Right-Wing Wants to Wait For Another Enron
Right-Wing Wants to Wait For Another Enron
SEC Chairman William Donaldson’s aggressive crackdown on corporate wrongdoing has provoked a backlash from the right-wing, who have started a whisper campaign that Donaldson is engaged in “Stalinist planning.”
The response to Donaldson has also exposed the right-wing’s disastrous economic approach. In a CQ article [sub. req'd.] American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison had to say about Donaldson’s actions:
The idea of regulating in areas where there has been no market failure is quite stunning.
Of course. Who would ever want to prevent a problem before it starts? Better to wait for a complete meltdown, like Enron or WorldCom, and then think about doing something.
- Comments
- View Comments
Broken Homes
Broken Homes
The Washington Post yesterday reported on the dark underbelly lurking below the seemingly bright promise of home ownership in America. Home ownership in America may be up today, but in a nasty flip side to that coin, foreclosures are also on the rise, forcing Americans into financial disaster.
Here are the facts: Foreclosure rates this past March rose in all but 3 states. In places like Florida, Colorado and Texas, foreclosure rates are double the national average. Hurt most are black and Latino families.
What’s the problem?
First, skyrocketing costs across the board — health care, education, retirement – combined with lower wages are leaving many Americans in financially precarious positions. A study done by Harvard University earlier this year, for example, found that half of all respondents facing bankruptcy “said that illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy.” To see the effect of this on home owners, just look at Philadelphia, where more than 1,000 foreclosed properties are auctioned off each month (up from 300 to 400 a month in 200). Forty percent said they lost their homes because crushing medical bills pushed them over the financial brink.
Second, blame predatory lenders. Just like credit card companies, which make their big bucks by aggressively marketing their products to high-risk consumers– such as college students, low wage workers and the newly bankrupt, mortgage brokers and banks have been marketing riskier ways for Americans to buy homes. These mortgage companies target buyers with bad credit, then jack up interest rates to 8 — 12 percent (instead of the market rate of 6 percent.) Thus, people with plenty of money are able to buy homes which become a valuable addition to their net assets. Working-class Americans are unable to keep up with outrageously high mortgages end up losing their homes and drowning in debt.
The Multiple Lies of David Horowitz
The Multiple Lies of David Horowitz
The Podesta site gives the following absurd examples of my alleged intellectual defamations and historical inaccuracies:
1. “He has freely compared American liberals to Islamic terrorists”
The statement is a lie. I have never compared actual liberals to Islamic terrorists. The reference link is to the Amazon site where my book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left is sold. Even the title gives the game away. It’s about Radical Islam and the American left. Is Podesta suggesting that American liberals are actually leftists?
VERSUS
Last fall I published a book called Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, which argued that the progressive left in the West was in a de facto alliance with the Islamic jihadists… I put up a website at www.discoverthenetworks.org demonstrating the links between radical Islam and American progressives organizationally and also their shared agendas (e.g., opposition to the Patriot Act, bleeding heart concern for the terrorists mercifully locked up in Guatanamo etc.) Just as sophisticated liberals (The New Republic comes to mind) ignored my book, so others ridiculed the website.
Limbaugh and Bush Part Ways Over Bolton
Limbaugh and Bush Part Ways Over Bolton
“Procedural delay” or filibuster? How should one describe the Senate tactic being used to get more information on John Bolton? Rush Limbaugh insists it’s a filibuster, and has been attacking the media for not using his terminology:
The press won’t say it, but it’s a Democrat fil·i·bus·ter: [Quoting the Associated Press] “The Republicans needed 60 votes to end the Democrat…” Look at this! “Democrat procedural delay.” (Laughter) A “procedural delay” that required a cloture vote is a filibuster! Sorry to scream, folks… but I want to be emphatic.
– Rush Limbaugh, 5/27/05
What will Rush say now that President Bush has announced he agrees with the media’s interpretation?
Q: What about the filibuster as a tactic, in general, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s certainly been a tactic that’s been used on judges and Bolton, if this is a filibuster. I don’t know what you call it. I’m not sure they actually labeled it, filibuster. I’d call it — thus far, it’s a stall — stall headed toward filibuster, I guess.
– 5/31/05
Democracy Hypocrisy: Rose Colored Glasses Still On
Democracy Hypocrisy: Rose Colored Glasses Still On
Today at the press conference, President Bush attempted to defend the fact that he hasn’t spoken out against the Egypt elections:
“But I was asked about the Egyptian elections, and I said, we expect for the Egyptian political process to be open and that for people to be given a chance to express themselves in an open way, in a free way. And we reject any violence toward those who express their dissension with the government. I’m pretty confident I said that with President Abbas standing here, maybe not quite as articulately as just then.”
Actually, this is the supposedly “firm stance” to which President Bush is referring:
“I also embraced President Mubarak’s first steps and said that those first steps must include people’s ability to have access to TV, and candidates ought to be allowed to run freely in an election and that there ought to be international monitors. That’s — and the idea of people expressing themselves in opposition in government, then getting a beating, is not our view of how a democracy ought to work. It’s not the way that you have free elections. People ought to be allowed to express themselves, and I’m hopeful that the President will have open elections that everybody can have trust in.”
See how all the tough talk disappears when it’s time to actually start talking about the situation in Egypt? Instead, the President toes the line — describing what would be an ideal election process — instead of facing reality. Meanwhile, the run-up to elections in Egypt have turned out to be extremely violent and decidely unfree.
Where are the Other 39 States?
Where are the Other 39 States?
USA Today’s story about states raising their minimum wages begs a question: why aren’t more following? It is terrific that 11 have done so since 2004 — but where are the rest of the states?
Surely they aren’t expecting the feds to raise the minimum wage anytime soon. The Bush administration has refused to consider serious minimum wage legislation, while Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has tried to eliminate the minimum wage for 7 million people. This, even though economic data shows that corporate profits are rising, while wages are stagnating.
California is a good example of a state that needs to explain why it hasn’t raised its minimum wage recently. The Los Angeles Times reports today that while CEOs at California’s largest 100 public companies saw their compensation rise by almost 20 percent from 2003, the average California worker saw his or her pay rise by less than 3 percent — barely keeping up with inflation. That has at least something to do with the fact that, in 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed minimum wage legislation.
Money Ain’t Everything
Money Ain’t Everything
George Bush has underfunded his own No Child Left Behind Act by tens of billions of dollars and offered massive tax cuts to millionaires instead. Few Americans share those warped priorities. And yet in polling at the end of the 2004 election, Bush actually edged John Kerry on the education issue. Why is that?
This new article [reg. req'd] in the New Republic tries to answer that question. My argument is that Democrats have backtracked from their commitment to reforming our education system–not just to offer more money, but to ask more from bureaucracies, schools, and teachers. That’s bad politics, because most voters strongly believe in accountability. And it’s also bad policy, because high standards–and yes, even No Child Left Behind–are good for our schools, and especially for poor and minority children.
So this article lays out an agenda for Democrats to retake the initiative on education. First, instead of trashing No Child Left Behind, Democrats should commit to making it work–not by watering down high standards, as many have proposed, but by implementing high standards at the national level, through national standards and testing. And second, Democrats should seek to strengthen the quality of teaching–the single most important element of good schools–by paying teachers better for performing better, by paying them better for teaching in troubled schools, and by reforming tenure laws that protect those who just aren’t doing their jobs. Some of this stuff isn’t popular, but it’s still important. If Democrats take steps like these, they can do right by children and do right by their own ideals.
That’s the short version. I hope you’ll read the whole thing, and I’d love to talk about some of these ideas.
– Robert Gordon
Where Are the Democrats on the Uzbek Massacres?
Where Are the Democrats on the Uzbek Massacres?
On Sunday, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John Sununu (R-NH) issued what the New York Times called the “strongest statement by American officials since Uzbekistan carried out a bloody crackdown this month against a revolt and demonstration in the city of Andijon.”
How can this be? Where are the Democrats on this vital issue? Why aren’t they also publicly pressing the Uzbek dictator (and White House ally) Islam Karimov for an investigation into the massacres? Why aren’t they calling out the Bush administration for its milquetoast response to this new Tiananmen?
It’s not as if Karimov has changed his ways. His police are already “rounding up activists in a new crackdown,” AP reports today. And demanding a review of U.S.-Uzbek relations is a serious national security issue. As mentioned in an earlier post, even The Economist thinks Karimov’s “help in the war against terror is outweighed by the encouragement he has given to radicals of every stripe in Central Asia and beyond, and by the damage that association with him does to the West’s reputation.”
The fact is, it’s not always conservative spin or vapid consultants that deserve the blame when Democrats appear unprincipled on matters of national security and foreign affairs. In cases like this, it’s the sad but unmistakable truth.
Bush’s Lame-Duck Press Conference
Bush’s Lame-Duck Press Conference
Wonder why Bush is having a press conference at 10:45? Check out some recent headlines:
BUSH FINDS SPENDING ‘POLITICAL CAPITAL’ NO EASY TASK; As poll numbers drop and setbacks rise, the president is struggling to get his agenda passed
Houston Chronicle, 5/26/05
CONGRESSIONAL SETBACKS, LOW RATINGS COULD LIMIT BUSH’S EFFECTIVENESS
Knight Ridder, 5/25/05
SETBACKS PIN ‘LAME DUCK’ LABEL ON BUSH
Independent on Sunday (London), 5/29/05
BUSH ISN’T HAVING GRAND OLD TIME IN HIS 2ND TERM
Dallas Morning News, 5/30/05
BUSH’S POLITICAL CAPITAL SPENT, VOICES IN BOTH PARTIES SUGGEST; Poll Numbers Sag as Setbacks Mount at Home and Abroad
Washington Post, 5/31/05
BUSH FACES STINGY CONGRESS
AFP, 5/29/05
BUSH FINDS CONGRESS IS NO PUSHOVER
Chicago Tribune, 5/30/05
The Bush Administration Was For Amnesty International Before It Was Against It
The Bush Administration Was For Amnesty International Before It Was Against It
Tonight, Vice President Cheney will appear on CNN’s Larry King Live and reportedly condemn a recent Amnesty International report that faults the U.S. for its treatment of detainees in the war on terror. Cheney has said:
For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.
Other Administration officials have similarly been quick to lash out against the Amnesty report. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the allegations were “ridiculous and unsupported by the facts.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers called the Amnesty International report “absolutely irresponsible.”
But in the past, when it was convenient to the Administration, they did not hesitate to cite Amnesty to make its case. And nowhere did the Administration need more help than in selling the Iraq war. Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly turned to Amnesty to highlight the repressive nature of Saddam’s regime. On March 27, 2003, Rumsfeld said:
We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…
The next day, Rumsfeld even cited his “careful reading” of Amnesty:
…[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.
And on April 1, 2003, Rumsfeld said once again:
[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty International’s description of what they know has gone on, it’s not a happy picture.
So the rule here appears to be: Amnesty is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.
Democracy Hypocrisy: Strike a Pose
Democracy Hypocrisy: Strike a Pose
Apparently, in the Bush administration, a policy of “democracy promotion” includes having top officials pose in “Hollywood Walk of Fame”-style photo shoots with dictatorial thugs.
There, on the far left, is our energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, all smiles. Next to him stands the murderous Uzbek tyrant Islam Karimov, who just two weeks ago ordered Tiananmen-style massacres of hundreds of his own citizens, and has since refused to even allow an international investigation of the matter. We’d offer our view on Karimov, but the conservative Economist magazine sums it up well:
Even on the most self-interested calculus, the reality is that Mr Karimov is an ally the West is better off without. His help in the war against terror is outweighed by the encouragement he has given to radicals of every stripe in Central Asia and beyond, and by the damage that association with him does to the West’s reputation. … Nor is Uzbekistan of real strategic importance any more. With bases in Kirgizstan and Afghanistan, America hardly needs Khanabad, the base for which it pays Mr Karimov handsomely. He should now be made a pariah, his regime stripped of all forms of aid, and all military assistance withdrawn.
Posing with them is Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev. Just a few days prior to this photo, which was taken last Wednesday, “Azerbaijani police beat pro-democracy demonstrators with truncheons when opposition parties, yelling ‘free elections,’ defied the government’s ban on protests against [Aliyev].”
So why is everyone so happy? They’re celebrating the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, a project certain to enrich and strengthen these repressive regimes. At the ceremony, Bodman read a letter from President Bush lauding the “visionary leadership” of President Aliyev, and offering “congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan” for the pipeline, since they’ll surely see so much of the profits. Uh-huh.
In at least one way, though, this photo is useful. Just print it out and keep it in your wallet, so the next time someone asks why pro-democracy activists around the world no longer see us as a beacon of hope, you can whip it out and save your breath.
McCain Still Can’t Come Clean on Iraq
McCain Still Can’t Come Clean on Iraq
In the run up to the Iraq war, the American people were repeatedly told false information about Saddam Hussein’s WMD capacity. What’s amazing is, years later, the people still aren’t being told a the straight story. Here is what Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said today on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
MCCAIN:…There was no doubt in anybody’s mind that if he remained in power that he would continue that attempt and the sanctions were not — the status quo wasn’t prevailing.
But according to Charles Duelfer, the Bush administration’s hand-picked weapons inspector, the sanctions — and the status quo — were working very well. Here’s a summary of the Duelfer’s finding from the 10/7/04 Washington Post:
Duelfer said one of Hussein’s main strategic goals was to persuade the United Nations to lift economic sanctions, which had devastated the country’s economy and, along with U.N. inspections, had forced him to stop weapons programs.
Let’s be clear. According to the definitive report produced by the Bush administration, had the sanctions remained in place, Saddam Hussein would not have been able to acquire WMD. Had the administration chose sanctions instead of war, Iraq would still not have had WMD and more than 1600 American troops killed in Iraq would be alive today.
It’s little wonder why most Americans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it.
The Specter of Deception
The Specter of Deception
Sen. Arlen Specter this morning on ABC’s This Week:
SPECTER: Well, there’s never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
An excerpt from the history section of the official Senate website:
October 1, 1968
Filibuster Derails Supreme Court AppointmentIn June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency later that year and get to choose his successor dictated Warren’s timing.
[Snip]
Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.
Why is so hard for Senators to get the basic facts about the judicial filibuster right?
DeLay Supporters Get Desperate
DeLay Supporters Get Desperate
You know Tom DeLay is in trouble when his supporters are forced to set the bar this low. Congressional Quarterly [sub. required] picks up this quote from Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL):
People really do see the distinction between civil and criminal cases. I don’t think it is as big a deal if something civilly happens.
I wonder what LaHood has to say about OJ Simpson…
DeLay Forgets About His Own Apology
DeLay Forgets About His Own Apology
Angered by a recent Law and Order episode that referenced him, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay wrote to the head of NBC and stated, “This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse.”
DeLay assumed the Law and Order reference came because of his March 31st 2005 threat: “Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.”
So in his letter to the president of NBC, DeLay defended the threat by saying, “When a responsible journalist like [Fox News Channel's] Brit Hume made an inquiry into such comments, he quickly understood them to be limited to Congress’s oversight responsibilities and nothing more.”
Wait. Why is DeLay trying to trot out his original defense of the threat: “Nothing in my statement was threatening, irresponsible, dangerous, inappropriate, intimidating, or reckless…No sincere interpretation of my statement could lead a reader to any other conclusion.”
We’ve already gone through this. The comments were reckless and even DeLay agreed when he apologized for them: “I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn’t have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way…I didn’t explain it or clarify my remarks, as I’m clarifying them here…I am sorry that I said it that way, and I shouldn’t have.”
Newsweek Standard Doesn’t Apply to Bush Administration
Newsweek Standard Doesn’t Apply to Bush Administration
After Newsweek apologized and retracted its story on Koran desecration, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the magazine need to go even father to make amends for their transgression:
Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
MCCLELLAN: The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.
Yesterday, it was revealed that guards and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had, in fact, intentionally desecrated the Korans of several Muslim detainees. Here was Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita’s reaction:
Q Mr. DiRita, as the Department of Defense, are you going to present your apologies to the Arab world?
MR. DIRITA: For what?
Flashback: Frist Said Filibustering to Get More Info Is Legitimate
Flashback: Frist Said Filibustering to Get More Info Is Legitimate
To defend his March 8, 2000, filibuster of Judge Richard Paez, Majority Leader Bill Frist said that voting against cloture to get more information is OK and should be distinguished from an ordinary filibuster. Here’s Frist on the 11/14/04 Face the Nation:
Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing–as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate.
Yesterday, Frist described voting against cloture to get more information on ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as “partisan sniping.” Frist took pains to emphasize that there was no difference between delaying a nomination to get more information and a filibuster:
It certainly sounds like a filibuster…. It quacks like a filibuster.
Of course, when Frist voted against cloture of Paez, the nomination had been pending for four years and he was looking to block the nomination, not get more information. In this case, the Bush administration is refusing to release critical documents regarding Bolton’s conduct in the State Department.
May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press
May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press
During a 5/17 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita was asked about the mistreatment of the Koran by guards and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. DiRita replied:
[W]hen a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we’ve not seen specific, credible allegations.
Now, we learn that there were at least five confirmed incidents of Koran mistreatment. We’ve also learned this from Brigadier General Jay Hood via the Washington Post:
[A] soldier was reassigned after one recent accidental mishandling of the Koran, and another soldier faced an unspecified disciplinary action for an incident some time ago.
This proves DiRita’s statement was completely false. Not only have there been credible allegations of Koran mistreatment but those allegations were substantiated and at least one individual was punished.
Jones Gets Iraq War Indigestion
Jones Gets Iraq War Indigestion
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), the congressman who demanded Capitol Hill restaurants change their menus to read “freedom fries” and “freedom toast,” has lost his appetite for the Iraq war. According to the Guardian:
Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war “with no justification”.
…
Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign – an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God’s hand and a constituent’s request – he replied: “I wish it had never happened.”Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the “faces of the fallen”.
“If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong,” he told the newspaper. “Congress must be told the truth.”
White House Tries to Redefine Filibuster Deal
White House Tries to Redefine Filibuster Deal
Before the ink had even dried on the filibuster deal, conservatives began inventing exceptions and loopholes so at a later date they could push their agenda through with a clear conscience or cry foul when things don’t work in their favor. First Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH). Then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). And now the White House.
At today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked how the President felt about the fact that some of his nominees were being given passage while others were not. McClellan responded, “It’s my understanding the agreement was silent on those [two nominees].” Actually, far from remaining “silent” on the two nominees, the agreement names them specifically and states: “Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Sadd (6th Circuit).” In acknowleding the right of senators to filibuster at least in “extraordinary circumstances,” the signatories agreed these two Bush nominees meet that standard and should be withdrawn or subject to filibuster.
It’s hard to trust that someone is going to keep to his word when there are people who keep trying to change those words.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll