Frankly, I don’t care how much past service or time in office any of our politicians may have. This is a new game, and yesterday’s “achievements” mean little or nothing in a Post-Bush world. Especially when, for a great number of our so-called leaders, those “achievements” can be directly tied to the place we find ourselves today. Sadly, most, if not all, of our elected officials are slow in realizing that we Americans were serious when we elected Barack Obama on a platform of change.

I for one no longer have any patience for those “esteemed” leaders like Diane Feinstein who make noise and gum up the works when they don’t get a “courtesy call” from Obama when he chooses someone for a cabinet position. Hey Feinstein…Obama is not required to ask your permission or check with you first about any nomination. Your job as Senator is to simply vote yes or no when the time comes for you to do so. Enough of this petty nonsense from people who are supposed to be adults. News flash for you politicians…you too could be looking for a new job if you don’t change your ways.

Call it a leap of faith, but for me, this presidential election was about more than just finally ending the disastrous course set by Bush and his criminal cronies. It was about bringing real change to our nation’s politics by ending the old way of doing things. Granted, I’ve been less than thrilled about the team Obama has been putting together-too many “old timers” in there for my taste, especially when the goal is to change the order of business. (I mean how much change can you expect to get from people who have spent decades mired in pay to play politics?) But for now, I’m still willing to believe that Obama will drive this ship in a new direction, and in order to avoid running aground, he decided to hire on a seasoned crew rather than a bunch of greenhorns. But so long as Obama is the one driving the ship and calling the shots, the names of those hoisting the sails and manning the jib is somewhat less important provided they follow the directions given to them and don’t fall into old habits that would sink their boss’s best intentions.

But does this hope for change we all signed up for stand any real chance of succeeding? We all know that a president can only do so much on his own, despite the disgusting trend crafted by the Bush-Cheney team. If Obama reverts to a more traditional interpretation of the office of President, then reliance on a rational, adult Congress is key to any success he may achieve for this country. Unfortunately, that’s not the Congress we gave him, or at least, it isn’t looking that way in the beginning. Obama is saying and trying to do all the right things to be able to hit the ground running. But the Congress continues its petty infighting, it’s unearned displays of individual grandeur, and it’s incessant partisanship. With leadership like that, Obama could be supernatural and still get stymied while playing by the inane rules of yesterday’s political playbook.

I am optimistic that Obama will have not only the vision, but the assistance he needs from a rationally behaving Congress to put America on more solid footing and towards a better tomorrow. Clearly the task is daunting. And as Obama has been saying, things will probably get worse before they take a better turn. But a better future is possible, if Americans really want it. Many of us may think that the battle for rational government has been won simply by electing Obama. It is a mistake to think that. The first skirmish was won, but the battle looms large ahead. We must all have the fortitude to stay engaged, to pressure petulant lawmakers to do better, to think beyond themselves, to behave like real leaders. If they do not, we must have the will to remove them from office. If WE do not, then the mess we lay in will be of our own making. Politicians will listen to people if we speak loudly enough. But if we simply sit back and pretend that our task is done because we got Obama into the White House, we will fail. And we will deserve to fail.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Despite yesterday’s historic election that has made Barack Obama the next president, let us not forget that we still have 77 days of George W. Bush to contend with. Because believe me, Bush isn’t forgetting that he’s still the Decider in Chief until January 20th.

Outgoing presidents like to “tie up loose ends” and place their ideological stamp on all sorts of governmental regulations and programs. Clinton did it. So did many of his predecessors. Often times, these last minute regulatory efforts take place in the final days or hours of an outgoing presidents term. But because new or revised regulations have a specific path they must take before becoming active, incoming presidents can sometimes halt or even negate these plans. It isn’t uncommon. In fact, when W took office, he ordered a halt to all of Clinton’s last minute regulations that had not yet been published in the federal register.

Hoping to avoid a halt to his own last minute regulations, the Bush administration got the ball rolling early, hoping to have over 90 new or revised regulations on the books before Obama can take the oath of office.  So what’s the problem? Isn’t Bush just doing what many previous outgoing presidents have done? Well, yes…and no.

Where Clinton’s end of term regulations sought to strengthen enviromental policy or help create more parity with regards to publically funded aid programs, it seems that Bush’s regulatory efforts do the exact opposite, and may also add to an already overburdened national treasury.

Some of the changes Bush seeks to stamp in cement before he departs include:

CIVIL LILBERTIES: Expanded F.B.I. guidelines that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

ENVIRONMENT: Weakening the Endangered Species Act even further; rules that weaken clean air and water standards; opening even more federal lands for gas and oil exploration. Also, easing restrictions on mountaintop mining, removing mining restrictions near the Grand Canyon and easing rules on power plant emissions.

ABORTION RIGHTS: New regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.

ECONOMIC: Restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now that this change is in the works, JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy.

Bush’s last minute regulations are really more DEREGULATIONS aimed at rewarding those remaining loyalist in corporate America. And if we’ve learned nothing from this whole economic crisis, it’s that when Republicans DEREGULATE it doesn’t bode well for John and Jane America.

Bush wants to leave his mark, but he seems to not understain that what he’s already left (and apparently wants to leave more of) is a big ugly stain. Apparently not content with being the least popular president AND the worst president in US history, Bush wants to make sure he can still screw things up when he’s out clearing brush at the ranch. With an economy in ruins, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an international reputation in tatters, Bush has already tied the hands of his successor to a great degree. But it just doesn’t seem to be enough for the Decider.

Some presidents want to be remembered for the good things they do. Sadly for America, George W. Bush has never done anything good in his life. So if we’re going to remember him for his failures, it seems that he wants to be sure to leave us plenty to ruminate on.

Barack Obama has a tough road ahead of him. So do we all.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

It’s not often that we actually can feel the sense of being a part of an historic moment. Today is that day.

I’ve voted at the same location for over five years. In those five years, I can not ever remember seeing more than about ten people at the poll at the same time as I was there. This morning I showed up at 6:57 AM and was greeted by a line of at least 60 people waiting to vote. As I got into the line, I couldn’t help but think to myself that this election was indeed something special. Oh sure, the media has portrayed this as an election like no other, and this is certainly true, if only because of the historic nature of the candidates. But it dawned on me that it was more than that.

The poll worker told me this morning that our small precinct usually was lucky to have about 23% voter turnout at any election. Today is going to be a record breaker.

As I waited in the line to get my ballot, I had a pleasant conversation with a man who originally comes from Arkansas. We wiled the time away with small talk and stories of our experiences. He was there with a relative, a first time voter who was excited to cast her first ballot. People in front and in back of me were smiling, actually happy to see a line at the poll, and no one was grumbling about the wait-a wait they have never experienced at this polling location before. To top it off, it’s raining buckets here today in Southern California, something that always makes the “beautiful people” a bit frumpy. Even the rain couldn’t dampen the spirits of an electorate ready to make history.

As we neared the table where we got our ballots, my line companion said something to me that made me think about how far we’ve come in this country. He told me that back where he came from, a small town in Arkansas, when he was a kid, people like him and me would never be seen laughing and smiling and shooting the breeze together. I said that maybe we would, but there probably wouldn’t be a bunch of smiling faces around us. At that he smiled and agreed. He was black; I am white.

It’s an historic election to be sure. The fate of our country is literally at stake after eight years of destructive policies and malevolent stewardship. The people of America know this and are coming out in droves to make their voices heard.

I remember when I first voted in a presidential election. I felt proud to mark my ballot for Bill Clinton. Back then it felt like I was helping to “change the guard” by putting a younger man in the highest office in the land. I was pretty happy with Clinton as president, but his was no groundbreaking administration, his challenges not so daunting compared to ours today. In retrospect, I think that my feelings in that election were more about me, about finally being able to be part of “adult America.” Today I felt different. Today, this election, and my part in it, was not about writing a page in my personal history. Today’s election is all about us. This will be the election to remember. This is the one that counts.

If you haven’t voted yet, go vote. If you’ve already voted, thank you. See you on the other side.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Okay- a few days ago, Steve O asked what we’d all be doing on Election Night. As some of you may know, I am a television producer for a local television station in San Diego. Election night is a big thing for TV news, but I don’t work in the news department, so instead of toting around a camera from poll to poll, I’ve been tapped to fill in for our regular photographers and cover the Madonna concert. I’ll be up in front, pointing my camera at the Material Girl while her legions of fans sway back and forth in the cool coastal air.

But while most TV stations will have wall to wall election coverage most of the night, my station has chosen something a little more enjoyable for our viewers. (Sure-we’ll still have election night updates, a special election night program and a full report in the regular news, but we’ll also have something else, for all of those viewers who are now fully fatigued with this campaign.)

Here’s the promo I created for our special election night coverage. Amazing how I was able to find pieces that so mirrored our current campaign cycle. See if any of these folks remind you of the real candidates.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Last week, I put together a short video about the history of socialism in America. (In case you missed it, you can watch it here.) Whether you want to admit it or not, America is now, and has for some time been, a nation filled with socialism and wealth redistribution. It is how we pay for our common defenses, programs, and infrastructure. No matter how much conservatives and right-wing whacko’s decry the words themselves, socialism and wealth redistribution are as American as apple pie. As point in fact, elected officials of both parties understand that only through the collection of taxes (wealth redistribution) can America provide all the infrastructure, programs, and national defense (socialism.)

It’s always nice to have some forms of confirmation that I’m not out picking daisies in left field when I put forth these kinds of positions. So it was a pleasant surprise to read to articles this weekend that offered opinions similar to my own with regards to American socialism and wealth redistribution. Without reprinting the entire articles (which you should go and read anyhow), here are some salient points to consider…

The first I’ll share is from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Is it really socialism to talk of “spreading the wealth”?

Actually, it has been part of the American economic system since its founding.

In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

Although the income tax was abolished in 1872, the idea of using taxes to share the wealth remained an important part of the public discourse. Teddy Roosevelt was a vocal proponent of this idea in the early 1900s.

“I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate,” he said in 1910.

In times of economic peril, the tax rates were raised – rather than lowered – to ensure that money was more evenly distributed. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration boosted the highest tax rate from 63 percent to 79 percent in order to fund his New Deal programs. He pushed it to 94 percent during World War II.

Roosevelt was matched by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, who, with the aid of a Republican Congress, maintained an income tax rate of more than 90 percent for top earners. It took Lyndon Johnson to lower the upper tax rate to 77 percent. It remained near that level until the second year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

But doesn’t a high tax rate strangle economic growth? It’s hard to make that case. During the 1950s, when the upper-income bracket was taxed at its highest peacetime rate in history, the economy grew at a robust 4 percent per year, using inflation-adjusted figures. The 1950s growth rate certainly did not occur because of the high taxes, but the tax rate apparently didn’t impede it.

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt,” Eisenhower warned in the 1950s. “The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer.”

Clearly, over this nation’s history until very recently, both major parties had candidates and presidents who understood that America’s real promise of a better life for all relied on both socialism and wealth redistribution. But the Republicans and theif frenzied fans can’t seem to concede the point, even when the evidence comes directly from their own mouths and actions.

From the New Yorker Magazine:

On October 12th, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how his tax plan would work, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state.

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Hmmmm…..McCain says higher incomes should mean higher taxes…at least he did back in 2000. And Palin governs a state where socialism (taking money from the big wealthy oil companies and giving it back to every person in her state) is the main rule.

Even the deniers of socialism and wealth redistribution, as we know and practice it here in America, are tied to our history, and not so subtly practicing the very things they now say will make Obama “unfit” to lead.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

John McSame wants you to think socialism is the worst thing in the world. Guess what…socialism has a long tradition in America.

(original video by Ken Grandlund- cross posted at Bring It On!)

If you use religion to deny equality, how does that NOT make yours a religion of HATE?

(original video by Ken Grandlund- cross posted at Bring It On!)

Will Americans get a chance to vote for a new president? Take a look at one frightening possibility in my latest video creation-Timeline to Tyranny.

Here’s hoping I’m completely wrong, that we all get a chance to vote and that Bush is sent packing- and McCain too! If I’m right though, I’ll try to hook up with you in Canada.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

If George W. Bush is looking for a legacy (or maybe just a place in the Guiness Book of World Records) he should lobby hard for his place as America’s Bail-Out King, because he is far and away Numero Uno in this hardly coveted category.

A look at his financial accomplishments:

Airline Industry bail-out (2001) $19 Billion

Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bail-out (2008) $200 Billion

Bear Stearns bail-out (2008) $30 Billion

AIG bail-out (2008) $85 Billion

Wall Street Comprehensive bail-out (2008) $700 Billion

Auto Industry bail-out (2008) $25 Billion (passed as part of the Wall Street comprehensive bail-out)

Fed Bank bail-out (2008) $99 Billion (additional $$ pledged AFTER the Treasury Dept. bail-out of Wall Street)

Military-Mercenary Industry Give-away (2001-2008) $713 billion

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy bail-out (2001-2008) $1.3 Trillion

GRAND TOTAL: $3.171 Trillion dollars

Interestingly enough, the federal deficit since Bush took office has risen almost $3.8 Trillion.

And the GOP is worried that the Democrats will engineer the largest transfer of wealth in this country’s history? Give me a break already.

(Cross posted at Bring It On)

I’ve been hearing it again and again, ever since the Bush Administration came up with it’s financial bailout scheme- if we give the banks and financiers $700 Billion of taxpayer money to buy up the “toxic” debt, down the road, the taxpayers will probably profit in the long run.

HUH?!?

Okay- the banks hold the mortgages. Right now, the banks are on the hook for any of the mortgages that go into default. The numbers I’ve been hearing put the “toxic” mortgage numbers at around 10%. So that means that as of now, about 90% of the mortgages are being paid on time, in full. But in order to cover their exposure on that 10% of bad paper, the banks and financiers took ALL the mortgages, GOOD OR BAD, and bundled them together into trading instruments. So now, the bad loans are comingled with all the good loans into these exotic investments. Each little investment instrument has some good and some bad in it-balancing the portfolio to cover the risk. So far, so good-at least as far as comprehension goes.

Now the government is saying that we need to use up the taxpayer’s money to buy ALL these exotic investment vehicles so the banks can clear their books and get back to business. The government will purchase ALL these investments for pennies on the dollar- say 30 cents or 50 cents. Suddenly, the taxpayer now owns ALL the debt, can absorb the “toxic” loans, and eventually sell the “good” loans at closer to their dollar for dollar value- WHEN THE ECONOMY COMES BACK. This is a NO LOSE deal for the taxpayer in the long term, so the story is going.

But hold up there pardner…if these assets are being sold at fire sale prices, AND if these assets mostly hold good value, WHY AREN’T THE BIG MONEY PLAYERS WITH PLENTY OF CAPITAL RUSHING IN TO GRAB THESE PRODUCTS UP? If the buy-out is such a good deal for taxpayer money, it should be an even better deal for financiers and investors who always grab a cheap deal when they can. Where are these folks? I’ve heard time and again that in the long run, the taxpayers MIGHT EVEN MAKE MONEY on this bailout. If so, every Warren Buffet with a billion dollar portfolio should be chomping at the bit to get a piece of this tasty pie.

Bu they aren’t jumping, are they? And that leads me to believe that something isn’t being pitched to us as accurately as it should be.

For instance…many of the mortgages are for a value higher than the property is now worth. Just because a person is on time and not in default today is no guarantee that they will be able to stay in that position. If I hold a mortgage for $500,000 but my house is now worth only $250,000 all is well so long as I keep paying the monthly bill. My mortgage is one of the “good” ones in the piles on bundled mortgages. But suppose I lose my job- now my mortgage heads over to “toxic” territory and the real value is much lower than it was on paper. That “profit” margin being touted that the taxpayers might recoup is suddenly not worth as much as when the government bought it, and the return on it isn’t going to “profit” the taxpayers much, if any, after all. It could take decades for property values to return to their historic highs (if they ever do…if they ever SHOULD).

Suddenly, the rationale that the taxpayers will benefit down the road don’t seem so sound. It sounds more like something a financier thought up to make a big profit. Oh wait…this scheme’s master planner IS a financier- former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. And the profit to be made in this deal isn’t for the taxpayers, but for all the big banks and financial institutions when they unload their bad bets on a public that is still being lied to. They profit by not losing as much as they should.

Some polling shows that when taxpayers are told that this bailout will probably end up being profitable to the taxpayers, people are supporting the deal by a 2-1 margin. (Sorry, I can’t find the link. But this is a number I’ve recently heard in a couple of places.) 

Just like a new car loses value the minute it goes off the lot, these mortgages-GOOD OR BAD- are losing value daily-money that won’t return just because the taxpayer picks up the tab. So this fiction that the taxpayer will ultimately profit from a bailout is likely just that- fiction.

Or am I just not seeing this rationale in the proper, creatively colored light that I am supposed to be seeing it?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)