Two words

I've got two words for all the congress critters who think that our current health care system is everything we'd ever need, or for the ones who think that the new system envisaged by the by the bill that's going to go to President Obama sometime in the next month takes care of all the fixes necessary.

Vic Chesnutt.

Merry fucking Christmas, Joe Lieberman.

Continue reading Two words

Slap their wrists. Again.

Congress scolds former AIG executives over crisis

Former top executives of insurance giant American International Group Inc. were on the receiving end of a verbal smackdown Tuesday as a congressional panel probed the chain of events that forced the government to bail out the conglomerate.

. . .

Waxman opened the hearing by lambasting the company for spending more than $440,000 to hold a weeklong retreat for its executives at a luxury resort in California less than a week after receiving its $85 billion federal bailout.

Careful, Henry. you'll get them so stressed out they'll have to go back to the spa.

Continue reading Slap their wrists. Again.

Farce

Act 1 (Late 2007)

President: The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Advisers: They are strong.

Congress: Yes, they are strong.

President: But the people are not spending enough money.

Congress: We need to stimulate them.

Advisors: Let's give them each 600 dollars to spend.

Congress: Make haste!

President: The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Act 2 (Summer 2008)

President: The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Advisors: Yes. They are strong.

Congress: They are strong.

Advisors: But the people have spent their 600 dollars.

Congress: Where has the money gone?

President: That was one helluva Olympics they put on in China. And how about our beach volleyball girls?

Act 3: (Early fall 2008)

President: The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Candidate McCain: The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Advisors: Nice strong economy you got here. Be a shame if anything bad were to happen to it, if you get my drift.

Congress: What do you mean?

Advisors: We need 700 billion with a "B" dollars if you want to keep the economy strong.

Congress: That's a lot of money.

Advisors: Here's a taste of what we mean.

Congress: Here ya go. Are you sure this will be enough? We don't have any else.

Advisors: Nobody's sure about nothing. Keep the printing presses running.

President: I'm outta here.

Candidate McCain: Economy? What economy? My opponent is a terrorist.

UPDATE: I swear to God you can't make this shit up:

An official says the administration has decided to pick a key Treasury Department official to be the interim head of its $700 billion rescue effort for financial institutions.

The official said Monday that Neel Kashkari, Treasury's assistant secretary for international affairs, will soon be announced as the interim head of Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability. The official asked not to be identified by name because the selection has not been announced publicly.

The 35-year-old Kashkari is a former Goldman Sachs Inc. banker, the investment giant once headed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The new office was created by the emergency legislation enacted Friday to fund the largest government bailout in history.

Continue reading Farce

Priorities

High:

The Congress approved a $700 billion bailout package for U.S. banks as efforts to head off a spreading global financial crisis hung in the balance.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the financial rescue plan by a vote of 263-171. That vote sent the measure to U.S. President George W. Bush, who quickly signed it into law, concluding two weeks of haggling in Washington that had roiled and captivated global markets.

Not so high:

The House voted Friday to extend unemployment benefits to those who have exhausted their current benefits. The vote came hours after learning that the nation's payrolls were continuing to shrink and after the House had approved a massive financial rescue plan for Wall Street.

"People are hurting with no end in sight," said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. "It is our responsibility as a Congress to stand up and help them weather these tough economic times."

But despite the strong 368-28 vote in the House, the bill's chances of becoming law this year are slim. On Thursday, Senate opponents rejected an effort to bring the legislation to the floor, possibly dooming it for the year. The Senate is in recess for the elections and it is unclear if it will reconvene after the Nov. 4 vote for a lameduck session.

The House bill would provide seven additional weeks of payments to those who have exhausted their benefits. Those in states where the unemployment rate is above 6 percent would be entitled to an additional 13 weeks above the 26 weeks of regular benefits.

You'd think the least that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House leadership would have been able to do was get a quid pro quo with the Senate to pass this. Especially coming on a day when the Labor Department reported that the US lost 159,000 jobs in September, and 760,000 jobs since the first of the year.

No matter, i guess. Teh economy has been saved.

Continue reading Priorities

Two thoughts

1. Rep. John Boehner is an asshole. The problem with the bailout is not what Nancy Pelosi had to say this morning. It's that George Bush and Dick Cheney were working the phones trying to get it passed. Republicans know better than Democrats how toxic those two are, and they're running as far away from them as they can get. If Bush wants this thing to pass, what he should do is have him and Cheney come out strongly against it.

2. Despite all the posturing, the bailout actually does very little to limit the so-called "golden parachutes" that many execs at failing companies are due to receive. It's in their contracts. But you know what? Companies routinely file for bankruptcy protection to get out of contracts they signed with their unionized employees to limit their exposure to health care and retirement fund commitments. Why are CEOs any better than line workers in this regard?

Continue reading Two thoughts

We write letters

Breaking news reports indicate that the House Democratic leadership is preparing to cave, and support a FISA bill which provides retroactive immunity to telecoms which violated longstanding US law and spied on American citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.

My letter to Representative David Price (NC-04):

I am appalled at news reports that the House Democratic leadership is going to bring to the floor a bill providing immunity from lawsuits to the telecommunications industry from their unlawful spying on American citizens at the request of the Bush administration.

There is simply no reason to supply this immunity to companies which knew their actions were illegal. I trust that you will be voting against this measure, and I sincerely hope that you will communicate to the Democratic Party leadership the absolute disgust which many Americans will feel toward them should they pass this repulsive legislation.

If you live in the 4th District, Representative Price's contact page is here. Outside the 4th district? Find your congresscritter here.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald is a lot smarter than me. He explains why this is so wrong.

Continue reading We write letters

What does this mean?

Here's an Reuters story on today's surprise defeat in the US House of Representatives on a bill that would have appropriated around $160 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday defeated legislation that would have funded the war in Iraq for another year, in a surprise move that the Senate could overturn.

By a vote of 149-141, the Democrat-controlled House rejected a measure that would have given the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running through next summer, slightly below President George W. Bush's request.

A large group of anti-war House Democrats voted against the funds. That, coupled with 132 Republicans voting "present," meaning neither "yes" nor "no," killed the measure for now.

But the Senate is expected to debate its version of a war-funding bill possibly next week and is likely to resurrect the money for the coming year.

As i recall, all appropriations must originate in the House, and be approved by both houses of Congress before being sent to the President for his signature. How can the Senate overturn the House's rejection of these funds? All that can happen is the Senate can pass its version of the bill, but then the House will have to either revisit this appropriation, or start from scratch. Or am i missing something?

UPDATE: Reader crc points out that revenue bills (ie taxes) must originate in the House, but that appropriations bills (ie spending) may originate in either body. Fair point. But the article implies, i think, that the Senate can unilaterally overturn the House's decision, and resurrect the appropriation, on its own. That's just wrong.

Continue reading What does this mean?

Oy

Back after the 2004 election, there was a lot of talk about "framing the debate," inspired by the thinking of George Lakoff.

Too bad none of that thinking has trickled up to certain leadership elements within the Democratic Party:

"We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way ... without the resources they need," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. He said he hopes to have a replacement measure ready for a vote within two weeks. Democratic leaders had said previously they hope to send Bush legislation he can sign before Memorial Day

I'm just a moron with a blog, but it seems to me that what just happened is that Democrats voted to fund the troops, and Bush vetoed the funding.

Does that make sense? Democrats voted to fund the troops, and Bush vetoed the funding.

Even if Democrats are not going to draw the line in the sand over this (despite the support of 60% of the American people), couldn't Steny Hoyer at least find it in him to tell the truth?

Democrats voted to fund the troops. Bush vetoed the funding.

Who's leaving the troops in harm's way without the resources they need?

Repeat after me: George Bush.

Continue reading Oy