Bush throws a 'Hail Mary'

Most Presidents, ten days before the end of their administration, would be busy packing, signing letters of reference for their staff, soliciting donors for their Presidential libraries, figuring out who they want to pardon,...

That's what most outgoing Presidents would be doing.

But then George W. Bush is one of a kind (thank God for that.)

In just his last ten days in office, he's looking to spend another third of a trillion dollars.

Specifically, he's asking Congress for the other half of the $700 billion TARP bailout fund. Recall that when the bill was passed, it was carefully divided into two halves-- half for Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to pass around, and half that would be appropriated after the new administration took office. Bush and Paulson have exhausted their half.

Congressional Democrats were notified Friday afternoon by the White House that they could get a request soon for the second half of the allocated bailout funds. Once Congress receives the request for the money, both chambers can try to block the release of the money if they do so within an expedited time frame....

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed unhappiness with the way Treasury used the first $350 billion to capitalize banks. Specifically, they object to how Treasury made investments with few strings attached and no process for tracking how the banks are using the money.

They also are unhappy that none of the $350 billion allocated to date has been used to prevent foreclosures.

No, instead of using them to help ordinary Americans, banks and other corporations that received Federal bailout funds with no strings attached used them for, among other things, a posh party thrown for AIG executives at a resort in California and the swallowing up of smaller but solvent banks by larger ones, a taxpayer-funded orgy of a short and nostalgic return to the era of 'mergers and acquisitions.' That's what banks used to do when they had money, and nobody bothered to make sure they wouldn't spend Federal funds to do the same thing again.

In fact, virtually the only part of the first half that was given with any real strings attached was the final $14 billion, given as a loan to the auto industry.

So now, Bush is claiming that he needs the other $350 billion. But he's not saying anything about who he plans to give it to, or why they need it. If there is another imminent financial crisis about to happen, then I want to know what my $1,000 share of that debt is being spent on. Not so some bank can buy some other bank, or so insurance executives can go to a spa and get me to pay for their pedicure. If the roof is about to cave in, and it can't wait for ten days, then I want to know why and how much it is going to cost. If absolutely necessary then release exactly what is needed and send it directly to the recipient-- with a clearly stated itemization of how it will be spent. But that's all. Don't hand Bush another $350 billion. The way he spends money, it will all be gone even faster than he will be.

Who is he looking to pay off, anyway?

An idea for Federal bailouts: let We the People keep 20%

For a change, it looks like George W. Bush did the right thing. Not that he had a lot of choice.

We came remarkably close earlier this week to a repeat of the events of 1929. Bush, whose legacy is already about as bad as it could be, along with his two biggest economic appointees-- Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, was faced with a stark choice between being Herbert Hoover or Franklin Roosevelt.

He and Bernanke and Paulson picked Roosevelt and moved to have the Federal Government aggressively intervene in the banking system to stave off a collapse. Things had gotten so bad at one point this week that investors were actually paying money to park their investments in safe treasury bonds, the first time since the great Depression that the effective interest rate on any kind of federal note had been negative.

A lot of pro-deregulation market oriented conservatives howled at the price tag of the federal bailout-- maybe as high as a trillion dollars. It joins the Iraq war and the medicare prescription drug handout to the pharmaceutical industry as trillion dollar debt busters that the Bush administration has given us. Unlike the first two however this one is absolutely necessary. Without it, well we'd be stuck in 1929 and all that that would augur for a very bleak future.

That isn't to say though that we should just let things go on as business as usual.

To start with, there is some outrage to go around. For instance, here are some golden parachute numbers, for CEO's of firms that failed monumentally:

Stanley O'Neill, Merrill Lynch: $161 million.

Jimmy Cayne, Bear Stearns: $61.3 million (plus another $4 million plus in J.P. Morgan stock, the company that ended up absorbing Bear Stearns.)

Michael Perry, IndyMac Bank: $37.5 million

Richard Fuld, Lehman Brothers: $22 million

Robert Willumstad (AIG July-Sept. 2008): $7 million
Martin Sullivan (AIG 2005-2008): $47 million

I'm sure I could run any bank into the ground as well as these guys did. Why can't I get that kind of cash?

Here is the good golden parachute news:

Daniel Mudd, Fannie Mae: $0
Richard Syron, Freddie Mac: $0.

Federal regulators, thanks to the hybrid nature of the companies to begin with, were able to ensure that Mudd's and Syron's golden parachutes failed to deploy. Chalk up two big wins for Federal control.

Beyond that, it is abundantly clear that the 'free market' that American conservatives like to sing about, really means that the rewards are private, but the risk is the responsiblity of all of us. Some hardcore ideologues on the right have been speaking out against the bailouts this week suggesting that we should just let the whole system fail and come crashing down. I guess they wouldn't have a problem with us going back to the 1930's when millions of ordinary people lived under bridges and ate boiled weeds for dinner but I do have a problem with that. Rather, I believe that since ultimately we as a society are on the hook for the long term stability of our economy anyway, and that the economy is tied to the stability of these banks, we should share in the rewards that come with this risk.

I don't necessarily mean through higher taxes either. Some are right that if you tax wealth then the wealthy will find and exploit loopholes to escape taxes. That's not a reason give up on getting them to pay their fair share in taxes but it does mean that we can't expect to count on taxation of companies who can certainly employ enough lobbyists to create all the loopholes they need as the only answer here.

Nor does regulation provide the answer (though I certainly agree that we will need to take a look at tightening regulation). We already know that even as these institutions and banks were failing they employed armies of lobbyists and made millions of dollars in campaign contributions all over Washington so it's a fact that regulations can be skirted or rewritten over time (as institutional memories of why they were there in the first place fade).

And yeah, I'd love to see Washington ban corporate lobbyists but you and I both know that isn't going to happen anytime soon, or if it does there will be some loophole left open so they can still funnel money to candidates. So let's talk about practical solutions here, not pie-in-the-sky pledges to 'change Washington' as a way to prevent another crisis originating on Wall Street.

No, what I propose is very simple and straightforward. If the Federal Government is going to effectively back up institutions and banks that make risky decisions and then step in and absorb the fallout when the risks become reality, then we (collectively, as taxpayers) should share in the rewards. Let the Treasury Department hang onto a share-- say in the 10-20% range-- of stock in the company, and mandate that this stock remain under the control of the Federal government for at least 20 years after any bailout. That way if and when the company regains profitability then We the People will get a direct return on our 'investment' (made as it was under the darkest of circumstances.)

This may be criticized as 'socialistic' but let's face it-- the bailout and takeover of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG are nothing else. Maintaining a 20% federal ownership of companies like these actually would achieve three goals: 1. it would over time pay us all back as a society so that we wouldn't just be paying out good money for bad, 2. it would help stabilize the share price as the company clawed its way back, and 3. while 20% isn't a majority and the major decisions would ultimately be left to the rest of the investors and the CEO they appoint, it's a big enough piece that the government would have a lot of input. Treasury Secretaries are by nature a cautious bunch so having a representative of the treasury department representing taxpayer interests in a corporate boardroom meeting might influence those decisions in a more cautious direction but clearly that isn't such a bad thing.

And then once 20 years are past, the treasury department could slowly release our shares onto the open market, using the profits to pay off our own national debt or to pay for other spending (possibly reducing the need to collect taxes from the rest of us.)

And this is an accomplishment he's PROUD of?

President Bush went to his last G-8 summit this week, and spent the week with other leaders of developed countries discussing a variety of topics, not the least of which was curbing the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Of course President Bush has always been the one sticking his foot in the way of any real attempt to do anything about pollution. So when it was over, as his successor will go to the next G-8 summit, he decided to say goodbye to his old (and some new) partners.

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter," said the President with a broad grin on his face.

And just to show what a huge accomplishment he thought that was he gave it some extra emphasis.

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Some joke, huh? And just a day after the White House had to issue an official apology to Italy after President Bush was given travel notes describing Italy as a 'country known for corruption and vice.'

Of course this isn't the first time that Bush has embarrassed America at the G-8 summit. Remember two years ago when he goosed Angela Merkel in an episode that was so bizarre that I still have trouble comprehending it (though it's been hard to not notice that since then Merkel, who was elected as a Bush ally, has been noticeably cool toward Bush and kept her distance from him.)

I've watched lots of Presidents, including some conservative Presidents who I disagreed with, like Nixon, Reagan and Bush's father. But I've never seen a President who has so consistently been a poor representative of our country on international trips (and that's even counting the time when Jimmy Carter vomited in the lap of the prime minister of Japan after eating sushi.) Bush's behavior is strange, bizarre and disjointed. The only thing I wonder about is whether he behaves that way all the time, just that on these international trips it's harder for his handlers to keep it under wraps.

Everybody Knows

FISA Senate Roll Call

[ 3:16 ]

McCain, GOP Heart Bush

McCain and the GOP try to keep secret the on-going love affair with George W. Bush, but they love the money

Joe Sudbay:

It's not easy running for Bush's third term.

Articles in two of the big papers show the internal conflict McCain and the Republicans are having over the on-going relationship with their leader, their hero, their mentor: George W. Bush. It's sounds tawdry: clandestine meetings, lots of money, secret love and the fear of public exposure. [snip]

In other words, McCain is still dependent on Bush to be his sugar daddy. So, like so many other tawdry relationships, McCain and the Repubs. love Bush for his money, but they're trying to hide how close they really are.

The End Of An Error

An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace

NYT:

Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital (and a state, too). But President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom. [snip]

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

The plan, naturally hatched in a bar, would place a vote on the November ballot to provide “an appropriate honor for a truly unique president.”

Supporters say that they have plenty of signatures to qualify the initiative and that the renaming would fit in a long and proud American tradition of poking political figures in the eye.

The renaming would take effect on Jan. 20, when the new president is sworn in. And regardless of the measure’s outcome, supporters plan to commemorate the inaugural with a synchronized flush of hundreds of thousands of San Francisco toilets, an action that would send a flood of water toward the plant, now called the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant.

“It’s a way of doing something physical that’s mentally freeing,” said Stacey Reineccius, 45, a software consultant and entrepreneur who supports the plan. “It’s a weird thing, but it’s true.”

Bobble Head Oily Express Ways

These people are amazing. They will say anything and continue to prove that they are a self-servative and pandering political party not to be trusted.

Bush wants to lift the offshore and arctic drilling bans.

McSame as Bush III has the same line and flip flops on oil drilling, pandering to the big oil companies who have donated 74 percent of his lifetime campaign contributions since he announced running for president.

Even Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) has flip flopped on the offshore drilling moratorium, hoping for a chance at the VP spot.

Meanwhile, "catapult the propaganda" bobble heads Jean Schmidt (R-OH), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), George Radanovich (R-CA), Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Tim Walberg (R-MI) continue to parrot the false story of China drilling for oil off the Florida coast near Cuba.

Bush's stance that lifting the drilling ban will benefit gas prices is contrary to his own administration's Department of Energy report and even McCain's top advisor admits that there will be no immediate effect on prices.

Bad enough McSame doesn't have a real grasp on economy, too often he's just talking out of his cap.

Do you really want McMore of McSame?

GOP: I'm With...

Stupid:

Third Term McSame Agrees With Bush:

McCain in ‘05: I’m ‘totally in agreement’ with Bush on ‘the most important issues of the day.’

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is working hard to dispel the notion that his presidency would effectively constitute a third Bush term, saying recently that he has “disagreed strongly with the Bush administration” on Iraq. But McCain took a very different stance in June 2005... [Video at HuffPo]

Tim Russert: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I–the fact is that I’m different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

More fallout from NRCC embezzlement scandal:

House Republicans have had to deal with the nearly $2 million tab from its embezzlement scandal ($725,000 stolen by their former treasurer, and continued legal and accounting costs trying to sort out the mess), not to mention the severe public embarrassment which allows people like me to say, "Republicans run their committees the same way they run the country."

Morally Bankrupt:

In response to today's landmark Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, Lindsey Graham has decided he wants to amend the United State Constitution to strip it of any pesky kinds of civil rights protections that have existed since the Magna Carta. [snip]

Every member of the Congress that approved the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act, now correctly reversed by the Court, will have the moral stain of having been a party to it besmirching their careers and their legacies forever. History will be only slightly less unforgiving to the Congress which allowed the grave abuses of the Constitution by the Bush administration than it will be to Bush himself. So no member of the Senate should be quick to follow Graham further down that path to complete ignominy.

Pathological:

More of this sort of bluntness, please:

GOP claim about Chinese oil drilling off Cuba is untrue

"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.

Who's guilty of spouting this particular line of bull?

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain.

Surprise!

But guess what? It wasn't a lie, it was "faulty intelligence!"

Cheney quoted a column by George Will, who wrote last week that "drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

The article also catches House Minority Leader John Boehner -- whose otherworldly tan is itself rumored to be of offshore Chinese manufacture -- repeating this crap, as well as relative nobody Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA). It also reportedly appeared in an Investor's Business Daily editorial earlier this week. [snip]

Moral of the story: These guys will lie about absolutely anything. WMD. War and peace. POW rescues. The combat records of actual war heroes. Whether or not they marched with Martin Luther King. Everything.

And you can't "work out bipartisan compromise" with liars. Compromise requires at least two genuine positions to start with.

McSame Flip Flopping, again:

"But I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be."
[New Hampshire Town Hall, 06/12/08]:

"Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits."
[C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004]

Ok, you need more? You got it. Here is McCain from March of this year on at least partially privatizing Social Security:

"As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it – along the lines of what President Bush proposed."
[Wall Street Journal, 3/3/2008]

Once again, case closed. McCain has conveniently changed what he believes, because that's just what "straight-talking mavericks" do.

McFlip McFlop McSame = Third Term Bush

You know, lil duhbya, there is a difference between "looking" at intelligence and "reading" intelligence:

Bush says he's credible:

Iraq Report Undermines Bush’s Claim That He Is A ‘Credible’ Leader Because He ‘Reads The Intelligence’

Today, [Jun 5th, 2008] the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released the final two sections of its pre-war intelligence report. As Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said, the report concludes “that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”

. . . . .

“All of the intelligence I looked at…the Congress looked at, said the same thing,” Bush said in 2004. Unfortunately, it seems that Bush only selectively “looked at” the intelligence.

Richard Clarke (author of Your Government Failed You), on war mongers:

Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grieviously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.

McCain, not good for the environment:

McCain thinks funding the environment is too pricey, but he is willing to support the Iraq war at any cost.

McCain endorses illegal wiretapping:

Flip flopping McCain - against breaking the law, before he was for it:

Flip:

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, top adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said McCain believes that the Constitution gave President Bush the authority to wiretap Americans “without warrants,” bringing him “into closer alignment” with the Bush administration’s views of executive power.

Flop:

In December, McCain, when asked if he would authorize illegal wiretapping, said the President should not disobey "any law":

There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

. . . . .

I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.

Flip: So, what if illegal spying is against the law?

"...So there’s ambiguity about it. Let’s move forward."

McCain on balancing the budget:

McCain has gone from pushing a balanced budget by 2012, to a balanced budget by 2017, to a “who cares” approach.

. . . . .

So which budget plan is it? 2012? 2017? Or none at all? As Holtz-Eakin said in May, “You have to pay for that somehow or you are George Bush III.”

I'm rubber, you're glue:

McCain policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin — attempting to fight off the fact that McCain is running to continue President Bush’s key policies — ludicrously claimed that Barack Obama would be like President Bush on the economy. Obama is “dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything,” Holtz-Eakin said.

But even conservatives aren’t taking the bait on the new talking point. Reacting to Holtz-Eakin’s interview, conservative pundit Robert Novak said on Bloomberg TV:

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard! And I won’t even dignify how stupid it is.

Same Old McSame:

In a widely-ridiculed speech last Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) noted that “you will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy.” He added that he believes those comparisons are “false.”

But it seems that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), McCain’s chief surrogate and attack dog, disagrees.

George Stephanopoulos:

... Senator Graham, John McCain is calling for an extension or maybe enhancement of the Bush policies.

Lindsey Graham:

Yeah, absolutely.

Bush Won't Read McCellan's Book

Bush Refuses to Read McClellan’s Book, Calling It ‘A Book’

Puts Chances of Reading Book at Zero

From Andy Borowitz:

On a day when Washington was abuzz with the news that former White House spokesperson Scott McClellan had published a tell-all memoir, President George W. Bush offered his personal reason for not reading it.

“I have no intention of reading Scott McClellan’s book,” Mr. Bush told reporters, “because it’s a book.”

Mr. Bush said he was “surprised” that Mr. McClellan had written a book to criticize him because “if you’re trying to communicate some criticism to me, a book is pretty much the last place you’d put it.”

The president said that he thought the chances of his someday reading Mr. McClellan’s book were “zero,” adding, “If I didn’t read the Iraq Study Group’s report, I really don’t think I’m about to read Scott McClellan’s little book.”

McMore Of McSame Old McSame

McSame: John McCain Offers a Third Term of Bush

Progressive Media USA Research, McCain Source:

Fact Check Highlights

Bush Endorsed McCain For 2008

* Bush Said McCain Was Best to "Carry Forth His Agenda."

* President Bush: McCain Is "Not Going To Change When It Comes To Taking On The Enemy."

* McCain Said He Calls Bush Every Day To Remind Bush of His "Extreme Loyalty."

* Bush Said He Will Do Whatever It Takes For McCain To Win.

* Bush Said He "Looks Forward To Vigorously Campaigning" For McCain.

* McCain Is a "Foot Soldier Following Bush."

* Cheney Set To Headline Closed-Door Fundraiser For McCain's Victory Fund.

* McCain's Campaign Hired Bush-Cheney 2004 Communications Director.

McCain Supported Bush 100 Percent in 2008, 95 Percent in 2007

According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain supported President Bush a majority of the time--supporting Bush as much as 100 percent in 2008 and 95 percent in 2007. According to CQ, "CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents."

(CQ’s Presidential Support studies try to determine how often a legislator votes in line with the President’s position:

So, these studies only track votes when the President has an explicit, stated opinion on a bill.)

McCain/Bush Friendship Based on Issues

McCain Said Relationship With Bush Based On Shared Views On The Agenda.

Republicans Agree: McSame As Bush

* McCain's National Security Adviser Said McCain Would Continue Bush's Policies In Iraq.

* Lindsey Graham Couldn't Describe How McCain's Worldview Differed From Bush's.

* Chuck Hagel Refused To Endorse McCain Because He Represents a Continuation of Bush's Iraq Policies.

* President Bush: McCain Is "Not Going To Change When It Comes To Taking On The Enemy."

McSame On Economic Plan

* Like Bush, McCain's Economic Plan Is Centered On Tax Cuts.

* McCain Said The Bush Tax Cuts "Have To Be Made Permanent."

* McCain Proposed Corporate Tax Rate Cut.

* McCain Proposed A Freeze Of Discretionary Spending.

* McCain Advocated Free Trade, Criticized "Hid[ing] Behind Walls."

McSame On Health Care

* McCain's Plan "Would Seek To Lure Workers Away From Their Company Health Plans."

* McCain's "Move Away From Employer-Based Coverage" Resembles Bush's Failed Plan.

* McCain's Plan Would Force Patients To "Buy Health Insurance On Their Own."

* McCain Voted Against Providing Insurance For Millions Of Uninsured Children.

* McCain Supports Excluding Seniors From Prescription Drug Coverage.

McSame On Privatizing Social Security

* McCain Supports Privatization.

* McCain Was A "Big Booster" Of Bush's Social Security Privatization Plan.

* McCain Said, "Private Savings Accounts Work."

* McCain Defended Bush Plan, Said "Personal Savings Accounts Are Workable And Have Worked In Other Countries."

McSame On Eliminating The Right To Choose And Promising to Appoint Extreme Judges

* "Roe v. Wade Is A Flawed Decision That Must Be Overturned."

* McCain Promised to Appoint "Clones" Of Bush Nominees Alito And Roberts.

McSame On Siding With Big Oil

* McCain's Plan Gives Tax Breaks To Big Oil.

McSame On Education

* No Child Left Behind Is A "Major Milestone" And "An Accountability Act."

* McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Fully Funding No Child Left Behind.

__________

McSame refuses to respect, support and honor our troops:

C&L and many other sites fight everyday for the rights of our troops, their health care, benefits and the conditions of Walter Reed. And the best way I know how to fight for them is to never send them to war without a true cause and bring them home now so their families can see them alive and healthy. You are against Sen Webb’s GI Bill not because it doesn’t give them adequate compensation for their service, but as you say, it will lead to many more troops leaving the armed forces sooner...

Is that an honorable argument?

"And yet there are still those in the media that call McSame a Maverick. That horse was put out to pasture long ago. Oh, and since we know how much the aging Senator loves him some lobbyists", let's also mention McCain's ongoing lobbyist problems, and add more about the Great Company He Keeps, from the Can't Make This Stuff Up department.

Breaking news on Tuesday’s Countdown, as Keith Olbermann reveals that former Senator Phil Gramm, a general co-chair of Senator John McCain’s campaign, actually lobbied Congress on behalf of financial giant UBS to try and stop legislation aimed at installing industry regulations that could have prevented the current mortgage foreclosure crisis.

* * * * *

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s national campaign general co-chair was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy, federal records show."

* * * * *

"So while Gramm was advising McCain to let people lose their homes rather than get more favorable terms on their loans, he was active as a lobbyist for UBS, which had a LOT to gain.

* * * * *

"...to add more to the growing UBS/John McCain story, MarketPlace reports this morning that the bank that caters to the very wealthy has warned some of its employees not to travel to the U.S., for fear that they might be arrested.

A couple of weeks back, a UBS banker was indicted on tax evasion charges, after it was alleged that he helped an American real estate developer to avoid taxes. Apparently, this was no rogue employee."

More on McSame's Lobbyist problems...

Chris in Paris:
McCain's lobbyist problems continue - will Phil Gramm now resign?

Christy Hardin Smith:
McCain’s Cronies: Phil Gramm (R-Enron) And His UBS Lobbying Problem

This sounds like a whole lot of Big Trouble. America sure doesn't need McMore of McSame old McFailures.

just a Little Joke

Question: Why is George W. Bush glad that John McCain is the Republican nominee?



Answer: It makes him feel tall.

Betcha that John McCain tells Cindy to bag the heels from now on, too.

Meet Mr. McCain-- part I (the conservative Republican)

The media likes to harp on John McCain as some kind of a 'moderate' (not a conservative). And recently he has been only reluctantly accepted by many conservatives while others have continued to whine about his getting the nomination. They claim that because of his support and authorship of a few specific bills that McCain is 'not a true conservative.'

Well, they don't need to worry. He is. And trust me, by the time the election rolls around all or virtually all of the conservatives will be back on board. President Bush already is, and has been lavish in his praise of the man who gave his former rival, Bush, the notorious 'Hug' at the 2004 GOP convention:



Don't ever forget that hug, because it makes it clear like nothing else ever could who McCain's master is, and where his loyalty lies. The trick will be to get people who believe that McCain is some kind of a 'moderate' to realize that he isn't.

Start with the fact that McCain has a lifetime 82% rating from the American Conservative Union. This puts him much more in line with most Senate Republicans than it does with 'moderates.' McCain has a 100% anti-choice voting record in the Senate and uniformly supports any kind of a bill that opposes abortion. Of course hardcore conservatives like to harp on the fact that he hasn't supported amending the Constitution to make abortion illegal, but part of the reason is because McCain is smart enough to realize that such an amendment (just like an anti-gay marriage amendment) is a pipe dream that would never be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4 of the states, as required by law. So he instead pushes legislation to make it as restrictive as possible.

Further, when asked about Supreme Court nominees, McCain recently asserted his support of the Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice John Roberts. He disparaged Justice Antonin Scalia for 'wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.' This upset some talk show hosts but the truth of the matter is that if McCain appoints judges like John Roberts-- quiet conservatives who keep their conservatism hidden deep down in their vest pockets-- the result will be the same as if he appointed a loudmouth like Scalia. So look at what happens: John McCain is portrayed as a moderate, but the result if he is elected is that we will get more right-wing judges. For that matter, with four solid conservatives now on the Supreme Court, McCain could help achieve his anti-choice supporters biggest fantasies by appointing a fifth justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. And if he gets the chance, he will.

John McCain has long opposed what he sees as 'pork' spending. Of course most so-called 'pork' is money that is invested in projects, especially in rural areas, which help people and communities but might not be affordable without the federal support. Recently though he has in fact redoubled his attacks and suggested that he will if he is President simply veto bills that have 'pork' in them, regardless of whether they are worthwhile projects or not.

Now granted, one could ask the 'anti-pork' crusader whether President Bush should have vetoed his own bill that directed $10 million to create the William H. Rehnquist Center here in Arizona (memorializing another arch-conservative Supreme Court justice who McCain admires a great deal.) But certainly his promise to blanket veto spending on such projects is hardly 'moderate.' It could be justified as hard-nosed fiscal responsibility though, if it weren't for his stance on the Bush tax cuts. Though McCain, still angry over his 2000 loss to Bush opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he now supports making them permanent. And of course that will cost the government far more in revenue that the relative trifle he plans to save with his vetoes.

Health care? Well, just read what John McCain's own website says about it (if you dig deep enough and scroll down to near the bottom.)

Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families)

Now, the average family insurance policy now costs in excess of $12,000. So in other words, McCain plans to discourage your employer from continuing to offer you insurance, and replace it with a tax credit for less than half of what the premium is now (so if your employer pays half your premium now, then you will be $1,000 in the hole.) And of course if you or a family member has health issues like being a cancer survivor or having a chronic illness or disability then your premium will go much, much higher (if you can buy insurance at all once your employer quits covering you) but Mr. McCain's partial tax subsidy won't rise to cover it. So the bottom line is that the McCain plan will create more uninsured than there are now. Yup, that's what conservatives do too.

Above all, McCain is a strong conservative on foreign policy, especially the Iraq war. McCain is the chairman of the Board of Directors for the International Republican Insitute (IRI). The IRI is a para-governmental organization which was originally founded by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other conservatives during the Reagan administration to provide a counter to Jimmy Carter's work certifying foreign elections. It found a new lease on life during the Bush administration. Because it is not a governmental agency, the IRI can conduct foreign policy (including setting up elections and educating foreign voters and perhaps less laudible goals than that-- including spreading American-style conservatism) where direct involvement by the State Department could violate U.S. or foreign laws. A quick glance at the full membership of the Board of Directors shows that in addition to McCain, it includes Paul Bremer (the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the war), Bush I-era cronies Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, former GOP chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and three other sitting or former Congressmen or Senators (all Republicans) and various members of the military-industrial complex.

McCain voted enthusiastically for the AUMF in October 2002 and was a supporter of the 'surge' from its opening days. He has spared no expense, supporting close to a trillion dollars in new Iraq spending (all while grousing about a few million in 'pork'; well, McCain recently admitted that he didn't understand economics.) McCain recently said that he is willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (Yikes!) So it is obvious that on the Iraq war, a McCain administration would be another four years of the Bush administration.

Part of the appeal that John McCain has to independents and moderates is that they don't see him as being as 'bad' as other Republicans.

Well, he is every bit as bad. Maybe he can see the benefits of working with Democrats on a handful of issues that will get him a lot of press, but on the issues that count, he's still just as conservative. And like his 'huggy buddy' McCain gets stuck on an issue, and he is a stubborn jackass who won't change his mind even when everyone can see that he is wrong.

So don't be fooled by John McCain. He's a conservative. He's just a smart enough conservative that he knows how to play the media game and once in a while keep up appearances. But his supporters in Virginia who the other night when he finally won the primary broke into chants of, 'four more years,' know better. They are Bush backers, and this year McCain is their man.

Seven years of the Bush economy

Yesterday marked seven years since George W. Bush took office. And one year from today someone else will take over and inherit a far different country than the one that President Bush took over on January 20, 2001.

In Biblical times (and more recently as apprenticeships) seven years was the standard period of servitude, and after seven years it was long enough to assess whether someone had done a good job or a poor one.

I could do a very broad post, touching on everything from war to crime and academic performance, but I will limit this post to looking at that most basic of issue, the economy (which ultimately is what everything else sooner or later rides on).

The fact of the matter is that today, on the seventh anniversay of President Bush's inauguration, the Bush record on the economy is just not good. Some years have been better or worse but let's just look at the whole.

Taking a look at some numbers:

On January 20, 2001 the Dow stood at 10,587.60, so where it is today represents an average yearly growth rate of just over 2%. In other words, the average boring, conservative bond fund outperformed the market average.

Or better yet, invest in foreign funds:

On January 20, 2001 it cost $0.9400 to buy one euro. Today it costs $ 1.4482 to buy one euro.

George W. Bush has presided over the creation of a net eight million jobs in seven years. Which means he will have to create twelve million more just this year just to catch up with his predecessor. Put another way, if the economy adds 200,000 jobs in a month that is now considered good news, while it was considered a mediocre month during the Clinton years.

On January 20, 2001 the spot price for a barrel of crude was $25.98. That has practically quadrupled in seven years. And it is with the deepest irony that one remembers the response during the 2000 election season to criticism that George Bush and Dick Cheney were both oil men was that some on the right suggested that oil men would understand the industry and know how to keep down energy prices for the rest of us.

The national debt has increased from $5.8 trillion to almost nine trillion dollars.

It is true that Bush has one more year to serve. But that is not very promising, with the most optimistic outlook for this year being only that we avoid a recession.

Bush Threatens To Veto Troop Funding

Bush renews vow to veto Iraq timeline

As the Senate resumed debate Wednesday on a bill containing a spring 2008 timetable for bringing American troops home, Bush argued again that such a step would result in a needless delay of funds for troops. But Democrats are insisting that he'll have to accept some sort of timeline to get the money.

"Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after Bush's speech. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"

* * * * *

"If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible," Bush said.

* * * * *

"This Congress will hold him accountable for the conduct of this war and we will have legislation that will give him every dollar he asks for, for our troops and more, but with accountability," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Dems: Bush must accept Iraq timetable

"We would hope that the president understands how serious we are," said Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev., after the Senate voted to uphold a proposal in a war spending bill calling for the troop withdrawal.

* * * * *

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," said Hagel (R-Neb).

Comparing House and Senate Iraq bills

Comparing Iraq withdrawal measures

Bush Does Democrats

A sidebar to Barbi's post below. Notice the look of rapture on Rahm's face in the first photo.

He Keeps Going, And Going, And Going

Bush said lawmakers "have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."

Cheney used the same line today on Fox News.

And Digby says:

Oh George, shove it. Really.

There's the Murtha plan, the Biden plan, the Baker-Hamilton plan, the Levin-Reed plan --- and that's just off the top of my head.

There are plenty of plans, all of which Bush thinks are "flaming turds" because they don't allow him to pretend he is Winston Churchill now that he's completely screwed everything up --- as he always does.

Bush is only listening to Dick Cheney, nutball radio talk show hosts and neocon fantasists at this point because they continue to tell him that he is a glorious leader who is saving the world from the evil ones. He thinks he's Truman, which is really funny since Truman is known for his saying "the buck stops here" and Junior Codpiece has never taken responsibility for anything in his life.

There are plenty of plans, any of which are better than this completely absurd escalation that nobody in America or Iraq (except John McCain and the Last Honest Man) wants.

But no matter how many plans are put forth...the prez just keeps sending troops and sending troops.

From 60 Minutes clip, via Think Progress:

Q: If you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do.

BUSH: I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.

60 Minutes transcript of Bush interview:

Bush Going For Broke With Troop Surge...
President Has Made Up His Mind And Takes Full Responsibility

_____

He reminds me of the Energizer bunny.

Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap

The American people have had enough of Iraq. The polls show it.

Many Democrats who won this year had endorsed the Murtha plan for a staged withdrawl from Iraq.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released its recommendations and also called for a withdrawl.

Yet, just two weeks ago it began to be reported that the President wanted to propose a 'surge' in troop strength, and was opposed by Generals.

So now, the Generals appear to have flip-flopped and back Bush (well, the last General to publically oppose the President on troop levels, Eric Shinseki before the war started, was forced to leave the army. The lesson clearly has not been lost.)

To start with, his proposal to increase troop strength by 20,000 troops is stupid. But I actually don't think he is planning to. More on that later.

If we increased troops by 20,000 it would make no difference. Shinseki's recommendation in 2002 (based on a 1999 exercise which quantified it) was that 400,000 troops total (265,000 more than are there now) would be needed to prevent an insurgency. Adding what amounts to a spit in the bucket of 20,000 today won't stop it, because it would be hundreds of thousands too little, and several years too late.

And George Bush knows that. So do the generals. But that isn't really his plan.

He will say it is because he is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.

In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.

If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate. For example, in today's radio address Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney said that Democrats will oppose deploying any new troops there. Nothing at all about plans to withdraw or seek a political solution. So it appears, despite his line about seeking a 'new direction' (a politically meaningless catchword that can be applied to almost anything) that the good Congressman-elect is being roped into a plan to in effect debate in favor of continuing the President's current policy and stay in Iraq indefinitely.

We as Democrats should be firm on this:

1. The voters want us to get troops out of Iraq, not leave them there.

2. The Murtha plan is a militarily sound plan that spells out a path to withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.

3. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission (I.S.G.) studied all the problems of Iraq and concluded that withdrawl is the only realistic military option for the United States.

4. The United States and other countries in the region, as well as factions within Iraq need to work to find a political, not a military solution. Iraq's problems can only be solved by a political solution, not a solution imposed by military force.