So now what?

After the House voted no on the bailout plan, and blame was passed around both sides of the aisle. New York Times Op-Ed columnist and economic professor Paul Krugman wrote on his blog:

Ok, we are a banana republic

House votes no. Rex Nutting has the best line: House to Wall Street: Drop Dead. He also correctly places the blame and/or credit with House Republicans. For reasons I’ve already explained, I don’t think the Dem leadership was in a position to craft a bill that would have achieved overwhelming Democratic support, so make or break was whether enough GOPers would sign on. They didn’t.

I assume Pelosi calls a new vote; but if it fails, then what? I guess write a bill that is actually, you know, a good plan, and try to pass it — though politically it might not make sense to try until after the election.

For now, I’m just going to quote myself:

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.
As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

_____________

With the Dow falling 777 points, this is not just about Wall St., but about Main St. It will effect retirement plans and student loans as well as credit lines that become available on "Main St." (Wolak)

Who won the first debate?

So who won the first presidential debate in your mind? Blog here. Three hours before the debate started look to the right or on the link this on-line page from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

Both John McCain and Barack Obama claimed victory in Friday's debate and are running ads touting their respective triumphs. Polling data suggests otherwise. A CBS poll using random sampling showed 39% saw Obama as the winner and 24% see McCain as the winner. An Inside Advantage poll reported a virtual tie, with 42% saying Obama won and 41% saying McCain won. An Opinion Research poll done for CNN gave Obama the win, 51% to 38%, with men splitting evenly and women going for Obama 2 to 1. However, the sample had a slight Democratic bias.

A poll on CNN's Website with 80,500 respondents gave Obama the victory 67% to 28%. An NBC survey, which drew 291,000 responses gave the victory to Obama 51% to 35%. Democracy Corps ran a 45-person focus group in St. Louis. The group was heavily tilted towards the Republicans, with 33% identifying as Republicans, 27% identifying as Democrats, and the rest independents. The group as a whole voted for Bush over Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004. Nevertheless, by a 38% to 27% margin, they felt that Obama won the debate.

In addition to all the polls reported yesterday yet another poll shows that Obama won the debate Friday. A Gallup poll showed that 46% of the people who watched it thought Obama won and 34% thought McCain won. When asked which candidate can best solve the country's problems, it is Obama 52% to 35%. Since this debate was largely about foreign policy, McCain's strongest suit, these results do not bode well for him in the coming debate, which is about domestic policy. But as the tracking polls start covering the post debate period, we will have a better idea of whether it changed how people will vote. After all, someone can say: "Obama is the better debater but I think McCain would be a better President." The next debate is between the Vice-Presidential nominees on Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.

www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Sep29.html

Blog here on your thoughts about Friday night.

Big Government is Back, To the Rescue?

Just when you thought the presidential campaign and its upcoming debates were the biggest show in town, the meltdown of some of the largest U.S. investment banks has stolen the spotlight…big time.Economists are still evaluating how we got into this current mess.

The bursting of the real estate bubble combined with over investment in risky mortgages mixed with a shortage of capital added to an enormous loss of confidence in what we thought were our steadiest financial institutions.

While most economists agree that government must play a role in helping to alleviate this banking mess, take caution! History has shown that making the wrong move can exaggerate an already bad economic problem.In the early 1930s after the historic crash on Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Board actually increased interest rates to get cash out of the system.

In retrospect, economists note that it was the worst decision at the worst time and probably exaggerated our dire economic situation at the beginning stages of the Great Depression.In this current scenario, the Feds have already orchestrated the mergers of huge institutions like Bank of America and Merril Lynch. It has effectively taken over mega mortgage guarantors Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and infused capital into the struggling AIG, one of the world’s largest insurers.

Now comes a plan from President Bush that would give the Treasury Department the power (and $700 billion) to buy bad-mortgage assets to essentially begin bailing financial institutions out of the mess they created.Ardent free-marketers gasp at the scope of this government intervention and the reality that such a bailout could inflate our national debt to $11.3 trillion. Liberal critics contend that these large government bailouts (like the 1980s bailouts of hundreds of mismanaged Savings and Loan at the cost of up to $500 billion) are just corporate welfare that do little to address the needs of common investors.Congress is filled with representatives of both these perspectives plus a whole lot of opinions in between. Capitol Hill will certainly be buzzing this week as the Democratic majorities of both chambers decide just how to deal with the bold plan put forth by a Republican President with abysmal approval ratings.

Whatever their answer, rest assured that history and the markets will judge just how well—or how poorly-- government was able to intervene in this massive financial mess.

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS 2 School have their take on Government and Free Markets.

VIDEO: Government And Free Markets

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria reports on how government needs to be interventionist in markets that cannot be totally (or almost) free of regulation. "If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia. The real trick is to craft good regulations that allow markets to work well. No regulatory structure will be perfect, none will eliminate risk, nor should they. At best they can tame the wildest gyrations of the market economy while maintaining its efficiency," Zakaria writes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160068?tid=relatedcl

We put government regulation is business on the political spectrum, (liberal v. conservative), but liberal publication like The Nation and conservative magazines like US News & World Report are expressing concern. This is all the more reason that can be made for "The Real American Poltical Spectrum," where the question of this government intervention will be more on the Economic Eltist or Populist position.

So far the populists in polls don't like it, but will they need it if it has a medicine that helps heal all?

Politics is Easy, Governing is Hard

Two days after his administration announced a $700 billion bailout policy for Wall St. banks burrdened by the current mortgage crisis, President George W. Bush on Wednesday said the United States was in a serious financial crisis as he tried to convince Americans to support a $700 billion financial rescue plan.

"We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis and the federal government is responding with decisive action," Bush said in a televised national address.

Bush called for non-partisan support for a plan that have polls saying the public is leary of. (See Big Government Post above). Many questions face us in this many governing and politics face us as we examine what's going on.

First, the proposed policy plan, with AP gov't. terminology.

Question: What is the difference between fiscal and monetary policy?

Answer: Fiscal = budetary choices of taxing and spending

Monetary = federal reserve decisions on interest rates and monetary supply.

So...The bailout plan proposed, but likely to change as it met resistance in Congress, by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would be a fiscal policy. Aside from Paulson was Fed. Chairman Ben Bernacke. If the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates or increases money money in cirrculation, it would be a monetary move.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/risky-business/2008/09/24/the-bailout-plan-hank-paulson-and-ben-bernankes-bogus-journey.html

Meanwhile, the Politics? With the first presidential debate scheduled for Friday, John McCain wants a postponement. Is that because he wants to get back to Capitol Hill to govern (hasn't been there for many key votes like the GI-Bill this campaign season) or because he is playing politics?

http://www.0telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3075493/John-McCain-wants-to-postpone-presidential-debate-with-Barack-Obama.html

Other questions, can a lame duck president, with an approval rating of 19 percent, get Congress to get behind his plan? And, how much can a president really do about the economy, anyway?

This is a man's world

But do women make better leaders?

JOHN MCCAIN'S choice of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate has brought the question of gender back into the American presidential race. The Republicans hope that Ms Palin, the governor of Alaska and a self-dubbed “hockey-mom”, will sway disillusioned supporters of Hillary Clinton as well as independent voters. In a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, Americans say that they think women are more likely to have the qualities needed to make a good leader. In the end, however, more would still opt for a man in charge.

http://people-press.org/

By the way, what did you think of Palin's speech Wednesday night? My quick analysis, hard-hitting on Obama (a recent chariteristic of VP choices), nothing said about "women's issues" and light on any new Republican policies. Maybe the best line of the night came when she contrasted Obama with McCain, "who has built a career about bringing change."

Counting on Levee Luck?

While most of the afternoon Monday had it looking like New Orleans may have dodged major damage from Hurricane Gustav, this is still a developing story. Three years ago, it wasn't until a day after Katrina that the levees broke.

Ellen Livingston, on her blog teachingthelevees.org, writes:

"It is sobering to think that decisions already made will make the difference between life and death in the coming days. On the surface, things do seem different and at least some of the lessons of Katrina learned. We are already seeing what appears to be a well coordinated evacuation effort, with busloads of residents being whisked away to higher ground from all over the Gulf Coast. I keep hearing the word “contraflow” on news coverage — a word I don’t recall hearing three years ago — meaning that every available lane of traffic out of New Orleans has been re-routed to help with the evacuation. Mayor Ray Nagin has told residents in no uncertain terms to flee the “mother of all storms.”

As I watch television from my home in suburban New York, I can tune in to a channel dedicated to evacuation instructions for Gulf Coast residents. It posts maps of evacuation routes and lists of pick-up points for residents of every Gulf Coast county.

Only time will tell what Gustav will leave in its wake. As I speak, Florida Governor Charlie Crist is on CNN explaining that “we have learned from our mistakes of the past.” All most of us can do at this point is hope so — and be ready to do our own part to help the people of the Gulf Coast if we are needed."

Here's hoping and praying that the levees will hold, but it is an appropriate time to revisit a Political Warrior from last November entited "AP Students Can Take On An Army."

Linked here is who a group of Louisiana AP Government Students are battling for their right to free speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/corps.html

From the "Teaching the Levees.org" blog here is the story of the PSA Students ran and posted on YouTube and Levees.org that has been taken down (or has it?) by a "cease and desist" letter written by lawyers for the Army Corps of Engineers.

_______________

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s_ezG_ahQOw

"Why Levees.org removed PSA from YouTube"

Levees.Org was served an order to Cease and Desist from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on November 10, 2007. We were ordered to remove our funny student-made Public Service Announcement (PSA) from YouTube. If we refused, the ASCE promised “appropriate legal action.”

We stand behind every word of our PSA. But had we fired back with a rejection of the Cease and Desist, ASCE would likely have sued Levees.org not in Louisiana, but rather in Virginia where they are based. In that forum, it would have been difficult and expensive to find legal representation. Levees.Org does not possibly have the personnel, the resources nor the scope to take on a legal battle with a large powerful organization such as the ASCE.

Further, Levees.Org in no way wanted to bring harm to Newman school who was copied on the Cease and Desist.

So we removed our PSA video from YouTube late Tuesday night Nov 13, when the webmaster, my 17 year old son returned home from his State Cross Country meet.

Sandy Rosenthal, Exec Director, Levees.Org

_______________

By the way, cease and desist is is a legal term used primarily in the United States [citation needed] which essentially means "to halt" or "to end" an action ("cease") and to refrain from doing it again in the future ("desist"). The recipient of the cease-and-desist may be an individual or an organization.

The term is used in two different contexts. A cease-and-desist order can be issued by a judge or government authority, and has a well-defined legal meaning. In contrast, a cease-and-desist letter can be sent by anyone, although typically they are drafted by a lawyer.

________________

Full blogging coverage of the fansinating story of the power of students and the constitutional right to get the words out can be found here:

http://www.teachingthelevees.org/

Sarah Palin: McCain's Folly?

John McCain’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin is not the first time folly was attributed to an Alaskan pursuit. Alaska, in our eyes, has always been about folly. Originally purchased from the Russians back in 1867, Alaska was quickly labeled “Seward’s Folly” after the Secretary of State who negotiated the impractical real estate deal. And then, as argued by many, there is the folly of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Alaska and folly seem to go together.

What is folly?

fol·ly n

1. thoughtlessness, recklessness, or thoughtless or reckless behavior
2. a thoughtless or reckless act or idea (often used in the plural)
3. eccentric or overelaborate design, for decorative rather than practical purposes

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

Accordingly, the McCain narrative seems to enjoy folly. His reckless temperament is perceived by some a plus. His maverick stance, at the same time both loyal and combative, is a critical part of his campaign message. Somehow a Romney pick may have surprised more. It would have been too predictable. It would have contradicted McCain’s folly.

Will voters, however, praise his folly?

the question many are asking is “can we afford to have a VP with Palin’s lackluster credentials a heartbeat away” from the presidency?

Gazing through the following list might help to answer that question. Do you recognize any of them?

Elbridge Gerry, Daniel D. Tompkins, Richard M. Johnson, George M. Dallas, William R. King, Hannibal Hamlin, Schuyler Colfax, Thomas A. Hendricks, Levi P. Morton, Charles W. Fairbanks, Charles G. Dawes, John Nance Garner, Alben W. Barkley.

Of course these are former Vice Presidents of the United States. They help us understand what folly really means. The real folly is that we pay so much attention to the VP picks in the first place. Whether it is Joe Biden or Sarah Palin, do not expect these VP candidates to make much difference now or later.

John McCain’s discovery in Alaska is not the only place we can find folly.
________________

Breaking news on Monday, Palin confirmed her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Both McCain and Obama found common ground that Bristol Palin's pregnancy should be "off-limits."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/rnc/1138831,CST-NWS-react01web.article

Do you agree? Is Palin's daughter and her pregnacy relevant to the campaign?

Convention Comentary

Barack Obama's acceptance speech in front of 84,000 in Denver last week was historic. But will it give him a bump in the polls? And how will the RNC measure up as its opening was taking a back seat to developments with Hurricane Gustav?

Here, with the help of the 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School is a convention primer, just in time to view the GOP in Minneapolis and for use in breaking down last week's DNC:

There is no better show of democracy’s promise then our quadrennial political circus commonly known as the National Party Conventions. These conventions come with a cast of characters and attractions larger than life as the major political parties try to assemble tents big enough to host a wide collection of November voters. Each of these conventions stages three rings of political theater that exhibit important lessons to our civic experience: democratization, nomination and celebration.

VIDEO: CNN's Anderson Cooper On The Media
VIDEO: Political Theater In Denver
VIDEO: On The Floor Of The Convention
VIDEO: Stiff Security In Denver
VIDEO: Vast Variety Under Dems' Big Tent

Democratization
Despite a Constitution committed to the consent of the governed, our early elections were designed for and by a political aristocracy. It was a one ring circus lodged in a smoke-filled room. The party leaders both chose the nominees and voted for them in the elections. We the people could only hope the elections were in our best interests since few participated and the Ringmaster was not one of us. This soon changed.

As free citizens, we demanded more. In addition to gaining the vote, we wanted a role in selecting our candidates as well. And we did it all in the big top. The National Party Conventions were set up to allow direct representatives of the people, delegates, to pick the respective presidential candidates. The delegates became the roadies setting up for democracy’s greatest traveling show and one of our great choosing days.

After the turmoil of the Democrat’s 1968 convention, the McGovern Commission assured that Democratic delegates reflected diversity across all demographic spectrums. The Republican delegates, less concerned about uniting diverse factions under a big tent, appeared to be more exclusive but still took measures to empower grassroots party members at their conventions. Thus, the National Party Conventions became living testaments to the internal democratization of our political process.

Nomination
More than a display of democracy’s expanding capabilities, the National Party Conventions perform death defying acts. The conventions are the finale of the first act in the presidential campaign as the delegates at this show must finally choose the nominee for president of their party.

Attracting the nomination of one’s political party is a notable feat and a giant first step in winning a general election. After a long and arduous journey through state primaries and caucuses, the delegates once and for all make their choice. But this has not always been easy. In 1924, it took Democratic delegates 103 ballots to finally settle on Dark Horse candidate John W. Davis.

Today these conventions appear more like the anticipation of the human cannonball. On paper it is an extraordinary stunt, but in reality…the outcome is virtually certain.

These party conventions must also walk a careful tightrope when writing their respective platform positions.

The platform is where the party delegates stake their claim to party priorities. The planks of the platform will be the issues on which the party and its candidates will run. They are the cotton candy of a campaign.

In some years sticky debates ensue. Back in 1968, Democrats fought over their position on Vietnam. In Chicago that year, “the whole world was watching” the greatest show on earth. Platforms provide a foretaste to a political agenda one could expect when electing a candidate. Although these national party conventions may include acts which you have already seen with an outcome you already anticipate, they are essential to a process whereby we choose our “last best hope.” Everybody loves a good circus.

Celebration
Beyond putting democracy on display and nominating a candidate, the third and final ring to this political circus involves nothing more and nothing less than a national celebration. These are political parties after all, and you cannot do the political without having a party.

The grandstands are full. There is loud music and plenty of carefully planned eye candy. Animals abound everywhere, Republicans preferring elephants and Democrats donkeys. Party leaders, fat cats and celebrities fill the big top. There are balloons. The message is simple, join our fun.

Four nights of television coverage mutate into one long political ad. The lion tamer to this political uproar is the national media. Whipping up trouble where they can while sitting down with the wild and unruly kings of the jungle their goal.

But the TV coverage now just scratches the surface as hopes of higher ratings becomes the quadrennial sport.

The ratings have fallen as the drama of the three rings has fallen prey to other amusements and pastimes. Gavel to gavel coverage has been supplanted by highlight reels and sound bites. Subsequently the National Party Conventions have become tightly scripted pseudo events which in the end reveal little while inspiring fewer and fewer viewers. These events were once a national showcase, a spring board toward the general election. Now the party and its candidates, at best, can hope for a bump. Still we celebrate in the arena.

Grand Finale
The National Party Conventions still exhibit three important lessons to our civic experience: democratization, nomination and celebration. They signal that soon we the people will have another chance to select one of us to be the ultimate Ringmaster.

The campaign has always been about poetry. Of this spectacular event Walt Whitman wrote: “If I should need to name, O Western World, your powerfulest scene and show, . . . the quadrennial choosing.”

National Party Conventions are more than ballyhoo, they are rituals that truly matter. The Romans had their bread and circuses. Our grandstand, however, has no reserved seating only general admission. The big prize from this political arcade is nothing more and nothing less than the leader of the free world.

The National Party Conventions are democracy’s greatest show on earth.