Posts tagged ‘pelosi’
A quick break from my Federalist Papers to review a children’s biography on none other than . . . Nancy Pelosi. I could not help myself from checking out to read myself. I am amazed at all these biographies that are popping up on the current politicians. There are tons of books on Barack and Michelle Obama already. These would not even cover his presidency. He has not done anything yet. Why not wait until he has actually been in office for a period of time to discuss his career? I never got around to posting this picture from the bookstore the day of the inauguration there were so many different biographies out for Obama. Remember, this was also around Lincoln’s birthday celebration this year too and there was no big display about him.
I was shocked and awed that there was even a biography about Pelosi. In case you had not followed any of my previous posts, I am not what I would call a fan. The book is titles, Political Profiles – Nancy Pelosi by Sandra H. Shichtman. The publisher also has titles for the following: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I get that she is the first woman speaker of the house, (which actually frightens me a good bit that she is third in line for chain of command) so maybe that is why she has a children’s biography. But here is what I learned:
Nancy’s dad was a 5 term congressman and three term mayor. It clearly defined her father as a New Deal Democrat under FDR, because they “believed that the government should help people who needed it.”
The most notable thing in the book to me just confirmed what I have always believed Nancy can not be bi-partisan. It is not part of her, it is not in her blood. She just can’t do it. There is a story of a worker for the GOP giving 7 year old Nancy a toy elephant at a polling location. Nancy gave it right back to the man and when she was asked about it now . . . “He thinks I don’t know what this is. I was offended. In our family it was about whose side you are on; the whole idea of working for families and the opportunity they had.” It goes on to say how even when she was young Nancy knew that the Democratic Party was her party. (please note the italics on her are taken directly from the text, not from me to imply spoken language.)
So her whole family was in politics, she worked in politics her whole life helping promote other candidates, etc. Then when her own children were grown she ran for office the first time. This was in 1987. Would just like to remind people that she has been voted in since then. You keep sending her back. Nancy is very anti-Bush to put it nicely. She has had nothing good to say about him and in act has been pretty nasty. I had never heard this fine quote of hers, “President Bush in an incompetent leader. In fact, he’s not a leader . . He’s a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subject he has to decide on.” Nice Nancy.
So I gave you what I saw as some major points in the biography. It does chronicle what her different positions are and what she has “done” in office. I use that a bit loosely as I do not agree with ANY of her viewpoints. In fact I have not come up with one thing that she supports that I agree with. I will have to keep looking. I don’t think she can move to the center. Growing up with a father who is very pro New Deal I am not surprised at all at Pelosi’s quick leap into promoting other New Deal type initiatives. Even though historians and economists all say that the New Deal actually prolonged the depression rather than actually helping. Frankly I think we are recreating the exact same thing. The Depression ended when the war began.
So maybe it was really the Democrat Retreat but it was a big love fest for Obama and even Pelosi. Man, she has him really into her. But I digress. So Obama took his first trip on Air Force One to go speak at the Democrats Annual retreat. His speech was a massive cheerleading, campaign style speech touting the benefits and need for the bill affectionately know by many as Porkulous or Spendulous. One of his key points being that the American people want this. This seems to be just a diversion from actual facts as seen in polls mentioned below:
The latest survey shows that only 37% of Americans favor the current bill. Two weeks ago, the support was at 45% and last week it was at 42%. That’s an eight point drop in just two weeks. The most interesting numbers are among the “independent” voters, who oppose the bill by a full 50% and favor it by only 27%. Furthermore, overall opposition to the bill has gone from 34% two weeks ago to 43% today – an increase of nine percent. For the first time, more Americans oppose the Democrats’ pork-laden vote-buying bill than favor it. – Obama stated in his speech that there is a lack of earmarks in the bill, well that is only partly the case. The WHOLE bill seems to be one giant earmark being more of a Christmas wish list for the Democrats.
The Rasmussen poll also showed that more Americans favor a tax cut-only bill than favor what the Democrats have proposed. Such a bill enjoys a 45% approval to a disapproval of only 34%. Among “independents”, those numbers are 46% approval and 35% disapproval. Only Democrats still overwhelmingly approve of the Democrats’ attempt to load us and our children up with a trillion dollars’ worth of debt.
Supporting tax cuts is massive. Fifty-seven percent believe that tax cuts help the economy while only 17% believe they hurt. About the same number of people (56%) believe that they pay more than their fair share of taxes.
Here is a link to current stimulus information and is constantly updated.
The text of Obama’s campaign style speech is below, in case you don’t feel inclined to watch the video. Not all the youtube videos included the praise and adoration of Pelosi and her cronies at the beginning either. I would also point out that when it came time to move onto the question and answer sessions – cameras were turned off. Transparent? No. Curious? Yes.
It’s great to be here with so many friends. I’m glad to see the House Democratic Caucus is getting by just fine without my Chief of Staff. I want to thank John Larson for inviting me here tonight. This is John’s first conference as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, so we’re both new at this.
I want to acknowledge the great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has proven to be an extraordinary leader for the American people. I want to thank Nancy, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and the entire caucus for your hard work in passing an economic recovery plan that is so desperately needed for our country.
You acted with a discipline that matches the urgency and gravity of the crisis we face. Because you know what’s at stake. Every weekend you go home to your districts and you see factories that are closing and small businesses shutting their doors. You hear from families losing their homes; students that can’t pay tuition; seniors who worry about whether they can retire with dignity, or see their kids and grandkids lead the better life that must be America’s promise.
So you went to work, and you did your job. For that, you have my appreciation and admiration. As we meet here tonight, we know there is more work to be done. The Senate is still acting. And after it has its final vote, we will still need to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills. I urge you to complete that work without delay.
Look, I value the constructive criticism and healthy debate that is a foundation of American democracy. I don’t think any of us have cornered the market on wisdom, or that good ideas are the province of any party. The American people know that our challenges are great. They’re not expecting Democratic solutions or Republican solutions – they want American solutions. And I have said that to those who have criticized the plan.
But what I have also said is – don’t come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis.
We’re not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that in eight short years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can’t embrace the losing formula that offers more tax cuts as the only answer to every problem we face, while ignoring critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, the soaring cost of health care, failing schools and crumbling bridges, roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV – if you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction.
The American people are watching. They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay and distractions. They did not vote for the false theories of the past. They did not vote for the status quo – they sent us here to bring change, and we owe it to them to act. This is the moment for leadership that matches the great test of our time.
If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Home will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction.
This isn’t some abstract debate. Last week, we learned that many of America’s largest corporations are planning to layoff tens off tens of thousands of workers. Today, we learned that last week, the number of new unemployment claims jumped to 626,000. And tomorrow, we’re expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs we lost last year.
For you, those aren’t statistics. They are constituents you know and families that you care about. Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude deserves the scrutiny that it’s received, and you will get another chance to vote for this bill in the days to come. But I urge all of us to not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right.
So just as past generations of Americans have done in trying times, we can and must turn this moment of challenge into one of opportunity. The plan that you’ve passed has at its core a simple idea: let’s put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done.
This plan will save or create over three million jobs – almost all of them in the private sector.
This plan will put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges; our dangerously deficient dams and levees.
This plan will put people to work modernizing our health care system, not only saving us billions of dollars, but countless lives.
This plan will put people to work renovating more than 10,000 schools, giving millions of children the chance to learn in 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs – and to all the scientists in the room today, you know what that means for America’s future.
This plan will provide sensible tax relief for the struggling middle-class, unemployment insurance and continued health care coverage for those who’ve lost their jobs, and it will help prevent our states and local communities from laying off firefighters, teachers, and police.
Finally, this plan will begin to end the tyranny of oil in our time. It doubles our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels in three years. It saves taxpayers billions of dollars by making federal buildings more energy efficient, and it saves the average working family hundreds on their energy bills. After decades of empty rhetoric, that is the down payment that we need on energy independence.
You know, there’s a lot about running for President that is difficult – I don’t miss sleeping in a different bed every night, or not seeing my kids as much as I’d like. But the best thing about being a candidate is that you get to see the country, and you get to know the character of the American people.
Over the last two years, I visited almost all fifty states. I’ve been in so many of your districts. I’ve passed through towns and cities, farms and factories. I know that people are hurting. I’ve heard their stories, and I’ve sensed their deep frustration. But I also know that these struggles have not diminished the strength and decency of the American people.
We hold within our hands the capacity to do great things on their behalf. It starts with this economic recovery plan. And soon, we will take on big issues like addressing the foreclosure issue, passing a budget, tackling our fiscal problems, fixing financial regulation and securing our country. We must not approach these challenges as Democrats – we must overcome them as Americans. That is why we must work in a serious, substantive, and civil way to build bipartisan support for action.
I promise you that my door is open, and my Administration will consult closely with you – the peoples’ representatives – as we take on pressing priorities like energy and health care; education and infrastructure.
Already, you have made a difference. I’m pleased that in my very first days in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons. I signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to 11 million children, and to make a down payment on comprehensive health care reform. I know it wasn’t easy – it was a long time coming, and I appreciate your hard work over several years on behalf of America’s children.
Tonight, I am confident that if we continue to work together, we can fulfill the promise of health care that is affordable for all Americans. We can create that new energy economy. We can provide a world-class education for our kids. We can unleash the talent, and innovation of the American people to compete in the 21st century. We can do all of that.
Now, we have a choice to make. Future generations will look back, and they will ask what we did when we confronted this crisis. What will they say?
Will they say that – once again – we failed to make the tough choices that lead to progress? Or will they say that this was the time that we came together, that we found our stake in one another as Americans, and that we voted for bold and aggressive action?
Together, we hold in our hands enormous responsibility. We also have an enormous opportunity.
We can write that next great chapter in American history. If we stay focused on the big picture; if we never forget the people who we are fighting for; if we represent the strength and dignity of the American people, then I know we can answer’s history’s call and renew America’s promise.
So if I was not sure before, post from a few days ago where Pelosi said that Republicans across the country actually support the massive obsurd bailout bill, well – NOW I am sure the lady is looney.
At a briefing with Washington reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked if pushing that stimulus package for signing-in time for Presidents Day was perhaps rushing things a bit. The California representative took her recession anthem to a thoroughly depressing, ridiculous new level.
She predicted that if legislators didn’t hurry with the plan, more Americans would lose their jobs than there are Americans — 500 million. (Listen for yourself on the video below.) “I don’t think we can go fast enough,” she added.
According to the Census Bureau’s Population Clock, total U.S. population this afternoon is coming up on 306.8 million. Meaning that without the Great Change Agent’s economic plans, unborn generations of fellow citizens already have hopeless lives laid out for them even before their conception.
Please fellow citizens of California – let’s get this woman out of office. Even the Democrats could find a better person to be the Speaker of the House. I mean really. She is nutty.
There have been some crazy decisions being made over in the White House these days.
The ridiculous bailout bill passed the House. But kudos to ALL the Republicans who voted against it and big PROPS to the 11 Democrats who voted against. There are some seriously ridiculous things in this bill. Roll-Call
And here is some of the totally absurd pork in this bill. Borrowed information from Michelle Malkin
What happened to reform and making sure that there was no pork?
Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+
Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a “B”) for a “carbon-capturing contest”
Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.
Tom Jones notes another $200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.
P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.
P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.
$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million
$252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don’t forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
Wow. The good news is so far the Democrats own this.
I have not been getting much posting done since I have been out doing my part to stimulate the economy and get almost all of my holiday shopping done, but today I am irritated and am back.
I am growing tired of the daily press conferences from “The Office of the President Elect” – which on a side note really bugs me, check this out:
Only one problem – there is no such thing as the governmental “Office of the President Elect” and constitutionally, Obama only becomes the President elect once the electoral college has voted.
As it turns out, the “Office of the President Elect” is the invention of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501c(4) organization. This private organization is overseen by three co-chairs selected by Obama, and is staffed by non-government employees. So, if this is a private organization, how did it get the .gov domain name? That’s a great question.
It goes on with more information about the whole things here.
I do think it is a good idea for Obama to get his cabinet in order and begin to make things transition ready. What I have a problem with is these daily conferences that basically inflate him to President already. His statements that there is only one President at a time are hardly believable since he is acting like he is already. He is only giving lip service to the fact that there is a currently a President other than him.
In listening to all his “plans” I cannot help but think on the FDR Presidency and the New Deal. We are headed for another New Deal and I am not quite sure just how he is planning on paying for this. Not to mention that there is a large number of people who don’t think the New Deal worked. Remembering that the people who suffered the most during the time are quickly decreasing in numbers. The population as it is now does not remember what it was like during the Great Depression.
Then there are the crazy people actually suggesting that Bush AND Cheney should resign to basically let Obama take the office currently through his “surrogate” Nancy Pelosi. NY Times
Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.
As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.
Really. Come on. That is crazy. The media and Obama crowd are only serving to further the growing ego and setting obsenely high expectations. Which I guess the expectations are not such a bad thing, since he is only being set up to fail. Historically this type of government control does not work, in two years when there are Senate elections there will be a shift in the tide. And as much as you want to think that Bush is going to be regarded in history as one of the “worst”, I guarantee that you will be surprised in the long run. I believe that during the next decade we will be able to see truly that he was a great leader.
Until yesterday I had never even heard of the Fairness Doctrine. Then in two separate instances yesterday I heard mention of it, so that must mean I should look into it and see what it is and then see if it is good or bad.
So after hearing mention of it twice I decided to look it up. The doctrine was originally implemented to try and make sure that stations were giving opposing views on topics. They did not want stations/channels to impose singular views. That sounds almost reasonable. But is it next to impossible to enforce. Who decides what is balanced?
It is curious to note that when this was put in place there were far less options of what to watch or listen too. As well, the Republicans are against this legislation. It went out during the Reagan administration and they have fought to keep it as such. The Democrats are pushing to have it brought back, Pelosi is a strong supporter. The funny part here is by large the media leans far to the liberal Democrat side so why on earth do they even care? They are concerned about the success of conservative talk radio – Rush type people. I would venture to say the left has far more media outlets than the right so why can’t they just let it be. It does violate free speech and first ammendment rights. AND would all the other channels give a balanced view of the conservative? I doubt that.
McCain does not support bringing this doctrine back, he has actually worked to enact legislation to keep it from returning. Obama does claim to oppose a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine. In addition, a source in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told B&C in July that he could not rule out a push from House Democrats to bring it back, either in this Congress or the next. (broadcasting cable)
And this from the New York Post:
Should Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles
So here is what the Fairness Doctrine states: (from wikipedia)
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so. The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.
It was introduced in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 ). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan‘s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.
In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).
In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989. The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
It could really change things if brought back. I like the comparison I read that said requiring balance would be like making a country station play Toby Keith and then play Kanye West. They just don’t go together. You can find what you want to listen to.
So it is not really that but they need to come up with either a new plan or let the market correct itself. Historically the market will correct itself, given time. I am not advocating that we get into a situation like the Great Depression or anything but I don’t believe in big government either, and that is where we are heading with this bill.
I believe it did not pass for a plethora of reasons but the biggest is because Congress is scared. They are scared to make the wrong decision especially since it will trickle down to their presidential candidate. Democrats can’t fully support it because if they are wrong it will hose them and the same for Republicans. Although, Republicans are generally more concerned with limiting government while the Democratic party wants to grow government. But they are all scared of losing their jobs too. They are getting record numbers of letters and emails from their constituents. Heck, I sent a letter to all my representatives – and they are all Democrats. Here is her response, which I know is a form letter, but they have a form letter for this. They are getting slammed from both parties.
Dear Mrs. xxxxx,
Thank you for contacting me about the unprecedented financial crisis in our country. Over 2,000 constituents have shared their views with me about the crisis and I certainly value yours.
As of today (Saturday evening September 27th) negotiations between House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, as well as Treasury Secretary Paulson continue. As soon as the final bill is drafted, I will post it on my website (www.eshoo.house.gov/) with a summary, and I will of course let you know whether I vote for or against the final package.
Each of us is outraged about the circumstances that have brought our financial system to near collapse. In my view, the Administration has practiced “cowboy capitalism”, saying the markets must be allowed to run free, but they instead let Wall Street run wild without accountability, without transparency and without enforcement or regulations to protect the American taxpayer.
The following describes what President Bush and Secretary Paulson presented to Congress on Monday, September 22nd.
o Requested Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout, with the Treasury Secretary empowered to set the rules for all transactions
o No safeguards, No transparency, No accountability, and No oversight. The President’s plan was rejected.
As I see it, there are three elements we need to build into legislation #1 Reinvest in troubled financial markets to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street. #2 Reimburse the taxpayer through ownership shares and asset recovery as the plan begins to work. #3 Reform how business is done on Wall Street including the prohibition of golden parachutes.
The following are elements which I’m hopeful the legislation will include:
o Ensure That Taxpayers Have an Equity Share in Any Profits
oGive taxpayers an ownership stake and profit sharing of participating companies.
oPut taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a participating company fails.
oAllow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local government, and small banks that serve low and middle-income families.
o Strong Independent Oversight and Transparency
oEstablish four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer including:
w Establishment of an independent bipartisan board to provide oversight, review and accountability of taxpayer funds.
w A Government Accountability Office presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
w An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions.
w Have all transactions posted online for the public.
o Staging of Funds
oFunding for the rescue program should occur in stages (not all up front) and condition future payments on Congressional review.
o Limits on Golden Parachutes
oRestrict CEO and executive compensation for participating companies.
w No multi-million dollar golden parachutes
w Recover bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turned out to be false or inaccurate.
o Home Foreclosures
oAllow the government to change the terms of mortgages to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year.
o Protection of School District and City/County Investments
oAssist school districts, cities and counties who had investments in failed institutions.
As I continue my work representing you, I’m mindful of the profound responsibility I have to you and my solemn obligation to do my utmost to protect the taxpayer and help bring our country through the largest financial crisis in the history of the world.
I believe if we do nothing, our ability to obtain a home mortgage, a car loan, a loan for small businesses, or even a credit card will become highly difficult or impossible. Even more financial institutions could fail and millions could lose their savings, thousands of jobs could be lost, and large parts of our economy could cease to function. The repercussions would be far greater than the cost of a financial rescue program.
Let me know what you think. I value what my constituents say to me because I always benefit from your ideas.
Anna G. Eshoo
Member of Congress
While I found her obvious partisanship in the first paragraph calling out “Cowboy Economics” I decided to let it slide for now. For now. I don’t assign blame to any one group since I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Just to pass some blame around here is a post to an article about Fannie Mae, note the publish date – 1999.
Will be interesting to see what happens, but I do appreciate and respect the fact that congress is trying to do what we want. I will be anxiously waiting to see what happens.