More info on Senate economic rescue vote tomorrow

From Senator Reid:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tonight announced a unanimous consent agreement to move forward on legislation to stabilize the economy, provide middle class tax relief, create jobs, and invest in alternative energy. Tomorrow evening, the Senate will vote on a package consisting of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Senate-passed tax extenders, and an increase in federal coverage of bank deposits to $250,000.

"Senate Democrats and Republicans believe it is essential that we work quickly on this important legislation to restore confidence to our financial system and strengthen the economy," Reid said. "We have worked in a bi-partisan way to do so, and it is my hope that with the improvements we have made to the Administration's proposal, the Senate will pass this legislation tomorrow and the House of Representatives will follow suit soon thereafter. I believe that this legislative package will ensure that the needs of Main Street are not forgotten.".

Read the rest of this post...

George Will: Palin 'obviously not qualified to be President'

From Sam Stein at Huff Post:

Appearing at a Senate Press Secretaries Association reception at the Cornerstone Government Affairs office, Will offered a harsh assessment of John McCain's running mate.

Palin is "obviously not qualified to be President," he remarked, describing her interview on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric as a "disaster."
....
Last week, Kathleen Parker of the National Review penned a column calling on the Alaska Governor to be dropped from the ticket. New York Time's columnist David Brooks and former Bush speechwriter David Frum have also expressed their doubts about Palin's capacity for the vice presidential post.

Read the rest of this post...

Kerry donates $1 million from his war chest to the DSCC. Who's next?

Back in 2006, Chris Bowers organized a "Use it or Lose it" campaign urging members who were safe and had large war chests to fork some over. It was a new concept and caused some pushback, but it caught on.

This year, John Kerry, who is running against token opposition, has already stepped up:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has made a $1 million contribution from his campaign to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), he told supporters in an e-mail Tuesday.

Kerry said the current financial crisis shows how important it is for Democrats to get to 60 seats.

“It's time to push even harder to completely change Washington,” Kerry wrote in an e-mail. “So I have an announcement: I just gave a million dollars from my campaign to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to try to make this happen.”

To me, this is an indication that the Democratic Senators are hungry. They want 60. Elected officials usually hoard money.

Might not be intentional, but it feels like John Kerry is sending a signal to his colleagues with war chests: Fork it over. Read the rest of this post...

Boston Globe editorial: Palin made rape victims pay

This is an editorial in Wednesday's paper, talking about Thursday's vice presidential debate:

ONE QUESTION that Sarah Palin should answer during tomorrow's debate is why, during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, the town started charging rape victims or their insurers for hospital emergency-room rape kits and examinations....

But Palin has never explained why, under her leadership, the town stopped picking up the cost of the swabs, specimen containers, and tests.

A spokeswoman for Palin wrote to USA Today that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." But that was the practice in Wasilla while she was mayor....

But the policy on rape kits may have had less to do with easing the burden on taxpayers and more to do with Palin's position on abortion. She has said she opposes it even in cases of rape or incest.

Generally, victims of sexual assault have the option of an emergency contraception pill, which some opponents of abortion consider tantamount to abortion itself. Does Palin support the decision two years ago of the US Food and Drug Administration to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception pills?

Whether the fee-for-kits policy reflected Palin's budgetary zeal or her extreme view on abortion, voters deserve to know. As Alaska's governor in 2000, Tony Knowles, put it: "We would never bill the victim of a burglary for finger-printing and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence."

But in Wasilla they would, if the crime was rape.

Here are a few additional questions for Palin (and you can get more on this story here):

1. Do you believe the government should pick up the tab for rape kits and rape exams that include emergency contraception?
2. Why did Wasilla stop paying for rape kits and rape exams under your tenure?
3. Were you aware that your own city's policy was to charge rape victims and/or their insurance companies for rape kits and exams (which would still leave the victim a deductible and co-pay)?
4. Do you think emergency contraception, including the morning after pill, is abortion?
5. Do you believe it should be legal in America for a rape victim, impregnated by her rapist, to get an abortion if her life is not in danger?

Read the rest of this post...

Senate to vote on financial rescue plan on Wed.

AP has no news beyond the headline. I suspect this is to jump-start the vote in the House, and to give the markets some encouragement.

Read the rest of this post...

Palin opposes 'morning after pill,' which brings us back to rape kits

And that, my friends, brings us back to the "rape kit" story.

For a while now, folks have been trying to poke holes in the story that Palin's city had a policy of charging rape victims for their forensic exams because the city wanted to keep taxes low. But those critics really haven't been able to disprove the basic point - Palin's city was one of the only in Alaska to refuse to pay for rape exams, and the state had to pass legislation requiring cities pay for such exams. If it wasn't a problem, why did they pass the legislation? Because it was a problem, and it's been in a problem in a number of states. That's why victims' groups fought for years to get those anti-women policies changed.

And while Palin's hand-picked chief of police at the time says the city tried, "when possible," to charge the victim's insurance company for the exam, he never did quite say what happened when the victim didn't have insurance, when it wasn't possible. Not to mention, Sarah Palin's city charged rape victims' insurance companies, and we're to believe that the insurance picked up the emergency room visit 100% and the victims never were forced to pay a dime? Really? I have never gotten any doctor visit free via my insurance. I have ALWAYS had to pay a deductible and a co-pay. Always. I had to go the emergency room last year, I had to fork out $92 AFTER my insurance paid the rest, and I have GREAT insurance, the best policy I can get for someone self-employed. We're to believe that charging the insurance company somehow made these exams free for rape victims? Are these people high?

And while Palin put out a statement saying she's all for rape victims not being charged for the collection of evidence, she never did say how she feels about the charging the victims for the emergency contraception often included in the rape kit used to treat the victim. Well, now we may know.

Katie Couric got Sarah Palin to admit that she is fine with "contraception," but she objects to the morning after pill because she's pro-life. So Sarah Palin thinks the morning after pill is a form of abortion. And Sarah Palin opposes all abortion unless the mother's life is in danger (though in the video below she seems to hedge on that point). So the question remains, does Sarah Palin support government agencies paying for rape kits which include emergency contraception? Have her answer that question, and we can put the entire rape kit story to rest once and for all.

At the end of this video, Palin makes the comment about emergency contraception.



One other thing. Anyone else get the sense that Palin was basically putting out the pro-choice position during this interview - she would personally urge women not get abortions, but wouldn't require it?

Read the rest of this post...

CBS: Palin can't name one single newspaper or magazine that she has EVER read in her life

I just, I'm speechless watching this. The transcript is after the video, below.

Katie Couric asks her a simple question: What magazines or newspapers did you read regularly before being picked for VP? Palin can't name one. She does say, however, that she's "read most of them." Most of them? What does she think, we're talking about how many flavors of Ben & Jerry's she's ever tried? There are 1,422 daily newspapers in the US and 6,253 weeklies. And I can't even begin to count the number of magazines. Sarah Palin would like us to believe that she's read "most of them"?

She then gets all defensive about how Alaska isn't a foreign country or something. Okay. But Couric kept asking her, okay, can you just name one that you've read. Palin couldn't name any. I mean, seriously, she couldn't name her local town paper, the big paper from Anchorage (the Anchorage Daily News), she never goes online and reads AP or Reuters? Never read Newsweek or TIME? I mean, seriously, why is she incapable of giving patently obvious answers to patently easy questions?



COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read, before you were tapped for this, to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press for the media, I mean...

COURIC: Like what ones specifically? I'm curious that you...

PALIN: Um, all of 'em, any of 'em that um have been in front of me over all these years, um...

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country where it's kind of suggested it seems like, wow how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing, when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

Read the rest of this post...

Watch the latest CBS video of McCain's running mate

John reported on the latest Couric/Palin video earlier. The clip is available now and provides plenty of fodder for SNL.

Here's what I don't get: Does Sarah Palin think if she keeps hanging around with Katie Couric that at some point she won't look like a blithering idiot? Because, that ain't happening. Although, I do think Palin is single-handedly reviving Couric's career.




Also, my mother called me earlier yesterday asking the same thing about Palin's comment. I think her exact words were, "Why is she trying to make Biden sound old when she's running with that fool?" Okay, she really said "that damn fool" but I don't like to quote my mother cursing. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt wants us all to know that Palin is an accomplished debater

Lots of pre-debate spin about Palin, most of it along the lines of something like "if she can say her name, she wins." Of course, that's based on the way she's been performing lately. She's been a blithering idiot lately.

But, don't forget, Palin did win a tough primary against an incumbent Governor, Frank Murkoski, who had been a long-time Senator. Then, she beat the former Democratic governor, Tony Knowles in the general election. She appeared at a number of debates and forums with both of them. People who have watched her debates tell me she's formidable.

Mitt Romney thinks so, too. He was on the TODAY Show yesterday morning touting Palin's debating prowess while mocking Biden:

Read the rest of this post...

6 of top 8 YouTube videos today mock Sarah Palin

Six of the top 8 viewed videos today on YouTube are about Sarah Palin, and all mock her. In fact, they're all about the SNL skit.

Read the rest of this post...

Blithering Idiot's Chaperone, Part II

"We welcome Barack Obama’s new-found interest in passing this critical economic rescue of our economy, but the American people needed leadership last week, and our next President can't wait until after the levees break to start making phone calls.” - Tucker Bounds, spokesman Palin-McCain, earlier today

Tucker, darling - ixnay on the eveeslay.

Waiting until levees break? You mean, like McCain did, having birthday cake with George Bush in California while Katrina was destroying New Orleans? Who's running this campaign, Sarah Palin? Oh yeah, and I guess the McCain campaign is no longer mocking "making phone calls," which they did mock on Sunday, a day after they admitted on Saturday that McCain was "making phone calls" rather than showing up in person at the bailout negotiations. What's next? Is the McCain campaign going to start making fun of Biden being too old? Oh yeah, Sarah Palin just did. Read the rest of this post...

McCain on Osama bin Laden: 'Is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted?'

FireDogLake digs up a Mother Jones interview with McCain from 1998. Not only does McCain downplay bin Laden, but he also suggests that declaring war on terrorism might bog us down just like Vietnam.

[MOTHER JONES]: You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?

[JOHN MCCAIN]: You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What's plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know.... Well, we've declared to the terrorists that we're going to strike them wherever they live. That's fine. But what's next? That's where there might be some comparison.

Defending Osama and attacking the war on terror. Now THAT'S being a maverick. Read the rest of this post...

Blithering Idiot, Part III

More Palin today:

Katie Couric, in a segment to air tonight, asks Palin about her joke that she's been listening to Joe Biden's speeches since second grade, and whether that isn't an odd thing to say given her own running mate's age:

"Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience based on many many years in the Senate and voters are gonna have a choice there of what it is that they want in these next four years."

So Palin is now saying that she wasn't trying to say "don't vote for the old guy." Instead, she was trying to say "vote for the new guy, not the guy with the old face who's been in the Senate a really long time."

Read the rest of this post...

Obama calls on Americans to support economic rescue plan

Buh bye, John McCain.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector, saying that if Wall Street fails ordinary people will also be hurt.

"This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis. It's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan," Obama told about 12,000 people at a rally at the University of Nevada at Reno.

Obama said Congress should put aside politics - he didn't mention GOP rival John McCain by name during his remarks - and should act on the legislation quickly.

"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say: Step up to the plate and do what's right for this country," he said. "And to all Americans, I say this: If I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy. It will only be the beginning."

We have one president and two presidential candidates, and only one of them is acting presidential at the moment. Obama just projected a sense of hope, courage and resolve to the American people. McCain is busy whining and acting erratic today, while Obama just showed himself a leader. Read the rest of this post...

AP: "One-in-four chance McCain may not survive 2nd term"

I'm sure McCain will tell us that the fundamentals of his health are strong. AP

An Atlanta actuarial company specializing in individualized estimates of life and health expectancy has run the numbers for McCain, 72, and Obama, 47. The firm, Bragg Associates, calculated the odds of the candidates dying in office, adjusted for their known health problems.

McCain would be the oldest president to begin a first term in office. By the end of a second term, Jan. 20, 2017, he would have a 24.44 percent chance of dying, compared with 5.76 percent for Obama, the firm estimates....

For the Republican, Brooks took into account a history of skin cancer, degenerative arthritis from his Vietnam war injuries, moderately high cholesterol, mild vertigo and that McCain is a former smoker who quit in 1980.

Read the rest of this post...

McCain just said that Venezuela was in the Middle East

This, two weeks after he said that Spain was in Latin America. Here's the video (below) from McCain's economic forum that just took place today - Ben Smith has the transcript:

McCain, talking about energy policy, stresses the importance of "ensuring that America is secure, and not dependent on oil from people like Hugo Chavez or other parts of the Middle East which is, we know, could be destabilized under certain sets of circumstances."

Hugo Chavez is the leader of Venezuela, a country located in South America. Read more about McCain thinking Spain was in Latin America here and here.

Read the rest of this post...

National Review writer blasts House Republicans

The National Review Online, a publication which is probably the father of the modern conservative moment:

[T]he assertion by Republican leaders in the House that as many as a dozen of their members who were leaning toward voting for the legislation ended up voting against it because of Pelosi’s speech is extraordinary.

Let’s see if we have this straight: whichever side of the issue you were on, yesterday’s vote was considered one of the most important ones members of Congress will ever face. Many respected voices argued that an economic catastrophe might follow in the wake of its defeat. Opponents of the legislation considered it a terrible violation of free-market principles. The stakes could not be higher.

After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.

Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting “the speech made me do it” is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused.

I have been defending House Republicans for a week against friends who thought they were acting in an irresponsible fashion. I argued they were people with admirable free-market principles who were simply trying to improve legislation and have their voices heard, something to which they were certainly entitled. And I thought they made the bill better than it was. But yesterday’s vote, and the excuses that followed the vote, have made me reassess my judgment. Watching Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.

We are in one of the most dispiriting moments I have ever witnessed in Washington, when political authority seems to be collapsing all around us. House Republicans have contributed to this, and it’s a shame.

Read the rest of this post...

Why I'm still concerned about yesterday's vote and its impact on the economy

I find fascinating this entire discussion of whether or not voting down the bailout bill yesterday poses an economic danger to the US. Markos, quoting Davis Sirota, isn't worried. It's worth reading what Markos is saying, as I think it represents what many of our own readers believe. But I have to say, I still am worried.

Sirota says that critics are saying that anyone who is against the bill wants to see America go into another depression. Perhaps some are, but that's not really the point. It's irrelevant what your motivation is for opposing the bill. All that matters if what the economic consequence is of that position. Markos points to the market being up a few hundred points today, and says this is a sign that all is not lost. But credit markets are still frozen. Practically no one in America can get a loan right now. No one. So I decided to use the Google and find out more about what this credit crunch really means.

But first I talked to our own financial expert, Chris, who told me:

A market moving up as it is today in NO WAY represents a positive long term direction. Often markets that are going down and are about to capitulate will have radical swings up and down before a big bottom. Many called this crazy movement a few weeks ago and I think I mentioned it at one point. It may or may not be the case this cycle but it's completely wrong, wrong, wrong to say the movement today suggests everything will be OK. Everyone's anger is understandable, but the bigger issue is lessening the impact of this very serious recession that's upon us.

Now, for the Google - first up, the Motley Fool:

The best way to measure the health of the credit market is to look at Libor.

So what is Libor?

Libor stands for the ‘London Interbank Offered Rate’ and is the rate of interest at which banks borrow from each other in the London market....

Twenty-four hours ago you could borrow dollars overnight at an interest rate of 2.57%. But since the US rejection, that figure has soared to 6.88%. That’s an astonishing rise and shows how worried people are in the credit markets. Other interbank rates have also jumped although the rises aren’t as high.

High interbank rates matter because they mean that some banks can’t get cash to lend on to businesses and ordinary people. If businesses can’t borrow, some will fold and the economy will head into serious trouble.

Boston Globe:

In an example of how fragile credit markets have become, the state of Massachusetts yesterday tried to borrow $400 million to make its routine quarterly local aid payments to cities and towns. State treasury officials said the credit markets abruptly froze midday, leaving them $170 million short. The state will have to use its own funds to complete the local aid payments, draining the state's balance to extremely low levels.

Business Week:

Municipalities, too, are having trouble raising money. Cities are usually considered good bets to pay off their debt, but right now even they're having trouble. New York recently had to pay an interest rate of 9% on a $75 million short-term debt issue—up from 1.25% at the beginning of September. Other cities, including Denver, have faced similar situations.

AP:

For big companies to operate and grow, they need to borrow money. Typically, they do this by selling short-term and long-term bonds in the credit markets. Right now, the short-term debt markets are at a standstill; the long-term debt markets are a bit more functional, but rates are very high.

Companies in search of cash do have an alternative -- they can go directly to the bank. But banks have their own problems with capital right now, so a company trying to get a loan has about as much luck as a person trying to get a mortgage.

Those with clean credit histories will likely get loans, but at high rates. Those with spottier credit histories might not get loans.

"In a good case scenario, the economy is slow. In a bad case scenario, there are massive bankruptcies," said Axel Merk, portfolio manager at Merk Funds.

"The problem is, the general public doesn't understand this. Maybe we need to see a few payrolls fail at a few companies before they realize," he said. "This has a very direct impact on Main Street."

CNET:

If the credit markets should freeze up--which many say is happening and will continue without massive intervention--everyone that borrows money will face a cash crunch. That means companies that take advantage of short-term loans to get by won't be able to buy raw materials or make payroll. Even businesses that don't need short-term capital may defer purchases to preserve capital.

If even banks are having a hard time getting money, what does that say for the small and midsize business?

CBS News:

Banks are reluctant to lend money even to each other. Businesses can't borrow the cash they need. Without relief, says economist Mark Zandi, Main Street could feel the pain soon.

"We're gonna see it in the form of rising unemployment, job losses, cut backs, even bankruptcies," Zandi says.

And if you sense we're already in a recession, then you ain't seen nothing yet.

"This would deepen that recession and potentially deepen it to the point whre youwould see the kind of economic deceleration we haven't seen since the 1930s," Massoca says.

Because businesses that can't get access to credit can't hire workers. And that puts the brakes on the entire economy.

Marginal Revolution (via WSJ)

The best case scenario: The bad banks continue to be bought up, there is no run on hedge funds next Tuesday, only mid-sized European banks fail, money market funds keep on buying commercial paper, and the Fed and Treasury continue to operate on a case-by-case basis. Since Congress doesn't have to vote for something called "a bailout," it can give Paulson and Bernanke more operational freedom than they would have otherwise had. The American economy is in recession for two years and unemployment does not rise above eight or nine percent.

The worst case scenario: Credit markets freeze up within the next week and many businesses cannot meet their payrolls. Margin calls cannot be met and the NYSE shuts down for a week. Hardly anyone can get a mortgage so most home prices end up undefined rather than low. There is an emergency de facto nationalization of banks to keep the payments system moving. The Paulson plan is seen as a lost paradise. There is no one to buy up the busted hedge funds, so government and the taxpayer end up holding the bag. The quasi-nationalized banks are asked to serve political ends and it proves hard to recapitalize them in private hands. In the very worst case scenario, the Chinese bubble bursts too.

Read the rest of this post...

McCain again calls for an end to partisan attacks, then 16 minutes later blames Obama for the economic crisis

Which is kind of funny since McCain's campaign manager accepted millions - MILLIONS - from Fannie and Freddie in order to stop regulation of the markets. It's also funny since McCain has admitted that he knows nothing about economics, and what he does know comes from Phil "You're all whiners" Gramm, the guy who got us into this deregulatory mess in the first place. And if all of that doesn't scare you, imagine President Palin assuming charge of the economic crisis if McCain doesn't survive his first four years in office. Read the rest of this post...

House Republicans will get most of the blame

Conservative writer David Brooks:

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy....

The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.

But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.

The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue.

Read the rest of this post...

Republican party was secretly opposing bailout bill BEFORE Pelosi spoke

We now find out that the Republican party cut ads, and sent them to TV stations around the country, opposing the bailout bill even BEFORE Pelosi spoke before the vote yesterday. The Republican National Committee, the official "party," was planning on the bill passing, and then was going to attack Democrats who voted FOR the bill. Talk about calloused. So in fact, the Republican party was playing games, playing politics, with our economy. Did the RNC tell individual members of Congress that they were going to be running ads attacking anyone who voted for the bill? Is this why Republican members voted against the bill 2 to 1 (while Dems voted for the bill almost 2 to 1), sending Wall Street into a nose dive? And what about John McCain? What does it say about him when his own party is secretly undercutting the proposal that he claimed to "save the day" on? Read the rest of this post...

Obama wants to increase FDIC insurance to $250,000

Two weeks ago, we got what we thought was a great idea from an AMERICAblog reader (MS):

It's been widely acknowledged that Obama won't win unless he connects with people and show exactly how his presidency would affect their lives. Given the bank failures we're looking at, here's a real and plausible action he should take immediately: propose to double FDIC insurance to $200,000. The current $100,000 limit is archaic and doesn't reflect the reality of today's deposits. It would immediately put the everyday person more at ease that the Fed will protect their hard-earned savings, and it would also have the very real effect of stabilizing the withdrawal panics at banks that we're starting to see.

Today, Obama announced his support for increasing the FDIC limit to $250,000. This makes a lot of sense and shows that Obama gets it. People of all ages are worried about what is happening with their bank accounts and the old amount is not enough to provide confidence. Here's the full statement:

“Yesterday, within the course of a few hours, the failure to pass the economic rescue plan in Washington led to the single largest decline of the stock market in two decades."

“While I, like others, am outraged that the reign of irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created the current crisis, I also know that continued inaction in the face of the gathering storm in our financial markets would be catastrophic for our economy and our families."

“At this moment, when the jobs, retirement savings, and economic security of all Americans hang in the balance, it is imperative that all of us – Democrats and Republicans alike – come together to meet this crisis."

“The bill rejected yesterday was a marked improvement over the original blank check proposed by the Bush Administration. It included restraints on CEO pay, protections for homeowners, strict oversight as to how the money is spent, and an assurance that taxpayers will recover their money once the economy recovers. Given the progress we have made, I believe we are unlikely to succeed if we start from scratch or reopen negotiations about the core elements of the agreement. But in order to pass this plan, we must do more."

“One step we could take to potentially broaden support for the legislation and shore up our economy would be to expand federal deposit insurance for families and small businesses across America who have invested their money in our banks."

“The majority of American families should rest assured that the deposits they have in our banks are safe. Thanks to measures put in place during the Great Depression, deposits of up to $100,000 are guaranteed by the federal government."

“While that guarantee is more than adequate for most families, it is insufficient for many small businesses that maintain bank accounts to meet their payroll, buy their supplies, and invest in expanding and creating jobs. The current insurance limit of $100,000 was set 28 years ago and has not been adjusted for inflation."

“That is why today, I am proposing that we also raise the FDIC limit to $250,000 as part of the economic rescue package – a step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our financial system."

“I will be talking to leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan,” said Barack Obama.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush speaks, gets panned

This morning, George Bush addressed us -- again -- about the financial crisis. I captured the end of his speech and the immediate reaction on Morning Joe. Bush looked awful, sounded unconvincing and didn't inspire any confidence (which pretty much sums up his entire presidency):

Read the rest of this post...

A frightening image (updated)

A few minutes ago, John McCain was interviewed on "Morning Joe" shortly before Bush spoke about the financial crisis. MSNBC did a split screen with McCain on one side and the podium at the White House on the other. For a really frightening thought, imagine John McCain behind that presidential podium.



That should get you to donate to Obama.

UPDATE: One of our very talented readers, LS (who is also a good friend), photoshopped the image. John McCain behind the presidential seal is something I only ever want to see via photoshop:

Read the rest of this post...

Downward sprial continues - New York Sun to close

More fallout from the financial crisis - the New York Sun, a six-year old paper in New York City, is closing because they couldn't raise capital. From the NYTimes:

The New York Sun, the six-year-old newspaper with a conservative mind-set, announced on Monday that it would close after publishing Tuesday’s issue.

The Sun’s president and editor, Seth Lipsky, said a three-week search for new financial backers had failed. Mr. Lipsky announced on Sept. 4, in a front-page “Letter From the Editor,” that The Sun would shut down by the end of the month unless it raised new money.

Mr. Lipsky told editors and reporters who gathered on Monday afternoon in The Sun’s loftlike newsroom in Lower Manhattan that the shutdown was “a logical decision following a hardheaded assessment of our chances of meeting our goal of profitable publication in the near future.”

As he spoke, the stock market was diving toward the largest one-day point loss in the history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. “Among other problems that we faced,” he said, “was the fact that this month, not to mention this week, has been one of the worst in a century in which to be trying to raise capital, and in the end we were out not only of money but time.”

These reporters are now out of jobs, as are the folks on the press, the drivers of delivery trucks, the producers of paper and ink used to print the paper have one fewer customer, and so on and so on. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

There are five weeks -- 35 days -- til Election day. It's closing in. Could this election get any wilder? Really.

There may have been many reasons for members of Congress to vote against the bailout package, but the line about Nancy Pelosi being mean was too much. That has to be the most ludicrous and puerile response ever from the GOP. Their petulance cost over one trillion dollars -- one expensive hissy fit.

Your president will address the nation at 7:45 8:45 a.m., which will surely calm the waters and restore sanity. He's so good at that, right?

Let's get started.... Read the rest of this post...

What's the next McCain surprise going to be?

McCain must not think much of our system if this is the best he can offer. Tom Toles of the Washington Post. Read the rest of this post...

Zakaria on Palin: she doesn't even understand the question

In case the CNN embedding fails again, here's the link. Maybe if dad was there the first time, everything would have been OK. Read the rest of this post...

Will the GOP allow taxpayers to lose another few trillion in retirement?

I never realized what a bunch of delicate flowers the Republicans were. Apparently a few wilted under the heat of the Democrats and were quite satisfied with dragging down the retirement plans of the entire US because they suffered a little boo-boo to their egos. It's hard to imagine that they are in chaos with such self-centered actions yesterday. The real problem with vote yesterday was cowardice. Representatives in swing districts voted against the bailout because they feared losing their reelection campaign due to the unpopular vote. The end result was what Rob and John detailed below, a massive $1.1 trillion loss in the market.

The problem is understandable because who really likes the idea of their hard earned cash (and future) going to prop up the mistakes of Wall Street who rubbed our collective noses in their high flying lifestyle? I have no sympathy for Wall Street - not even a drop - and quite frankly, I hope they rot in hell for eternity. However, I do care about retirement plans. I do care about money being available in banks and money being available for friends and family who do the right thing and want to purchase a house. I do give a damn about retirees like my mother who is living on money packed away over forty years of scrimping and saving. I do care about businesses - small businesses, especially - that employ friends, family, myself and who are looking for responsible loans to grow and hire people. I also care about business around the world who buy goods and sell goods based on the success or failure of the US economy. At the moment and thanks to the cowardice of the Republican leadership, all of this is being damaged because the Republicans want to make a point similar to a three year old having a temper tantrum.

The original Paulson plan was clearly unacceptable. It was a giveaway without restrictions to Lord Paulson. Democrats added language that scaled back executive bonuses, added the checks and balances and gives taxpayers some of the financial upside, should upside ever happen. It is perfect? Of course not. Are there flaws? Sure. I wouldn't mind seeing more pain on Wall Street for the crowd that dragged us into this crisis and I hope that next year Congress revisits the tax code to address that. Adding common sense regulation and locking down the loopholes that enable Wall Street gamblers to pay less taxes than everyone else have to be modernized or would that be retro-ized, since much of that used to exist?

Regardless, the first point of interest is to make sure that the credit market starts to move again because today, it's locked up. Without the credit market - the legitimate credit market - lending money, the US (and world) economic system will shut down whether we like the bill or not. If anyone in the US thinks they can survive without any credit for their personal life or work life, they are sadly mistaken.

The GOP needs to figure out how bad off they want Americans on Main Street because at the moment, they seem happy to sacrifice everyone's future because they're too afraid of losing their comfortable lifestyle in Congress. Republicans may be hurting Wall Street but the impact will be much larger for everyone else unless they start to get serious about this problem. Read the rest of this post...

Green energy and the business opportunity

Obama's plan to invest in renewable energy makes sense in so many ways. Obviously we need to improve the quality of our environment and lessen our dependence on oil. What I can't understand is the Republicans refusal to accept the business side of this issue. (Schwarzenegger is about the only Republican who does.) Warren Buffet is investing hundreds of millions into a Chinese company offering green car technology because that's where they are building them.

The world market is not only receptive to green technologies, they are building them. The Republicans want to fight a battle that is already over but the rest of the world is already moving in the direction of green business. Looking at how many hundreds of thousands of jobs we've lost this year (and more when the Friday report is out) this is where our investment dollars should go. The US can still raise capital and get a business started faster and easy than in most countries but if we keep fighting this due to loons such as Senator Inhofe, we will lose the moment and cede this opportunity to China and Europe. Now how silly would we have to be to pass on taking a leadership position and create new jobs? Read the rest of this post...

Cadbury chocolate tainted with melamine

And I thought Hershey's chocolate was bad, Cadbury is even worse. At least Hershey chocolate is only tasteless. Here's yet another example of a failed outsourcing program that delivered a better bottom line to the company but a terribly flawed product. The regulation system in China deserves plenty of blame (and China will lose valuable business because of the repeated problems) but the companies also ought to step up and recognize their own failings. It's their name on the product so they need to do a better job if they want to maintain any trust with their customers.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I never liked Cadbury anyway, but I'm never touching them again. This raises a much larger question: Just how many companies are using China to make our food? I'd never heard that, I thought China was primarily making clothing (and computers). But food? Why would anyone trust eating anything made in China nowadays? I'm worried enough whether my clothing has any creepy carcinogens in it thanks to the Chinese. But food? No way in hell. So just how much of our food, if any, is made in China? Read the rest of this post...

“I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States.”

A former Bush speechwriter and conservative columnist on Sarah Palin:

“I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States,” David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush who is now a conservative columnist, said in an interview. “If she doesn’t perform well, then people see it.

“And this is a moment of real high anxiety, a little bit like 9/11, when people look to Washington for comfort and leadership and want to know that people in charge know what they are doing.”

Read the rest of this post...