Master the Media

Mark Riley blog has moved

2009-03-09T08:42:00.004-04:00

WE'VE MOVED!

After receiving a number of concerns regarding the ability to post comments here at blogspot, I have set up camp at my own website. Hope you'll find your way over, continue reading my blog posts and...post a comment. I'd love to get some conversations going.

See you at www.markrileymedia.com

Mark

Publish Post

Rush to Judgment?

2009-03-04T08:18:00.004-05:00

We've blogged before, with some caution, about the apparent new face of Republicanism in America, Rush Limbaugh. I say with caution only because we happen to be in the same business, and I don't want criticism to be confused with jealousy (lol!).

Yet here is the porcine talker, blathering on as if he and only he holds the key to reversing grim GOP fortunes. And Democrats are sitting back, letting Limbaugh drag his so-called friends down the tube. Yes, folks, that's entertainment!

Michael Steele got it right. Limbaugh is an entertainer. In fact, Steele lost style points for recanting and throwing himself on the sword of Rushbo. What none of these people seem to realize is that Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" mantra is way out of the mainstream.

How far out of the mainstream? I give you a quote from the man himself. "The Administration is enabling me. They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience, and expanding my influence". Gee, if that's the case, why not make a run for president in 2012, Rush? And what color is the sky in his world?

It only helps Democrats and President Obama that congressional Republicans and people like Michael Steele are scared to cross Limbaugh. If recent polling is at all accurate, this guy has a lower approval rating than Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, two people the GOP tried to tie around Obama's neck during the campaign.

So, keep talking Rush. You may be helping yourself and your radio show, but you're also helping the opposition.

How does it feel to be a Democratic talking point?

Was Bush Serious? Yes, He Was!

2009-03-03T08:28:00.004-05:00

NB: No blog entries for Friday and yesterday. Got busy on a few things. Back to regular daily posts today.

Most Americans know that the administration of George W. Bush tried to push the envelope on the limits of presidential power. Little did we know how far he and his people were prepared to go after the September 11th terror attacks. Had their twisted view been fully implemented, America would be a very different place.

Here are just a few of the powers our last president was prepared to assume, as exposed in secret legal opinions by his own administration lawyers. His lawyers said it was no problem to use the US military inside the country to combat suspected terrorists, and to conduct raids without a search warrant. Foreign treaties could be unilaterally abrogated, and detainees suspected of terrorism could be handled with no input from Congress.

Much of this came from the minds of three people, according to the memos. John Yoo, Robert Delahunty, and Jay Bybee also conspired to gut the First Amendment in the name of successfully waging war in addition to all the above violations of basic American rights.

The fact that these opinions came out in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 is no excuse for them. Certainly the nation was rightly concerned with the potential for acts of terror within our boundaries. Yet subsequent events have shown the Bush Administration was ill equipped to insure that innocent people wouldn't get caught up in the wide net they were prepared to cast.

The only silver lining in all this is a memo dated this past January, just before Bush left office. It repudiates the proposed excesses of earlier opinions, even as it makes feeble excuses for their creation.

George W. Bush was ready, willing, and able to create a "1984" in 21st century America. We are lucky he didn't succeed, and we have a new president who understands the freedom can't be compromised on the level Bush wanted.

Yet how do we make sure this doesn't happen again?

Many Years Later, He's Still a Wonder

2009-02-26T08:22:00.004-05:00

President Barack Obama honored Stevie Wonder at the White House Wednesday night. He received the Library of Congress's Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. A select group of musicians and guests made the night a special one.

First Lady Michelle Obama talked about Stevie's classic "Talking Book" album, the first she ever bought. For me, the name Stevie Wonder goes back even further, to a time when "Little" was attached to it. With all the music this man has produced through the years, it all goes back to 1963, to "Fingertips".

I was right around Stevie Wonder's age when I first heard the song on the radio. Here was a kid whose voice hadn't yet changed, a kid I could relate to. Here was a young man people were calling a genius. From his first exhortation, "Everybody say yeah!", "Fingertips" was special.

In those days, records were often divided into Parts 1 and 2. Unlike most singles, however, "Fingertips Pt. 2" was released as the "A "side, the one that was pushed. It's energy can be traced to the fact that it was recorded live at Chicago's Regal Theater.

Bongos, harmonica, and voice blazing, Little Stevie Wonder served notice with this song. "Fingertips" became the first live, non studio recording to top the Billboard singles chart. It should be noted that the drummer on this song was none other than Marvin Gaye.

There were a lot of talented hitmakers in the early 1960s. 1963 was the year before the Beatles "invaded" America, and changed music forever. Yet so did Stevie Wonder, time after time after time. He's truly an American treasure, fully deserving of the accolades afforded him by the president.

"Everybody say yeah!"

Obama's Hope, or GOP Rope-a-Dope?

2009-02-25T07:59:00.003-05:00

By Mark Riley

President Barack Obama addressed Congress for about 52 minutes, or just over 6000 words, if you're counting. He made the most of his time, sketching an ambitious visions for the nation's recovery. At the same time, his speech seemed crafted to repel Republican criticisms he knew were coming.

Now that conservative talk radio and a single business tv rant have become the cornerstones of GOP rebuttal, Obama knew his speech to lawmakers and the nation had to take their influence into account. When he said he didn't believe in bigger government or massive debt, he was speaking to the only talking points Republicans rely on in this, the winter of their discontent.

They can only engage in negative speculation about the consequences of the course Obama has charted. They harbor the absurd belief that a mantra of relentless criticism without any program of their own will actually work in these tough times.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana showed his hand not in his response Tuesday night but this past Sunday.

The "rising star" of the Republicans made it plain the game they're playing is about what they consider good politics, not the good of the nation.

Isn't it odd that through every initiative this president has put forward there's been no competing vision by his opposition? Even the "we won't accept parts of the stimulus" movement of just the other day has lost significant steam.

One can quibble with parts of President Obama's plan to speed the nation's economic recovery. At least, however, he's got a plan.

What do the naysayers have? Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and Bobby Jindal?

Does Slumdog Exploit, or Just Reflect?

2009-02-24T06:35:00.005-05:00

By Mark Riley

By now just about everyone knows the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was the big winner at this year's Oscars. Eight awards, including best picture will be on every ad for the movie over the next little while.

I don't go to movies often, in fact, I hardly go at all. I've been disappointed by so many, even those with much critical hype attached.

Yet there I was Monday, with my wife, going to the local multiplex to check out Slumdog. Part of what made me go was a dinner conversation over the weekend about whether the film accurately portrays the slum life of Mumbai. That debate was the projection of a larger controversy, with many Indians, including filmmakers, highly critical of Slumdog.

Of course, there's nothing quite like seeing for yourself. The first thing that struck me about the movie-going experience was the annoying volume of the sound. This obviously wasn't the film's fault, but I came away with ear fatigue from all the explosive punctuations Surround Sound pounded through my ear canal. Good sound should never leave your ears pounding.

That having been said, the film was quite well done, even if the story line was a bit sappy. Was it exploitative? I didn't think so, but then, I'm not Indian.

I thought back to another portrayal of slum life, the highly regarded Brazilian film "City of God". I remarked to my wife that there were few if any charges of exploiting slum life against that picture.

She pointed out that "City of God", while critically acclaimed, didn't win an Oscar, much less eight the way Slumdog did. Maybe Hollywood's embrace of a film not part of India's thriving Bollywood cinema scene was part of what troubled people?

What ought to trouble people, in the end, is that slums like those in Mumbai and Rio exist in the first place. We think the world has come so far in the 21st century. For me, the power of "Slumdog Millionaire" is the reality that we've got so far to go.

What do you think? Does "Slumdog Millionaire" exploit the poor of Mumbai?

Want to Quibble Over Stimulus Money?

2009-02-23T06:42:00.003-05:00

By Mark Rley

Republican governors are split over whether and how much of President Barack Obama's stimulus money they should accept. We already told you a number of them can't wait for the dollars to come into their coffers. Now, about a half dozen say they'll reject certain parts of the bill they find objectionable.

Fine. Let them say no, for example, to extending unemployment benefits to workers in their states. When last I checked, Mississippi, whose governor has a problem with that part of the package, doesn't have a full employment economy. Let Haley Barbour explain to his constituents why laid off workers in other states are still getting checks while they aren't.

Much like their counterparts in Congress, these gubernatorial naysayers try to cover their partisan agenda with bogus talk of tax cuts. If they seriously think tax cuts will help their states' economies, why not just eliminate state taxes? They certainly have it in their power to do so.

There's a simple reason why they won't put their own money where their mouths are. They know cutting state taxes would bankrupt them, and wouldn't likely create a single job. It's also interesting to note that several of the governors who want to just say no to the stimulus represent southern states.

Mississippi's unemployment rate stood at 8% at the end of last year. South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford also bleats about extending unemployment benefits to part time workers, had a 9.5% jobless rate, 49th out of the 50 states and DC.

Make no mistake. These governors are the Marie Antoinettes of the 21st century. They profess to stand for conservative principles when much more is needed, and they know it. If I were Barack Obama, I'd throw down an ultimatum. Take the stimulus package as is, or take nothing.

Would these governors then be ready to tell the people to eat cake?

Why Does Burris Remind Me of the Doors?

2009-02-20T09:12:00.007-05:00

By Mark Riley

The continuing drama surrounding Illinois Senator Roland Burris continues unabated. Just like the sports world has A-Rod, politics has this accidental lawmaker, whose waffling on dealings with associates of of his benefactor, Rod Blagojevich, threaten to bring him down.

So why is it that lately, every time I see or hear Burris' name mentioned in the news, I think back to a song from my misbegotten youth? The song is "Riders on the Storm" by the Doors, and if ever there's storm rider for the 21st century, it's Roland Burris.

Despite repeated calls for his resignation, Burris soldiers on. On Tuesday, I mused that he should announce now that he'd only stay through next year's election. With the media-political nexus calling for his head, even that seems impossible. Or is it? Consider the first verse of "Riders on the Storm"....

Riders on the storm

Into this house we're born

Into this world we're thrown

Like a dog without a bone

An actor out on loan....

Riders on the storm

For me, that verse defines Roland Burris' situation.

Now even black ministers who initially thought he was getting a bad rap from the media are re-thinking their support. And, as Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson puts it, when your credibility rests on matters of syntax and grammar, that's a bad sign.

I for one certainly recognize Roland Burris' service to the people of Illinois, in particular its length. However, you have to ask yourself if those same folks are best served by a politically challenged lawmaker who may well have no shot at the full term he took the job to seek.

It's time for Roland Burris to salvage what's left of his dignity and legacy, and give up that Senate seat. I say this knowing he probably will try to hold out and let the storm pass. Yet if Roland Burris is anything more than "an actor out on loan", he'll recognize it's time to go.

What do you think. Should Roland Burris resign?

A Nation of Cowards?

2009-02-19T09:42:00.005-05:00

By Mark Riley

Lots of folks, especially the Sean Hannitys of the world, are going off about remarks made by the nation's Attorney General. In remarks to his staff, Eric Holder said that despite many advances, America remains "a nation of cowards" when it comes to issues of race.

As if to bear him out, the New York Post conjures images of racism past (and present?) with a cartoon showing cops shooting a chimp with a remark about the stimulus bill. The response to the cartoon and Attorney General Holder were both frighteningly predictable.

To Sean Hannity, any hint of reticence on race issues by his core constituency is a slap at all Americans. Don't believe me, just watch his show. One should also understand that for Hannity, race makes excellent fodder for entertainment. Spend a few days talking bad about Eric Holder, and watch the ratings rise.

The cartoon, on the other hand, first drew the ire of the Rev. Al Sharpton. How easy, then, for the bosses at the Post to slap the tag "publicity hound" on the Rev. and try to move on.

No such luck. Condemnations have cascaded from, among others, the National Urban League, the National Association of Black Journalists, my good friend Earl Ofari Hutchinson out of LA, and more.

Unlike the fountain of ignorance that publishes New York's most right wing daily, These folks understand that likening black folks to gorillas and chimpanzees in this country is as old as the nation itself. Again, don't take my word for it. Go back and look for yourself.

So when Eric Holder calls America a nation of cowards about race, don't hate.

Investigate, and decide for yourself. Tell me what you find out.

Best Buds- Obama and Republican Governors?

2009-02-18T07:29:00.006-05:00

By Mark Riley

While President Obama takes flack from congressional Republicans on everything from the just passed stimulus bill to the not yet announced home mortgage bailout, Tuesday's New York Times chronicles a curious state of affairs.

Sure, the GOP lawmakers inside the Beltway can keep hollering "tax cut", but an increasing number of Republican governors are in Obama's corner when it comes to trying to jump start the economy.

Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Jodi Rell of Connecticut have come to realize the $135 billion in the stimulus package going directly to states helps them balance their budgets.

Charlie Crist even campaigned with the president in Florida last week to get the package passed.

Their support has everything to do with yawning budget gaps they face in their states. These are gaps the Republicans in Washington pay little attention to. They're too busy grandstanding like Republican leader John Boehner. He dumped the bill to the floor during debate. Fat lot of good it did him.

Also crucial to the support of some Republican governors is the genuine effort on the part of this president to listen to their views. Say what you will about the Republican philosophy of limited government, when the states like California are staring at a budget gap of $41 billion dollars, guess who's the only knight that can ride to the rescue?

Now it's on to the home mortgage mess. Expect Republican governors in states with high foreclosure rates to get behind Obama on this as well.

And again, Republicans in Congress will shout from their bully pulpit, only to find few are listening.

What do you think? Can President Obama convince more Republican governors to back his economic recovery plans?

Is Burris Toast?

2009-02-17T09:06:00.008-05:00

If you read columns and stories from the punditocracy (I know it's not a word), the career of Illinois Senator Roland Burris died one month to the day after it began. He's the guy former Governor Rod Blagojevich named to replace Barack Obama, and we don't need to go into detail about that mess.

Now it seems like just when things were quieting down, Burris himself stirs the cauldron that is his state's politics. At issue is whether he lied to a state impeachment committee about his contact with Blagojevich staffers about the seat he now holds.

Burris himself says he did have a previously undisclosed conversation with Blago's brother regarding a contribution to the governor's campaign (no need for that now). The senator's denial that his new affidavit changes his original testimony isn't exactly causing people in Illinois or DC to flock to his defense.

In fact, the silence on both fronts deafening. Senate Democrats, who never wanted to seat Burris in the first place, seem to hoping either he'll quit or won't have enough juice to win his party's nomination next year.

While Republicans in Illinois have called on Burris to quit, the more important question is whether he'll be wounded so badly by all this that the Democratic leadership will get behind another candidate.

Roland Burris' biggest sin? After all, no one, not even his most serious detractors, say he actually gave Blagojevich any money. No, his mistake was not disclosing his new affidavit on the matter before the Chicago media got ahold of it.

If Senator Roland Burris is interested in doing the honorable thing here (some might argue he shouldn't have accepted the appointment in the first place), he needs to pull himself out of next year's Senate race now. That's right. Tell the people of Illinois you'll fight for them, but only until they can decide for themselves who they want.

What do you think? Can Roland Burris survive?

Happy President's Day

2009-02-16T09:21:00.002-05:00

Hope everyone has a happy President's Day. Have some fun with my new music playlist - see below on the right hand side.

Back tomorrow.

Mark

Thanks but No Thanks? Next!

2009-02-13T06:34:00.006-05:00

By Mark Riley

So Republican Senator Judd Gregg has decided to back away from becoming President Obama's Commerce Secretary. He's miraculously gone from goat to hero among his naysaying colleagues, who now attach some extraordinary significance to the fact that one of their number says he can't work with a Democratic president.

Gee, you just found out Obama's a Democrat? You didn't know his agenda when you said you'd take the gig in the first place? If this is truly the end of bipartisanship, you can't blame Obama. The media will spend much of today speculating about when the president knew Gregg had a change of heart. Hey. other than the stimulus, it's been a slow news week.

If the Gregg withdrawal is a symbol of Republican resistance to the stimulus and other Obama initiatives, so be it. Let Gregg and his pals come up with something better, something smarter, something that has even a small chance of helping the struggling, every day American.

Gregg's "I can't serve because I can't stand the stimulus" blather is just that, nonsensical partisan politics at its lowest. However, lest you think I'm dumping on all things GOP as we head into Valentine's and President's day weekend, consider the polar opposite of Judd Gregg.

His name is Anh "Joseph" Cao. He's the first Vietnamese member of Congress, the guy who sent New Orleans' William Jefferson into retirement. He's also publicly proclaimed that the needs of his district outweigh the need to stand with his colleagues on the stimulus bill. That's right. He says he'll vote for it.

When he upset Jefferson just this past November, Republicans touted Cao's ascension as a new day for GOP politics. No more could the party be pigeonholed as a white male bastion of privilege. If Cao holds true to his word, you think they may want to change their minds?

As for Judd Gregg, no big loss. Team Obama can find a replacement in short order. True, the Commerce job has been a bit of a problem, with Bill Richardson and now Gregg pulling out. Yet if you believe all things happen for a reason, you've got to believe Obama will get it right the third time.

Who do you think President Obama should nominate as Commerce Secretary? Does the person have to be a Republican?

Lock Up the Peanut Man? You Bet!

2009-02-12T07:31:00.006-05:00

I must confess I've had a thing for all things peanut since I was a kid. Raw peanuts, peanut butter, peanut butter cookies, you name it. Maybe that's why the story of Stewart Parnell, boss of the Peanut Corporation of America gets me so upset.

For those who don't already know (and those who need to be reminded), tainted peanuts from Parnell's plant have caused a serious outbreak of salmonella poisoning throughout the country. Nine have died, and 600 have gotten sick since last September.

Stewart Parnell was compelled by subpoena to appear before a House committee to explain a few embarrassing but pertinent facts. For instance, how did he explain lobbying federal regulators to let him keep shipping products from contaminated plants? Those products came with a phony certificate attesting to their purity.

He might also have to explain why, when confronted with evidence of contamination last October from his own lab, he sent the samples to a different one and complained about the delay? Parnell was asked if he was ready to eat any of the 1900 peanut products recalled because of contamination.

To all this, Stewart Parnell responded like a mobster. He took the Fifth on all questions, including whether he'd been present earlier when some of the victims of his greed testified. Then he left the committee hearing with the obligatory entourage.

If Stewart Parnell had shot nine people with a rifle, he rightly be called a mass murderer. He'd be facing life in prison at the very least. The e-mails made public yesterday at that House committee hearing showed Parnell had little if any concern for the people who might eat his tainted products.

Doesn't Stewart Parnell need to face criminal charges, and if convicted, be locked up like any other common miscreant?

Or am I overreacting because I love peanuts?

Is the Devil in the Details?

2009-02-11T06:35:00.006-05:00

By Mark Riley

Of all President Barack Obama's cabinet picks, I was most nervous about Tim Geithner, his choice for Treasury Secretary. Not that I knew much about him, but the idea that he was an integral part of putting together the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bailout made me wonder.

Now his plan to spend the second half of the TARP money (and a whole lot more) has others wondering as well. Geithner's plan lacked much of what both lawmakers and the public had hoped for. There were few specifics about how the plan would accomplish its goals of helping banks, unfreezing the credit markets, and slow the ever spiraling rate of home foreclosures.

We do know this. It will be a week or two before the Obama Administration, and not Treasury, unveils a $50 billion dollar plan to deal with the foreclosure crisis.

That's a week or two too long. The public ought to be able to see tangible benefits from both the bailout and stimulus plans, and right now it doesn't look like they will right away.

The other obvious question is this. Is $50 billion dollars enough to help struggling homeowners when 10,000 American families a day are falling into some stage of foreclosure?

Combine Geithner's hazy vision of the bailout with reports that he resisted the effort of presidential aides to impose tough oversight on those financial institutions receiving help, and one can't be optimistic about his tenure thus far.

Some lawmakers are calling Geithner's plan "Son of Paulson", referring to the disbursement of the first half of the bailout money. We still know little about where that money went. We do know it didn't do what Hank Paulson told us it would.

Is Tim Geithner asking the American people to throw good money after bad? More importantly, is he the right person to guide the nation's troubled financial ship of state?

You tell me. I'm not optimistic.

What Exactly is Important?

2009-02-10T08:17:00.005-05:00

By Mark Riley

Today's blog entry is a message to struggling Americans who are wondering how they'll make ends meet, and why the travails of Alex Rodriguez seems so much more important than their livelihoods. Take heart, America. Some people do, in fact, get it.

With all the arguments over the stimulus plan, where the other half of the TARP money will go and with how much oversight, it seems easy to overlook what it feels like to have spent your life working and through no fault of your own, suddenly to be thrown out of a job.

That gnawing feeling in your gut that no medicine can cure comes and goes. You look in the eyes of your children and realize your teachings about the value of hard work are suddenly suspect.

The phone calls from bill collectors come, and you find yourself walking around the house, trying to figure out if there's something you're doing wrong.

Why haven't there been more responses to your resume? How will next month's mortgage be paid? Will you have to skimp on needed medication in order to pay your utility bill? Will all the stuff politicians argue about really make a difference?

In these times of economic crisis, it's hard to find reasons to take heart. But understand this.

Your economic survival is just as important as that of an investment banker, a hedge fund manager, and yes, even some media pundit. Those folks think they live in a different world than you. They're wrong.

You can find some comfort in the notion that we have a person in the White House who at least understands that a 15% unemployment rate in any American city is a problem for all America. He's promised transparency in the way stimulus money is spent. The nation needs to hold him to it as we believe he means it.

What is important? No, it's not A-Rod, Chris Brown, Rihanna, John Boehner or John McCain.

It's you. Tell me your story...post it here so we can learn from each other?

Deal or No Deal on Stimulus?

2009-02-09T08:23:00.005-05:00

By Mark Riley

Did the Senate pull our collective leg last Friday when they said there was a deal on President Obama's stimulus plan?

If so, why are so many Republicans, from Congressman Mike Pence to Senator John McCain still badmouthing it?

It's the same blah blah blah... it costs to much... and tax cuts are the answer. I guess they didn't see the news that 600,000 jobs were lost last month.

President Obama did. That's why he's hit the road, holding a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana. That's a city where the unemployment rate stands at better than 15%. It's a good bet most of those people, like most Americans now out of work, did their jobs every day until the plant closed.

Meaning, of course, that calls for personal responsibility are likely to fall on deaf ears. Telling a laid off worker it's his or her fault rather than high flying bankers who still don't miss tee times at their golf clubs simply won't work.

That's what Republican obstructionists fail to understand. They're coming across as far more sympathetic to the plight of financial institutions than they are to the needs of the American people.

President Obama will also hold a prime time news conference at the White House. Part of that will be taken up with questions about the tax troubles of a few of his nominees. There will also be questions about the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) plan to shore up American banking.

Yet the big issue is the stimulus.

Is there a deal in the Senate, and when will it come to his desk to be signed? And why has it taken so long?

Cheney's Back. Do You Care?

2009-02-06T08:08:00.003-05:00

By Mark Riley

Former Vice President and top fear monger Dick Cheney is back in the news this week. And guess why? He's up to his old tricks again. Cheney was always the most fierce defender of Bush Administration policies. After all, he crafted many of them.

So it should come as no big shock that he's amping up the same scare tactics that were a hallmark of the Bush years. Close Guantanamo Bay, move away from torture, he bleats, and the Obama Administration is inviting another 9-11 terror attack.

Nation security experts disagree about the efficacy of many Bush era initiatives. We do know this, however. Torture is banned by international law. Bush's inner circle tried throughout his eight years in office to get around that simple fact.

When some in Bush's own chain of command argued against what was going on at GITMO they were shouted down. In many cases, behind the scenes, Cheney's voice was the loudest. And now he's back, implying that by terminating the most obnoxious Bush policies, President Obama is backtracking on protecting Americans.

When Bush was criticized about the Iraq war, about his tacit support of torture, about his naked attempt to consolidate presidential power, his supporters called critics traitors. What should we call Dick Cheney?

In truth, he's no different than Rush Limbaugh.

Both are trying to remain relevant in a world that's changing before their eyes. The American people have rejected their way of doing things, and in fact their view of the world. Neither Limbaugh nor Cheney know what to do with themselves as a result. So they talk trash.

Is anybody paying attention to Dick Cheney's nonsense? Are you?

Why the Fighting Over Stimulus?

2009-02-05T12:31:00.004-05:00

By Mark Riley

The Senate may well take up President Obama's stimulus package before this day is out. One hesitates to put a price tag on it, because it changes depending on what media you consume. Anyway, a number of senators seem top be bent on trimming what they consider to be unnecessary spending from the bill.

That may be all well and good. It's also interesting that the effort to cut the money is bipartisan. And certainly no one wants to waste money, right? More on that later. Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins, both centrists, say they'd like to trim $50 to $200 billion dollars from the package.

So where do they want to cut? $50 million for the arts, $14 million from a Homeland Security initiative, $1 billion from the National Science Foundation, $400 million from research into sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million destined for Amtrak, and $400 million for climate change research.

Fantastic! Trouble is, unless my math is really bad, those proposed cuts don't come anywhere near the $50 to $200 billion these folks want to see trimmed. That would mean more delay and haggling, when delay is the worst thing that could happen to the American people.

New claims for unemployment benefits are at the highest rate since 1982.

The January employment report is due tomorrow, and no one is expecting good news. All due respect to Senators Collins and Nelson (and their allies in this cutting fever), if they can't come up with more than the approximately $2.8 billion they've suggested, they need to move out of the way.

Maybe they're trying to prevent what happened with the financial bailout from happening here. The chair of the group overseeing that money says Uncle Sam overpaid for stocks and other assets to the tune of $80 billion dollars.

Yet isn't President Obama's package an investment in the American people? How about getting it done this week?

Why Not Howard Dean for Obama?

2009-02-04T08:16:00.006-05:00

Tom Daschle had to withdraw his name from consideration to become Health and Human Services Secretary. The tax thing was obviously too much. President Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor, took the hit and admitted his mistake in continuing to push for Daschle's confirmation.

Good job. So now what?

Howard Dean, that's what! The president would do well to listen to the chorus of progressive voices who are saying the outgoing DNC chair is the perfect person for the job. There are all sorts of rumors to the effect that Rahm Emanuel would counsel the president against picking Dean.

That's not good enough. Sure, the pair clashed over Dean's 50 state strategy, but who turned out to be right? Besides, this can't be about grudge politics. Howard Dean, Dr. Howard Dean, simply has the best credentials.

Dean expanded health care coverage to children when he was governor of Vermont. As a doctor, he can speak to doctors and allay their suspicions about what most progressives feel is most needed, universal health care.

In doing so, he can hopefully get patients on board as well. In many cases, doctors make their most passionate arguments against universal health care to the people they see in their office.

President Obama will do doubt act fast to fill the vacuum created by Daschle's exit. There are people other than Howard Dean who will be considered.

Yet at the end of the day, can those of us who want to see a sharp change in the current health care system say there's anybody more qualified than Howard Dean?

What do you think?

Bad Day to Blog

2009-02-03T14:30:00.004-05:00

I've been running around all day, so no real time to blog. Congrats to Eric Holder. You just know he can do better than the last two AGs put together.

Too bad about Daschle. He would have made a good HHS Secretary, but those taxes sank him.

Back tomorrow.

Mark

Will Daschle Go Down?

2009-02-02T08:36:00.004-05:00

By Mark Riley

Former Senator Tom Daschle has become the second Obama Administration nominee to get caught up in a tax mess. Having to pay back taxes of about $34,000 didn't derail the nomination of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. But Daschle's liability is well over $100,000 dollars, and his bid to become Secretary of Health and Human Services could be different.

Congressional Republicans are now trying to use Daschle, Geithner, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's withdrawal of his name for commerce secretary to question the president's vetting process. In addition, the failure of politicians to pay taxes is an issue that resonates with the public in ways few other issues do.

People have every right to compare their own situations to those of these bigwigs and question why they seem to get away with simply paying what they owe. The appearance of a double standard is hard not to note.

Still, in Daschle's case, interesting politics seems to be at work. Senate Republicans aren't ready to say his nomination is dead in the water. That would be despite the fact that a report released Friday by the Finance Committee says Daschle questioned his accountant about possible tax problems back in June. He didn't tell the Obama transition team about his liabilities until weeks after he was nominated.

On the other hand, there are reports that one powerful Democrat in the Senate might want to see Daschle go down. Montana Senator Max Baucus has reportedly had a long running feud with Daschle on a number of issues. Some say Baucus has been slow to come to his former colleagues' defense as a result.

Daschle's supporters point out that he voluntarily reported his tax problem to the IRS when he realized the perks he was getting from a media mogul were taxable income. He's already paid the money he owed, they argue, so this shouldn't be a deal breaker.

Political intrigue aside, the average American must wonder what would have happened if Tom Daschle was Joe Public, and didn't have the money to pay off the liability so easily.

What do you think? Will Tom Daschle's tax problems sink his chances of getting an Obama cabinet post?

What am I, an Idiot? With Technology, Yes!

2009-01-30T08:31:00.009-05:00

Mark Riley

It's a moment in life you never see coming, but when it does, you can't figure out why or how it happened. I'm talking about the moment you realize that when it comes to 21st century technology, you're stuck somewhere in the late 20th.

Maybe this has happened to you? Something either goes wrong with your computer, or there's a task you're trying to perform that you can't. In my case, my 11-year-old daughter saunters into the room and innocently asks, "What's wrong, Daddy?"

I proceed to explain my conundrum, only to have her hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and solve the problem! Then, with a look that says "You're so '90s", she goes back upstairs to use her own personal laptop. What she does with it (aside from homework) is a total mystery to me.

Digital manipulation of our dog, courtesy my daughter!

Mind you, when I was coming up, there was no piece of equipment in our home that I knew more about than my parents. The very notion of such a thing would have driven my folks up a wall.

It's not just the computer that makes me feel like a relic from a bygone era. Lately, I've begun to understand that there are people in this world who no longer see the telephone as their primary means of outside communication.

Where once I would pick up the phone and call somebody I wanted to reach, I find it's now faster to either e-mail or text them. Forget texting. I have no idea how it works, and have never sent one knowingly.

Yet it seems that when it comes to mobile and cellphones, actually calling a number is no longer its primary function. This was driven home to me by several recent incidents. One, my daughter (yep, her again) took a phone I used to own after she lost hers.

I only used it to make and receive calls (isn't that the point?). Imagine my amazement when I called her on it and heard a voice say "Please enjoy the music while your party is located". Huh?

I had no idea that my phone had that feature. I'd never bothered to read the manual (too complicated). It wasn't long before I realized she'd customized that phone using lots of features I didn't even know was there.

I soon realized my little one hadn't read it either. Which is kind of the point of this rant. Children process information very differently than we do as adults. Don't ask them to explain it because they either can't or won't. But you know what? It works for them.

The other thing I'm noticing a lot is e-mail that says "Sent from my Blackberry". Yet another technological wrinkle I've yet to master. And I've actually got a Blackberry!

President Obama's Sectera Edge

I'm beginning to think in the next year or so I'll be consigned to "The Land of Left Behind".

Is any of this happening to anyone besides me? Or am I just an idiot?

Ready to Spend Yet?

2009-01-29T08:36:00.006-05:00

By Mark Riley

It may not be law yet, but the media has already begun analyzing how the House passed economic stimulus bill will affect Americans. The press has also made a big deal out of the fact that despite President Obama's best efforts, no Republicans voted for the plan in the House.

On the first issue, the answer is simple. The purpose of this plan is to convince the public that it's okay to spend again. Keep in mind that as this crisis has deepened, most folks have seriously cut back on buying, even during the Christmas season.

The alternative for many has been to pay down on debt, not necessarily a bad thing. The question now is whether the combination of tax cuts ($211 of the $819 billion dollar package) and new spending will loosen American purse-strings. Maybe, maybe not.

One good thing. The plan would spend serious money on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Let's hope major cities get some real money for mass transit improvements. Health care would also get a good chunk of money, some $88 billion to shore up Medicaid alone.

President Obama wants to get this thing passed and signed before President's Day. He's invested serious time and effort in trying to marshall bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. It didn't work in the House. Republicans wanted nothing but a tax cut plan, and bickered during debate about whether GW Bush's cuts in '01 created years of growth.

It makes one wonder if trying to talk sense to these people really makes any. Why is there a part of me that wants the president to crack with whip with both congressional Republicans and clueless bankers? The former don't seem to want to admit how bad things really are.

If they want to talk about the good old days of our former president, let them. Let Barack Obama drive the bus with these people standing on the sidelines, griping. If this plan puts people back to work and gets them to spend again, they'll be exposed for the fools they are.

President Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Shouldn't these partisan do nothings be called out for who they are?

You tell me. Leave a comment and start a discussion...

Will Wall Street Ever Learn?

2009-01-28T08:33:00.007-05:00

By Mark Riley
As the pushing back and forth on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan continues, questions abound about whether big executives on Wall St. are really tightening their belts. Juan Gonzalez writes a column in today's NY Daily News that indicates the answer is "absolutely not!"

Sometimes you have to pull together various strands of fabric to make a quilt. Consider the following financial strands, and ask yourself what kind of quilt it makes. Keep in mind that Monday alone, somewhere on the order of 70,000 Americans lost their jobs.

John Thain, former boss at Merrill Lynch, spent $1.2 million dollars on redecorating his office in lower Manhattan.

The redo included $35,000 for a "commode on legs", $25,000 for a "mahogany pedestal table" $87,000 for an area rug, and $1400 bucks for a trash can. That's right, a trash can.

It gets worse. Bank of America, the company that took over Merrill Lynch, announced it would cut 35,000 jobs over three years. That was on Dec. 11th. That same week, John Thain doled out $4 billion (with a B) dollars in bonuses to top execs at Merrill. According to Gonzalez' column, Thain knew Merrill Lynch would show a fourth quarter loss of $15 billion dollars.

So too did the bosses at Bank of America, which was busy asking for $20 billion dollars in government assistance on top of the $25 billion they've already received. The upshot is that Thain was forced out just last week, but the damage had already been done.

The quilt from just these strands of fabric? Taxpayers paid for Merrill Lynch bonuses! If this was the only example of a clueless Wall St. it would be bad enough. Combine it with Citigroup's $50 million dollar jet (it had to cancel the order after it was made public), and the sale of former Lehman Brothers boss Richard Fuld's sale of his $13 million dollar mansion to his wife for $100 bucks, and you get the picture.

These sorts of outrages demand quick action from our new president. Never mind lobbying on Capitol Hill.

He needs to get the titans of American finance in a room, and read them the riot act.

His first question ought to be how it is that 100,000 bank employees have lost their jobs in the past two years, but nearly 90% of the top executives at 200 banks that have gotten federal money are still on the job.

In his inaugural address, the president talked about responsibility. Were America's bankers listening? Apparently not. It's time for Obama to make them pay attention.

What do you think?

Needed Change or Quick Fix?

2009-01-27T08:15:00.006-05:00

Politicians, even progressive ones, sometimes react to controversy with well meaning solutions. Too often, the solution is as bad or worse than the problem. So it is with calls to take away the power of state governors to fill vacant seats in the US Senate.

We all know the drama surrounding appointments in Illinois, New York, and Delaware (quick, can anyone tell me the fourth seat that became vacant?). To fix the problem, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold wants to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring a special election if a seat becomes vacant.

Sen. Feingold's logic is that what's good for the House is also good for the Senate. There, the constitution mandates vacancies to be filled by special elections. Further, Feingold argues that citizens, not governors, should be the ones who determine who goes to Washington is a Senate seat is vacant.

It all seems to make sense, and certainly there are numbers of people who will back the proposal after the three ring circus that filling seats in New York, Illinois, and Delaware became. And yet, all this doesn't make the special election route a good idea.

First, some clarity. It's not a bad idea because it takes power away from governors (see Rod Blagojevich). Rest assured they'll be the first ones screaming if Feingold's idea gets traction. No, the problem here is that the proposal doesn't seem to be well thought out.

The House and Senate are two different bodies. One represents an estimated 587,000 people, while senators represent entire states. Besides, there will in fact be special elections to fill all four vacant seats next year. Why rush the process?

Blagojevich's alleged vices aside, does the cost of a special election this year, estimated at $30-50 million dollars really solve a problem? Or is it just a reaction to what's gone on this time around? My gut tells me it's the latter, and my experience tells me these kind of fixes almost never work the way their champions intend.

You tell me. Should governors be stripped of their power to fill vacant Senate seats?

BTW: The fourth vacant seat was in Colorado. It became open when Ken Salazar was tapped to be Interior Secretary.

Mandela, King, Gandhi...Blagojevich?

2009-01-26T06:58:00.011-05:00

By Mark Riley
Now that the drama over who would be New York's replacement for Hillary Clinton in the US Senate is done (and the governor is in major damage control mode), the scene shifts back to Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich, apparently on the advice of a PR firm, has gone on a media offensive.

His impeachment trial set to start today, Blago is either acting crazy, or crazy like a fox. After appearing on several Chicago area radio stations, he's now going national. Rather than present a defense to those who will judge him, he's going on, among others "The Today Show", "Good Morning America", "Larry King Live", and "The View".

We now know this is a guy not prone to understatement, and utterly without shame. On "The Today Show", Blagojevich actually said that when he was arrested he thought about Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi.

True, all of them did time, but none were ever accused of threatening to withhold children's healthcare funding unless they got campaign donations from a hospital executive. Allegedly, that is.

The particulars of the case have been examined, publicized, and exposed. One would think an honorable politician would step aside temporarily, even as he or she maintained their innocence. Not Blagojevich. He said again over the weekend he's going nowhere. Interestingly, there remain questions about whether prosecutors have enough to convict him on the main charge, trying to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat to the highest bidder.

That will be for a jury to decide. In the meantime, the current governor of Illinois has carved a fascinating niche for himself in the annals of American politics. He is, however, not unique. If you don't believe me, get ahold of Mark Grossman's "Political Corruption in America", an A to Z overview of the depths those we elect will go to amass power and money.

The Illinois State Senate will no doubt vote to remove impeach Rod Blagojevich, and remove him from office. The only question remaining is whether the process will remove the taint this man has brought to the highest office in his state.

Will Rod Blagojevich's removal from office clean up Illinois politics? You tell me.

Gillibrand's the One. Is She the Right One?

2009-01-23T08:58:00.009-05:00

NB: Shout out to my good friend Wayne Barrett from the Village Voice for his reporting on this story. He was one of if not the first to report that Gov. Paterson's choice would be Kirsten Gillibrand.

So it looks like Upstate New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will be Gov. Paterson's choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.

Already the choice has roiled the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, at least inside the state. Yet for a lot of reasons, the choice is smart politics.

The logic against Gillibrand's runs along several progressive fault lines. She's got a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. She even opposes any limits on the sale of semi automatic weapons or so-called cop killer bullets. Her position on immigration isn't what anyone would call enlightened. She voted against both financial services bailout bills supported, ironically, by one of her current champions, Sen. Chuck Schumer. That won't endear her to New York City residents.

But wait, there's more! She supported the Bush tax cuts, backed continued funding for the Iraq war, and generally described her voting record as one of the most conservative in the state.

She opposes gay marriage (while supporting civil unions). Even though she was an ardent backer of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, it's pretty obvious they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues.

Even with all this, and the possibility of several primary challengers next year, the choice makes political sense. Gov. Paterson knew he needed to replace Hillary Clinton with a woman. Once Caroline Kennedy dropped out, an upstate woman made the most sense. While watching the NY-1 program, "Inside City Hall" last night, I was struck by the number of phone callers who knew quite a bit about Gillibrand's record, and thought she'd be a good choice.

Voting for her certainly won't be a problem for ethnic voters in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Some of them might even be induced to vote for Gov. Paterson's re-election as well. Keep in mind Gillibrand defeated a long standing incumbent Republican to win her seat in Congress in 2006. There's no way she could have won by taking policy positiions favored by downstate liberals.

Besides, if anyone in theory bears responsibility for the rise of Kirsten Gillibrand, it's Caroline Kennedy. If you believe she was the governor's first choice for the job, the mess created by her last minute departure demanded a quick and clear response.

Kirsten Gillibrand is certainly no perfect vessel. This is politics, and everyone knows there are no perfect vessels. Assuming David Paterson doesn't change his mind, he'll announce her as his choice later today.

If she wants to win a full term, she's going to have to rethink some of her more "Blue Dog" positions, especially on gun control.

Yet in the end, she will be measured by what she's able to bring to the state in the way of jobs and stimulus money. New York, like the rest of the nation, is hurting economically. If she's successful there, she'll win next year.

What do you think? Is Kirsten Gillibrand the right choice?

Too Bad About Caroline, Ya Know?

2009-01-22T08:37:00.008-05:00

When it comes to political drama, it seems nothing can top the twin efforts to fill US Senate seats in New York and Illinois. Just when it seemed the controversy surrounding Rod Blagojevich's pick for the latter was dying down, New York's selection process has been thrown into chaos.

That's because Caroline Kennedy, the presumptive choice of Gov. David Paterson, has taken herself out of contention. Speculation abounds about why. Various media are reporting the move caught the governor's office completely by surprise. We may never know the real reason she dropped out.

Fact is, Caroline Kennedy was ill prepared for the blood sport that is New York politics.

Her public rollout was badly flawed, her credentials seriously questioned after a flurry of early positive press. All this she should have expected. Unlike her good friend President Barack Obama, she was incapable of responding effectively to the negative media coverage.

A good speech coach, for example, could have gotten her past the awkward "ums" and "you knows" that made her public interviews agonizing to watch. On top of that, does anyone remember a single policy position she articulated during the course of her shadow campaign for the office?

Why she dropped her bid is anybody's guess. The New York Times cites a person "close to her" as saying it was worry about the health of her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy. Others are speculating it was a graceful way out, since Gov. Paterson was not going to choose her despite the speculation he had little choice.

And the governor's office doesn't come away unscathed in all this either. As recently as 7:00PM last night, his people were saying reports that Ms. Kennedy was dropping out were "just the rumor of the day". A little more than an hour later, his press secretary asked that the previous statement not be published. Say what?

If there's one thing you never do, it's ask the media not to report something you told them. You issue a clarification, you say the governor didn't have all the information, whatever. This is New York! People should know better. All this has conspired to make Gov. Paterson, a thoughtful man, look indecisive and confused.

I don't think he is. In fact, I was never as certain as some of my colleagues that Caroline Kennedy had a lock on the senate seat. David Paterson has always managed to confound even his friends with the choices he makes. He is his own best counsel. Caroline Kennedy dropping out doesn't change that.

Gov. Paterson will make his choice for Hillary Clinton's senate seat known by the weekend. Who do you think he'll choose?

Can Barack pull it off?

2009-01-21T08:07:00.007-05:00

Finally, we can stop calling him President-Elect Barack Obama. An historic day of ceremony took care of that. George W. Bush did fly off in a helicopter, finally a former president. Yet not before he heard some scathing words from his successor.

President Obama spent much of his inaugural speech laying out how he would undo what Bush has done over the past eight years.

In many ways, it was a stinging rebuke. "Our collective failure to make hard choices", and the willingness of suspend the nation's ideals "for expedience's sake" pulled no punches, especially with the guy you're talking about sitting only a few feet away. Fact is, though, it had to be said.

He also rejected the notion of the "false choice" between ideals and safety. Again, a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Even these words, however, fail to capture what the world saw during Barack Obama's swearing in Tuesday. From the first camera shot as he prepared to be introduced, the new president exuded confidence without swagger, an aura that said, "I can do this".

For just a moment, my mind went back to the early 1960s, to the dawn of my consciousness about who I was. That consciousness was shaped in part by a brash young man from Louisville, Kentucky, a boxer then named Cassius Clay. Until that time, black people rarely if ever held their heads up and proclaimed their greatness. Cassius Clay was different.

Certainly he was electric, confident to the point of arrogance in the eyes of some. Many people thought Sonny Liston would clean his clock when they fought twice for the heavyweight championship. We all know how that turned out.

Still, watching President Obama stride to the podium, take the oath of office, and speak to the world, I was reminded of the confidence we saw as kids in the man who later became Muhammad Ali. For some reason, I saw a straight line there. And it made me feel proud. And old.

That aura of confidence Barack Obama showed yesterday made me realize he really believes he can change the course of this nation. The outgoing president had to sit there in silence, no doubt a little shocked at how directly his watch was bring critiqued.

But all that was yesterday. The parade, the balls, the glitter, all that is done. Time to get to work.

Can he do it? Post your comment here.

Obama's Big Day, and Ours

2009-01-20T08:35:00.010-05:00

It should surprise no one that Barack Obama's inauguration has captured the attention of not just the nation, but the world. Juxtaposed as it is with the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, it creates a unique symmetry.

All day Monday, King and Obama were joined, not just in news programs but on cable entertainment channels... and even sports shows. A radio station in Ireland christened itself "Obama FM" to mark the day.

And today, what many thought would never happen will. America has turned a page in its history, and not just because the first black president will be sworn in. The nation and in fact the world is looking for something different, something inspiring, something that indicates that yes, the government can tackle the economic crisis that's meant hard times for so many.

I don't expect Barack Obama to disappoint in his inaugural speech. Since the election, his public speeches have reminded supporters and foes alike that his oratory was a big factor in making him credible. His aides say it will largely be about responsibility, his and ours.

He dropped a big hint Monday, as he and his family engaged in volunteer work just as he challenged the nation to do. Yet now, after the speech, the parade, and innumerable inaugural balls and parties are done, it will be time to govern.

To be successful in that, Obama will need the help of the American people. As people were open to the idea of a black president, so too must they be open to change in the way we function as a nation. That need for change runs the gamut, from the financial sector to our consumption habits to the way we look at health care, education, and work. It won't be easy, nor will it be without pain.

Some of Obama's supporters will be disappointed at the speed and method of change he was elected to bring. That's not a bad thing. If our new president is as open to ideas as has been evidenced thus far, his critics may actually help shape his policies. That would be something new.

And so, celebrate! Even Karl Rove recognizes the history that's being made in Washington today.

Billions of people around the world will watch America write a new chapter in its history.

This new chapter is one you will help write. Post your thoughts of today's events here.

The Dream Fulfilled?

2009-01-19T08:39:00.006-05:00

The fact that a new survey shows two thirds of black Americans now believe Dr. Martin Luther King's vision for race relations has been realized, can be attributed to two words: Barack Obama.

Only last March, a similar survey showed only 34% of the black community thought Dr. King's vision had been fulfilled.

What's even more astonishing is where black folks stood on the Obama candidacy as recently as the fall of 2007.

You may remember that's when so many people were questioning his blackness, where he came from, and whether his experience in America was really ours. How quickly we change!

Politically, that change came after the Iowa caucuses, but that's not really the point. On this, the day we celebrate Dr. King's life and legacy, it's important to note that race relations wasn't his only area of endeavor. Martin Luther King stood for peace, and just as importantly, a non racial society where all people, regardless of race or ethnicity, were treated the same.

On that score, we've still got work to do. It may not jump out at us like the overt racism of decades gone by, but people in America, black and white, still pigeonhole each other based on skin color. As the nation gets more diverse, we also tend to do generalize about others, like south and east Asians, and Latinos.

If you don't believe me, check out how some (not all) young black people act toward workers in a Chinese restaurant located in their community. Conversely, look closely at how some Asians stereotype both blacks and Latinos they come in contact with. This isn't the ugliness that greeted the dawn of the civil rights movement that Dr. King headed.

Yet were he alive today, one can't help but think he'd be pointing it out. Maybe I shouldn't put words or thoughts in his mouth. A lot of that has been done since he was assassinated, even by people who opposed his ideals while he lived. However, a cursory reading of his speeches beyond his famed "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 shows a man profoundly aware of America's ills beyond racism.

Read Dr. King's speeches about the Vietnam War, and understand that race wasn't the only thing he believed needed change in America.

That's a big reason why I believe Barack Obama's efforts to end the war in Iraq will speak to Dr. King's legacy as much as anything else he'll do as president.

Putting Americans back to work at a living wage is also part of Dr. King's dream.

After all, he gave his life while trying to help striking sanitation workers in Memphis.

All of which is to say that Barack Obama's election as president isn't the end of fulfilling Dr. Martin Luther Kind's dream.

It's just the beginning. Isn't it?

Love a Parade?

2009-01-16T09:38:00.008-05:00

I've always loved parades. Maybe that's because I've marched in so many of them. As a kid growing up in Connecticut, I joined a fife, drum, and bugle corps at the age of 8. It took two years, but I learned to play a snare drum well enough to participate in dozens of firemen's parades.

From there I joined a competing drum and bugle corps, and never looked back.

Even though we marched primarily in contests, there were always one or two parades to do each season. That's why, all these years later, the most interesting element of Barack Obama's inauguration for me is the huge parade through the streets of DC.

To be chosen to march in an inaugural parade is the highest honor for any marching musical organization. Even though it's January, and it may be cold enough to horn player's lips freeze to their mouthpieces, this parade is something special. I already knew about a couple of groups that were making the trip to participate.

World class drum and bugle corps like the Cadets from Allentown, Pa. and the Colts from Dubuque, Iowa will be there, as will the Grambling State Tiger Marching Band, the the Fightin Blue Hens from the University of Delaware.

Grambling State University Marching Band

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read an article in the New York Times about the drumline of the Bonnie Brae Residential Treatment Center in New Jersey. They'll be there too, and therein lies an interesting story, one that resonates with me on a personal level.

Bonnie Brae is a place for boys ages 8-18 who can't live in the community because of "psychiatric and behavioral challenges". Most have been abused or neglected, and have not adjusted to foster care.

Bonnie Brae Knights

The Bonnie Brae Knights, as they are called, began about four years ago. When their original instructor retired, they hired a couple of people from the Spirit of Newark Drum and Bugle Corps, a corps that competes on a natiional level.

Their director, Harold Wright, is an old friend of mine. In fact, we played bass drum together in a corps, the New York Skyliners, more than a quarter century ago. It was Harold Wright who took the Bonnie Brae Knights to the next level, teaching them the marching and drumming skills that enabled them to get that invitation to the inaugural parade.

Reading the Times piece, with Harold barking out orders to these 15 kids, made me feel, oddly enough, involved with their story. Harold Wright is now 72 years old. He grew up and came of age of the streets of Newark. He and I shared a bond as close as two human beings can during the time we marched together. I know the exact combination of toughness and caring Harold uses with those kids at Bonnie Brae, and the kids from the corps he leads.

There aren't many people left like Harold Wright. Believe me, he doesn't do what he does...for the money. Literally hundreds of young people have benefitted from his leadership. That's what will be on display as the Bonnie Brae Knights strut their stuff in Washington next week.

Which highlight of the inauguration will you be looking forward to? The music, the poets, the speeches, the pageantry, or, just simply saying bye-bye Bush?

Foreclosure Help? Not So Fast!

2009-01-15T08:51:00.004-05:00

By Mark Riley

There's more bad news from the housing front just ahead of Barack Obama's inauguration. The number of American homeowners facing foreclosure in '08 was up 81% from '07. That translates to 2.3 million households. More than 860,000 properties were actually repossessed last year, more than double the year before.

Worse yet, predictions are the foreclosure rate will rise once again this year. Congressional Democrats and President-Elect Obama are planning to use $100 billion of the $350 billion bailout dollars left to help distressed homeowners. That is, if everyone can get on the same page about releasing the money.

While they're figuring out how to do that, there are those who will prey on people desperate to hold on to their homes. They call themselves "foreclosure rescue companies", and while some may be legit, there's no way to tell. Their common point is charging upfront fees to supposedly modify loans. In too many cases, however, they do nothing.

The business of foreclosure rescue is largely unregulated. That means they're free to charge upfront fees of anywhere from $1000 to $3000 dollars to help get lower mortgage rates for those who need them. In many situations, however they are little more than scam artists out to make a quick buck.

Some have Websites that suggest they have some connection to the federal government. Some say they're directly involved in implemented government rescue programs that haven't even been approved yet. These rip-offs will tell homeowners they've negotiated an agreement with their lender when they've done little or nothing, not even as much as making a phone call.

There are some things consumers should know. 21 states have laws prohibiting companies from collecting fees until services are completed. Find out if your state is one of them. Anyone thinking about using a rescue company should be wary of any company demanding an upfront payment, even if they tell you it can be paid in installments.

Check with the Better Business Bureau in your community to find out if there are any complaints against the company you may be thinking of using.

Also, check with the office of the Attorney General in your state. In some cases, you may find there are pending lawsuits based on previous alleged rip-offs.

Pay no attention to solicitations you get in the mail that look like they're coming from a government agency. Google the name of the company. You'd be surprised what you'll find. If in any doubt, don't give anyone promising to help you keep your home a dime. If they're legitimate, they won't be trying to give you a hard sell.

Preying on people's desperation is the lowest form of doing business. Don't let them prey on you. Have they tried already? Post your comment here if you know of a foreclosure story.

Bin Laden Message/Bush Coda?

2009-01-14T09:14:00.004-05:00

There's a new message from Osama bin Laden, the latest of more than 60 from top Al-Qaeda operatives since September 11th, 2001.

This one, which the media is calling "purportedly" from bin Laden, calls for a holy war over Gaza. Right now it almost doesn't matter what his message is. That it comes less than a week before George W. Bush leaves office is a fitting period on Bush's eight year run-on sentence.

You remember that, in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, Bush went Old West in his rhetoric on bin Laden. "Dead or alive" was the adage at the time. Our president, ever the gunslinger, promised America and in fact the world that he'd be the one to bring this terrorist to justice.

Imagine people's surprise less than a year later when he said he neither knew nor cared where bin Laden was. "I am truly not that concerned about him" was what he said in early '02. Now, he leaves the hunt for bin Laden to Barack Obama, along with a shattered economy and two wars.

Bush never understood how important it was to capture bin Laden. He didn't realize the pain and frustration Americans feel each time one of these messages is released. Whether the messages resonate with jihadists around the world ought to be a concern for the man leaving the White House next week. It isn't.

In an interview with CNN's Larry King, Bush says he's "absolutely certain" bin Laden will be captured.

However, when asked if he's ever been close to being captured since the US invaded Afghanistan, Bush said, quoting here, "I don't know. I can't answer that". Absolute certainty stands right next to a complete lack of knowledge. And this is the guy who will be spinning his farewell to the American people Thursday.

Maybe Osama bin Laden will never be caught by the US or any of our allies. Maybe he'll die of old age in a cave somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If so, George W. Bush bears plenty of the responsibility. His lack of resolve in capturing bin Laden mirrors his lack utter inability to actually work at fixing the economy.

Given Bush's eight awful years in office, will you watch his televised address Thursday. Should anybody?

Should We Be Happy for Bishop Robinson?

2009-01-13T07:58:00.004-05:00

By Mark Riley

So what if it looks like a bone to the gay community. President-Elect Obama's invitation to Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to deliver the invocation at a pre-inaugural event is a good thing.

It at least shows Obama's paying attention. Frankly, I still have problems with having Rick Warren being asked to play a central role in the inauguration itself.

Warren, the pastor of a California mega-church, has been asked to open the swearing in next Tuesday. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that passed last November. No matter. Bishop Robinson says his inclusion isn't a reaction to the anger that swept the gay and lesbian community at the news of Warren's role. We should believe him, I guess.

I had the privilege of interviewing Bishop Robinson not long after he was consecrated by the Episcopal Church. That act in 2003 caused a growing rift in the Anglican Communion, parent body of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Robinson struck me then as a humble man with a fine tuned sense of humor, precisely the kind of person who would make a great bishop in the church I had rejoined after more than 30 years.

You'll note (I hope) that I haven't referred to Bishop Robinson as "The openly gay Bishop". That's because it seems everyone else in the media does, and I'm sick of it. Bishop Gene Robinson shouldn't be defined by his sexuality and more than Rick Warren is. Nobody refers to him as "The openly straight Pastor", nor should they.

Unlike a lot of other clergy, Gene Robinson has publicly admitted his human frailty, having been in a 12 step program for alcohol addiction. He says the language he'll likely use in his invocation Sunday will come from what he learned there. That all his colleagues in the Episcopal Church haven't embraced him is a travesty. In my brief time with him, however, I didn't detect any real anger at the people who have shunned him.

I have learned that lesson from other clergy in my own church, both gay and straight. They seem to have remarkable patience in the face of their enemies, far more than I think I could muster if I were in their shoes. In that context, the inclusion of Bishop Gene Robinson isn't just a good thing, but a triumph.

I just wish Barack Obama would switch the roles at the inauguration of Bishop Robinson and Pastor Warren.

What do you think?

Transparency, Anyone?

2009-01-12T08:45:00.005-05:00

By Mark Riley

NB: From now on, this blog will be updated daily. I thought (silly me) I needed to concentrate on doing longer pieces fewer times a week. I now know better.

If there's been one single news item that should outrage hard working Americans, it's the one that says banks can't or won't tell anyone what they've done with the first chunk of the federal bailout money. We were told this was central to keeping the economy afloat. Yet nobody seems to know where the money went. As is the case with a lot that goes on inside the Beltway, there's plenty of blame to go around on this one.

Imagine for a moment you, a person working every day to make ends meet, complete the mountain of paperwork needed to actually get a loan from your financial institution. Then imagine what would happen if you couldn't (or refused) to tell the bank what you did with the money. It's called fraud if you do it, but US financial institutions seem to be getting away with just that.

You may remember last fall Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told us the sky would fall if our financial institutions didn't get help to the tune of $700 billion dollars.

He managed to scare the Congress into giving it to him to dole out without oversight. And that's just what we've got: No oversight whatsoever. I'm not saying this. A GAO report says Treasury doesn't even know.

The banks aren't the only ones to blame here. To them, this money must seem like a windfall. Congress itself must bear some of the responsibility for this mess. They, after all, said yes to the the bailout request. Now, after the fact, they seem to be concerned. Now they want answers.

They should have demanded them before releasing the first half of the money. Now the incoming Obama Administration wants to free up the other $350 billion dollars. Unlike Bush, Obama has sense enough to demand some sort of accountability this time around. Yet even that shouldn't suffice. What about the first outlay. Are we ready to watch hundreds of billions of dollars float away without demanding answers?

Millions of Americans lost their jobs last year. Not only are homeowners facing default, renters are looking at increases they have no means to pay. It's ordinary Americans who are catching hell! "I dunno" isn't good enough when it comes to taxpayer dollars. Obama should demand a full accounting of all monies spent since last fall by the financial institutions that got help. Any hesitancy on their part should be met with the threat of criminal prosecution.

It's time to stop playing with the Masters of the Universe. They got us into this mess. They shouldn't be able to escape their responsibility to at least be transparent. Should they?

Want to See Change You Can Believe In? Try New York!

2009-01-09T08:52:00.014-05:00

President-Elect Barack Obama Thursday spoke to the nation's deep economic woes with a plan involving tax cuts and stimuli to the tune of $775 billion dollars. Already, some of his allies in the Senate are picking it apart, and some commentators say it's not enough. Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day!

Obama is trying to create the change he talked about so often in his campaign, that is, a change in the nation's sense of itself. Yet, as I found out quite by accident last night, there's change, and then there's the change you feel when you walk through a New York City neighborhood that used to be your stomping grounds.

I had a meeting with a friend at a spot on Manhattan's Upper West Side.

As I came out of the subway, I realized I was early, way too early to expect my friend to be at our meeting place. So I decided to walk around a little. I headed up Broadway, past buildings that were so familiar, but their ground floor storefronts had changed, and changed profoundly.

The diner that used to sit in the middle of one block was long gone. It became famous as the source of a recurring skit on Saturday Night Live. Also gone was the movie house that was one block up. The Shopwell supermarket, the Ideal restaurant, the hot dog joint on the corner of 110th St. all a part of my distant past. When I started walking, my steps had no real destination in mind.

Yet as I kept on, I knew where I'd end up up. It was the block, 109th St. between Broadway and Amsterdam Ave. Once upon a time, it was my second home.

Suddenly, names I hadn't thought about in years came flooding back. So too did the incredible diversity that neighborhood came to represent, and still does, despite the obvious changes. Gus, and his brother Victor lived in the building on the corner. Ricky, the only Venezuelan on the block, lived a couple of doors down. I passed a small playground, and remembered that my boys Clean Gene and Sailor 109 got busted there, for what I can't even remember.

And then, even though at first I couldn't remember the exact building, I saw number 215. That was where Juan and his mother Carmen lived, along with the Castro brothers. There was a time we considered it our building, even though we didn't live there. Carmen always opened her apartment to us, and it was there that I learned to love Latin music in all its forms. On Saturday nights we would set out from that apartment on the second floor, sometimes three or four of us, sometimes a dozen.

There was Johnny the Gambler, Shorty, Spongy, Monkey, Candy, Jamie,and of course, my closest friend Wilfred. We'd set out for parties uptown, in the Bronx or Washington Heights. And always, we'd end up at four or five o'clock in the morning back at 215. Now, in real time, I stood looking at my past.

I continued on to the end of the block, then headed back down Amsterdam Ave. Where once the street was dotted with bodegas and small Dominican businesses, change had come as well. Some of the same stores where I used to buy my favorite soda (Good-O Cola Champagne. 39 cents a quart) were still there, but now they co-exist with bistros featuring exposed brick and flat screen televisions, most tuned to either CNBC or ESPN (sports or bad economic news, take your choice). I'd resolved to head back toward my meeting, but again my mind turned my feet toward one more place.

I headed east, across 108th St., where the schoolyard behind the Booker T. Washington Jr. High School (or just plain Booker T) stretched almost half the block. Across the street from that yard was a small vest pocket playground we used to call "The Little Park". For some reason, I had to see it again. And there it was, now called "The Anibal Aviles Playground". A large Parks Dept. sign proclaimed "This Park Closes at Dusk".

The benches were still in the back, but it was wishful thinking to believe they were the same ones we used to sit on and solve
the problems of the world. The place was empty, as it should have been since it was well after dark, but still, I drifted back to nights we'd be there, even in the cold, talking, cracking on girls passing by, sharing various libations (don't ask), and trying to figure out what to do with our young lives.

It was getting close to the time of my meeting. I turned, crossed the street, and walked back toward Broadway. The neighborhood had changed, as does just about everything in New York.

The people I spent those times with many years ago are long gone, just like the Olympia Diner. But the mist of memory remains, time stamped in a corner of your brain.

As the nation seeks change, it's good to remember, even on a cold New York City night.

Leave a comment - what are your memories of the area you grew up and how it's changed?

Democrats Gone Dumb?

2009-01-07T08:21:00.005-05:00

So here we are, in the first weeks of 2009. There are Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, and a Democrat is getting ready to be inaugurated. So how has the Democratic Party made such a mess of things already? Let's leave aside for now the ongoing drama around the Minnesota Senate seat. That one may not get resolved until Al Franken is up for re-election six years from now.

In New York, Gov. David Paterson seems under increasing pressure to name Caroline (Ya Know) Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton.

All manner of backroom maneuvering is alleged there, but don't sell Paterson short. He's surprised people (friend and enemy alike) before. Yet for almost comic idiocy and incompetence, nothing beats the charade now going on to replace President-Elect Barack Obama.

Let's be clear at the outset. There are enough bad actors in this scenario to make the late Ed Wood smile.

Inarguably the list begins with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Allegedly trying to sell a Senate seat is bad enough. Getting caught talking about it in vulgar wiretaps is (or should be) embarrassing. Refusing to step down while your case is adjudicated is chutzpah squared. But then, Blago actually appoints someone to the seat. Said appointment, Roland Burris,accepts the appointment, and actually tries to present credentials in Washington, only to have them rejected. Are you laughing yet?

And that's only the half of it. Democrats, in both Illinois and Washington, seem determined to give this seat to the opposition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for reasons best known only to himself, contacts Blagojevich before the firestorm of his arrest erupts. He lobbies Blago for his preferred replacement, according to published reports, and proceeds to badmouth three other possible choices. Trouble is, all the choices are black. Seems Reid didn't think any of them could hold the seat in the next election. Someone please call me the next time someone tells Harry Reid who can win an election in his home state of Nevada, and he actually pays attention.

Then there are the Illinois Democrats themselves. They're about as scared of losing that Senate seat as Harry Reid is. However, their bumbling has given Rod Blagojevich the wiggle room needed to appoint Roland Burris. They were gun shy about calling a special election, and taking immediate steps to oust Blago. Now it's costing them in the court of public opinion. I can almost see the Republican ads when the seat does come up for an actual election. "Don't let Harry Reid and the Democrat Party tell you who your next Senator should be. Vote for (fill in the blank, most likely Paul Kirk)". After the majority leader's reported meddling, even some black folks in Chicago might pay attention to that one.

So now it supposedly comes to the rule of law, and whether the Senate can legally bar Roland Burris. Taking no chances, the former Illinois Attorney General played the God Card this past weekend. Speaking at a church, Burris invoked the Almighty, telling a God fearing congregation that the Lord had touched Rod Blagojevich, and that's how he, Burris, was chosen. Yep, it's come to that. A career politician says (with a straight face) that a foul mouthed benefactor was touched by God to make a political decision.

Yes, Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty. But what about the other players in the sad tale? Can the Democrats get past their own ham handed attempts to resolve this? And what of Barack Obama? Can he continue to remain above a fray in his own home state?

Is this a blip on the screen, or a harbinger of problems to come for the party now in power?

Update......Update......Update!!!!

The Lord must truly work in mysterious ways! If God touched Rod Blagojevich, as Roland Burris said the other day, what's to explain Harry Reid's change of heart? He's gone from "We won't seat him" to "He's a nice man", from the guy who threw Burris out into the rain to the guy who invited him in for a chat. Burris met with Reid and Dick Durbin today, and now there seems to be the possibility that he could be seated in the Senate after all. A few things need to happen, but what appears to have happened is somebody called Harry Reid a racist and he didn't like it much.

Ahhhh, politics!

Why Can't We?

2009-01-05T08:11:00.009-05:00

President-Elect Barack Obama certainly chose a resonant slogan with "Yes We Can."

And, of course, he did, as did we...the American people. As we turn the page to 2009, and face frightening challenges on a number of fronts, it's time to transition from "Yes We Can" to "Why Can't We?"

There are fundamental changes that need to be made in how the nation functions, and politicians will make these adjustments faster with some prodding from the public.

And so, this humble blog presents:

"Why Can't We?" These are objectives that can be done, and ought to be done as priorities for a better America.

Why can't we ... produce cars and trucks that pollute less, are more road reliable, and are more fuel efficient?

This past fall, we saw Detroit's Big Three come to Washington hat-in-hand to ask our elected representatives for help. Yet even now, we have no firm pledge from them to do things differently. In fact, you can see the carmakers' commitment to business as usual in their commercials and the vehicles they market.

Do we really think a hybrid Cadillac Escalade that gets 21 miles to the gallon on the highway represents progress?

The most fuel efficient car now sold in America gets 48-51 miles to the gallon of fuel.

Why can't we have the option of buying a car that gets 75 MPG? Impossible? Not really.

In fact, one US carmaker sells a car that gets almost that much. Trouble is, you can't buy it here. Come to think of it, college kids regularly create vehicles that clock several hundred miles to the gallon. Public pressure is already being applied to the Big Three in the form of unsold SUV's clogging dealer showrooms. That is, dealers that remain open.

Are we prepared to let elected officials pledge our dollars to carmakers and in six months have no clue how it's been spent. or whether better products are coming to market? Why can't we indeed!

Why can't we ...have universal health care in this country? There are anywhere from 41-46 million Americans who spend a part of their day worrying about getting sick. That's because our health care system focuses its priorities anywhere but on people.

Insurance companies, hospitals, stockholders, drug companies and their lobbyists all seem to prosper, and any attempt to talk about making sure all Americans have access to quality care is met with the battle cry of "socialized medicine". We must start from the notion that good health is an American right, not a privilege.

As we are challenged with the responsibility of eating better, exercising more, not smoking , and the like, our elected officials must come up with health care reform that provides quality care and services for all. Whatever the cost, it's better than having families who pay more for health insurance than they pay for their homes. No matter what you may hear, it works in other countries, not perfectly, but it works.

Why can't we ...have better education for more of our young people? In a perfect world, educators would make as much if not more than star athletes.

Certainly no one would argue teachers have less responsibility. Assuming that won't happen anytime soon, we need to ask if the American education system works hard enough to replicate success. The short answer is no, it doesn't. We have some of the best schools in the world, and ...some of the worst.

Sadly, the best and worst coexist in some cases in the same city. In too many instances we have allowed academic rigor to disappear from our classrooms. We tell our kids they need to get educated primarily to land a good job. We neglect to tell them knowledge is important beyond employment.

We need to recognize where our education bar is, then raise it! If half our young people can't read at or above grade level, we need to commit to making that 75% during Barack Obama's first term. We also need to recognize that funding education is important, but it's not the sole determining factor in creating educational excellence. People are. That would be teachers, administrators, parents, students, and yes, concerned Americans.

The above are but a few areas where we should be asking "Why Can't We?" There are certainly others, but we've got to start somewhere . Are these few things able to be done, or at least worked on? You tell me.

Why can't we ...

Baby Boom Challenge

2009-01-01T08:51:00.000-05:00

As we move into a new year, many of us are focused on the need to jump start our moribund economy. It certainly will be Job #1 for our new president. At the same time, however, America faces a different and more daunting challenge. It's one that will take a supreme effort on the part of those that recognize it.

It can't be met with rhetoric from myriad of divides that haunt our society: Black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, gay, vs. straight. If left unmet, this challenge threatens to gut any economic recovery that takes place in the future.

Think for a moment about some of the more outlandish stories that dotted the American landscape in 2008. From Eliot Spitzer to Rod Blagojevich, from Plaxico Burress to Bernie Madoff, from Kwame Kilpatrick to Ted Stevens to John Edwards to AIG to the Big Three carmakers, a common thread emerges. It's one of greed, entitlement, stupidity, and cluelessness. And even these stories scratch the surface of what the nation must address, and fix. It can't be fixed simply by electing the nation's first black president and looking to him to wave a magic wand.

Fact is, America's soul is damaged, and too many of us either refuse to admit it or don't recognize what has happened.

This blog is certainly not the first place to speak to this malaise. My man Steven Ivory has written eloquently in eurweb.com about the need to mend our damaged fabric. The purpose here is to build on what others have recognized, and throw down a gauntlet to a specific group to take the lead in addressing the problem.

What needs fixing in this country is our moral compass, our sense of ourselves, and our resolve to leave a better world for our children than what we inherited. And what group needs to take the lead in remolding the American spirit? It is the responsibility of my generation, the so-called baby boomers.

As our eldest creep toward retirement, an honest assessment of our stewardship of the nation would leave quite a bit to be desired.

It is that generation of men and women born between 1946 and 1964 that benefitted from an enormous expansion of the US economy, and at the same time changes in the nation's moral fiber brought on in large measure by the civil rights movement.

It was also our generation that saw the need 40 years ago to change America's direction. We were young then, and the ethos of the counterculture was at the same time well intentioned and unfocused. It is now almost two generations later. Many of us have grown children and grandchildren. It's time for us to dig deep, and start asking questions that may be painful, but are certainly necessary.

We can start by asking ourselves whether what we say we want in the life of this country is actually what we end up paying for. Put simply, many of us decry the cultural excesses that we ourselves consume.

Whether it's the endless diet of "reality television" we watch, or the banal, self aggrandizing music we listen to, we need to ask ourselves whether this is the best we can do. This isn't about censorship but about discriminating consumption.

Most of us don't realize that as we encourage the production of shows like "The Real Housewives of Whatever" we know less and less about the rest of the world because our media has closed foreign news bureaus because they aren't profit centers.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our consumption speaks to our values, to what we hold dear, to what is important to us. If spending $100,000 on a sweet sixteen birthday party appears normal to our youth, will spending time with family and friends ever suffice? If over the top behavior is rewarded with media exposure, how do we reward what is normal, caring, and nurturing?

If a half-hearted effort gets you a passing grade in school, why bother striving for excellence? I believe if these fundamental issues aren't addressed, we can expect more, not less of the behavior we say we abhor.

And why, you may ask, does the baby boom generation have a special responsibility to join the struggle for the nation's future?

It's not simply that which we were given, although that would be reason enough. It is our numbers that mandate the work we must do. Those numbers represented the hope of our parents for the future we'd inherit.

That we've been imperfect vessels is inarguable. Yet if our time as young people taught us anything, it should have been the notion that yes, we can change the nation, and the world.

Baby boomers and children of baby boomers, your comments please?

New Year, New Blog

2008-12-30T09:25:00.001-05:00

First, thanks and happy holidays to all who read my stuff on polplus. As most of you know, I'm no longer @ WLIB, but I'm gearing up for new challenges and opportunities. 2008 hasn't been the best of years for for me and my family. I lost my brother Clayton at the end of October, and now I'm seeking employment in the worst economic climate in my lifetime. Still, you press on. This new blog will be a bit different than polplus. I may not post every day, and the posts will most likely be a bit longer. They won't be exclusively political, either. For example, I'll be listing music I think is worth listening to from any and all genres. I'll also be listing blogs worth reading from a diverse group of posters.

To be honest, I'm an idiot when it comes to online technology. My wife and especially my 11-year-old daughter run circles around me when it comes to utilizing the Internet. Yet I still have something to say, and as the great poet and musician Sekou Sundiata once said, "I don't know much but I've seen a few". That part I plan to share with you.
Happy New Year!

Bailout Talks Collapse. Will Carmakers be Next?

2008-12-12T08:40:00.000-05:00

To almost no one's surprise, the Senate couldn't agree on a compromise plan to provide $14 billion dollars in loans to GM and Chrysler. The Upper House voted 52-35 to bring the measure for a vote, but that was 8 short of the 60 needed to move the bill forward. As was the case in the financial bailout, it was Republicans turning on their own president that doomed this bill. Bush managed a compromise with Senate Democrats, but in the end, the GOP wouldn't go for it.

At issue was the demand by Republicans that the United Auto Workers agree to what's called "parity pay" with non union plants operated by foreign carmakers. The UAW agree, but by no means should the blame for not getting this done be put on them. From the very beginning there were Republican senators who balked at help Detroit because they had foreign car plants in their states. Don't think for a moment those carmakers didn't have lobbyists on Capitol Hill fighting for their interests.

Now the question is, how bad will the fallout from not getting this done be? Even though it's still possible negotiations could get jump started somehow, it's not likely. GM in particular says it doesn't have the cash to operate much longer. Even if you oppose the bailout on principle, the collapse of one or two of the Big Three can't be an appetizing prospect.

It's almost as if members of the current lame duck Congress want to leave as large a mess as possible for the next one to clean up. Of course, the new president will also have that task. On top of all the other bad economic news, bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler could well turn a recession into something no one wants to contemplate.

Could we be using the "D" word sometime in 2009? You tell me.

Still at Work?

2008-12-11T08:15:00.000-05:00

With all the unemployed Americans facing tough times, it's just galling to know that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich went back to work yesterday, and shows no sign that he's thinking of quitting. As the details of the case against him come into sharper focus, it's also obvious why he's staying. It's his only leverage against what looks now like a long stretch in prison stripes. Again, the man is innocent until proven guilty, but it's his own words that are damning him.

There is more information about the depth and breadth of both Blagojevich's greed, and the efforts to take him down. We now know that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is the potential senate appointee identified as "Candidate #5" in the criminal complaint. That would be the one whose "associate" allegedly offered a half million dollars for the appointment.

The congressman held a press conference to angrily denounce Blagojevich, and to deny he ever authorized anyone to make that kind of offer on his behalf. If he's lying, he ought to remember that the prosecutor in this case if one Patrick Fitzgerald, who nailed ex-Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby for doing the same thing.

Also exposed yesterday was the identity of "Individual A", a central figure in the complaint. He's lobbyist John Wyma, a close adviser to Blagojevich. He's also apparently the guy who ratted him out, not about the senate seat, but a different shakedown scheme the governor had concocted. It seems there was no government allocation too small, no appointment too big, no matter too trivial for Blagojevich not to attempt to profit from.

And in the end, that's why he was still in his office yesterday. Despite calls to quit from just about every politician in the state of Illinois and President-Elect Obama, Rod Blagojevich remains defiant, and by all accounts unrepentant. Short of calling a special election the Democrats might lose, there seems to be no way to force him to give up the only bargaining chip he still has....that senate appointment.

However, he won't hold that for long. The Illinois political apparatus that Rod Blagojevich was elected to reform will find a way to snatch the appointment right out from under his nose. Either that, or he's actually going to try and bargain with the feds for a lighter sentence in exchange for a quick exit.

If he thinks he can pull that off, he doesn't know Patrick Fitzgerald. What do you think? How long does Rod Blagojevich last?

Arrogance, Idiocy, or Both?

2008-12-10T08:13:00.000-05:00

Now that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has made himself the poster boy for political greed, avarice, and just plain stupidity, it may be time to sit back and contemplate just what kind of people we elect to public office in this country. To do that properly, we have to take a look at just what this "reform" governor from Illinois has allegedly done. For sheer gall, it makes NFL miscreants like Plaxico Burress and Pac Man Jones look like mere amateurs.

Perhaps we should preface all this by saying Rod Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty, as are all Americans accused of crimes. Yet there are some things we do know, based on federal wiretaps of his phone. To take the sports analogy one step further, the governor himself likened the selection of someone to take Barack Obama's place in the US Senate to a sports agent shopping a free agent at the highest price possible. Such was his arrogance, prosecutors say, that he even thought about naming himself to Obama's old job.

Then there are the profanity laden rants that have been released to the public. No need to detail them here, but suffice to say this guy could give the late John Gotti a run for his money for most expletives caught on a wiretap. Even his wife Patrti got into the act, telling her husband to go after the now bankrupt Tribune Company, whose newspaper the Chicago Tribune, has suggested he be impeached. They've no doubt been proven right about that one.

As Illinois politicians try to figure out how to snatch the power to name Obama's successor from the unrepentant Blagojevich, (his lawyer says he won't quit, and as long as he's in office he gets to choose) the question on a lot of minds in Washington is whether or not any of this mess will blow back on the president-elect. The immediate answer might be no, since Blagojevich was taped fuming that the Obama people weren't about any quid pro quo when it came to naming the new senator. Yet Republicans love a scandal that doesn't involve one of their number, so expect them to make the attempt to link Obama to all this.

Maybe the irony in all this aside from providing much fodder for late night tv shows, is that Rod Blagojevich's lawyer says all these charges will come to nothing because it just politics. If he's right, we're all in deep, deep trouble.

What do you think? Will Blagojevich fold and leave the Illinois Governor's office, or will he stick it out and actually try to name Barack Obama's successor? You tell me.

Old Story, New Twist

2008-12-09T07:55:00.000-05:00

We've been seeing and hearing about shuttered factories, businesses, and laid off workers with frightening frequency lately. And so the closing of Republic Doors and Windows on Chicago's North Side might have escaped our attention, except for one thing. Workers there decided to occupy the factory. In doing so, they've become national news, even earning praise from Chicago's favorite son, Barack Obama. Their beef is legitimate, their cause is peaceful. They've met with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who took action on their concerns.

The 300 workers were due vacation and severance pay, as are many (but not all ) workers who are losing their livelihoods on the cusp of the holiday season. Trouble is, the company shut down abruptly last Friday because Bank of America canceled Republic's line of credit due to a downturn in the firm's business. That would be the same Bank of America that received billions in taxpayer dollars as part of the great financial bailout of 2008.

The best the bank could come up with is they're not responsible for the company's obligations to their workers. Yet they are responsible to the American people. What exactly did they think the $25 billion dollars they got in the bailout was for, anyway? In the face of this arrogance, Governor Blagojevich has ordered the state to stop doing business with BoA. Score one small one for the workers.

What the employees of Republic Doors and Windows are experiencing is being felt by businesses, big and small, all over America. This factory occupation could well be a template for other workers who find a bunch of high rolling bankers have their foot on their necks. Imagine a taxpayer revolt against banks that take government money yet refuse to use it to keep otherwise profitable businesses alive.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson understands the stakes here. That's why his Rainbow-PUSH Coalition handed out free turkeys and bags of food to the workers inside Republic Windows and Doors. And the empathy shown by our president-elect can't be underestimated either. It's not often we see people taking direct action to protest their circumstances.

Let's hope it spreads, don't you think?

Liberals Worried about Obama?

2008-12-08T07:58:00.000-05:00

The issue has been on the down low, and the concern has been incremental. Does Barack Obama really represent the change he talked about during the campaign? For some liberals/progressives, the answer is at best hazy, and at worst no. The president-elect's cabinet choices, and his switch on reversing tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year are giving some folks pause. For his part, Obama and some of his supporters say it's way too early to judge. Is it?

His backers in the labor movement point out that when he introduced his economic team, he didn't appoint a labor secretary. Some think that omission signals a lesser role for a constituency that backed him with votes and money. Then there's the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon. The grumbling here is that Obama could be waffling on his pledge to start ending the Iraq war on his first day in office.

Of course, he hasn't had a first day in office yet. And no matter what his economic and national security teams look like, it will be Barack Obama setting policy. Still, the man who promised change as a candidate doesn't seem so committed to change as president. Then there's the question of what change was promised, and what was expected. If the change is from the Bush years, a case can be made he's setting about that, even with the retention of Gates. After all, does anyone think a massive economic stimulus package would be on the current president's agenda?

However, if people interpret Obama's promise of change to be something more fundamental, it should come as no surprise that some people find him lacking. Right now, every appointment and utterance from this president-elect is going to be heavily scrutinized. The nation's economy has fallen down a deep hole, and in the end, that's the change people will most want to see. Last month, the number of people losing their jobs jumped to 533,000. Change may best be measured not in cabinet appointments, but in putting people back to work.

What do you think?

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls

2008-12-05T08:22:00.001-05:00

Keep the Tax, Dump the Tolls?

2008-12-05T08:22:00.000-05:00

The transit commission empaneled by Gov. David Paterson here in New York has come back with a report that, while promising bus and subway riders a break, is being met with skepticism by that same public. The plan would drastically cut the amount of a fare increase, from 23% to 8%. Plugging the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's yawning budget gap would fall to two major revenue generators. One is a payroll tax on employers in the region. The other is tolls on on East and Harlem River bridges that are now free to cross.

You can imagine the reception the latter got. Lawmakers from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx screamed bloody murder. This they've done every time the notion of tolls on those bridges has come up. That's precisely why they' re still free. Yet we live in different times. Although a New York Times analysis says the payroll tax alone would plug the budget gap, the tolls would serve another useful purpose. It's proposed to use that money to fund an expansion of existing bus service, from the creation of new depots to the creation of dedicated bus corridors that would be separate from other traffic.

This proposal is intriguing, and worth a look of its own. Many cities already have these corridors, and they reportedly make bus travel a faster and more efficient experience. As it stands now, vehicular traffic over the East River has no rhyme or reason. The RFK Triboro Bridge, Battery and Midtown Tunnels already charge to cross into Manhattan. The 59th St., Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges don't. There is, of course, no feasible way to install toll booths at these crossings without creating perpetual gridlock. Technology being what it is, however, that problem can likely be overcome.

In the interest of fairness and the future of the city's transit system, this plan should be implemented, but with modifications. All bridges and tunnels over the East River should cost no more to cross than it does to come into Manhattan from New Jersey. That's not currently the case. This means they should all cost no more than $8 dollars round trip. The Harlem River crossings should be nominal, since the bridge spans are much shorter, no more than $5 dollars round trip.

Yes, it's going to hurt, but a 23% increase in the subway and bus fare would hurt more. What do you think?

Hardball in the Senate? Nah!!!

2008-12-04T08:47:00.000-05:00

We saw an item recently about Hardball's Chris Matthews thinking about running in 2010 for the Pennsylvania seat in the US Senate now held by Arlen Specter. Didn't think much about it at the time. Now it seems he's serious. He's reportedly shopping for a house in the state where he was born. It's also true that he's harbored a boyhood dream to be a senator. I've always wanted to be a subway motorman. That doesn't mean I'm looking to take the test.

Chris Matthews wouldn't be the first tv personality to run for political office. Gee, there's the late Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy from the Love Boat, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura. And they all won! But seriously, Chris Matthews would have a hard road to Capitol Hill. For one, he's been hosting a political talk show, which means he's got friends for sure, but also enemies in Washington. Also, despite having been born in Pennsylvania, he's most closely associated with DC.

Then there's his ill advised slam of Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary. You may remember he said she got where she was because "her husband messed around". Chris Matthews may find out that the Clintons have a long reach, and long memories. Then there are those who view the noise about a Matthews senate run as merely a negotiating ploy to get more money from NBC when his contract expires next June. Don't laugh. It's been done before.

Matthews doesn't face an open road even to the Democratic nomination for the job he covets. Should he get past potential challengers in his own party, he faces a venerable opponent in Arlen Specter. True, the incumbent will be 80 years old in 2010, but Frank Lautenberg just got re-elected in New Jersey, and he's 84. Would Chris Matthews dare bring up the issue of age?

The MSNBC host has always been an acquired taste, but one who has a following despite being pilloried on occasion by the right. He should stay where he is, and do what he does best. Boyhood dreams don't always work out.

What do you think? Should Chris Matthews run for the Senate?

Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money!

2008-12-03T09:09:00.000-05:00

The Big Three came back to Washington Tuesday, and this time they seem to have gotten the message about those corporate jets. Now the only question is whether Congress will buy their plea for a bailout before one or more of them goes broke. Instead of the $25 billion they were asking for just two weeks ago, GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $34 billion. But hey, what's $9 billion among friends?

Detroit came to the table this time with plans. GM's seems to be the most detailed, probably because they're in the most trouble. They say they'll cut as many as 30,000 jobs by 2012, close 11 factories, trim about 1700 odd dealers, and sell off Hummer and Saab, while shrinking Pontiac and getting rid of it;'s its Saturn brand completely. And like the other two CEOS, GM's would take a $1 dollar annual salary. Chrysler is in similar straits but is asking for $7 billion rather than the $18 billion sought by GM.

Ford says it can be profitable by 2011, and only needs $9 billion to use if necessary. Ford is in an interesting position here. While all three automakers say they'll focus on making more fuel efficient cars to sell here in the US, Ford already sells a number of such vehicles in other parts of the world. In fact, two Ford cars get better than 40 miles per gallon, with one getting an astonishing 63.6! Sadly, both are diesels, and neither is available here in the US.

Yet as we ponder whether the Big Three's commitment to more fuel efficient cars and leaner operations is real, consider this. The average fuel consumption figure for US cars, minivans, and SUVs stands at 22.6. In Europe the figure is 40.3, and in Japan it's 40.6. Maybe Detroit ought to come up with plans to raise the US number. For years, they've been resisting such calls, arguing the cost is prohibitive. Maybe the need to borrow $4 billion dollars from US taxpayers to survive the rest of the year ought to change that attitude.

One attitude has changed, for sure. The Big Three CEOs will all be driving hybrid vehicles fro Detroit to DC later this week. No more corporate jets, not after people noticed.

So, the question is, did the automakers make their case? You tell me.

Burress Shoots Himself- Career in Critical?

2008-12-02T08:26:00.000-05:00

By now most people know that New York Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shot himself with a gun he was carrying in a New York nightclub in the wee hours of last Saturday morning. The media frenzy that followed as entirely predictable. Burress has had trouble follow throughout his pro career, but nothing quite like this. On Monday, he was arraigned on a pair of felony weapons charges that could land him in prison for a mandatory minimum of 3 1/2 years. That would be on each count.

The reaction of the sporting press was outrage, the kind of outrage reserved for athletes they consider pampered who do something inarguably stupid. Sports journalists all too often ignore the presumption of innocence that is the foundation of our country's legal system. In the case of Plaxico Burress, no less a personage than the Mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, weighed in. He says Burress should be prosecuted "to the fullest extent of the law". For Bloomberg, that means three and a half years in prison. After all, he was the one who successfully lobbied the state to increase the punishment for illegal weapons possession from a year.

You can argue all day whether Burress deserves jail time or counseling, but a few things need to be established here. Athletes and celebrities often walk around armed, and don't get caught. That's because they fear being robbed, as several have been leaving clubs or even in front of their own homes. Why Burress didn't simply hire a legally armed bodyguard is anybody's guess. It's a delicious irony that Plaxico Burress, a man who makes a really good living catching a football, couldn't manage to hang on to a gun in his own pants.

The central question here, whether you're outraged by what he did or just think he's an idiot (or both) is whether he's offered a plea bargain or if he actually goes to trial. in the case of the latter, a mandatory minimum sentence wouldn't likely be imposed. Perhaps proper punishment for Plaxico Burress is a trip out of town. The New York Giants won this past weekend without him. For all his skills, he is in fact expendable. Voiding his contract for misconduct would cost him the better part of $35 million dollars.

Then let Plaxico Burress go out and make a living like the rest of us.

Will Fine Tuning be Enough?

2008-12-01T08:43:00.000-05:00

As President-Elect Obama rolls out his national security team Monday, the Big Three automakers are preparing for their second plea to Congress for money. You may remember their first trip to DC didn't turn out so well. Not only did they come to then nation's capital in private jets, they came without a plan about how they'd spend the money if they got it. The money in this case is $25 billion dollars.

Reports say GM, Ford, and Chrysler all worked feverishly through the weekend to come up with plans to restructure the way they do business. At the top of their list ought to be how to create a quantum leap in fuel efficiency for their vehicles. A recent online article made the point that miles per gallon figures in Europe and Japan far surpass even the best projections of Detroit. What's ironic is several of the cars mentioned in that article are made by Ford yet are unavailable here in the US.

One silver lining in Detroit's cloud is the willingness of he United Auto Workers to offer concessions in an effort to convince the Congress to come up with the money. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger says the union will do its part if they see sacrifices on the part of management. One can hardly see how the bigwigs can say no to that. After all, a cap on executive compensation is something Democratic members of Congress will demand.

The down side is that the carmakers will be coming to Capitol Hill on the same day sales results for last month will come out. They expected to only be marginally better than October, when sales were at a 25 year low. The crucial question is whether the plans, which vary somewhat among the three automakers contain enough detail to sway those members of Congress who thus far have been less than inclined to help. There are still some lawmakers who see Detroit's problems as being of their own making, which, to be blunt, they are.

However, if Ford, Chrysler, and GM come to the table Tuesday with a plan that makes sense, they should get the money they are looking for. What do you think?

Who is Responsible for Mumbai?

2008-11-28T09:36:00.000-05:00

The chaos in India's commercial capital of Mumbai continues, and although reports say police are making progress against the terrorists, it's not over after three days of violence. Reports of casualties fluctuate as more are discovered. And the looming question on the minds of people across the globe is who bears responsibility for this carnage. The answer to that question could create an entirely new area of instability that President-Elect Obama's soon to be unveiled national security team may have to deal with as a first priority.

Maybe it should come as no surprise that US media has been speculating throughout this horror that the attacks were somehow linked to al-Qaeda. After all, it's the terrorist group we're most familiar with. Plus, it's easy for an analyst sitting in a New York studio to take the fact of the complexity of the attacks and spin that into a series of questions about al-Qaeda's involvement. It's certainly true that militant groups inside India have never pulled off the series of coordinated attacks on hotels, the main railway station, and a Jewish center before. Yet does this mean the well equipped and armed young men who did this were acting on orders of Osama bin Laden?

Right now, the correct answer is nobody knows. The Indian government has begun pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan. Media reports have some of the gunmen arriving on a ship from Karachi. If this is true, or if most Indians believe it is, a new and potentially dangerous round of tensions between these two countries could follow. There have been six decades of conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

One thing is for sure. No matter where these gun men come from or what cause they espouse, they were extremely well organized and well trained. That they held Americans and Britons hostage, and attacked a Jewish community center must make intelligence agencies in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv more than a little nervous. However, if there's one lesson to be learned by media from this conflict that isn't over yet, it is this.

Don't oversimplify.

Is Keeping Gates Wrong?

2008-11-26T08:38:00.000-05:00

He's a yes man and a panderer, who backed Bush when it suited his purpose and will do the same with Obama. He's on the same page as Obama on a number of broad policy issues, and is the best person to maintain continuity. Yes, both the previous sentences are talking about the same man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Make that the once and future defense secretary. Gates will stay on in his current job, confirming numbers of earlier reports that this was what Team Obama wanted.

It's not, however, what many of his supporters on the left wanted. Some feel betrayed, not just by this decision, but by the seeming "business as usual" look to the team working for the man who promised change. In Gates' case, they point to his slavish advocacy of the surge in Iraq as proof his agenda isn't the same as that of the new commander in chief. Gates, while certainly not the polarizing figure his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld was, needs to clarify his stance on things like torture, eavesdropping on innocent Americans, and the like.

When word first leaked that Gates would stay on, the conventional wisdom was that Obama wanted to maintain good relations with Gen. David Petraeus. Why Petraeus rates such consideration is a good question, but no matter. Gates doesn't need to be reconfirmed, and unless media reports are totally messed up (and they have been lately), this is Obama's choice. Quite frankly, I don't think it was his best choice.

If Obama wanted both change at the Pentagon and to show he'd pick a Republican for a powerful job in his cabinet, the choice should have been Chuck Hagel. Unlike Gates, Hagel is as vocal an opponent of the Iraq war as Obama himself is. His knowledge of issues pertaining to the military is widely respected. He also obviously isn't afraid to take a stand at odds with his own party.

Barack Obama has with this decision, as the British put it, "put a foot wrong". Keeping Robert Gates on sends the wrong signal to those millions of Americans who bought into his mantra of change and hope. One doesn't have to feel betrayed to call this a mistake. What do you think?

Profiling Nixed?

2008-11-25T06:40:00.000-05:00

A federal judge here in New York City has issued a ruling that's sure to be a topic of discussion in law enforcement and civil liberties circles. The ruling said the government can't use ethnicity as justification for detaining two Arab men questioned for four hours following a cross country flight. The pair sued the government, alleging the detention was unjustified. The judge apparently agreed.

Black people have understood for years the injustice of racial profiling. The term "driving while black" has become a cruel joke, one that unfortunately is all too real. The ruling in this case, which involves a pair of Egyptian born men, centers on the government's contention that they acted strangely during the flight from San Diego to New York. Uncle Sam's undoing, however, was in asserting that the men's ethnicity was a factor in deciding to detain them, and that it was an acceptable factor.

As it turns out, one of the men held was a former New York City police officer, the other employed by GE in Egypt. At no time during their detention were they charged with any crime. Civil libertarians are hoping this means the beginning of the end of the ethnic profiling that began in the wake of 9-11.

I wouldn't count on it. Besides the possibility of an appeal, the fact is that law enforcement has shown an amazing elasticity when it comes to profiling. The fall back position will likely be a simple denial that ethnicity has anything to do with the decision to detain someone.

That leads, of course, to the preferred rationale for stopping someone, black or Arab. It's the famous "acting suspiciously". Whether in a car or on foot, it works for cops in black communities. My guess is they'll tell counterterrorism agents to drop any verbalizing of ethnic profiling, and simply say a detainee was speaking in Arabic, or changing seats, both of which raised red flags in the case of the two Egyptian men.

The fact is, most Americans don't have a problem with ethnic profiling. We've been lead to believe it keeps us all safer. I don't think so. What do you think?

Too Big to Fail?

2008-11-24T08:13:00.000-05:00

America wakes Monday morning to the news that one of it's biggest banks, Citigroup, is to be bailed out by the federal government. It's almost as if Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke are operating a pinball machine. First, Uncle Sam was going to buy troubled assets from banks. Then they began putting money directly into these financial institutions. It seems neither strategy has helped Citigroup, whose stock has declined from $30 a share one year ago to $3.77 this past Friday.

It's said this financial behemoth is too big and too international to be allowed to die. Maybe so. Yet the government is guaranteeing about $306 billion dollars worth of toxic loans Citigroup put on its books. A legitimate question might be, how did that happen? After all, Citigroup always marketed itself as a pillar of the American banking system. As was the case with the first two bailout efforts, the taxpayers underpinning this government largesse will learn little or nothing about how all this came to be.

It's ironic in a way that Citigroup's headquarters is right here in New York. While a consensus has been reached that a bank is too big to be allowed to fail, our city's transit system has been calling for help. Those call have fallen on deaf ears. So while government can underwrite $306 billion dollars for a bank, when it comes to plugging a $1.2 billion dollar budget gap for New York's transit system, there's no money.

Well, not really. In this case, the money will be coming from the city's taxpayers in the form of a fare increase (maybe two). New Yorkers will also have to put up with more crowded trains due to decreased service, and severe cuts in bus service, in many cases to already underserved neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

I'm sure there are financial experts who can explain why a bank gets so much sympathy while transit users in the nation's largest city are left to fend for themselves. To me, it's inexplicable.

And unacceptable. What do you think?

I've Got a Really Bad Feeling About This

2008-11-21T07:50:00.000-05:00

I've written blog items before warning about the perilous state of the US economy. However, Paul Krugman in the New York Times writes a piece that really scares me. He talks specifically about the period we're now in, that is, the time between the exit of Bush and the entrance of Obama. if we stand back and look at things objectively, Bush has done little more than thrown obstacles in the way of help for hard working Americans (the unemployment benefit extension notwithstanding).

Congress has thrown the ball for bailing out the auto industry right back in Detroit's court. They've got until December 2nd to come up with their own rescue plan. Hopefully they're asking themselves whether it made sense to fly to DC in private jets. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Most forecasters have already predicted a bleak holiday shopping season. That means fewer retailers will hire fewer people. Jobless claims skyrocketed last month, and it looks like there's more to come.

Then, contemplate this. The $250 to $300 billion dollars already spent from the $700 billion dollar bailout package hasn't had the desired effect. Credit markets have yet to thaw, and financial stocks in particular have been hammered all this week. That means, put simply, the banks still don't trust each other, no matter how much money you throw at them. And speaking of banks, we have seen over the past few months a staggering series of events that have shaken the confidence Americans have had in our financial institutions.

I've said before that 2009 looks anything but appetizing. Now we hear forecasts of an 8% unemployment rate, a spiral of possible home foreclosures, bank failures, and the very real possibility of one or more carmakers going belly up, and laying off all their workers. Those people who thought the markets were tanking because of Barack Obama's election ought to be feeling like fools about now. He's in fact the one who the nation will look to in order to get us out of this mess, a mess not of his creation.

The only question is how severe will the pain be before we see light at the end of this tunnel?

Three Private Jets? No Bet!

2008-11-20T08:19:00.000-05:00

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised anymore that corporate America is clueless. First there was AIG, with it's lavish conferences, and now the Big Three automakers all fly from Detroit to DC by private jet. For the record, their names are Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler. They want $25 billion dollars of taxpayer money or, as Nardelli told Congress, national security could be compromised. Okay, they either need the government to fork over or their companies will go broke. So what's the logic in flying by private jet at a cost of around $20,000, when a commercial flight costs anywhere fro $228 coach to $837 first class?

Some members of the House Financial Services Committee had legitimate questions about this. Especially since the carmaker CEOs were talking about coming out of their near death experience leaner and more cost efficient. Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York said, "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo". The automakers, of course, had a defense to all this. They say like many corporations, GM, Ford, and Chrysler require their top executives to fly private for safety reasons. If that's true, why didn't all three fly in one private jet? After all, hat in hand is hat in hand.

GM even had the guts to go on the offensive. "Making a big to do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans, blah blah blah blah....." In other words, ignore our free spending, just give us the money. They may not get it, at least not now. Congress goes home today for the Thanksgiving holiday. There's a compromise in the works, but getting it done in one day is way beyond the capacity of lame ducks.

Besides, if the Big Three really had any empathy with the workers they employ, they'd stop trying to quietly scapegoat them as the source of the current car crisis. Labor agreements may need to be reworked, but job one for Detroit is to make vehicles that are more road reliable and get better gas mileage.

So we've got Congress eyeing the exit, carmakers still bleeding green, and the fate of 5 million American workers still on shaky ground. And all three CEOs flew their private jets back to an economically devastated region, no doubt pondering that to do next.
Nice.

Hillary's Hamlet

2008-11-19T08:21:00.000-05:00

What is going on here? First Rahm Emanuel gets offered the chief of staff job in the new Obama Administration, and he hesitates before accepting it. Now, after rampant speculation that Senator Hillary Clinton was the odds on choice for secretary of state, she too is hedging her bets. The story was first reported by Politico Tuesday, and it characterizes Senator Clinton as agonizing over whether to take the job.

There are a number of reasons given for her hesitation, but the Clinton camp doesn't want anyone to think it has to do with her husband's financial dealings. Better to think it's because in the Senate she'd remain her own boss, or even that it's some type of bargaining tactic. Political skeptics, and I count myself as one, look at former President Clinton's finances as the primary reason for Hillary Clinton's agony no matter what her people say. Despite reports of progress in the vetting process, there could be a stumbling block. After all, much of the former president's finances aren't a matter of public record.

There's also the little problem of the senator's campaign debt from the '08 presidential run. She still owes $7.6 million dollars, not counting what she lent herself. As secretary of state, a federal employee, she'd be prohibited from personally soliciting money to retire it. Keep in mind the Clinton camp has reportedly been less than thrilled with efforts by the president-elect to help her in this regard. Could this be the bargaining tactic people are talking about?

No matter how you slice it, Hillary Clinton's Hamlet-like behavior has got to be a major embarrassment to the incoming president. I'm not sure how much longer he'll twist in the wind, or if he should at all. He's got several other people, most notably New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would jump at the job. His credentials are as strong as Senator Clinton's, maybe stronger. After all the one area Clinton and Obama disagreed about most during their bruising primary battle was foreign policy.

If I were Barack Obama, I'd punt on Hillary Clinton now. Somebody on his transition team must have Bill Richardson's phone number. What do you think?

Who Gets Helped?

2008-11-18T07:55:00.000-05:00

While the parlor game about whether Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State continues, Congress and the Bush Administration play a dangerous game of chicken on two fronts. The emergency bailout for Detroit's Big Three automakers is one, the other is an economic stimulus package. It looks like the latter will have to wait until President-Elect Obama is in office. That's sad, since there is a bill on the table, introduced Monday by Senate Democrats. In the case of help for the auto industry, it's a test of wills between the White House and Congress about where the money will come from. Let's take the cars first, since it will most likely be acted on before the stimulus bill.

Ironically, there appears to be bipartisan support for some sort of action by year's end. GM in particular says it's burning through cash so fast it might be forced into bankruptcy before President-Elect Obama is inaugurated. The difference isn't over whether to help, it's over thew form the help takes. Democrats want the money, $25 billion in all, to be taken from funds not yet spent in Treasury's $700 billion dollar financial rescue package. The White House and some Republicans want an existing Energy Dept. loan program to be the source of funding. That money was originally supposed to be used for long term investments in producing more energy efficient vehicles.

If it sounds complicated, it is. The core question is whether this money will come with enough strings to make Detroit change the way it does business, and the types of cars it produces. That's much more likely under the Democrats' plan. However, there's no guarantee compromise will be reached in this lame duck session of Congress.

a compromise agreement is even less likely in the case of the economic stimulus package. Republicans in Congress and the White House don't like the price tag, and Democrats resent President Bush's attempt to tie help for American jobseekers to a trade pact with Colombia. It seems both sides are adopting a "leave it for Obama" stance, which means lawmakers risk a further decline in the nation's economic fortunes in the interim.

This is precisely the kind of DC gridlock that Obama was elected to end. Can he? You tell me.

Hillary to State?

2008-11-17T08:10:00.000-05:00

Of all the subjects covered during the Obama's interview on 60 Minutes, the most fascinating for political junkies had to be whether he'd name Senator Hillary Clinton to his cabinet, specifically Secretary of State. The president-elect was coy, neither confirming nor denying the possibility. The Clinton camp has also not said much. If you look across the arc of the presidential campaign, you'd see Senator Clinton denying several times she was interested in a cabinet post. That was then, this is now.

Certainly she's got the chops for the job. There would be no worries about on the job training. The only problem for Barack Obama is the fact that there appears to be a crowded field of hopefuls. Senator John Kerry, an early supporter, has reportedly lobbied for the job. Latino groups are lobbying for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Still others are being touted as dark horses for the job.

Hillary Clinton, if she really wants it, will probably be Obama's choice. What better way to end all those media reports about lingering tension from the campaign trail? Despite all that, there's ample evidence Senator Clinton and the president-elect share similar views on foreign policy matters. She'd have no problem articulating his agenda. If offered, the job would be too tempting for her to resist, despite all the talk about wanting to remain in the Senate.

Should she be appointed, there would be an interesting scramble here in New York to succeed her. The choice would be up to Gov. David Paterson, and already there's speculation he'd name Cong. Nydia Velasquez to Clinton's seat. The Latino community in New York has been unhappy about what they feel is insufficient representation in top state positions. What better way to mollify Latino elected officials than to name one of their number to the Senate? It doesn't hurt that Cong. Velasquez was a vocal Clinton supporter during the primaries.

But all that is down the road. The question now is, should President Elect Obama name Hillary Clinton Secretary of State?
You tell me.

Bail Out the Auto Industry? Maybe Not

2008-11-14T08:38:00.000-05:00

Wasn't it just 48 hours ago that we heard the lame duck session of Congress would ditch an economic stimulus package in favor of trying to provide $25 billion dollars to help the crippled auto industry? Now there's news the car bailout may not happen. It seems Republicans in the Senate have some problems with helping the so-called Big Three. Far be it from me to agree with them, but GM, Ford, and Chrysler seem to be suffering from the same corporate brain lock we see in the financial sector. They just don't get it.

How else to explain their hesitance, even as they have their hands out, to pledge to produce more fuel efficient vehicles? This resistance gives fuel (no pun intended) to lawmakers who say problems in Detroit began well before the current economic meltdown. Fact is, American carmakers have been fighting off efforts to produce vehicles with better gas mileage for decades. They say they need bailout money not to retool their factories, but to deal with rising labor and pension costs.

As a person who believes in the value of unions and workers, it's hard to sit back and say let the Big Three fend for themselves. That usually means massive layoffs and plant closings. If any of the carmakers goes bankrupt, things will be even worse. On top of that, Republicans in Congress seem willing to gut the fuel efficiency requirements in order to expedite the $25 billion dollar loans currently in the pipeline. Yet there are still fundamental questions that require answers.

Why can't the auto industry commit to making more fuel efficient vehicles? Is there something in their DNA that makes them deaf to what the American people are telling them with their pocketbooks? Do they marvel at the sight of gas guzzling SUVs sitting in car lots, unsold and unwanted? It's like a drowning man refusing a life jacket because he doesn't like the color.

Auto industry executives will be coming, hat in hand, to Capitol Hill next week. That is, if there's a lame duck session of Congress to lobby. If economic stimulus and a car bailout are both off the table, why bother?

AIG-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E!!!

2008-11-13T08:29:00.000-05:00

Let's pray that American corporate culture isn't embodied by the mammoth insurance firm AIG. This company, the recipient of first $85 and then $40 billion dollars from US taxpayers, seems clueless about the crippling effects of the economic downturn on everyday, hard working citizens. How else to explain AIG's secret gathering for financial planners held at a posh resort near Phoenix last week?

Now, in case you forgot or think we're repeating ourselves, this isn't the well publicized week long party AIG executives treated themselves to in southern California last month. It seems the company's one concession to the flack they got for that one was to tell the hotel in Phoenix to keep this one on the down low. A hotel worker told a reporter they weren't even allowed to use the word AIG. He may have meant acronym, but you get the point.

When asked about the secrecy, AIG CEO Edward Liddy came up with the preposterous notion that this was an example of cost cutting. How much is hotel signage going for these days? Then, the company went into full damage control mode. What else are you supposed to do when you're begging for all this money from Uncle Sam? AIG says reports about the Phoenix conference are "misleading". And imposing a code of secrecy about it wasn't? A statement from Liddy went on to say the cost to his company was minimal, paid for by in part by the financial planners who attended, and that these seminars were crucial to helping to repay the taxpayer.

So, they couldn't have held the conference in their own offices, either here in New York, or in someplace a little cheaper than the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort? No matter how Edward Liddy slices it, AIG is now the poster child for corporate culture run amok. Does he realize there are Americans who can't even plan to spend a paltry amount of money on gifts for loved ones over this holiday season? Would he like to tell them how important it is to fly first class, get driven around in limousines, and eat in fancy restaurants?

Think these are the only executives who haven't gotten the message the country is in trouble? You tell me.

Windfall for Lobbyists/Shaft for Us?

2008-11-12T10:19:00.000-05:00

Now we know why there seems to be so little information available on just how the $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry will be doled out. The DC lobbyists, those folks everybody loves to hate, are swarming over the initial outlay like sharks after blood. That's right. The banks, savings and loans, and insurance companies that look to benefit from the bailout package have procured the services of what the New York Times calls "an army of hired guns" to make sure they get their fair share.

We also know this. All but $60 billion of the original $350 billion freed up by Congress has already been spoken for. The Treasury Department, the target of the lobbying zeal, has already had to pump an additional $40 billion dollars into AIG. Now they're hearing from, among others, boat manufacturers, Latino plumbing and home heating specialists, and even car dealers. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out.

Everyone, that is, except hard working Americans. Sure, President-Elect Obama has promised tax relief for the middle class. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are promising new, better deals for struggling mortgage holders. Yet it seems for many people, the government gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Here in New York, the people that run the transit system are talking about closing a yawning, $1.2 billion dollar gap by raising the subway and bus fare by as much as a dollar a ride. That would be coupled with service cuts, by the way. City and state governments across the country are making hard decisions about education, health care, police and fire protection. The list goes on and on.

Sure, the financial system needs help. So does the automobile industry. But when all is said and done, how much will the shills, the lobbyists make? Isn't the feeding frenzy that has followed the bailout just business as usual? Will anything ever change?
You tell me, because to me it sounds like more of the same.

Should Joe Go?

2008-11-11T08:19:00.000-05:00

So it seems one of the thorniest problems the incoming Obama Administration must face isn't whether to bail out the auto industry, or even how to distribute the $700 billion dollars that's going to the financial sector. It's what to do about Joe Lieberman, the so-called independent senator from Connecticut. Lieberman, aas we all know, backed John McCain in the presidential race. Not only that, he spoke at the Republican National Convention! Remember, this is the guy who was Al Gore's running mate just eight years ago.

Here's the crux of the problem. Since winning re-election as an independent in '06, Lieberman has caucused with the Democrats. That means he's risen to become chair of the Homeland Security Committee. There are those who want to see him stripped of that post for his extraordinary lack of loyalty. In fact, some progressive Democrats want him run out of the caucus. They aren't worried about needing Lieberman's vote to move legislation to the floor.

Lieberman, for his part, is playing cagey. He's publicly toyed with the idea of caucusing with the GOP, saying in effect if he's stripped of his committee chair that's just what he'll do. Interestingly, there's a cadre of prominent Democrats who want to keep Lieberman in the fold. They include former president Clinton, and, get this, president-elect Obama. Neither has much to say about the turncoat's staying on as Homeland Security Committee chair.

To allow Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms of remaining with Democrats in the Senate is an affront. Had he remained neutral in the presidential race he might have had a case. He didn't. He became John McCain's moderate shill, perhaps on promise of a juicy cabinet post had McCain won. Lieberman has been holding a grudge against a number of Democrats since they abandoned him when he lost his state's primary two years ago. So why on earth should he be rewarded for treachery?

One would think it's the Democrats who have the upper hand here. It would seem simple enough to say to Joe Lieberman you can stay with our caucus, but you have to give up your committee chair. If not, see ya!

What do you think? Should the Democrats play hardball with Joe Lieberman?

Pomp, Circumstance, and Tension?

2008-11-10T08:36:00.000-05:00

The Obama family will be meeting the Bush family at the White House today. There will be a tour of the president-elect's new home, and one figures all will be cordial, with plenty of smiles to go around. Yet published reports and statements by the Obama transition team indicate there's another agenda afoot. His advisers are compiling a list of Bush Administration policies that could be reversed by the new president.

This is nothing new. In his first full day in office, President Bush reinstated a global gag rule banning taxpayer dollars from going to family planning groups that performed or gave counsel on abortion. That rule had been overturned by President Bill Clinton. The Bush people had been dropping hints the past few weeks that he might use his executive powers to enact certain policies the president to be might find hard to reverse. The Obama team seems to be saying go ahead and try it.

Stem cell research limits, as well as proposals to drill for oil and gas in sensitive areas of Utah are two actions that could be reversed quickly. Transition co-chair John Podesta was blunt on Fox News Sunday, saying Bush is making moves that are "probably not in the best interest of the country". Some reports say Obama is looking at as many as 200 Bush policy positions, with an eye toward change. Those changes won't be announced, however, until Obama confers with his new cabinet, meaning not for awhile yet.

The other area of concern is the auto industry. New chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is lobbying the current president to help Detroit, and fast. Bad news at the end of last week from both Ford and GM bolsters his case. At the same time, Emanuel is linking any financial help from the government to forcing the industry to build more fuel efficient vehicles. This is something that's quite doable, and smart policy as well.

Obama and his team are moving fast. In fact, today's White House visit will last only 90 minutes. They're leaving immediately afterward, heading back to Chicago, and the business at hand.

Can Obama get Bush and the lame duck Congress to bend on some of these issues? You tell me.

Echoes of Excellence

2008-11-07T09:13:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing I've heard consistently from black Americans since the election of Barack Obama, it's that he'll stand as a role model to young black men. No longer will they have to feel their only pathway to excellence is through hip-hop or athletics . But the question must be asked, haven't there been other black men who have achieved excellence in their chosen fields prior to the meteoric rise of our President-Elect ?

The answer is an emphatic yes! I say this with some passion because I have had the privilege to associate with and be mentored by many black men who have overcome the obstacles we all face and risen to the top of their game. This comes to me with remarkable clarity because last night I talked to three of them. I began my radio show talking to the iconic choreographer Garth Fagan. Here is a man who, through brilliance and perseverance has carved a legacy in his field that would be the envy of any choreographer, black or white. He's won a Tony award for his work on "The Lion King", but it's his company, Garth Fagan Dance, that truly amazes. Yet you ask black folks on the street who Garth Fagan is, all too often you get a blank stare.

Later in the evening, I spoke to Professor Ron Walters. He is without doubt one of black America's finest academic minds. He managed the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaign for president in 1988. Countless young people have had their skills challenged and honed under his tutelage at the University of Maryland. In a just world, Ron Walters would have his own television show, not Bill O'Reilly. Yet like Garth Fagan, Ron Walters labors in relative obscurity in terms of recognition in our own community.

My final example of an excellent black man is most personal to me, since he mentored me for the entire time I've worked in radio. Hal Jackson is 90 plus years of age, has worked in radio for nearly 70 years, and is still on the air every Sunday on WBLS here in New York. Last night, after my show, I went to the Apollo Theater in Harlem to witness a celebration of his life and his work. This is a man who once told me in a fiery voice, "Mark, don't ever, EVER compromise your integrity in this business. All you've got is your good name, and don't ever let me hear about you staining it!" That was back in the mid 1970s, and his admonition has stayed with me through the years. He is, along with the others mentioned, an icon of excellence who was once told no "N word" would ever work at the radio station where he sought a job. That was in 1939. He's been confounding skeptics ever since.

All this is to say if Barack Obama's rise to the highest office in the land should teach us anything, maybe it's that we ought to recognize black excellence when it's been staring us in the face all along.

Currying Favor While the Economy Lurks

2008-11-06T10:48:00.000-05:00

It's hard to believe there's almost two and a half months to go before Barack Obama is inaugurated. Already, people and interests are maneuvering, schmoozing, and fighting to curry favor with the new president. There are some hard facts as to appointments. We do know he's offered Rahm Emanuel the job of chief of staff. He's also got the outlines of a transition team in place. He knows he's got to hit the ground running, and the economy will be his first priority.

If there's a subtext to the way out of the current economic mess, it would have to be what to do with that $700 billion dollars that's supposed to buoy the financial markets. Remember that at first, the money was supposed to be used to buy up bad assets of financial institutions. That mission has obviously changed. At least some of that money will be used to capitalize the banks. Our president-elect will have to figure out how it will be disbursed, and to whom. Will he change the initial terms and outlays the banks were told about a few weeks ago?

And what about the possibility of another economic stimulus package? Democrats in Congress, lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have this as a priority. It's not known yet if Barack Obama shares the immediacy of that agenda. He might, since all signs point to a grim 2009 on the economic front. There will be layoffs, and they could reach huge numbers all across the country. People thrown out of work will have problems paying their bills, meaning the mortgage crisis will continue, and consumer spending will continue its decline.

All of this speaks to the hard work ahead for the incoming president. George W. Bush hasn't left him much to work with. If there's a silver lining to all these clouds, it's contained in what a friend told me at the gym earlier today. "Barack is a smart man. He's going to surround himself with smart people. They'll figure a way to deal with this".

Is my friend right? You tell me.

An American President

2008-11-05T08:25:00.000-05:00

There will be much analysis of Barack Obama's historic victory last night. How he pulled off wins in states that usually vote Republican. How his campaign ignored the skeptics, stuck to its course, and has now been vindicated. It's all true, and it's all good. Yet this campaign has been about a story, uniquely American story that ought to be told to generations who are now too young to vote.

It starts with two crowded fields in the race for the presidency. There was much conventional wisdom 20 odd months ago, and it focused on who would capture the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Barack Obama and John McCain were two candidates that few thought would be facing each other November 4th. For Obama, conventional wisdom was he'd make a respectable showing, one that would position him to run again further down the road.

Barack Obama didn't see it that way, and he promoted a vision of hope and change that connected not just with young people, but with Americans who believed change was necessary for the sake of the republic. He spoke to the best instincts of millions of us, hard working people who were smarter than the pundits believed. His campaign sent people from one part of the country to neighboring states, to talk to folks and deliver his message.

It worked. It all worked. And in the end, he gave a speech that made Colin Powell weep. It won't be easy to implement his agenda, even with the gains his party made in Congress. The American economy is ailing, and it will take the best minds of the country to make it better. And yet, there is belief that if anyone can bring those minds together, it's the guy who won last night, a guy whose inspiration was, among other things, a 106 year old woman in Atlanta.

A page turned in America last night. What lies ahead will make for some interesting reading.

Are You Taking it Personal?

2008-11-04T08:07:00.000-05:00

So, it's Election Day across America. I woke up this morning with a knot in my stomach. It's a familiar thing, one that comes when I think something should happen, will happen, but may not. I woke up with that same knot back in 1989, when David Dinkins became New York City's first black mayor. I felt it again four years later, when he lost by a razor thin margin to Rudy Giuliani. Forget 2000. That feeling stayed around for more than a month.

So here we are, on the precipice of history. That sick feeling in my gut was exacerbated when I arrived early this morning at what I thought was my polling site with my daughter. She's 11, and has been voting with me since she could walk. We got to the site, and there was no one there! It was then I realized I simply mistook the municipal building for City Hall. At my actual polling site, the line stretched a block, and this was at 7:00AM.

When I saw the line, and the rainbow of people waiting to vote, that feeling in my gut vanished. I said hello to several folks I knew, and waited. Someone mentioned the line was even longer earlier in the morning when the polls first opened. Anecdotal evidence from the cable networks echo what I saw in my local community. It all looks good, but my political instincts tell me this thing won't be over until we hear a concession speech.

It has truly been one extraordinary election cycle. What started for Democrats as a coronation ended up being something very different. For the Republicans, a candidate who had been written off came back and won his party's nomination. Today we'll find out if Barack Obama's meticulous campaign will win out, or whether John McCain will make one final comeback. Either way, I already know I'll be taking this one personally. It's not easy to admit, since during my younger days I thought politics was the final province of uncool fossils.

Things have changed for me. Have they changed for you? Are you taking this personal?

Done Deal?

2008-11-03T07:56:00.000-05:00

First, many thanks to all of you who have posted, e-mailed, texted, and phoned your condolences on the loss of my brother Clayton. He wanted so much to live to see Tuesday's election. His spirit will be watching over all that happens.

The eve of this 2008 presidential election feels more and more like the night before Christmas. Never in my lifetime have I seen such interest and excitement about any election. And on election eve, we see a more relaxed John McCain, and a serene Barack Obama. Both will be hop-scotching across the country trying to wring out every last bit of support. The media, meanwhile, is licking its collective chops.

For this has been an election cycle to remember for those who have been covering it as well. Punditry has reached a new high (or low), as more and more people made good money handicapping the race. And don't let those right wing talk hosts fool you. They may rail against Obama and mean what they say, but they also know where their bread is buttered. Suffice to say its no accident that a couple of prominent conservative talkers signed four year deals recently. That takes them right into the next prsidential cycle.

For Barack Obama, the only remaining question is whether the nation has in fact changed enough to embrace him as its leader. He has run a campaign for the ages. Disciplined, focused, and virtually leakproof, the Obama campaign has provided a blueprint for campaigns of the future, no matter who wins Tuesday. And, while you can fault the McCain operation for a lot, it must be said that John McCain himself refused to use Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama, and he stuck to his word, even if those around him did not.

Now, all that's left is for the polls to open Tuesday morning, and for the American people to speak. An electorate that's been studied, analyzed, poked, prodded, and polled to death will finally register the only poll that matters.

Are you ready?

Won't be Blogging for Awhile

2008-10-24T23:14:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-23T09:21:00.000-04:00

Not feeling well today. Back tomorrow.
Mark

Who's the American?

2008-10-22T10:40:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-21T08:05:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-20T08:13:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-17T10:51:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-16T10:19:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-15T08:32:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-14T08:24:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-13T10:50:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-10T09:00:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-09T09:05:00.000-04:00

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!

2008-10-08T08:33:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-07T10:47:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-06T08:43:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-03T08:22:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-02T10:32:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-10-01T08:45:00.000-04:00

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.

Splat! Bailout Fails, and So Do Stocks

2008-09-30T08:06:00.000-04:00

In the end, it wasn't just House Republicans who had a problem with the Bush crafted $700 billion dollar bailout of US financial markets. 95, count 'em, 95 Democrats also failed to get on the bus, sending the bill to a crashing defeat. So confident were most people the bill would pass that John McCain was bragging about his role beforehand on the campaign trail. But then, he also placed an ad saying he won Friday's debate before it happened.

The financial mess is now rippling across the globe. The inability of banks to raise capital has hit European and Asian markets, causing both to skid as credit dries up. What's worse, politicians here are waking up to the very real question, "Now what"? There seem to be no easy answers. Some, like Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, think there ought to be more hearings on crafting a better bill. Some social Darwinists among the House Republican block say simply that the markets need to correct themselves.

Others, in particular those who crafted the bill that went down, want to go back to the drawing board quickly and come up with another measure to vote on this week. One thing is for sure. Too many more days like yesterday and the New York Stock Exchange will need a full time staff of grief counselors.

How about doing something that directly benefits the American people? My good friend John Nichols at The Nation says split the bailout 50-50. Give half to the bankers and let them generate the rest through smart investing that's not exploitative. Use the rest to help homeowners, fund job training and creation, improve health care, the environment, education, you know, the things ordinary Americans are having to pay more for every day. Part of the reason why this bill failed is because the average person saw nothing in it for them.

Why not invest in Americans for a change?

Deal on Bailout? Yeah, Sort Of

2008-09-29T08:10:00.000-04:00

So they worked all weekend, those cabinet and congress people struggling to craft a bill to bail out the US economy. In the end, they gave Bush something to say at 7:35AM Eastern, when he addressed the nation on the need to get the bill through the House and Senate. It took him all of four minutes. Meanwhile, world markets don't seem impressed. Most are down, and a couple more banks have been nationalized.

The US bailout has been made to sound like the risk to taxpayers is minimal. It doles out up to $700 billion dollars in stages, $250 billion here, $100 billion there, the rest later. There is some help for homeowners facing foreclosure, but not too much (that would be socialism)! And all this, as best I can tell, to get banks to trust each other enough to lend each other money. Maybe it's a lot more complicated than that, but who knows?

Speaking of which, who knows if it will actually work? The House is expected to vote later today, but who knows whether the Republican block, which last I checked is a minority, will go along? Most of the fighting here has been GOP against GOP. That battle is almost as interesting as Obama vs. McCain.

Around the world, some nations are putting out harsh critiques of this peculiarly American financial mess. China has called for a new world economic order, one that's less dependent on the US. Their central bank ordered a halt to business with their US counterparts last week. Brazil's president says the bailout is for the rich, not the poor. Iran's Ahmadinejad, never one to miss an opportunity, slammed this country from the podium at the UN.

These are the real wages of greed. Those that got the country into this mess don't really care. Their salaries may be limited if the bill passes, but it won't make them miss a tee time at the country club. Real and imagined Masters of the Universe don't go out that easily.

Why? They've got us!

Standoff Continues as Chaos Reigns

2008-09-26T09:22:00.000-04:00

America awakes Friday with no more hope that a bailout deal can get done than there was three days ago. Any way you look at it, we've got John McCain and a small group of House Republicans to thank for this mess. Just as it looked like a deal was done early Thursday afternoon, here come House GOP lawmakers, essentially declaring war on a president from their own party. Even worse, John McCain, who dramatically suspended his campaign to come to Washington like a knight in shining armor, sat at a White House meeting he called for and said nothing for most of it.

So just what's going on here? A skeptic who follows politics might argue as follows. McCain and House Republicans saw a mutually beneficial opportunity to inject themselves in the bailout process. McCain, for whatever reasons, didn't want to participate in tonight's scheduled debate with Barack Obama. His friends in the House would seemingly rather watch the nation slide into depression rather than intervene in the "free market".

So they collaborate. They decide they don't like the bailout, then scramble to come up with an alternate plan that involves insuring bad debt rather than buying it outright. They even accused Treasury Secretary Paulson (what, another Republican?) of not giving them the information needed to draft their plan.

McCain seemed to glom onto this insurance approach. He certainly played his hand close to the vest for the better part of Thursday. The White House meeting reportedly descended into shouts and recriminations. McCain sat largely silent. Why? He needs the constituents conservative House Republicans represent. However, as happens sometimes, another event intervenes, one that could change the stakes.

Washington Mutual got itself seized by the FDIC Thursday night. WAMU isn't a small player. It's the largest savings and loan in America. Virtually all its assets were sold to JP Morgan Chase. Will this put pressure on Washington politicians to get off their ideologies and get something done?

You tell me.

McCain's Gambit Leads to Standoff

2008-09-25T09:16:00.000-04:00

So here's John McCain, down in the latest polls, desperately trying to look like a leader. What does he do? He dramatically suspends his campaign, and says he wants to postpone Friday's debate. I'm sure his boys Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt told him the move would back Barack Obama into a corner. Go along, and McCain looks presidential, a man putting the nation's fiscal woes above his own personal gain. Refuse, and Obama looks like just another selfish, self absorbed politician.

Unfortunately, it didn't work out quite the way they diagrammed it on paper. Obama responded by saying, in essence, that anyone wanting to be president should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. His people then released a timeline to yesterday's events that showed it was Obama who contacted McCain first, not about pushing the debate back, but about a bi-partisan show of unity in addressing the serious financial mess the country faces. Just after the two of them spoke yesterday afternoon, McCain went on television with his ploy.

Now, it looks like there's a standoff. McCain backed away just a bit, saying he'd debate if the bailout package was passed by Friday night. Yet for John McCain to act as though his presence is somehow crucial to getting a bailout through the Senate is beyond arrogance. As his colleague Sen. Bernie Sanders told me last night, John McCain hasn't been around all that much of late.

Barack Obama is right. Now is the time for the candidates to debate the economy. All that had to happen was a change in the theme. Foreign policy, the original focus of tomorrow's debate, can wait. John McCain knows this. Could there be another reason why he's holding out for postponement?

Could it be he's just not ready?

Can One Man Stabilize Markets?

2008-09-24T09:34:00.000-04:00

Tuesday wasn't a great day for last week's financial heroes Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. They were grilled all day by skeptical members of Congress about their $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial markets. It seems their stubborn desire to get a bill passed free of conditions like caps on CEO salaries, congressional oversight, and such hit a wall. Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd concluded, ominously, that major changes to the plan must be implemented to get it moved.

Paulson and Bernanke should have seen this coming. Their miscalculation was believing the average American saw some benefit to helping people who are perceived as conductors on the express train to American financial ruin. They can tell Congress it's all about the taxpayer, but taxpayers themselves aren't feeling it. Things are so bad Bush himself is thinking about giving a speech to the nation prior to floor debate in the House. Like the plan itself, there's no guarantee a few words from the Decider-in Chief will make things any clearer.

American taxpayers want sensible answers to basic questions. Why shouldn't the salaries of CEOs whose companies are being bailed out be limited? How much help will there be for distressed homeowners facing foreclosure? Where exactly is this $700 billion dollars going to come from? And, most importantly, what happens if the bailout doesn't work? Right now even the most savvy economists don't see a Plan B.

The stock market is apparently buoyed early Wednesday by the news that billionaire investor Warren Buffet will put $5 billion dollars into Goldman Sachs. This is supposed to renew investor confidence that the independent investment bank model still has a chance. Maybe, in the short term, it will. However, a knight in shining armor may not be enough to solve this thing in the long term. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair wanted what they call a quick and clean bailout bill passed this week.

Maybe not.

Is the Surge really Working?

2008-09-23T08:15:00.000-04:00

John McCain has made a big deal out of the notion that he supported the troop surge in Iraq, and that the surge has led to a drop in violence there. He's right about the first part, but is he right about the second? For sure the US troops are doing a fine job there, but there's another factor driving the drop in violence McCain won't talk about. It's the emergence of the Awakening Councils, citizen patrols paid by the US to fight the insurgency.

Talk to Iraqis on the ground, as some American reporters have, and they'll tell you it's the Awakening Councils that have played a key role in lowering violence. The US military says the same thing. There were those who, a the beginning of the relationship between the Councils and the US, had problems with the fact that some Council members were former insurgents. In other words, people who were shooting at Americans were now being paid by Americans. Still, the Councils are 99,000 strong. That's many more than the surge, giving at least some credence to the notion they should receive some credit for the reduction in violence.

However, there are some clouds on the horizon. There have been recent incidents that indicate the Councils are starting to become a problem. There are turf battles, allegations of intimidation, and sometimes, violence. On top of that, a transition is coming. Starting October 1st, 54,000 Awakening members in and around Baghdad will join the payroll of the Shiite led government of Iraq. The patrols are predominately Sunnis. How this transition is made will speak volumes about whether the violence in the country remains low.

The US military is trying to help mediate the transition, but it's a tricky process. There are issues of pay, authority, and lack of trust between Sunnis and Shiites that goes back generations. All this goes on while John McCain keeps trying to hammer Barack Obama about opposition to a surge that itself isn't responsible for the reduction in violence. And even with the violence down, almost no one is reporting that the Iraqi death toll since the start of the war now tops 1 million.

And all the while John McCain refuses to tell America what victory in Iraq means. What does it mean to you?

Will Race Cost Obama?

2008-09-22T08:39:00.000-04:00

So now we have a poll that has put a number on racism in this presidential campaign. According to an AP-Yahoo News poll, that number is 6%. In other words, Barack Obama's support would be as much as 6% higher if he wasn't black. The operative question, then, is whether that 6% is enough to cost him the election. Recent polls, even as they swung back his way, would tend to say yes. However, look inside the numbers contained in this poll and there should be little to surprise.

The poll set out to determine why the presidential race is so close between Obama and john McCain. It concluded that Obama's problems aren't just with white Republicans or independents. White Democrats support their nominee at a 70% rate. For John McCain, the corresponding number is 85% of his own party. You've also probably seen the poll numbers that say one third of all Democrats and independents hold at least one negative view of blacks. That group is less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't. Yet among that same group, 58% said they planned to vote for Obama.

The poll suggests there is still a deep vein of racial hostility in America, and that political affiliation does little to mitigate it. However, the poll was taken before last week's economic chaos, so there's no telling how that might affect not racial attitudes, but how people will vote. That a segment of white America might let race get in the way of their own economic interest is old news. The question is, how big is the segment?

There are people inside the Obama campaign who understand the implications of this poll. That's why his supporters have been receiving a great deal of e-mail of late. The appeals are for money at times, but they also ask people to talk about the campaign among family, friends, and co-workers. Because after all, 6% is a small number. One third of white Democrats holding a negative view of blacks means two thirds do not.

Some say these poll numbers could doom the Obama quest for the presidency. I say otherwise. What do you say?

Palin Tears a Page From Bush's Playbook

2008-09-19T09:30:00.000-04:00

While it may be true that the McCain-Palin ticket wants no part of our current president on the stump, they certainly know how to follow his example. The campaign has been quietly trying to quash the Troopergate probe in Palin's home state of Alaska, and the tactics they're using are startlingly similar to those used by the Decider-in-Chief when certain congressional committees wanted to look into allegations of wrongdoing.

Palin, who initially supported the bipartisan probe into whether she fired the state's public safety chief because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother in law. Now that McCain has named her as his running mate, not so much. In fact, she's let the McCain people be the ones doing the talking about why, for example, her own husband has refused to testify in the investigation. Sound familiar? It should. Bush told Congress more than once that everyone from Karl Rove to Harriet Miers to Josh Bolten were off limits.

And what exactly does Sarah Palin have to hide? And who allowed her, or McCain for that matter, to determine when an investigation is legitimate and when it's not? Most laughable among the reasons Todd Palin's attorney gave for refusing to testify is that the subpoena is "burdensome", since First Dude is planning to be out of state. And here's the interesting part. The Alaska State Legislature has no power to compel any witness to testify prior to November 4th.

Ah, so that's the important part. Keep this thing on ice until after the election. Now this isn't to say that this sort of thing isn't done in other jurisdictions, and sometimes even by Democrats. Yet in this case the motive is so transparent it's insulting.

By the way, Palin is co-operating with a separate probe into Troopergate. That one she began after she was tabbed by McCain. That probe is being done by Palin appointees.

Bailout Blues

2008-09-18T08:47:00.000-04:00

This early in the day, nobody knows whether the nation's financial markets will rebound from the week's earlier losses. One thing is for sure. Fingers will continue to be pointed and blame assessed. Coming as it has in the middle of a presidential race, both candidates will burn the midnight oil trying to convince the public they have the answer. So why does it feel like most of what people are talking about is so short term?

The most dangerous thing that could result from the current crisis is a quick fix solution. Get it off the front page, and all those involved know it recedes from the public consciousness. One person in the eye of the storm is Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. He's center stage in all this as chair of the House Financial Services Committee. He's blunt and to the point when he says the nation can't afford to use the Fed to bail out large struggling institutions forever.

And make no mistake, the titans of high finance aren't the only ones looking to Uncle Sam for help. The auto industry is seeking $25 billion dollars in either loans or loan guarantees. With Michigan a battleground state in the upcoming election, how the government answers will have wide implications. Will other troubled suitors, many of whom detest regulation, have to come to that great regulator, the federal government?

Barney Frank's approach is to deal with the problem on several fronts. He told Politico.com the government should pressure financial institutions to ease up on foreclosures. He also said central bankers in allied nations ought to be doing more as well. His committee will be holding a hearing on the mess next Wednesday. No matter what happens in the markets between now and then, that hearing is important if not crucial to the future of the country.

Barney Frank seems to know the right questions, even if he doesn't have all the answers. But does anyone?

Can You Afford McCain's Health Care Plan?

2008-09-17T08:23:00.000-04:00

With the nation's attention focused on the economy (the feds bailed out AIG), it's interesting to note a column by Bob Herbert of the New York Times. He talks about the McCain-Palin agenda for health care, specifically health insurance. To say the plan is an eye opener is an understatement. Herbert says, correctly, that with the focus on lipstick and who invented the BlackBerry, The Republican candidates' proposals haven't gotten much attention. Hopefully, that may change.

What jumps out about the McCain-Palin plan is the fact it would treat employer-paid health benefits as income. That means workers would have to pay taxes on it. That of course means your employer will have to withhold a bit more from your paycheck to cover the estimated tax. Now for McCain, who paints himself as a tax cutter, to propose taxing healthcare is radical by itself. McCain proposes to make up part of the tax by offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit of between $2500 and $5000.

The question then becomes this. If you're going to offer a credit, why tax the benefits as income in the first place? Oh yeah, the agenda, which is to eventually relieve employers of the pesky responsibility of helping to pay for workers' healthcare. It would put more and more Americans in the private health insurance marketplace. That means, left to their own devices, workers will opt for the cheapest possible plan, or opt out of the health care system entirely.

A new study of the McCain plan projects that 20 million Americans will lose employer based health insurance if McCain and Palin get their way. In other words, this is the very kind of deregulation that has helped cause the current mess in the financial markets. Do you want that kind of chaos facing you if you or a member of your family gets sick?

John McCain and Sarah Palin think government regulation is part of what's wrong with America. They may try to dress it up a bit due to present circumstances on Wall St., but as they mouth their platitudes, ask yourself this.

Can you afford the McCain-Palin health care plan?