“PHONY FINANCIALS AND OTHER FOLLIES”

Or, Some Questions to Ask About the Bailout

NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.

Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?

Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?

During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?

How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?

Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?

Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?

Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.

Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.

Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.

Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?

What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?

Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?

What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?

What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?

Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?

What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?

Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?

Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?

Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?

Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?

So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?

Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.

Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!

Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?

If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.

“ 'S A DAMN SHAME WE REMAIN”

Or, Changing the Debate on Iraqi

Unless the shape of the debate changes soon, it looks like the earliest our troops will realistically be allowed to hope for getting out of the mistake known as Iraq is the day Bush is removed from office or whatever day the amoebas in Congress finally grow a spine. Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be foolishly boxed into a “debate” defending against the assertion that anything ending the fiasco is somehow not “supporting” the troops.

Bush and his NeoCons have once again conned the nation into a non sequitur. What the anti-Iraq quagmire activists need to do is change the question. How to do that? Are there any challenges or demands that can be made (besides the obviously useful impeachment alternative) that might assist? Actually there are several in which Bush’s own rhetoric can be successfully used against him. How about:

ALTERNATIVE 1: LET’S VOTE.

Yeah. I know. We thought we already did last November. But, apparently it was not explicit enough on the question of Iraq. If so, it would be pretty easy to organize a special election, a national plebiscite solely on the subject whether to (a) leave now or (b) stay until our soldiers run out of blood or our treasury runs out of money, whichever comes first. Consider it as a national No Confidence Vote which European nations have turned into a proud and useful tradition. Let’s ask Bush and Cheney to resign if they cannot persuade a majority of the voters that Western Civilization itself is riding on us staying in Iraq forever. If he truly has confidence in what he is telling us, ask him why not put it to a vote?

Of course, since we already know Bush is totally opposed to democracy here in the States and is too cowardly to really debate the subject, that will never happen. (In fact, it might even prove counterproductive given how Bush’s minions like the owner of the Diebold voting machines seem to magically achieve voting totals which defy logic and evidence when there is no paper trail to check against.) BUT, Bush does loudly and frequently claim he’s at least for spreading “democracy” in the Middle East. So, let’s let the Iraqis give us the purple finger as to whether they want us to remain.

Why should Bush consider agreeing? He can continue pouring our assets down that rat hole until the end of his term assuming he is not removed by impeachment. On the other hand, he seems to be starting to worry both about his “legacy” and has good cause to worry about post term investigations. Frankly, it’s a perfect solution for him. If the Iraqis vote to keep us as their guards, he wins the debate and can blunt criticism of him. If they vote for us to get out, he then has cover to pretend whatever later disaster happens is all the Iraqis’ fault, not his own massive bungling.

If Bush won’t consider an Iraqi vote or if the civil warring factions there would not allow it, how about demanding a UN General Assembly vote in which we agree not to exercise a veto and to abide by the result? Once again, Bush who surely knows he has already lost the war assuming he can read the reports from his own generals, can shrug his shoulders and say “Well, I would have won, but I wasn’t allowed to do so.” Legacy saved, at least in his own mind.

ALTERNATIVE TWO: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER TROOPS.

Bush claims he “supports the troops” and touts the “all volunteer” army with which he likes to play toy general. While it is not true if almost everything learned about missing armor, extended tours, poor vet care, rotten salaries, and literal rotten food, etc. is accurate, nevertheless, let’s insist he make Iraq an “all volunteer” mission. It used to be a tradition that when you sent troops on suicide or dangerous missions, volunteers were called for. If Bush believes so much in the mission, he can truly “support the troops” by saying they don’t have to go to Iraq unless they feel the same way.

Normally, in a real war, that would not be a good idea, but most of our other wars have been fought for valid reasons in which there was a real and present danger from something other than tin pot dictators we had put in power ourselves or a covetous desire for resources like oil. Consequently, let’s give our boys and girls a choice as to whether they want to die in Iraq for Bush’s ego, particularly when they are being asked to do so at a salary one-fifth what the Bush and Cheney are paying Blackwater private mercenaries to do the same thing.

No doubt it will cost substantially more to bump soldier salaries sufficiently high enough to persuade them putting Iraq oil in Halliburton pockets is worth dying for. At the same time, wouldn’t a significant increase in enlisted man compensation finally show some genuine “support” for the troops instead for the empty words Bush has been so fond of mouthing?

Better yet, how about initiating a draft of all those who voted in favor of the Iraq war starting with Bush’s military age offspring? That way, we would not even have to raise salaries. They wanted the war, they get it.

Naturally, Bush will fight such a proposal, but in doing so it once again exposes him for the utter hypocrite he is and shifts the focus on which the issue is presently stuck.

ALTERNATIVE THREE: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER FUNDING.

Don’t cut off the funds for the troops, but perhaps insist instead that they be paid for by those who want the war. Perhaps a line could be added to the income tax returns in which citizens and companies could specify how much they would voluntarily add to their tax burdens to fund the Iraq war. Bush could use those earmarked funds, but only those funds.

Oops, the big companies like Cheney’s Halliburton don’t pay much taxes. In fact, they are leaving for places like Dubai so they can pay even less. But, since the war is being really fought to supply them with oil revenue (plus a lot of easy war profiteering), they may have to be assessed some new taxes if the Republicans want to continue in their “Crusade” as Bush used to characterize it. Let them be asked to give back some of the billions they have stolen in graft, corruption, overcharging, insider trading and “bad accounting.”

If that does not supply enough money due to the public finally wising up or the corporations being too cheap to give back some of their obscene profits and obscene CEO obscene salaries, perhaps Bush can hold a telethon or use some of the campaign contribution bribery and lobbying funds he has stashed away. The bottom line is let those who want the war foot the bills for it. If they don’t, then use against them the same “unpatriotic traitor” mantra they call everyone else.

ALTERNATIVE FOUR: ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OIL

Basically demand the Prez prove that this is not really all about Oil by eliminating its consumption for fuel in this country. Demand immediate genuine progress be accomplished by launching, say, a massive Manhattan Project or first Lunar Mission urgency to end dependency before his Presidency ends. Ask that at least as much be spent on a useful alternative energy goal as has been spent on Bush’s military adventurism. Perhaps a 100% tax on gasoline at the pump, a surtax on oil company profits, mandatory gas rationing as occurred in WWII, elimination of restrictions on wind, wave, solar and other non-oil construction such as the suburban zoning height restrictions preventing home wind generator towers plus a huge research and development project on fuel cells and other hopeful methods.

This only indirectly would be an impetus for getting the troops out, but it would finally require the rest of the country to share some of the burden and sacrifice. Bringing that sacrifice home would remind the heads in the sand public that something is going on for which they too have a responsibility. It broadens the debate.

ALTERNATIVE FIVE: DEMAND STANDARDS BE SET FOR WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE FINALLY “WON” SO WE KNOW WHEN WE CAN FINALLY LEAVE.

For instance, have we "won" and can get out if the death toll is dropped to, say, 25% of what it was last year? How about when the electricity operation is on for at least 50% of the day at least six days a week? How about if the daily death toll and utility service availability is at least the same as the average for, say, Mexico, East Timor or Algeria? Those are not very high standards to achieve. How about when reporters can report from anywhere and only, say, 25 a year are killed attempting to do so.

If we cannot achieve even those very low standards, then we will never achieve higher ones and it is better to demand we get out now while we still have the shirt on our backs.

No standards - no continuing.

ALTERNATIVE SIX: DECLARE PEACE, NOT WAR.

Although Bush rejects international law, signed treaties, precedent, tradition, the words of his oath of office and most of the Constitution, Bush did seek a “war resolution” to allow him to use force in Iraq. Repeal that resolution or alternatively recognize that the Constitution requires Congress, and Congress alone, to declare war. Read it sometime.

If there is no legal authorization for the troops being in Iraq, then leaving them there would be an illegal activity for which Bush could be impeached.

As to cutting off the funds for the war, Bush attempts to characterize that as an attempt to harm the troops. In fact, it is the opposite. If Bush insists on leaving them there, then he and he alone is responsible for whatever happens next. In fact, by military law, troops are required to refuse to obey illegal orders which they would be if Bush ignores a demand for removal of the troops.

Cutting off the funds was necessary to finally end the war in Vietnam. Few now believe that troops were harmed as a result and that proved to really be the only way to bring them home. To continue the war would be an utter waste.

ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: MOVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE “GREEN ZONE” IN BAGHDAD.

Bush is always trying to show us how macho he is cutting brush, riding bikes, wearing flight suits. How about if he will not agree to any of the foregoing, double dog dare him to move his personal base of operations along with his VP, senior staff and Attorney General to Iraq. Ask him to show his own personal courage for once rather than the yellow streak he showed in the Vietnam War. He should be asked to show the troops he is behind them just a few miles away, not an entire hemisphere. Legacy-wise, Bush would be asked to put up or shut up.

If he inspires the troops like Custer did, great at least for him. He can go down in history as being proved right – far right. If he gets killed there, no big loss and perhaps the Smithsonian, which is too close to the White House when someone finally does try a nuke, might be saved.

Bush can be reminded that if God is truly on his side as Bush proclaims, surely He will protect Bush. If not, then Bush can be happy he gets to go to his eternal reward even sooner.

One thing is for certain. We can do without Bush and his crew here for the next two years.

And if he doesn’t want to discuss one of the alternatives above, we can always seek to truncate the tumor consuming the White House by reconsidering the great ALTERNATIVE EIGHT: IMPEACHMENT. Overtly rejecting all these other seven alternatives would prove Bush (once again) to be the Hypocrite-in-Chief and might be just the miracle growth tonic those in Congress need to either grow a backbone or conclude they will lose their cushy job next time around.

It is time to break out of the box if we are going to ever break out of Iraq.

“BINDING BUSH”

Or, You’re Gonna Have to Do More than Debate Non-binding Resolutions If Ya Really Want Us out of Iraq

Let’s first stop calling it the “Iraq War.” From now on, it ought to be known as “Bush’s War” and his alone. Re-label the whole abomination just like the Republicans morphed the phrase “Estate Taxes” into so-called “Death Taxes” even though only large estates were actually taxed anything. That’ll make it tougher for him to sell.

While we are at re-labeling, has anyone else noticed how much the White House's entire Iraq War promotion scam is like those Nigerian fraud schemes that constantly plague our e-mails, both as to the techniques used and the public's astonishing gullibility? No wonder there seems to be no way to stop either type of con game. So, let's start with not only calling it Bush's personal video game, but what it really is, a bloody mess promoted on fraudulent grounds so a tiny few people could make a lot of money.

That way, if the President wants to send more boots to Iraq as cannon fodder, we are now free to ask him why doesn’t he draft from that long list of incompetent political hacks he keeps nominating to head agencies like FEMA or become judges? They won’t do any good there, but at least when they got killed, it wouldn’t be the unmitigated tragedy it is every time our real soldiers are wasted.

Or, how about a new rule that Bush can’t send any more American kids to Iraq until at least his own children are drafted in the Army and join the contingent? Embarrass the heck out of him in a way the press might report.

Or, how about we offer a compromise to Bush? We tell him that he can have his “surge” in troops, more even if his generals are willing to openly state they need it and it would be worth while. BUT, in return, the President must agree that if he cannot finally show “mission actually accomplished” in, say, six to nine months, then he and Cheney publicly admit they were dead wrong and resign so that someone competent gets a chance. A “put up or shut up” policy in other words. The press might like that.

Better yet, instead of asking him, how about telling him to end the War. Keep in mind, Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to declare War. The Executive Branch doesn’t. It’s quite clearly specified in the US Constitution, not that many people in Washington seem to have read anything in the Constitution. Granted the President has a significant amount of operational control over certain, although not all, of the military issues. BUT, suppose Congress chooses to formally declare Peace instead of War? Suppose Congress rescinded its ill advised resolution initially authorizing the President to use force in Iraq? Suppose it declared that further use of force by the US Military personnel in Iraq except in self defense would be illegal and that anyone issuing orders for offensive use of force would be committing a High Crime or Misdemeanor authorizing indictment or impeachment as appropriate.

Try it Congress. Please. The anti-war folks in the deliberative body, especially ones in the Senate, are already looking like idiots with their deliberating forever over “non-binding resolutions.” The Bush diehard loyalists have managed to make them look like laughing stocks who can’t even get meaningless words voted on.

If nothing else, trying some of the above ploys might tie the President up so much with lawyers trying to sort out the legalities that he becomes too busy to engage in further mischief with other countries such as Iran or Syria. This almost certainly would be a better route than simply trying to cut off funding for Bush’s current and planned Middle East “Crusades.” That conceivably might jeopardize the troops already there. Obviously, the President cares nothing about them, but the rest of us do.

If Congress wants to cut off funding for anything, how about cutting off the White House’s money for speech writers, lawyers, heat, water, booze, waiters, football channels, plumbers, toilet paper and the like. He’s not granted those in the Constitution. That sort of cutting would do more good and harm few. And, it wouldn’t be a meaningless gesture. Let him finally experience some personal deprivations like our military does overseas. After all, he declared this was supposedly a “Struggle for Civilization” itself. Let him show it by struggling through without air conditioning.

Besides, it would be a terrific PR bombshell, especially since the White House wants to pretend that “non-essentials” like health care, veterans benefits, protection of our food sources, and education should be trimmed from the domestic budget to pay for his war. Think how much fun it would be to hoist him on his own gold plated petard. The supposed “conservatives” would not even be allowed to complain since we are saving a few bucks in the process.

Bush seems to think he’s got Congress boxed in. If so, it’s time to start thinking outside the box.

Okay, some of those suggestions are somewhat silly. At least though they do not on their face sound as silly as trying to tell the American solid majority against the war that “non-binding resolutions” will somehow help.

If you don’t like any of those ideas, then it's time to demand Congress finally file a bill of impeachment so that investigations can begin using subpoena power to determine whether, as suspected, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred in office. The end result of that process can be very binding. As traumatizing as the process is, the Founding Fathers believed in its efficacy and enshrined it in the Constitution for good reason. It is a tool we have been granted to cleanse the political system. Let’s use it.

The one thing certain is that whether it’s 20,000 troops or 200,000 or 2,000,000, Bush’ll still screw it up. For instance, the only ally among the Iraqi civil war factions Bush still had was the Kurds. So, why did he deliberately enrage them by a surprise raid on the Iranian consulate in Kurd territory arresting six diplomats they supposedly had invited? It nearly resulted in some American troops almost getting shot by Kurds at a road block and did result in a promise to shot Americans if it happened again. Apparently, the decision was attributable to Bush personally. Is there any tactical, strategic or operational decision that Bush is not capable of bollixing?

Similarly, when questioned about the botched vigilante-like hangings in Iraq, Bush sheepishly admitted “They could have handled things better.” That’s my candidate for understatement of the 21st Century and the kindest possible epitaph for the Bush Administration.

The bottom line is we need to stop him now. The so-called non-binding resolutions, which seems to be the only thing the opposition has come up with so far make the party look like a disorganized pack ineffectual weaklings. If the current office holders are not capable of doing anything useful, then perhaps they should resign and let other, more focused, newcomers have a chance.