Go Barney!

If you happened to miss the town hall debate between Barney Frank and some folks against the discussion of any health care reform on August 18 then here is the key points. Barney Frank has no problem with your first ammendment right to disagree on the Obama healthcare reform but don't expect him to argue with a dining room table...

Video Link

Republican Slight of Hand

Hello Papamoka Readers! The news lately has been filled with both Republicans and Democrats screaming bloody murder over the completely unjust bonuses being paid by AIG. I agree there have been lots of mistakes made and that everything should be done to stop those payments, however, I also believe the right wing is driving the scandal to distract from the more important reforms.

Republicans haven't had a lot to crow about lately, so they're thrilled the Democrats dropped the ball involving something as controversial as bonus payouts to failing Wall Street bankers. Sure, AIG under the Obama Administration should have seen this coming, but it's still a GOP distraction.

The GOP operatives pushing this scandal are only interested in political gain. It's a scandal within a scandal. They are conveniently ignoring the fact that Bush and Paulson paid the first installment without any congressional involvement and without excluding bonuses the same way, because they too were afraid of employee lawsuits. Subsequent Capitol Hill and Treasury negotiators were also concerned about employee lawsuits. They were worried about increasing liabilities, something lawmakers care a lot about these days. They all had bigger fish to fry.

That's at the heart of the matter, yet nobody seems to have the balls to talk about it. It's all about politics now, and the Republican spin machine is doing its best to strum the last Democratic nerve. The only thing the Republicans are concerned about is a "gotcha" moment, and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are falling for it all hook, line and sinker. Only President Obama has had the nerve to take responsibility while asking us to focus on the big picture. I agree with him. Let's do it!

The AIG Financial Products Corporation, which is now being dismantled by government appointed executives, is the real scandal. The bonuses are horrible, but the real story is why the financial products division of AIG ever came into existence. Let's not forget the regulatory changes led by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, Newt Gingrich, and the rest of the Republican Congress during the waning days of the Clinton Administration started this national nightmare. They know it, but for some reason rank and file Republicans ignore it, and average Americans never talk about it.

Sure, Clinton signed it under extreme pressure, and he was wrong to do it, but the real culprits were the Republicans who destroyed the walls that stood between banks, speculative investment brokerage firms, insurance companies, and the rest. Those protections were put in place after things went horribly wrong during the last Republican depression. They were designed to manage greed, PROTECT the free market from its darker side, and in the end keep the wolves out of the hen house. It was the REPUBLICANS WHO DESTROYED IT!

Of course, their deregulation was made worse by the fact that regulators were undermined by the Bush Administration. Oversight was weak at best. The Bush Administration was without a doubt a REACTIVE regulator. They didn't believe in the protections. They didn't do their job. I don't care what my right wing readers say, the Bush Administration could have done more to prevent the crisis. They had the data, they knew about AIG and the $50 TRILLION plus DERIVATIVES market, and they knew about the risk to the whole economy. They did NOTHING! They were at least negligent, and at worst conspiratorial.

My dinner party debates always feature a Republican blaming Congressman Barney Frank, Senator Christopher Dodd, and the usual Democrats for not reigning in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What they never admit is how the Bush Administration had the authority, through dozens of regulatory agencies, to reign in the risk across the board. Many economists feel that most administrations would have done so. It was the Bush Administration, along with the Republican belief in small and unobtrusive government, that failed the American people.

Therefore, let's be angry about the greed on Wall Street, but I think it's more important to keep our eyes on the prize. Let's make sure the Democrats and the Obama Administration do everything necessary to reverse the regulatory changes that allowed the Bush Administration to look the other way. Let's FORCE future Republicans to regulate the risk by creating strong and principled new laws.

Let's reform until we can't reform any more. AIG is the critical patient that needs to be isolated and treated, but it's the Republicans and their broken philosophies about government and the market that represent the deadly contagion. Let's find a vaccine and a cure! Let's make sure we never become victims of their greed and stupidity again.

Michael Boh
Papamoka's Left Coast Contributor
from Our Rants & Raves Blog

Are the culture wars over?

The Republican domination of American politics in the past thirty years was built on three core planks: fiscal conservatism (meaning tight monetary policy, deregulation and privatisation); foreign policy aggression (the party that ‘defends America’); and social conservatism.

The Obama victory occurred because the financial crisis played havoc with this calculation in all manner of ways. First, the Wall Street elites abandoned their commitment to keeping government out of business when they discovered that government was the only thing that could keep them in business. Meanwhile, the public exposure of corporate greed made the public as a whole question its commitment to free markets uber alles. And – in the longer term, over a decade – the Democrats became increasingly dominated by centrists who accepted many of the more sensible principles of fiscal responsibility, or at least appeared more sensible than the Bush Republicans were on the matter.

Not only did the financial crisis mean that the importance of items two and three on the list was sharply reduced, but it also put the failure of eight years of aggressive foreign policy into stark relief. Money that should have been going on constructive growth projects creating jobs and businesses in America was lining the pockets of Bechtel and KBR, or being poured down the sink through the manufacture of self-destroying bombs and bullets; and yet the product of all this ridiculous spending was a world that was more and more suspicious of American power.

This left cultural conservatism as the sole plank on which to build a Republican majority, and it starkly failed to work in the last election. Partly this was because the Obama campaign did a good job of avoiding any number of red flag issues; and partly because in the context of the looming destruction of the economy ‘values’ issues came to be depicted as little more than a cynical attempt by politicians to sucker the electorate: a bait and switch of the worst kind. And once cultural politics started looking like a political tactic, it suddenly became counter-productive ... by definition, since the essence of the argument was that it was a conflict over sincerely held values.

But there might be a deeper trend going on here as well: namely, that it seems that the world has moved on since the splits of the 1960s. Andrew Sullivan was on the television the other day over here in the UK, and argued that people just don’t care about these issues as much as the activists – that there was a basic consensus emerging in America on cultural issues. Namely, most people don’t like abortion but they don’t want people going to prison for it; and most people aren’t gay but don’t really care if other people are. To some extent the role of activists in the structure of primary voting had disguised how far the public as a whole had moved on on this issue.

So here’s my question: is it really true that the culture wars are dying out? In Europe, so many of these things are such non-issues that it’s hard to credit their persistence in the US. But they've lasted a hundred years already. And given that culture wars remain – for the next four or more years at least – the one part of the Republican triumvirate of power that may still hold traction with some voters, it’s an important question whether the consensus has genuinely shifted toward social liberalism or whether social conservatism is just in hiding whilst the maelstrom of economic crisis and foreign policy failure drowns it out…

What makes me wonder was a recent feature in the New Yorker on congressman Barney Frank – a figure heavily involved in the horse-trading over the financial bailout but known to many Americans simply as the openly gay congressman. Frank complained that Obama’s decision to place Rick Warren on the inaugural programme reflected a real problem: the new president's reluctance to admit that ideological differences can’t always be negotiated away, that sometimes they need to be confronted. He also laid out his legislative agenda for the forthcoming year: “We’re going to do three things in Congress,” he told me. “First, a hate-crimes bill—that shouldn’t be too hard. Next, employment discrimination. We almost got that through before, but now we can win even if we add transgender protections, which we are going to do. And finally, after the troops get home from Iraq, gays in the military. The time has come.”

Obama’s reference in his acceptance speech to tolerance for straights and gays suggests he may support this agenda; but his invitation to Rick Warren suggests that he might try and duck these issues, since they offer an opportunity to revive cultural conservatism. What he decides, and how the public reacts, therefore, could turn out to be a critical underlying issue of his administration. Compare FDR, for instance: the first term was so dominated by economics that the old fashioned version of the culture wars (anti-communism) took a back seat. But it came back resurgent by 1938. And on the even bigger issue - an anti-lynching law - FDR ducked the question entirely, knowing that it held the potential to split his party.

So, two questions:

• Are the culture wars really dead? Has America moved on about this stuff?
• Will the desire of the Democratic left to win these victories for personal rights provide a stick with which to beat Obama in the way that gays in the military was used against Clinton?

These two questions might prove to be very important indeed…

Alex Goodall

Papamoka’s European Contributor
From A Swift Blow to the Head

Congressman Barney Frank's Honorable, Tough Stand Against GOP Propaganda

Good Morning Papamoka Bloggers - I've been blogging a lot about the causes of the credit crisis, and although I hate to beat the proverbial dead horse, I simply have to post another article about how the Republicans are using race to explain away their own mistakes related to predatory lending and the credit crisis.

One of my favorite Congressman, Barney Frank, the man who recently suffered the obnoxious slings and arrows of that Fox "News" moron, Bill O'Reilly, supported my assertions yesterday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that is racially motivated.

According to the AP's Glen Johnson reporting from Boston yesterday, the Massachusetts Democrat and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is "appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act."

He said the blame "is misplaced, because those loans are issued by regulated institutions, while far more foreclosures were triggered by high-cost loans made by unregulated entities." As my regular bloggers know that is a point that I've been banging away at for over a month now.

The Republicans refuse to acknowledge that regulatory protections were in place to insure against fraud and credit problems. They act like the Community Reinvestment Act and other legislation left lenders unprotected and vulnerable like sheep ready for a slaughter. To anybody who has read the legislation and the accompanying regulations (see my earlier posts) the assertions are wrong - or lies if you will.

Do you Republicans even listen to yourselves? The whole idea is crazy. It was caused primarily by a lack of oversight by the Bush Administration over the past eight years. Other causes involved Republican-led deregulation signed by Clinton in 1999 (he was wrong too), a housing bubble (caused by the lack of oversight and subsequent, over-confident market forces), and ultimate mismanagement and greed.

After a lot of homework, including a review of recent congressional testimonies, I would say the causes are pretty much in that order. The poor people who took the loans are the least guilty, unless they lied - also the fault of the predatory lenders in my opinion. Aren't there ways to find out if people are lying?

Frank said Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years and passed no regulation, while Democrats passed a Bush administration Fannie and Freddie regulation package since gaining control of the House and Senate in January 1997. Frank is rightly accusing the Republicans of race baiting their constituents. "They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

Frank dismissed charges the Democrats failed on their own or blocked Republican efforts to rein in the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I agree with him. I researched and discovered that both parties attempted Fannie and Freddie reform legislation from their own party perspectives, and both failed over the years due to a lack of compromise. Much of it was caused by the Bush Administration and its demands for massive structural changes designed to help Wall Street, and less industry regulation that Democrats felt threatened a system that has worked well for decades. Despite the congressional conflict, the crisis still grew out of a lack of Bush oversight.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called Frank's remarks "a lame, desperate attempt to divert Americans' attention away from the Democratic party's obstruction of reforms that would have reined in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helped our nation avoid this economic crisis."

Mr. Boehner, the only lame and desperate things here are you and your party. You guys are willing to lie, cheat and steal to get your way. You are lying to the American people about the cause of this crisis, and you are attacking an honest man like Barney Frank to beat him in November and back up your absurd, deceitful, conspiracy theory that poor people brought down Wall Street.

Barney Frank did not cause this crisis. More than twelve horrible years of Republican "leadership" caused this crisis. The same leadership that brought us war, tragedy, and corruption on a massive scale. It is time the Republicans stop blaming others for what they caused, and take responsibility for their failures.

Rovian tactics like "muddying the waters" to make everybody look bad in this situation will not work. It was Bush and the Republicans. I hope you take the time to learn what I've learned, and vote them out of power in November.

Michael Boh
Papamoka's West Coast Contributor
from Our Rants & Raves Blog

GOP Collapsing State by State

With the economic downturn and the need for the Congress to bailout Wall Street the immediate effect is being felt by the GOP in not just the race for President but also in the House and Senate. Support for Republican politicians is not only dropping off but it is appearing to look like a mass evacuation prior to a hurricane.

You don’t have to believe me, just read the posts from many of the main stream media and you see the Tsunami coming for the GOP on November 4th. Even the Washington Post is talking about it now…

GOP Strategists Whisper Fears Of Greater Losses in November

By Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer and Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 4, 2008; Page A11

With the party already struggling to generate enthusiasm for its brand, Republican strategists fear that an outpouring of public anger generated by Congress's struggle to pass a rescue package for the financial industry may contribute to a disaster at the polls for the GOP in November.

"The crisis has affected the entire ticket," said Jan van Lohuizen, a Republican consultant who handled the polling for President Bush's reelection campaign. "The worse the state's economy, the greater the impact."

Republicans are trying to defend at least 18 House seats in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, economic trouble spots that double as election battlegrounds. Rising unemployment, the meltdown in the housing market, and a credit crunch besieging consumers and manufacturers alike were factors in Sen. John McCain's decision Thursday to pull campaign resources out of Michigan. The McCain campaign's exit from the state leaves a pair of vulnerable Republicans, Reps. Tim Walberg and Joe Knollenberg, with a weakened party infrastructure heading into Nov. 4. Attempting to sound optimistic, Knollenberg, who opposed the bailout bill on Monday but supported a revised version yesterday, said simply, "I am going to fight harder." - Washington Post

I think it would be fair enough to say that the GOP members of the Congress pretty much contributed the most to the mindset that many Independent, Moderate, and even Republican’s voters now have with the $700 Billion bill they just stuffed in each American’s mailbox. It was interesting to see how quickly the GOP and their talking media heads are now trying to say that Democrats are to blame for this financial crisis and yet until the Democrats took control of both houses in the Congress, President Bush had not vetoed even one bill sent to his desk?

Take for instance Rep. Barney Frank, one of the key people that worked very hard to get a consensus in the Congress to save the economic markets. Mind you, this bailout bill effects all of us with not just the cost but the saving of our retirement accounts, investments, and all of our economies. I’m not happy about it but doing nothing was not an option. The biggest critic of Barney Frank was Bill O’Reilly and Barney was not going to be shut up because Bill O’ through a temper tantrum with facts taken out of context.

Video Link



What do you think the odds are that Barney Frank or any other Democrat in office will talk to Bill O’Reilly ever again? All of Bill’s shouting and insults to Congressman Frank was down and out rude and ignorant and only proved that he is not a journalist by any means. Bill O' and his outrage also shows that he is the first to point the fingers of blame at anyone as long as it does not point to the GOP. His ranting and raving only showed that he had nothing to add to the dilema ALL Americans face during this financial crisis. Bill O'Reilly is making Fox News and the network look like a tabloid newspaper with all of his extreme irrational anger with many of the people he interviews. If I were Rupert Murdoch I would reign in this whack job cashing my payroll check.

Somebody over at Fox needs to check to see if Billy boy is taking his medications. I have not seen that kind of aggressive behavior since… well matter of fact since Bill O’s last expressive explosion.

Way to go Congressman Barney Frank, you just stepped up to the "Give Em Hell Harry" category of great American leaders!

Papamoka

Special thanks to Memeorandum for the tip to this story in the WaPo!

Bailout Quagmire Courtesy of John McCain

John McCain suspended his campaign to do what most legislators in Washington D.C. do, nothing! He could have done that from the campaign trail. Instead, he declares this banking industry and Wall Street crisis his top priority so he can go the White House and offer nothing to the equation. Did he or did he not say that he was going back to the capitol to end the bipartisan debate and fix the problem? Instead we get more of McSame only this time he’s not even taking sides with his President or the bipartisan group that has put together this bailout package.

Shaking my head in disbelief but this is what Reuters has to say on it…

Angry W. House meeting roils Wall St bailout talks
By Kevin Drawbaugh and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Negotiations in the U.S. Congress toward a massive bailout for Wall Street fell into disarray on Thursday night after a contentious White House meeting, with lawmakers later offering conflicting reports about the position of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

The White House meeting -- attended by McCain, Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, President George W. Bush and lawmakers from both parties -- "devolved into a contentious shouting match," according to a statement from the McCain campaign.
"At today's cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan," the statement said.

Senior Democrats said they came away from the afternoon White House session with the impression that McCain was backing an entirely new Wall Street rescue plan, one differing markedly from a Bush administration proposal under discussion for days.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee and a participant in the White House gathering, said negotiations could be set back by the confusion.

"House Republicans, in some kind of arrangement with McCain, went off to wherever. I don't know whether they're ready to negotiate this. Their thing was some totally different mortgage insurance plan ... that would clearly delay this for a week or more," Frank told reporters. - Reuters

Hold the freaking presses. Let me get this straight… President Bush, Senator Chris Dodd, Represenatative Barney Frank, Secretary Paulson, Fed Reserve Chairman Bernake had a working proposal pretty much agreeable to all parties and McCain stepped into the equation and squashed it? To back an insurance plan?

Anyone that knows insurance knows that it is always in favor of the house, just like the odds favor the house in Las Vegas! So we have the Maverick Senator from Arizona coming into the discussion, the Conservative right wing general of his party, the less government, less regulation is best candidate, and he backs a never ending mortgage insurance plan on the backs of the American people? How sweet of a big business, big banks deal is that? Let’s not only put the taxpayers in for $700 Billion Dollars but lets make this pig fest into a never ending feed trough!

John McCain has just shown where his loyalty is and it is not in the interest of homeowners or soon to be homeowners. Now on top of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you will get a double dipper with MMI (McCain Mortgage Insurance) because Wall Street has not raped the American people enough.

Mind you, this insurance that McCain is backing isn’t because you as a homeowner made bad decisions, it’s because the people making bad loans on Wall Street might continue making bad decisions and it’s only fair that all of us be punished for it. Pass out them golden parachutes and screw you Joe Q. Voter.

Vote Obama and vote often!

Papamoka