Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts

Sunday, November 7, 2010

 McConnell says banning 'earmarks' is complicated 


 McConnell says banning 'earmarks' is complicated 

- It's not complicated at all if you interested in doing the people's work.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Bush Wall Street Bailout will Cost U.S. $1 Trillion

While most Americans are left to fend for themselves after the current financial collapse, powerful Wall Street investment bankers and big business get saved. This proves once and for all that a government that is supposed to represent us doesn't. And despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the corporations aren't against socialism as long as they are the beneficiaries.

FEDERAL OFFICIALS and congressional leaders will hash out a bailout of the nation's financial system this weekend that, with measures already taken, could add $1 trillion to the national debt, by some estimates.

The plan, under which the government would buy defaulted mortgages from distressed lending institutions, is intended to help prevent a financial services industry meltdown, improve the availability of credit and stave off further deterioration of the overall economy.

"This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Friday.

Paulson would only say that the cost of the rescue plan could run into the hundreds of billions. Some in Congress and on Wall Street are concerned that the new plan and other recent financial industry rescues could add alarmingly to the national debt - now $9.7 trillion.

We have to pay for the excesses of the financial industry and the failure of the lap-dogs-of business to regulate them.
Sen. Richard Shelby, the senior Republican member of the Banking Committee, talked about the overall pricetag this morning on ABC's Good Morning America.

"I figure it'll be at least a half a trillion," Shelby says. "But when you look at what the Fed has already done, and the extension of power to Treasury to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I believe we're talking about a trillion dollars."

But it is not clear whether the "rescue plan" will even work. Remember how the government response to the housing collapse was to give the public a tax rebate check. That obviously didn't amount to much while driving up the debt/deficit even further. This from a British perspective.
This is what we might call the $1trillion question. That's $1,000,000,000,000, by the way. It is a little like surgery. The US government has amputated the gangrenous leg of the banking system to save the patient. But it is now preparing to graft the infected limb on to the body politic of America. The US taxpayers will be lucky if they do not feel distinctly unwell as a result of this little experiment.

The truth is that simply buying the banks' worthless securities has been an option, if an unpalatable one, for the authorities since the credit crunch began a year ago. All the plans to lend against these assets, such as the Bank of England's Special Liquidity Scheme, and other "injections of liquidity", were temporary solutions, born out of a hope, if not an expectation, that the crisis would not be prolonged.

We know better now. What the American authorities have done is the only sure way to protect the banking system against further destabilisation. Short-selling or not, left to their own devices, the markets would sooner or later force more banks into the arms of the taxpayer anyhow. It is a sad day when hard-pressed citizens find themselves subsidising private banks for their stupid mistakes. But that is what's happening in the US, and it will surely be done here. The Bank of England hates the notion; but Gordon Brown may well feel that he has no choice.

So for the banks and their shareholders and staff, the US rescue plan is already working, and it will save the wider economy from yet more damage. It is less clear whether it will end the credit crisis or preserve America's fast disappearing economic hegemony.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Lobbyists Find More Ways to Bond with Lawmakers

The best government money can buy. And lobbyists don't represent us. It is why We The People are not charge, as it should be:

Most of the thousands of lobbyists work across the city, in and around K Street. In the past decade, 18 lobbying firms, corporations and labor unions have purchased town houses or leased office space near the Capitol, joining more than a dozen others that had operated there for years, according to real estate records.

Despite a strict new ban on gifts to lawmakers, lobbyists routinely use these prime locations to legally wine and dine members of Congress while helping them to raise money, campaign records show. The lawmakers get a venue that is often free or low-cost, a short jaunt from the Capitol. The lobbyists get precious uninterrupted moments with lawmakers — the sort of money-fueled proximity the new lobbying law was designed to curtail. The public seldom learns what happens there because the law doesn't always require fundraising details to be reported.

"It's a nice added bonus to say, 'Hey, we're going to host it at our house,'" said Jeffrey Shoaf, chief lobbyist of the Associated General Contractors of America, which opened its doors for nine fundraisers — and others that he says went undisclosed — last year at its redbrick town house two blocks from the Capitol.

The receptions, which can range from small breakfast meetings of five to large catered parties of 100 or so, are only a sliver of the fundraising universe.

Even so, they illustrate that lawmakers still are allowed to accept valuable favors from special interests willing to pay for access, despite promises by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers that the restrictions on gifts and trips would "break the link between lobbyists and legislators."

The role of lobbyists in fundraisers wasn't addressed in the lobbying law signed last September. As long as they don't exceed the federal cap on campaign donations — $10,000 per two-year election cycle for political action committees — lobbyists can underwrite an event for a favored senator or representative at a resort, on a golf trip or at their town house.

USA TODAY counted more than 400 congressional fundraisers at lobbyist-, corporate- or labor-owned Capitol Hill facilities last year through November, benefiting 214 lawmakers — 40% of Congress. Those numbers, based on invitations, interviews and Federal Election Commission records, capture only part of the total because many events go undisclosed. The figures don't include fundraisers hosted by lobbyists at their K Street offices, which are subject to the same rules but don't offer similarly convenient geography. USA TODAY also found examples of lawmakers helping the interests of the lobbyists who hosted them.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

House Fails to Override Health Bill Veto

This demonstrates once and for all Bush's lack of concern for the people of America:

For the second time in three months, the House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would greatly increase spending on a popular children's health insurance program.

Democratic leaders fell 15 votes shy of obtaining the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The final vote was 260-152, with 42 Republicans siding with Democrats.

The result was expected, even as override supporters pointed to the slowing economy as another reason to spend another $35 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program over the next five years.

[...]The legislation that Bush vetoed would have increased enrollment in the children's health program from 6 million to 10 million over the coming five years. The revenue needed for that enrollment increase would come from a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, as well as comparable tax increases on other tobacco products.

[...]The president's second veto occurred in December. He said the bill encouraged too many families to replace private insurance with government-subsidized health coverage. He vetoed a similar bill in October. Democratic leaders then fell 13 votes short in their attempt to override that particular veto, so they actually lost ground Wednesday.

The children's health program serves families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.