman and child would give $2300 to the fat cats on Wall Street who are making millions and getting big bonuses even though they ran their companies into the dirt with their greed. And what happened?
The institutions that received the bailout money, that the Bush Administration's "intention" was to free up money tied up in bad mortgage deals to lend out to people, to get the economy moving again, decided that they still don't want to free up money for lending. President Bush was on national TV pleading with the financial institutions to fee up that money, but without the teeth of regulation and oversight there is not much chance of the institutions using the money for much more than to shore up their accounts, buy other failed banks, and/or give their management people and stockholders something. We've already seen how they been spending money knowing that they are getting bailed out by the taxpayers, there were big parties, million dollars a month for people on retainer, and holiday bonuses of up to $230,000 for administration making close to $400,000 base salary. So for those paying attention it is Fat Cats - $350 Billion, taxpayers nada.
Now that the 2nd bailout plan didn't work, Mr. Paulson has a new, new plan on another way to use the 2nd half of the $700 Billion bailout money to bail out these financial institutions. Again I don't see much for regulations or ways to insure accountability. This latest play doesn't directly help mortgage holders that are either already in foreclosure or will be shortly. That's the one thing I don't really understand. One one hand I can't see giving money to people who obviously knew they were trying to buy properties they couldn't afford. On the other hand, there are a lot of banks and mortgage companies that took advantage of the housing bubble to convince people to take out money against their mortgages because the value of their homes had went up so much. Many of these people didn't fully understand what the banks were getting them in to and they took their lending institution at their word that they were sitting in a good spot to take on more debt. To a certain extent, if the government would just take over them loans that are on amounts higher than what the property is worth, reorganize the mortgages so that the people could have payments that they could afford, then the mortgages wouldn't be bad debt and shouldn't strain the financial institutions of Wall Street.
Now the major domestic car manufacturers want to be bailed out too, they are claiming that they will be forced into bankruptcy if they are not. Originally Obama and the Democratic Congress wanted the Bush administration to help bail them out too, but the Bush Administration didn't want to include the auto makers. Now the Bush Administration says that they would be willing to support bailing out car manufacturers long as there are no strings holding car makers to use the money to make more energy efficient cars to make the auto makers more competitive with other car makers. Again the Republicans don't want to place any restrictions on car makers on how they use that money. What is the sense if that? If we are going to bail them out shouldn't we retain the right to say how we want this money used?
President Bush recently made a speech claiming that the fault is not fault the free market system. This is one of the first things I agree with that Bush has said in a long time. The free market would be a working system without trying to bail out industries. It's not like these financial institutions didn't know what was happening, they just were hedging their bets that the government would bail them out. The auto makers and Republicans have been fighting any effort to make strides to increase mileage per gallon or make alternative fueled vehicles, two things that have caused the big three auto makers to lose ground to foreign car makers. The Bush Administration has already wasted $350 billion dollars that has no regulations on how it's spent for these failing industries to take and cut and run when that runs out. These industries should have just failed in the first place, they are going to any way, the only difference is this way taxpayers are going to be out $700 billion dollars first.
All in all this is a hell of a Christmas bonus for big business from the lame duck Bush Administration at taxpayers expense.
Earlier this week Mr. Paulson from the Treasury said he decided that that was a poor plan to buy bad mortgage debt and instead told us, that after getting this money, he decided to just buy stock in the failing companies to faster inject cash into the failing institutions. The problem with that is instead of having some land or property that would eventually be worth something again when the market recovers, Mr. Paulson has basically a handful of worthless pieces of paper bought from failing institutions that have a good chance of filing bankruptcy in the future leaving the taxpayer with worthless paper in exchange for $700 billion dollars. The other problem with just buying worthless stocks is that Mr. Paulson, the President, or the Congress has no way of restricting what these institutions do with the money that they are given.
It was never the Administration's intention to hold these institutions accountable for the money in the first place. If you look at what President Bush and Mr. Paulson originally asked for it was for $700 billion dollars to spend in which ever way they see fit, to anyone they see fit, for whatever way the institutions that receive the money see fit. Are the American taxpayers the only ones that saw this for what it really was, a wealth distribution program where every man woman and child would give $2300 to the fat cats on Wall Street who are making millions and getting big bonuses even though they ran their companies into the dirt with their greed. And what happened?
The institutions that received the bailout money, that the Bush Administration's "intention" was to free up money tied up in bad mortgage deals to lend out to people, to get the economy moving again, decided that they still don't want to free up money for lending. President Bush was on national TV pleading with the financial institutions to fee up that money, but without the teeth of regulation and oversight there is not much chance of the institutions using the money for much more than to shore up their accounts, buy other failed banks, and/or give their management people and stockholders something. We've already seen how they been spending money knowing that they are getting bailed out by the taxpayers, there were big parties, million dollars a month for people on retainer, and holiday bonuses of up to $230,000 for administration making close to $400,000 base salary. So for those paying attention it is Fat Cats - $350 Billion, taxpayers nada.
Now that the 2nd bailout plan didn't work, Mr. Paulson has a new, new plan on another way to use the 2nd half of the $700 Billion bailout money to bail out these financial institutions. Again I don't see much for regulations or ways to insure accountability. This latest play doesn't directly help mortgage holders that are either already in foreclosure or will be shortly. That's the one thing I don't really understand. One one hand I can't see giving money to people who obviously knew they were trying to buy properties they couldn't afford. On the other hand, there are a lot of banks and mortgage companies that took advantage of the housing bubble to convince people to take out money against their mortgages because the value of their homes had went up so much. Many of these people didn't fully understand what the banks were getting them in to and they took their lending institution at their word that they were sitting in a good spot to take on more debt. To a certain extent, if the government would just take over them loans that are on amounts higher than what the property is worth, reorganize the mortgages so that the people could have payments that they could afford, then the mortgages wouldn't be bad debt and shouldn't strain the financial institutions of Wall Street.
Now the major domestic car manufacturers want to be bailed out too, they are claiming that they will be forced into bankruptcy if they are not. Originally Obama and the Democratic Congress wanted the Bush administration to help bail them out too, but the Bush Administration didn't want to include the auto makers. Now the Bush Administration says that they would be willing to support bailing out car manufacturers long as there are no strings holding car makers to use the money to make more energy efficient cars to make the auto makers more competitive with other car makers. Again the Republicans don't want to place any restrictions on car makers on how they use that money. What is the sense if that? If we are going to bail them out shouldn't we retain the right to say how we want this money used?
President Bush recently made a speech claiming that the fault is not fault the free market system. This is one of the first things I agree with that Bush has said in a long time. The free market would be a working system without trying to bail out industries. It's not like these financial institutions didn't know what was happening, they just were hedging their bets that the government would bail them out. The auto makers and Republicans have been fighting any effort to make strides to increase mileage per gallon or make alternative fueled vehicles, two things that have caused the big three auto makers to lose ground to foreign car makers. The Bush Administration has already wasted $350 billion dollars that has no regulations on how it's spent for these failing industries to take and cut and run when that runs out. These industries should have just failed in the first place, they are going to any way, the only difference is this way taxpayers are going to be out $700 billion dollars first.
All in all this is a hell of a Christmas bonus for big business from the lame duck Bush Administration at taxpayers expense.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Push for Oil
The Northwoods Politic
President Bush today has lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. He's been pushing Congress to allow for the drilling of offshore oil deposits on the U.S. continental slopes. There are both executive and Congressional ban on drilling offshore, but he's hoping that by lifting the executive ban he can push Congress into lifting theirs.
There are two parties that both have fundamental differences in opinion on how this will affect energy prices. One party says this will bring the high cost of fuel prices down. The other side says this is mostly hype and it is just a matter of the first party taking advantage of people's fears that we need to do anything and everything to bring these prices down, because they just can't afford to pay these prices for fuel. What the true facts are is hard to tell. If you read about the companies that make these big drilling platforms needed to extract the oil from our continental slopes, they state that they are already backlogged 5 years on orders for other countries so it would be 5 years before they would even be able to start building the oil platforms to use in the U.S. On top of that, some say that the oil companies hold leases on all kinds of land with viable oil reserves that they are not drilling already.
Again as always, this is an issue that runs along Republican and Democratic party lines, with mostly Republicans wanting the drilling and Democrats not wanting drilling. This is one of the biggest problems in our government. We can't seem to have all these people sit down, look at the facts, and come up with what they think is good or not good. After deciding what their stance is, they should go back to their districts and try to persuade their constituents to what they think is right, but their main job after that is to take what views their constituents decide back to Washington and reflect that in their vote on the issue before Congress. Instead the top person, in this case the president, decides what he wants and all the rest of the people in their party fall in line behind him, they say this is what they want too, and they vote on the issue in Congress to reflect their party's will. Most of these people that we are talking about are addressed as Representatives, the reason they are addressed by that title is that they are supposed to represent the people from their districts. The way this has been working is a major flaw in the way our government is supposed to work.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Iraqi Government Does What U.S. Government Can't
The Northwoods Politic
I get most of my news from the Associated Press and The New York Times. Today I noticed that the Iraqi Government appears to be doing something that our Congress can't seem to do. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is standing up to President Bush in regards to the Iraqi/U.S. agreement that Washington was trying to get approved by July 31st.
According to what I've read, the UN agreement for troops being in Iraq ends at the end of December, but the Bush Administration has been pushing Iraq for an agreement to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq before the end of July. The reason for this is obvious, Bush wants to get a concrete agreement with Iraq before he leaves office at the end of the year. According to the Bush Administration, they claim that they don't need Congress approval even if they decide to have full status of forces agreement with Iraq. The administration has been pretty mum about what the points of the U.S./Iraq agreement not wanting to have a bunch of resistance from Congress until after the agreement is signed.
Most of what we hear about the proposed agreement is coming from the Iraqi side, our government won't inform us of what they want with Iraq for stipulations. Some of the points that the Iraqi government has taken offense to are:
1.) The U.S. authority to carry out military operations within Iraq.
2.) The ability to arrest Iraqi citizens without Iraqi government's permission.
3.) Getting legal immunity for private security contractors.
4.) Control of Iraqi air space.
5.) Setting a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals.
It sounds like Washington might have dropped the immunity stipulation in regards to the private contractors, but nothing is set in stone yet. Washington has been pretty secretive about what it wants compared to what the Iraqis want. The Iraqis want control of their airspace and basically want the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible it sounds like. Even with Iraq talking about wanting withdrawal timetables, U.S. Ambassador Crocker has said, "We are looking at conditions not calendars, and both sides are in agreement on this point. So it doesn't appear like anyone in the U.S. is listening to what Iraqi leaders are wanting. I guess that they are just supposed to trust our government not to infringe on Iraqi rights just like we are supposed to trust our government to follow our constitution. Washington continues to say withdrawals would only be linked to conditions on the ground.
In the last couple days Iraq leaders have made headlines in their standing up to Washington against their perceived danger of turning into indentured servants of the United States. Some of the headlines are:
1.) Iraqi Raises the Idea of Timetable for U.S. Withdrawals
2.) Iraq Demands Pullout Timetable in U.S. Defense Pack Talks
3.) Iraq Insists on Withdrawal Timetable
The United States might bring the Iraqis factions together after all, but it will probably be done by pissing them off about us so much that they will unite against us.
While Iraq and the United States are trying to make some sense out of what to do with the agreement, Israel, the United States, and Iran are having a pissing contest in the gulf. First Isrial carried out maneuvers showing that they could feasibly get to Iran to start a war, then the U.S. and Iran both announced that they would do maneuvers in the gulf with a chance of starting an international incident. Iran stated that it would close out the traffic from the gulf if attacked, so the U.S. sent a convoy to the area to show that they would attack if any sign that the Iranians would put up a blockade. It's kind of like watching a bunch of young boys playing in a playground except that the stakes are much higher.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bend Over America
In the latest news of the fleecing of America as reported in the New York Times. Charles M. Smith a former civilian overseer for the Army, overseeing the largest contractor of the Iraq war for food services, KBR, said he was ousted from his job because he refused to pay one billion dollars for questionable charges that were not substantiated by KBR. The Bush Administration must hate the New York Times.
KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.
So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.
We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.
What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?
Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:
The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.
KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.
So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.
We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.
What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?
Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:
The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Will the House Stand Up?
It was finally a pleasant change to see that the House members did not cave in on the FISA bill. I hope that they keep from granting immunity to the major telecoms for going along with an illegal request to turn over everyone's phone records. Now something that I haven't seen since the House took the action of going on recess without voting on the revisions to the FISA or Protect America bill, it would be interesting to see if that one event had any effect on the public opinion polls. It will be interesting to see if anything becomes of their new powers to enforce their subpoenas now. It would sure be nice to see some justice carried out in the government, it's long over due.
The baseball investigation is coming to an end, good thing, we don't really need to be using tax payer's money to get that straightened out. Just when a person thinks they may be done wasting money on things that don't pertain to the government, I wouldn't hold my breath. Look for possible upcoming investigations into video taping of opposing football teams signals, that would seem to be the next big major sports issue that people will want a congressional investigation on. Give me a break.
The baseball investigation is coming to an end, good thing, we don't really need to be using tax payer's money to get that straightened out. Just when a person thinks they may be done wasting money on things that don't pertain to the government, I wouldn't hold my breath. Look for possible upcoming investigations into video taping of opposing football teams signals, that would seem to be the next big major sports issue that people will want a congressional investigation on. Give me a break.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Irony of Arlen Specter
Friday there was an AP article about Republican Senator Arlen Specter-PA, stating that Senator Specter wanted the NFL to explain why it destroyed evidence of the New England Patriots cheating scandal, stating that he was concerned about the underlying facts on the taping, the reasons for the judgment on the limited penalties and, most of all, on the inexplicable destruction of the tapes.
This is from a Republican senator... Senator Specter, you are concerned about such things when it has to do with a football game? I mean, yes by all means, we have to hold these games above the accountability that your buddies in the Republican party have demonstrated while in power. After all the stakes are so much higher than say whether we as a country have illegally used torture such as water boarding against prisoners and the videos of that were destroyed. Football is maybe much more important to you then missing emails from the administration's deliberations to start a war on false pretenses, or information on the political firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys, or the leaking of a CIA operative's name. I think you are having a case of sour grapes maybe cause you had some money riding on the game or something. Same thing with the congressional investigation into doping in baseball. Is doping in sports disturbing? Yes. Is doping in sports wrong? Yes. Is it something that is so important that we should be spending time and money in the senate investigation? I don't think so. With all the other problems that we need to be sorting out, war, lies, stonewalling, illegal activities, missing emails and other missing evidence by upper administration members, wouldn't it be better to leave the sports problems to be settled out among the sports leagues and associations. Baseball is a multi billion dollar industry I think they could afford their own investigators, set their own regulations and enforce them without tax payers having to front the bill.
Update 3/13/08
I was maybe out of line somewhat on Arlen, it is noted that in the illegal wiretapping subject he wants to change defendant from the telecommunication companies to the government in the court cases now against the telecommunication companies for them going along with illegal requests by the government. I can see the logic to having the government as a defendant, I can understand how it is hard to refuse something the government is pushing you to do. I am not familiar with what effects that may have on any court case. It does seem like it's a rip to the tax payer to have to pay for the government's illegal actions of spying on tax payers. It would amount to the same thing as if someone stole something from a person and they sell it on the black market, spend the money they got from selling the stolen goods, and then we make the person that was ripped off have to pay the thief's fines and court costs. So maybe I'll reserve my praising Arlen for wanting to do that after all. To really be fair, if this was Bush's idea and he convinced the intelligence communities to take this route as a legal option, who in turn convinced the telecoms that this was legal request for information, Bush should be made the defendant and the one liable for any jail time or fines.
This is from a Republican senator... Senator Specter, you are concerned about such things when it has to do with a football game? I mean, yes by all means, we have to hold these games above the accountability that your buddies in the Republican party have demonstrated while in power. After all the stakes are so much higher than say whether we as a country have illegally used torture such as water boarding against prisoners and the videos of that were destroyed. Football is maybe much more important to you then missing emails from the administration's deliberations to start a war on false pretenses, or information on the political firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys, or the leaking of a CIA operative's name. I think you are having a case of sour grapes maybe cause you had some money riding on the game or something. Same thing with the congressional investigation into doping in baseball. Is doping in sports disturbing? Yes. Is doping in sports wrong? Yes. Is it something that is so important that we should be spending time and money in the senate investigation? I don't think so. With all the other problems that we need to be sorting out, war, lies, stonewalling, illegal activities, missing emails and other missing evidence by upper administration members, wouldn't it be better to leave the sports problems to be settled out among the sports leagues and associations. Baseball is a multi billion dollar industry I think they could afford their own investigators, set their own regulations and enforce them without tax payers having to front the bill.
Update 3/13/08
I was maybe out of line somewhat on Arlen, it is noted that in the illegal wiretapping subject he wants to change defendant from the telecommunication companies to the government in the court cases now against the telecommunication companies for them going along with illegal requests by the government. I can see the logic to having the government as a defendant, I can understand how it is hard to refuse something the government is pushing you to do. I am not familiar with what effects that may have on any court case. It does seem like it's a rip to the tax payer to have to pay for the government's illegal actions of spying on tax payers. It would amount to the same thing as if someone stole something from a person and they sell it on the black market, spend the money they got from selling the stolen goods, and then we make the person that was ripped off have to pay the thief's fines and court costs. So maybe I'll reserve my praising Arlen for wanting to do that after all. To really be fair, if this was Bush's idea and he convinced the intelligence communities to take this route as a legal option, who in turn convinced the telecoms that this was legal request for information, Bush should be made the defendant and the one liable for any jail time or fines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)