Won't be Blogging for Awhile

I won't be blogging for about a week. My brother Clayton passed away early this morning. I will miss him terribly.
Mark

Out Sick

Not feeling well today. Back tomorrow.
Mark

Who's the American?

We've bee hearing quite a bit lately about America. Most of it is coming from Republican lugnuts trying to whip up an us-against-them frenzy as the election cycle comes to a close. There's pro- American (them), anti-American (anybody who disagrees with them), and real American (as opposed to unreal American?). As one might expect, Sarah Palin started this nonsense when she characterized one part of the country as more pro-American than another. She had to back off that assertion, but for others, the game had begun.

Take, for example, Cong. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Leave aside for a moment the fact this person has appeared on cable network shows 23 times since the beginning of September. Never mind that the McCain camp suggests her as a valid surrogate to these same programs. On MSNBC's Hardball last Friday, she made the incredible statement that Barack Obama may hold anti-American views. What those views were, she didn't say. Then she went further, saying the media should investigate her colleagues in the House, and determine who was for or against the nation.

Her words set off a firestorm that was the last thing John McCain needed. In fact, her opponent in the race to hold onto her congressional seat raised $800,000 dollars after her appearance. She's tried to back away from her remarks, saying Chris Matthews of Hardball laid a trap for her. Whatever.

Then there's Cong. Robin Hayes of North Carolina. At a rally in his home state, he "warmed up the crowd" by telling them liberals hate real Americans. Very nice. THen, after the New York Observer printed his remarks, he denied making them. When the Observer reporter stuck by his story, Hayes' spokesperson called it "irresponsible journalism". That is, until a radio reporter turned up with an actual tape. Then the spokesperson said Hayes misspoke. Then Hayes himself came up with a bizarre mea culpa, to the effect that he didn't remember saying it, but he was sorry he did. Say it, that is.

Folks, the wheels have come off the rails. These people, all elected officials, believe they have the corner on what an American is. Stranger still, they think most Americans agree with them. Is there a danger in this type of mentality?

You tell me.

Who's the Socialist?

As the McCain campaign flails around like a fighter trying to land a lucky punch on Barack Obama, the dreaded word socialist began to be used to describe Obama's tax policies. It came from Obama's comment about "spreading the wealth around". McCain's people figured that was the opening they needed to cast Obama as someone who would take money from those who earned it and give it to those who hadn't. It's also the perfect catchword for conservative talk radio, even better than liberal.

That's because socialism scares people in this country. It represents, wrongly, the killing of incentive to produce. After all, why work hard if you won't see the fruits of your labor? This is especially true if people are made to think their hard work will benefit some lazy, shiftless person who doesn't have the same level of ambition (they never say opportunity). Anyway, McCain and those who wanted to see him elected thought they had lightning in a bottle.

That is, until someone pointed out to McCain that he'd voted for the biggest socialist program in American history. That's right, the $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry. After all, that's what some of his GOP friends in the House called. That's why a good number of them wouldn't vote for it. It was socialism, pure and simple. Americans have until this point been made to believe that socialism involves the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor individuals. Now, hopefully, they know better. The bailout represented taking wealth from taxpayers and giving it to banks.

And so, the word socialism was quietly dropped from the McCain campaign lexicon. You'll still hear criticism about the Obama tax plan, but you won't hear the word socialist. That's now reserved for people in diners to yell at Obama. Just plain folks get the talking points, but not the memo changing them.

It's ironic that, as the "s" word comes and goes, the New York Times does a piece on the one group for which socialism isn't a four letter word. The Socialist Party USA still exists, it's national office located in lower Manhattan. They ought to be having a chuckle about all this.

You tell me. Is the bailout an example of American socialism, and if so, why isn't anyone calling it that?

Powell Endorsement a Factor?

So Colin Powell did what many expected him to do, endorse Barack Obama. Yet it was the way he did so that spoke volumes about where this campaign is now, little more than two weeks away. Say what you will about the former Secretary of State. His words on Meet the Press Sunday should resonate far beyond the current election. The McCain people, as expected, went on the Sunday talk show circuit to downplay the importance of the powell endorsement. If the best they could come up with is yet another reference to Joe the Plumber, they ought to pack it in.

It wasn't just Colin Powell calling Barack Obama a transformational figure. In fact, it wasn't for the most part what he said about Obama at all. It was his forthright condemnation of religious intolerance that sticks in the mind. Powell mentioned the fact that Obama critics, some of them at McCain-Palin rallies, continue to promote the lie that Obama is a Muslim. But he went further. He asked a fundamental question that hasn't been posed nearly often enough during the current election cycle. What exactly is wrong with being a Muslim?

Colin Powell said demonizing Muslims isn't what America is all about. He used a single example of a woman at Arlington National Cemetery grieving for her son, an American born Muslim who was killed in action in Iraq. That example was worth a hundred Joe the Plumbers. It should give pause to reflect on just what we're prepared to do to win an election. Colin Powell served the last three Republican presidents. He himself is a lifelong Republican. No one can argue he made the endorsement for racial reasons. That's just not Colin Powell.

He may be pilloried for the rest of his life for that speech he gave at the United Nations. He acknowledged he got it wrong on Meet the Press. But Colin Powell got it right when it comes to this election.

Will Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama make a difference in the upcoming election? You tell me.

Will Powell Take the Plunge for Obama?

He's worked for the last three Republican presidents. His credentials on foreign policy and national security (with the notable exception of the Iraq war) are unassailable. He's Colin Powell, and there's increased speculation he'll make an endorsement for president, perhaps during an appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Speculation is he'll back Barack Obama, and not John McCain, the man who some thought might ask him to be his running mate.

Make no mistake. A Powell endorsement this close to election day would be a body blow to the McCain campaign. The retired general is worth at least three Joe the Plumbers. It would mean a man the nation still respects took a long hard look at both candidates, and chose the Democrat.

Before anyone goes off the deep end, however, it's not necessarily a done deal. There is, according to published reports, an aura of mystery around Powell's Sunday appearance, announced Friday morning on the Today Show. There's still a chance he won't back either hopeful.

And yet, the prospect fascinates. What does the military man see in the young senator from Illinois? Would he take another cabinet position if asked? How many times has he sat with Obama and McCain since the national conventions, if at all? And most important, what is his rationale? Guess we'll have to wait for Sunday to find out.

Even with a Powell endorsement and frontrunner status in the national polls, Obama knows better than to get complacent. Presidential races tend to get tight in the home stretch. No one can predict where the economy will go, and John McCain has been written off several times before, only to re-emerge victorious. Not to use a sports metaphor, but this will be a sprint to the finish.

It may come down to who has the better track shoes.

The Joe the Plumber Debate

I thought for a moment I'd missed something. I'd expected last night's third and final presidential debate to include at least one question about the second bank bailout plan put forward by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just the day before. Silly me! The three guys at the table at Hofstra University last night had other things to discuss. They had to talk about Joe the Plumber!

He's this guy, you see, who Obama met on the campaign trail. They talked about his desire to buy the business he'd been working for. Joe the Plumber favors John McCain's tax proposal. Maybe that's why McCain brought him up several times. After the first time, when he mispronounced his name, he simply became Joe the Plumber, like he's a mob guy or something (PS- the plumbers union has endorsed Obama).

Anyhow, here's a short list of McCain gaffes last night, courtesy, in part, of ThinkProgress.org. Keep in mind this isn't all of them, just some of the more obvious, in no particular order.

1) He called the idea of equal pay for equal work for women "A trial lawyers' dream".

2) He slammed Obama for voting present on several bills before the Illinois legislature. He, of course, has been absent from the US Senate 64% of the time in the past year.

3) McCain mentioned more than once Sarah Palin's son's autism. Actually, the boy has Down Syndrome (my 11 year old picked up on that one before I did)

4) McCain accused Obama of voting against the confirmations of justices Roberts and Breyer to the Supreme Court. I guess one out of two isn't bad. Breyer was nominated by President Bill Clinton more than a decade before Obama made it to the Senate. Earth to McCain: You meant Alito
.
5) McCain asserted the average health care plan costs Americans $5800 a year. The actual cost is $12,680. Obama got that one right.

6) McCain said he'd use a line item veto to cut spending. Sorry, it was declared unconstitutional a decade ago.

7) McCain said he'd condemned every out of bounds remark Made by Republicans about Obama. He must have forgotten the statement made by the chair of the Virginia GOP that compared Obama to bin Laden. That one he didn't condemn.

And so, the debate season is done. Except, of course, for the 24 hour news outlets, which will still be talking about it through at least Friday. Oh yeah, and the students and alumni of Hofstra University, where the debate was held.

They get to hold their heads up high.

The Last Debate- It All Comes Down to This

By most media accounts, John McCain will have to hit some kind of home run to turn the tables on Barack Obama in tonight's final presidential debate. Obama has brought together his domestic advisors a day early to prepare. McCain and his handlers face a difficult choice and a difficult task. Does he continue the personal attacks that recent polling says isn't working? Or does he face down Obama squarely on the economy, where it's presumed the Democratic nominee has an edge?

McCain did in fact offer his own economic prescription for the nation's woes on Tuesday. It promptly got foreshadowed by the announcement the government is injecting $250 billion dollars into the coffers of the nation's banks. Expect at least one question about whether the candidates agree with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's move in that regard. Most important for both, however, is not to act as though they don't really understand the economic moves Uncle Sam is currently making.

Even though McCain needs a game changer, don't expect too many fireworks at this last encounter. McCain will likely say Obama's economic proposals will raise taxes, and Obama will counter that he's got an online calculator that compares the plans of both candidates for voters to decide for themselves. McCain will say elements of Obama's latest economic proposal are dangerous to the economy, and Obama will respond in kind.

Yet here, in a nutshell, is John McCain's biggest problem. How can he attack Obama as a tax and spend liberal when the administration in power, that of his own party, has spent like drunken sailors on two wars, and now an economic bailout that could cost in the trillions? And he signed off on it, remember? Those earlier words about the economy not being his strong suit now come back to haunt.

Or does he think people forgot?

Wall St. Got Theirs. What About Us?

If you want to know why the stock market rebounded so vigorously on Monday, look no further than good old Uncle Sam. The three headed hydra of the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Treasury threw everything but the kitchen sink at the financial markets. You need money? No problem. Expanded deposit insurance? You got it. Guarantees on bank debt? Here it is. Capital for healthy banks? Just say the word. And all those investors on the street breathed a collective sigh of relief.

This begs the question of whether we as taxpayers ought to share in their joy. As Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post puts it, now that the nation has done so much for Wall St., what is Wall St. ready to do for the nation? Pearlstein says, not much. He then chronicles some of the things these titans of industry could do to repair the damage their greed has wrought. It's an interesting list, to say the least. That the banks in particular haven't seen fit to adopt one of these promises speaks volumes as to their absolute moral bankruptcy.

As America bails out the banks, why can't they pledge to keep lines of credit open to good customers? Why can't they pledge not to foreclose on homeowners who are able to refinance into government guaranteed fixed rate mortgages? How about volunteering some of their number to help administer the distribution of all this money? Ooops, maybe not. They'd only mess that part up like they've messed up the American economy.

All this taxpayer money is going to people who act like their doing someone a favor by taking it. That's why people like Howard Zinn and John Nichols may be right when they say the bailout should have gone to the American people rather than these clueless, self absorbed, financial geniuses who seem to be most adept at keeping their own heads above water.

Hey fellas! Don't miss your tee times!

I'm Gonna Whip His You Know What

As the final debate between John McCain and Barack Obama looms large, we hear, as always, an awful lot from the "strategists". Of course, a strategist can be almost anybody with an opinion on what either candidate should do. The loudest noise is coming from those in the McCain camp. His campaign seems to be a bit confused as of late, veering back and forth between ill received economic proposals and William Ayers. The big news over the weekend was McCain's pledge to "whip his you know what" on Wednesday.

It's ironic in a way that some of the same pundits who told him to attack Obama's character a couple of weeks ago are now saying he's got to sharpen his focus on the economy. There appears to be a little discord within the campaign itself, leading to rumors of a last minute shuffling of advisors. We'll see.

For the Obama camp, the worst enemy would appear to be thinking it's done already. A quick look at John McCain's recent history should tell the Democrat's campaign it isn't over till it's over. That would be when the last vote is counted. After all, the economy could stabilize, Obama could turn in a lackluster performance at the final debate, and McCain could finally come up with an economic proposal that passes rudimentary muster.

And then there's the issue of actual voter suppression. There have been numerous allegations of same, right now flying under the radar, but which collectively could make a giant difference in a close race. A case can be made the Obama campaign will be able to fight these efforts off, but it will be a battle. Then there is the unknown factor of what Barack Obama will do with that chunk of airtime he's buying.

But that's not for awhile yet. Let's see if McCain can truly open a can of whup-a** this Wednesday.

A New Kind of Ugliness on the Campaign Trail

It's getting close, this presidential election we've all followed for so long. With Barack Obama showing strength in recent polls, the Republican Right has begun begging john McCain to take the gloves off and really go after Barack Obama. That's why you've been hearing Sarah Palin, and now lately McCain himself bring up Obama's alleged friendship with William Ayers. The clear inference is there's more to this story than the media has reported. What that is has become anybody's guess.

Yet Ayers is only part of a larger picture. Politico.com reports that as the McCain campaign founders, supporters at Republican rallies are starting to get ugly. There has always been an edge to those opposed to Obama becoming president. To say the edge is getting sharper the past few days is the height of understatement. There's the "kill him" reference at a rally at which Sarah Palin spoke, to the constant Barack Hussein Obama references by local officials, to a woman calling out "Obama Osama" at a Wisconsin rally.

It's no longer just political mocking, it's outright rage. And it's dangerous. John McCain knows this, and to his credit, has tried to temper his more rabid supporters. That effort is in part political, because he knows such nonsense turns off the very independent voters he must have to win. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, ignores the damage this rage may inflict on the campaign. In fact, she encourages it.

That stoking of the fires of blind anger has had horrible consequences in America's past. John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, understands this when he talks to Politico about the "protection of our civil society" as a principle reason this rage must be tempered.

He might well have added, it doesn't appear to have made most Americans stop thinking about their economic well being.

Support Your Local Banker?

Oh, how the media love to tell us things in language that hides what's really going on. Today's headline in the New York Times (the paper of record, you understand) says "US May Take Ownership Stake in Banks". What they mean is, the Treasury Department, newly omnipotent since the bailout bill passed, is going to try to nationalize the American banking system. Notice, however, they don't call it nationalization.

It's not like they can't spell the word. When it comes to an identical plan by the British banking system, they call a spade a spade. They use the word nationalize. When it comes to American banks, the word is recapitalize. All this, of course, is trying to defrost the credit markets. In short, the banks don't trust each other enough to lend each other money. Which then leads to the following question. If banks don't trust banks, why should we trust banks? Or hedge funds? Or insurance companies like AIG?

You've doubtless heard about the group of AIG executives who had the bad taste (not to mention sense of entitlement) to go on a $440,000 dollar spa vacation AFTER their company was bailed out by taxpayers. Even the White House couldn't stomach that one. But I digress. The world's major central banks took the unprecedented step of lowering their interest rates by one half percent. Oh yeah, and the People's Bank of China was one of the participants. When it comes to money, ideology and human rights will just have to take a back seat.

So what does all this mean here in the States? It means even before the $700 billion dollar bailout is implemented, officials are scrambling for a Plan B. Remember, we told you not too long ago there was no Plan B. Well, now we know. It's official. There is no Plan B! There's also no miracle cure for a downturn that has become worldwide.

Don' be surprised if Uncle Sam comes right back to the taxpayer to fund yet another rescue scheme. And don't be surprised if there's a run on banks sometime in the near future. And finally, don't be surprised if the media won't call it what it is.

Who Won? That One!

Debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama had a different format than the first one. The candidates took questions from the audience in Nashville and from the Internet. Tom Brokaw fretted too many times about how long their answers were. And John McCain came nowhere near scoring the knockout the pundits said he'd need to revive his sagging fortunes.

He did have one interesting new proposal. Well, not really new. He'd have Uncle Sam buy up all those toxic mortgages out there, keeping homeowners in their houses. It would cost about $300 billion dollars. It's also not that different from a proposal floated by congressional Democrats.

If last night's debate was notable for anything, it was two words that seemed to be a mirror into McCain's soul. When firing back on energy policy, McCain talked about the Bush-Cheney energy bill of '05. He said, "You know who voted for it? That one". That one! For many people, that bit of objectifying was beyond an insult. Dollars to donuts McCain will have to answer what he was thinking when he said it later today.

Maybe he wasn't thinking at all. Maybe his contempt for Obama is so great that the phrase just came tripping off his tongue. Or, as some black folks have posited on blogs and boards this morning, did McCain actually mean "That one, the Negro guy"? Some people will argue black Americans are far too thin skinned about such slights. However, substitute any other candidate who has run for president in the past, and ask yourself if McCain would have used the same language.

John McCain sees the unique opportunity to become president fading before his very eyes. No matter what his spinners say, he knows he didn't win the hearts and minds of independent or undecided voters last night. That was his mission. He didn't succeed. Now, one supposes he'll have to go back to the well worn attacks on Obama's "associations", at least until his handlers wake up and realize that won't work either.

Who lost last night's debate? That one!

Debate Looms as Attacks Increase

It's time for debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama. This time around, the stakes have been raised. A flurry of attacks over the weekend first by McCain, then by Obama, could make this the face-off where there are fireworks. It's been common knowledge for awhile now that the Republican standard bearer would try to shift the focus of the campaign from the economy to Obama's character. So that's exactly what McCain and his minions did over the weekend. Former radical William Ayers was resurrected as if he and Obama together were plotting together to blow up buildings in the late '60s. When Obama was eight years old.

Not content to bring up Ayers, Sarah Palin, who just told an audience a day earlier that Americans want to focus on the economy, health care, and jobs, brought up the need to further discuss Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Back in April, McCain said he didn't want his campaign using Rev. Wright against Obama. I guess Palin didn't get the e-mail.

Obama responded in kind, for a change. His campaign brought up McCain's membership in the Keating Five, that group of Senators who got caught up in the late '80s savings and loan fiasco that cost US taxpayers billions. McCain trotted out his former lawyer, who said the entire affair was a plot by Democrats. Huh? Four of the five senators cited were Democrats. So much for logic.

As has been the case throughout the campaign, the timing of McCain-Palin couldn't have been worse. They go after character on a day the stock market dropped 800 points in midday. It was a day the experts could say with a straight face that a 363 point final decline was good news. And McCain and Pali are talking about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

That's why much is at stake tonight when the pair get together in Tennessee. It's a town hall setting, supposedly McCain's strong suit.

But that was before the economy went south, along with McCain's poll numbers.

Bailout or Not, Americans Close Their Wallets

It actually started earlier this year (you know, when we weren't in a recession), but the economic maelstrom of the past couple of weeks has caused consumers to rethink spending in some very basic ways. Cars sales are dropping like a stone, causing numbers of dealerships to close up shop. Airline traffic is also slowing, as is discretionary spending on items like electronics and even out of home meals.

It wasn't just the financial markets that got spooked in recent days. Trouble is, if consumers keep holding on to their money, it will take that much longer for the economy to rebound. Experts are saying consumer spending for the quarter just ended will shrink, the first time that's happened in nearly two decades. The negative news about the financial markets is being taken to heart across America, and it doesn't bode well for the upcoming holiday season.

Lagging sales has a domino effect. Retailers will start laying people off. Empty tables in restaurants means fewer waiters, busboys, dishwashers, and the like. The economy lost 159,000 jobs last month before all the chaos happened. The current month could be worse. And the $700 billion dollar bailout package just signed into law? It won't help spending in the short term. After all, $1 trillion dollars of household net worth has disappeared in the past four weeks.

Americans are resourceful people. Unlike the banks that got us into this mess, we'll cut our spending, make do with less, and move forward, in the main without the help from Uncle Sam the big boys are getting. Yet if we don't buy, some of us don't work, and businesses that are the life blood of our communities suffer.

Talk about being being between a rock and a hard place.

Palin's Performance a Victory? You're Kidding, Right?

Only in America could a candidate for high office like Sarah Palin win by not losing like she did last night. Her debate performance evoked comments like "folksy", and "connecting with average people". The fact she made no major errors other than not knowing the name of the US commander on the ground in Afghanistan is seen by some as a victory. Really? Was there anything in her arsenal other than stock answers? Was she that much better than she was in that series of awful interviews with Katie Couric?

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Scan the breadth of American media Friday morning, and you might easily conclude Palin won, Biden won, and they both lost. Spin is an amazing thing to behold, whether it comes from spiders or pundits. Was I the only one that thought not nearly enough time was spent on the economy? Would it have been totally out of line to ask about equal pay for equal work for women? Did I miss the part where Palin was asked about her views on abortion in the case of rape or incest?

The very concept of winning a debate by not looking like a complete idiot should shame us all. It's the ultimate expression of style over substance. As soon as the debate ended, I turned the television to something other than analysis. I would recommend this for all Americans. The punditocracy should not control how you analyze what you see and hear for yourselves. I waited until this morning to look at any debate analysis at all. This way, my own opinion was formed without input from people whose agendas I don't know (and don't care about).

My conclusion about last night was much the same as it was after the first presidential debate. Joe Biden, like Barack Obama, did a serviceable job. He could have done better, much better. That doesn't mean browbeating Sarah Palin. It means articulating a vision for the future that Americans believe can be accomplished. In these tough economic times, we deserve at least that.

What we got last night was genial sparring around the edges.

Palin vs. Biden- As the House Turns

Two things on the agenda make this a very special Thursday for political junkies like me. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden meet in their one and only debate in St. Louis. This one has all the trappings and metaphor of a boxing match. Palin comes in with low expectations. If she holds her own, she wins. If Biden is seen as bullying her, she wins. If she can pronounce the name of one world leader (you see where I'm going with this?) she wins.

Joe Biden comes into the debate with most people believing he's better suited to be president than Palin, but at the same time less likable. Never underestimate likable. As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he's fluent on issues that Palin appears to be just learning about.

Biden's best strategy is to take advantage of Palin's attempts to soft peddle her most extreme positions. When Katie Couric asked her about her position against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, she responded with some nonsense about counseling for life. Joe Biden needs to take advantage of that, and Palin's attempts to focus on Obama rather than him.

The other agenda item probably won't get finished until Friday, but is no less important. The House is taking up the bailout bill later today. After Monday's drama, an awful lot of people are hedging their bets on whether the Senate version passed last night will make it through the House. There are sweeteners for those Republicans who scuttled the bill Monday, but there are questions about whether all the Democrats who voted yes will do so Friday.

And then, of course, there are the American people. Many folks still aren't happy with this bill, in part because it hasn't been properly explained any better than the one voted down Monday. There is a profound lack of trust in this country. It extends from politicians, to bankers, to the media, and nobody wants to adjust their thinking to take it into account. That's too bad.

It will be here long after the current economic crisis is history.

Now the Senate Goes First- Meaning What?

I was in on a conference call with Senator Hillary Clinton Tuesday morning when she let drop that the Senate, rather than the House, might vote first on a revised bailout (Did I say bailout? They're calling it rescue) plan. Sure enough, by day's end, that was the plan. That, and a lifting of the insurance on bank deposits by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. In that same conference call, Senator Clinton talked about the possibility of "commerce grinding to a halt". The full court press by lawmakers supporting a bailout seems to have worked, just a little. Voters who gave an unequivocal thumbs down the other day are reporetdly starting to change their minds.

Yet the Congress could still blow it with the American people. There are fundamental questions that need to be answered. The fact this bill was rushed in the first place gave voters the impression lawmakers think they're too stupid to understand the complexities of high finance. That's led to the simmering anger of the public, to the Wall St. vs. Main St. mentality promoted by the media. Everyone involved needs to do better in explaining this bill.

Don't expect GW Bush to do it. As one writer said the other day, he looks more like a commentator on the economy than anyone who is trying to fix it. There are some basic questions. If the Treasury is going to buy up the bad debt of financial institutions, what price will they pay? How long will the government hold onto this paper? Do the distressed firms have sufficient hard assets for the government to recover in a worst case scenario? What specific relief is there for homeowners facing foreclosure? Is there any provision to stimulate the economy through jobs creation? And of course, what's Plan B if all this doesn't work?

I'm an idiot when it comes to most matters economic. Yet the questions asked above are pretty basic, and I'm not sure the answers are forthcoming from either house of Congress.

Who goes first, the House or the Senate, may not matter if the American people remain in the dark.