Oy Gevalt!

"He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done."

-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Welcome to the madhouse. Absolute topsy-turvy chaos. Bush is irrelevant. McCain is irrelevant. Conservative Republicans are running wild like an uncontrollable flash mob. The Dow is in freefall. US lost $1.2 trillion in market value. The Nikkei plummeted 544 points on opening. House Minority Leader John Boehner blames Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for her "partisan" speech. John McCain blames Barack Obama. I'm thinking that I need to start looking for John Galt's hidden valley in Colorado. I hope it's not on a McCain property.

Oh, and McCain was all too happy to take the credit for "saving" the bailout... until the vote failed and the Dow took a death dive 777 points. "Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines. 'I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation.' McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up."

Well, sadly for McCain, it seems Obama's demeanor is actually um... gaining him points...Liz Sidoti of the AP weighs in with her analysis: "Barack Obama's calmly assured response to the economic crisis and solid debate performance have bolstered the view among voters that he is ready to be chief executive, a crucial threshold he needs to cross to win the presidency.

Bedfellows, bugaboos and bailouts

As usual, the New York Times comes up with a terrific graphic that pretty much gives you all you need to know about who voted "no" and where they come from. Scroll down to the recall, and note where the "no" voters' districts are, and then compare to this subprime meltdown and foreclosures map. I don't see as much correlation to "swing states" as others do. I think it's more a matter of how the bailout would play with your nearly-homeless constituency. On the hand, those voters don't have permanent addresses now and can be challenged at the polls, so who cares what they think?

In the accompanying article they say ominously, "The collapse of the proposed rescue plan for the teetering financial system was the product of a larger failure — of political leadership in Washington — at a moment when the world was looking to the United States to contain the cascading economic crisis." Great. The whole world was waiting for us and we screwed it up AGAIN.

So of course, like everyone else, I've been wondering about the behind-the-scenes dealing. Andrea Mitchell reports that Newt Gingrich may have been up to his old shenanigans (and Mike Barnicle hints perhaps "Turned-Him-into-a-Newt" is thinking about a 2012 Presidential campaign...?) but can we believe Andrea? I mean, she's obviously "in the tank" for Alan Greenspan...oo-oof. I still think that matchup is so weird. Even Ayn Rand called Greenspan "The Undertaker."

Man, I am so confused about this bailout bill. I'm American. Ordinarily, I don't pay attention to actual details with more than .05% of my brain. Usually, I can use the "Oh, I love/hate that movie critic" method. You know, "Mick LaSalle loves that movie, so I know I'm going to hate it..." So, call me knee-jerk, but that's how I generally grok political positions too: Bush is "ag'in" it? I'm for it. Newt Gingrich is for it? I'm against it. But this whole financial bailout issue has blown my logic circuits. Here's a sampling of what I've gathered so far about this bailout proposal:

For it:
George Bush
American Banking Association
Barney Frank (Rep D-MA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Paul Krugman
John McCain (Sen R-AZ)
Barack Obama (Sen D-IL)
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House D-CA)
Newt Gingrich

Against it:
Labor Unions
Conservative, free-market Club for Growth
Ultra-progressive grassroots MoveOn.org
Dennis Kucinich (Rep D-OH)
Sheila Jackson Lee (Rep D-TX)
John Boehner (House Republican leader R-OH)
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Moore
Newt Gingrich
I am so confused.
==============================
Where is this bill? Where's the text? [heavy sighing and eyerolling.] Aw dang. I'm going to have to actually read the thing, aren't I? Where are the Cliff Notes?

From Reuters, a summary of financial rescue legislation that circulated among lawmakers on Sunday:

SUMMARY OF THE "EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008"

1. Stabilizing the Economy: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.
2. Homeownership Preservation: EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans - many the result of predatory lending practices - wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.
3. Taxpayer Protection: Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street's mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program by charging a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions.
4. No Windfalls for Executives: Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits "golden parachutes" and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.
5. Strong Oversight: Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse.
   

Okay, I'm with you so far. What are the objections? 200 economists signed a letter outlining the following problems with the bailout bill:

• 1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise
• 2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
• 3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

Other objections to the bill:

• No enforcement provisions for the oversight group that would monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion
• No penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money. No salary caps for executives of firms that take taxpayer money
• Not enough protections for homeowners in this bill--it would not force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures
• Ambiguous language, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout. Vague language around taxpayers getting equity; my guess is that many firms would get taxpayer money without giving up equity.
• Automatic additional funding unless blocked by a supermajority. If this is a bipartisan solution, why not require affirmative Congressional action for additional funds?

===============================

Frankly, I'm exhausted. It's a good thing it's Rosh Hashanah. I need the time just to catch my breath! I'm also really tired of sorting through the lingo and the numbers and trying to wrap my brain around the whole enormity of the concept. So I have some proposals of my own.

Mary Ellen's Emergency Financial Language and Concept Stabilization Act

Section 1. ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CLARIFICATION: We shall no longer refer to 1,000,000,000 dollars as $1 billion. This word has been so casually tossed around that I believe the concept of a "billion" has become conflated with a "million" in many peoples' minds. Going forward, "billions" shall be called "thousand millions," so that we are all clear that a "billion" is a MUCH MUCH larger number than a "million."

Section 2. MEANINGLESS NAMES MAY NO LONGER BE BESTOWED UPON RIDICULOUS CONCEPTS: For example, "Credit Default Swaps", "Collateralized Debt Obligations." If the "thingie of value" that you are talking about is not actual paper money or coins, but is instead theoretical, then you must name it using words that I can understand. Conceptual thingies of value will now be termed "Woo-Woo Money."

Section 3. DON'T RUSH ME: If I need time and further explanation to fully understand what's going on, Congress, the Preident and any elected officials shall take HOWEVER MUCH TIME IT REQUIRES to explain it until I understand. All night if need be. And into Rosh Hashanah.

Some of the many cool interactive graphics I found at Portfolio.com on my way through this rant:

• How banks were crunched by the credit crisis
  
• Financial leverage explained
• What's a CDO?
  
• $700 thousand millions put into perspective
• Ballooning Executive Pay

============================

And now it's time for my daily "Sarah Palin Salute to Schadenfreude"

Katie Couric's ratings at CBS MUST be going up. This time, she gets Palin AND McCain -- and it's EVEN WORSE. McCain says, "But, look, I understand this day and age of "gotcha" journalism. Is that a pizza place?" A pizza place. See? He shows that he understands "gotcha" journalism by giving us a "gotcha" moment. I take it that they're going to keep going on Katie's show until Sarah correctly connects a subject with its appropriate predicate. Or at least until she can connect any subject and predicate, forget about the right ones.

So, apparently, Katie Couric has even more footage of Palin and she's holding out! Politico reports: "Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing. The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions. After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases. There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence." Oh COME ON! Free Sarah Palin!

And while you're thinking about how TOTALLY READY Sarah Palin is to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, consider Paul Krugman's 3 A.M. phone call scenario. "It's 3 a.m., a few months into 2009, and the phone in the White House rings. Several big hedge funds are about to fail, says the voice on the line, and there's likely to be chaos when the market opens. Whom do you trust to take that call?" Well, apparently you can't even trust Sarah Palin to order a cheesesteak.

Ruth Marcus at WaPo thinks maybe McCain should debate Palin. "McCain's fundamental argument in pursuit of the presidency is that he has the background to do the job. He made this point again and again Friday night. 'I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last 20-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment.'...And so therefore I picked a running mate who didn't have a passport two years ago? Asked about that by Katie Couric, Palin explained that 'I'm not one of those who maybe come from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduated college and their parents get them a passport and a backpack and say, "Go off and travel the world.'"' "

And now, a Sarah Palin Vote of No-Confidence Lightning Round (I am, indeed, including that Sleestack Ticket photo gratuitously, just to give Eric another laugh):

• David Frum, conservative columnist: "I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States...Dan Quayle never in his life has performed as badly as Sarah Palin in the last month."
• Jim Greer, the Republican chairman in Florida: "I think the Katie Couric interview shows that she needs to be briefed more on certain aspects."
  
• Ron Carey, chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party: "Thanks to the mainstream media, quite a low expectation has been created for her performance."
• Mike Murphy, former McCain adviser: "She has the opportunity to undo some of the damage with a very strong debate performance," he said. "That's plausible. We'll just have to wait and see."
• Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant: "I think they ought to toss her into the deep end from the outset; let her get it over quickly. Everything else after that is, you've seen the elephant."

Rebecca Traister at Salon and I agree: "I guess I'm one cold dame, because while Palin provokes many unpleasant emotions in me, I just can't seem to summon pity, affection or remorse...When you don't take your own career and reputation seriously enough to pause before striding onto a national stage and lying about your record of opposing a Bridge to Nowhere or using your special-needs child to garner the support of Americans in need of healthcare reform you don't support, I don't feel bad for you. When you don't have enough regard for your country or its politics to cram effectively for the test -- a test that helps determine whether or not you get to run that country and participate in its politics -- I don't feel bad for you....I don't want to be played by the girl-strings anymore. Shaking our heads and wringing our hands in sympathy with Sarah Palin is a disservice to every woman who has ever been unfairly dismissed based on her gender, because this is an utterly fair dismissal, based on an utter lack of ability and readiness. It's a disservice to minority populations of every stripe whose place in the political spectrum has been unfairly spotlighted as mere tokenism; it is a disservice to women throughout this country who have gone from watching a woman who -- love her or hate her -- was able to show us what female leadership could look like to squirming in front of their televisions as they watch the woman sent to replace her struggle to string a complete sentence together."

============================================

Please, God, have we turned a corner on this thing? Milena also sends this bit of happier news from the LA Times. THIS is what I wanted to hear: "Though more voters still see McCain as more knowledgeable, Obama was seen as more "presidential" by 46% of debate-watchers, compared with 33% for the Arizona senator. The difference is even more pronounced among debate-watchers who were not firmly committed to a candidate: 44% said they believed Obama looked more presidential, whereas 16% gave McCain the advantage. The Republican candidate also has lost ground on several measures of voter confidence, including trust. After the debate, 43% of registered voters who saw the event said Obama had more "honesty and integrity," compared with 34% for McCain. A week ago, the same voters were evenly divided, with each candidate winning the trust of 40% of respondents."

35 days to the election! Reminder again that time is running out--for many states, you must register to vote well in advance of the elections. RockTheVote's list of voter registration deadlines. Here are some upcoming dates--forward this on to your friends in the appropriate states (swing states in bold):

• THIS Saturday Oct 4: Alaska, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington
• NEXT Monday, Oct 6: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.
• NEXT Tuesday, Oct 7: Illinois, New Mexico
• NEXT Wednesday, Oct 8: Missouri
  

If you're voting absentee, you may have to get your ballot in weeks before the Nov 4th Election date. Declare Yourself has links to each state's voter information page where you can find out how to get your absentee ballot.