Goldy

Also writing on the Huffington Post, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offers his own take on our financial crisis and the federal government’s reaction to it:

This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

And when it comes to socialism, Sanders knows what he’s talking about, being the former socialist mayor of Burlington Vermont.

But Sanders offers more than just criticism, and doesn’t outright dismiss the notion of some sort of financial market bailout.   Sanders notes that it is the wealthiest Americans who have prospered most from our recent anti-regulatory policies, while middle class Americans have seen their incomes steadily decline.  And since it is the wealthiest Americans who benefit most directly from a huge government bailout—and are most able to afford pay for it—a large portion of the cost of the bailout should fall directly on their shoulders.

Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:

a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;

b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and

c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.

Honestly… tell me… are these three concrete proposals any more “socialist” than our rush to nationalize troubled Wall Street firms?  In fact, I’d guess that the majority of Americans would find these proposals fair, reasonable and common sensical.

In addition to the principle that bailout should be paid for by those who benefited most from the policies that created the crisis, and who can thus afford to pay the costs, Sanders puts forth three other principles that should be seriously debated in discussing any bailout plan:

(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy…

(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999…

(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist…

Again, reasonable proposals all, that deserve serious discussion as we rush to write Wall Street that giant blank check.  Sanders is not arguing against a bailout, but rather against a bailout that doesn’t have conditions attached that the protect the interests of US taxpayers, help working families struggle through the resulting economic slowdown, and takes concrete steps toward preventing a similar crisis from happening again.

Huh.  That doesn’t sound all that radical, now does it?  So as long as our two major parties are embracing the principles of socialism, shouldn’t we at least listen to the advice of a real socialist?

Dino Rossi talks a lot about closing the anticipated budget gap without raising any taxes.  But how does he plan to do it?  I’m guessing, he’s gonna pray.

See, that’s the usual faith-based approach Rossi takes toward economic issues, for example, like back in 2003, when he voted for a Senate resolution praying for passage of President Bush’s economic plan:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully pray that our elected Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress support and vote to enact President Bush’s 2002 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Plan.

And Rossi didn’t just pray for bill, as Senate Ways & Means Committee chair he shepherded this resolution out of committee and onto the floor.

Well, Rossi’s prayers were answered.  A trillion dollars in government bailouts later, were yours?

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/rossi-bush-pray-ad.mp3]

I like this add too, but for different reasons.  It doesn’t come anywhere near to striking the same sort of emotional chord as the Palin the Wolf Butcherer ad, but it does go after McCain on a key demographic:  white women.

Like others, my instinct, when I first saw this ad last week, was that it was brutally effective.  Well now a national focus group has proved this instinct correct:

“The ad which focuses on Governor Palin’s record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters,” commented Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research.  “The recent ads from both parties have had little impact among voters. This is the first ad in over a month that seems to have broken through,” he added.

The ad, from Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, has been running in Michigan and Florida, and word is that it will soon go up in other swing states as well.  Want to keep this extremely powerful and effective ad on the air?  Throw them some change.

(Hat tip Crooks & Liars.)

And of course, it’s more than just the economy on which John McCain mimics George W. Bush; you can learn more at Third Term:  The Movie.

Voters should keep McCain’s role in the savings and loan debacle in mind as they’re asked to once again to pick up the pieces from yet another financial crisis largely created by the free trade/deregulatory policies McCain has ideologically championed throughout his entire career.  Sure, the markets are soaring this morning, but taxpayers’ spirits won’t be when they hear the reasons why:

Congressional leaders said after meeting Thursday evening with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that as much as $1 trillion could be needed to avoid an imminent meltdown of the U.S. financial system.

[…] “We’re talking hundreds of billions,” Paulson told reporters. “This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem.”

A trillion dollars of taxpayer money to buy up the bad debt whose accumulation made Wall Street executives rich beyond your wildest dreams.  And for this we’re supposed to reward McCain with the reins of government?

Those guys with the booze in the funny hats?  That’s McCain partying with Charles Keating in the heady days before McCain pressured regulators to lay off Lincoln Savings, and the S&L’s collapse subsequently cost taxpayers a couple billion dollars, and Keating a few years of his freedom on a fraud conviction.

And this is the guy we’re supposed to trust to keep an eye on Wall Street?  The guy who bills himself as “the greatest free trader” and “the greatest deregulator” ever…?

A trillion dollars, folks.  $1,000,000,000,000.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” said lawmakers were told last night “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications, here at home and globally.”

For all you McCain-style free traders out there, this is what we call a market failure.  Your economic philosophy—your religion—that the market always makes the most efficient allocation of resources, and that it always corrects itself, as if guided by the invisible hand of God?  Well, it’s just been proven wrong.

Again.

And the impact on the rest of us, I mean beside the recession that will bring undue economic hardship on billions of people worldwide, while Wall Street executives become honored philanthropists for giving away a fraction of their ill-gotten golden parachutes?

The solution being proposed by the Bush administration is the most expensive bailout in the nation’s history, sharply curtailing the ability of the next president to push for tax cuts or new spending.

Well thanks a fucking lot.  Once again a Democratic president will be forced to spend his entire eight years, shoving progressive policies like universal health care aside so that he can clean up the mess of the previous administration.

That is, assuming, voters aren’t stupid enough to elect John McCain.

Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility, but if they want to walk the walk, they might want to stop wasting taxpayer dollars filing frivilous ethics complaints against Gov. Gregoire.

Back in April, Washington State Republican Party chair Luke Esser filed an ethics complaint alleging the Governor used public funds to campaign for reelection, specifically citing a survey conducted on behalf of the Washington Learns Commission, a six city “listening tour,” and a public relations contract.

Five months later, after the Governor’s office spent countless hours at taxpayer expense providing hundreds of documents to investigators, the Washington State Executive Ethics Board has delivered a 16-page report unanimously dismissing the complaint as “obviously unfounded or frivilous.”

Jesus, Luke… the Washington Learns survey you cited wasn’t even paid for with taxpayer money.  Do your goddamn homework.

The Dino Rossi campaign will no doubt be crowing tomorrow morning about the state’s revised revenue forecast, which now predicts a $3.2 billion budget shortfall for the 2009-2011 biennium, but it should be remembered that the projected deficit is a revenue problem not a spending one, stemming from a long-term structural deficit and a weakening economy.

State spending as a percentage of the total economy has in fact remained flat for much of the past decade, while our antiquated tax structure has continued to rely on an ever shrinking portion of our economy.  Our media and political elite have thus far studiously avoided and serious discussion about tax restructuring—the Democrats out of fear of a voter backlash, and the Republicans secure in the knowledge that to do nothing virtually assures their vision of a dramatically smaller government by default.

No doubt the Governor and the Legislature face tough short term choices during the next session, as they do during every economic downturn.  But if we want to solve our long-term structural deficit while maintaining the quality of life Washingtonians have come to expect, then we need to rely on more than mere tough talk and a rainy day fund.  We need to start talking about an income tax, or some other broad based tax designed to fit the realities of our twenty-first century economy.

By now you’ve likely heard about Sen. John McCain’s bizarre interview with a Spanish language radio station in Miami yesterday, where he repeatedly gave vague answers about Latin America when asked about President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain.

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/cadenaser_mccain_spain_080918a.mp3]

Josh Marshall, who broke the story on Talking Points Memo, reports on the reaction in the Spanish press:

In Spain, there seem to be two lines of thinking. The great majority appear to think the McCain was simply confused and didn’t know who Zapatero was — something you might bone up on if you were about to do an interview with the Spanish press. The assumption seems to be that since he’d already been asked about Castro and Chavez that McCain assumed Zapatero must be some other Latin American bad guy. A small minority though think that McCain is simply committed to an anti-Spanish foreign policy since he’s still angry about Spain pulling it’s troops out of Iraq.

Listening to the audio, I can’t help but side with the Spanish majority in attributing McCain’s apparent snub to momentary confusion, but I don’t think it had anything to do with a lack of adequate preparation.  In fact, an interview McCain gave in April to a Spanish newspaper pretty much blows holes in both of the theories offered above:

Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, is ready to change the policy of estrangement with the Spanish government that was put in place for four years now by George Bush. He declared that he was ready to fully normalize bilateral relations and that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was invited to the White House. In an interview on board his plane, which had just left Memphis, where he had participated in a ceremony honoring the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and en route to his home en Phoenix, McCain said that “it’s time to leave our differences with Spain behind us” and he added: “”I would like President Zapatero to visit the United States. I am very interested, not only in normalizing relations with Spain, but in developing good and productive relations that address the many issues and challenges that we need to be addressing together,” he said.

McCain surely knows who Zapatero is, and that Spain is part of Europe… that is, when he’s lucid.  But listening to that interview again and again, it sure does sound like the 72-year-old McCain was suffering from a transitory senior moment.

Repeatedly, the interviewer asks him whether he would be willing to invite President Zapatero of Spain to the White House, an invitation McCain had publicly extended months before, and repeatedly McCain wanders off into discussions about Latin America.

INTERVIEWER: Senator finally, let’s talk about Spain. If elected president would you be willing to invite President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, to meet with you?

McCAIN: I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion.

And by the way President Calderone of Mexico is fighting a very, very tough fight against the drug cartels. I’m glad we are now working with the Mexican government on the Merida Plan, and I intend to move forward with relations and invite as many of them as I can, of those leaders to the White House.

Okay… but she was asking about Spain, not Mexico.  Maybe he’s just being evasive?

INTERVIEWER: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government? To the president himself?

McCAIN: Uh, I don’t, I, ya know, I, honestly, I have to look at the situations and the relations and the priorities. But I can assure you, I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

Uh-huh.  Spain is, of course, a NATO ally.  You know, one of “our friends.”  So let’s try rephrasing that question.

INTERVIEWER: So you have to wait and see. If he’s willing to meet with you, would you be able to do it? In the White House?

McCAIN: Well, again, I don’t — All I can tell you is I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that’s judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region.

Yeah, but you know… Spain is not in “the hemisphere” (unless, even more bizarrely, he’s referring to the northern hemisphere).  At this point the interviewer clearly senses his confusion.

INTERVIEWER: OK, what about Europe? I’m talking about the president of Spain.

McCAIN: What about me what?

INTERVIEWER: OK. Are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

McCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those who are not.

Don’t just read the transcript, listen to the audio, and listen to his halting words, the obvious fatigue in his voice and the confusion in his answers.  He wasn’t simply being evasive or vague, he was disoriented, and while this may have only been a transient episode it should be alarming nonetheless.

There are those who caution that making age an issue in this race could hurt Obama with senior voters, but honestly… it would be irresponsible not to.  McCain may very well have no underlying condition apart from the normal effects of aging—he may even be sharp for his age—but experience tells us that the mind ages just like the body, and anyone who has closely compared the John McCain of 2008 to the John McCain of 2000 has surely noticed an obvious decline in mental acuity, as well as a possible alteration in temperament.

Whether John McCain’s passing señor moment has a permanent impact on this campaign, remains to be seen.  But it should.

It’s good to see some effective advertising coming out of Gov. Gregoire’s campaign.  I’ve long insisted that if voters really understood who Dino Rossi is, and what he stands for, this election shouldn’t be close.  This new series of ads goes a long way toward introducing the real Rossi to voters, at least on one substantive issue.

No doubt state Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) is facing a tough reelection fight, what with the press gleefully trumpeting his arrest on suspicion of domestic violence, yet quietly chirping like crickets when the case was quickly dropped without charges being filed.  But it’s not just his bad press that’s made Simpson vulnerable this election cycle, it’s also his stalwart opposition to all things BIAW, which has made him the target of some very powerful enemies.

And when the BIAW goes after you, they fight dirty, unimpeded by the law, let alone the Queensberry Rules.

Take for example an email sent out recently to a number of lobbyists by Drew Stokesbary, the campaign chair for Simpson’s Republican opponent Mark Hargrove… an email so inappropriate that even lobbyists were disgusted, prompting several to forward copies directly to Simpson and his campaign.

I noticed that one of your clients, [REDACTED], has contributed to Geoff Simpson. I’d like to encourage you to see if you can get Simpson’s opponent, Mark Hargrove, a similar contribution from [REDACTED].  I understand there are political reasons for that contribution, but the dynamics of the race of have been shifting lately.

[…] The caucus is making a significant hard-dollar contribution, and probably a larger soft-dollar contribution.  Builders, construction, insurance, pharma, NFIB, ag, and others are jumping in now.

You gotta appreciate young Stokesbary’s eagerness to take the initiative, if not his respect (or lack thereof) for our state’s campaign finance laws, for three things immediately jump out from both his email and his public record:  A) Stokesbary is clearly using Simpson’s PDC reports to solicit funds, which is illegal; B) Stokesbary clearly implies that he is coordinating soft-dollar expenditures with his state caucus, which is illegal; and C) Stokesbary is… well… an asshole, which isn’t illegal per se, but turns out to be quite pertinent to the rest of this post.

For in addition to being Hargrove’s campaign chair and son-in-law, Stokesbary turns out to be an employee of both the BIAW and Attorney General Rob McKenna, a bigot, a racist, a George W. Bush fan, a teacher-hater, a sycophant, a hothead and, well, an asshole.

Hmm… where to start?  How about with the most damning of the epithets I just tossed Stokesbary’s way, his association with the lying, cheating, equally assholic bastards at the BIAW, where according to their annual report, he was employed at least through 2007.  And it was with a fellow BIAW employee Tom Kwieciak, that Stokesbary most visibly displayed the organization’s unique approach to public discourse, by notoriously heckling professional golfer Curtis Strange from the hospitality box of the 2007 Boeing Classic.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Drew Stokesbary, 22, of Olympia yelled from the Canyon Club. “Be a man.”

Strange, 52, took his time while he surveyed the troublesome hole. His expression didn’t change.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Stokesbary repeated loudly, seated at a table. “Hit it like a man.”

Choosing the conservative route, Strange swung and put one in the fairway. Another verbal assault followed him off the tee.

“That’s what the ladies’ tour is for, Curtis,” Stokesbary chided as the golfer passed in front of the box.

[…] “I heard on the radio that he’s considered a hothead, which is why I singled him out, and he proved it,” Stokesbary said, referring to Strange.

I mean… what an asshole.

That is the sort of antisocial behavior Stokesbary has displayed throughout his short life, which of course makes him perfect BIAW material.  According to a blog post by a Chinese classmate of his at Duke, Stokesbary used to intentionally “stir up trouble with his incendiary arguments” during history class…

Once, when he made a remark about how if immigrants wanted to keep their traditions alive, they shouldn’t have come to the US in the first place, my friends had to literally restrain me from knocking him over.

And in his Amazon review of Gordon Park’s classic 1964 “The Learning Tree,” a novel about growing up black in a white man’s world, Stokesbary displayed his usual racial sensitivity:

this was about the worst and slowest-paced book i’ve ever read. In english class we had to read a book by a black author and my teacher thought i might like it. but i didn’t. it was terrible. by the time you get about halfway through the pace picks up, but by then it’s pointless. don’t buy this book or read it. please.

Yup.  Nothing worse than being forced to read a book by a black author.

I don’t know much about Hargrove, but if I were him I’d be more than bit uncomfortable having this unrepentant fratboy chair my campaign, let alone marry my daughter.  And as for Rob McKenna, I think he needs to answer a few questions about whether Stokesbary was acting on his authority, since the email certainly appears to give that impression.

This email, in which Stokesbary warns lobbyists that clients who have given to Simpson better give to Hargrove too, was sent from a RobMcKenna.org email address, and signed by Stokesbary with the title “Field Director, Re-Elect AG Rob McKenna.”  The clear impression left with some recipients was that this was a direct request from McKenna, the most powerful Republican in the state, and a man in a position to impose political fealty.

So why would McKenna risk putting his name on such a legally and ethically dubious email?  After obtaining a copy of Stokesbary’s email from a political consultant, I contacted Rep. Simpson and asked him for his response.  Not surprisingly, he seems to believe it all comes down to the BIAW:

“Why are they coming after me? They want existing taxpayers to pay for the roads, schools and fire stations their new development requires and I think  the developers should pay their fair share through impact fees. They are one of the state’s most powerful political group but I stand up to them and am one of the biggest obstacles to them getting what they want in Olympia. They want growth without regulation. I want controlled and planned growth. They want to maintain their ability to skim industrial insurance money to use for political purposes but I worked to stop them.  Hargrove hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s already sold out to the BIAW.”

If so, expect this campaign to get much nastier.  And, less legal.

Yesterday, Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey seemed puzzled:

I am trying to figure out the argument not to drill for oil.

Um.. okay, Bruce, how about this…?

The Arctic Ocean’s sea ice has shrunk to its second smallest area on record, close to 2007’s record-shattering low, scientists report. The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Look, nobody’s saying don’t drill any new oil wells (well, some people probably are, but nobody’s listening)… but the Republican campaign slogan, “Drill, Baby Drill,” is just plain crazy.  Opening up environmentally sensitive coastal areas to more drilling and exploration won’t do anything to lower short term prices at the pump, and in the end is little more than a twentieth century solution to a twenty-first century problem.

Drill if you want.  Potentially sully some shorelines or damage a few more fisheries.  But for McCain to put offshore drilling at the center of his energy proposals may make for some effective election year sloganeering (or not), but it does nothing to address our long term environmental and energy crises.  The future is in wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and yes (gasp), even nuclear (if we can deal with the waste issue)… not to mention the most promising technology of them all:  conservation.

The call for more drilling is nothing but a distraction… an empty promise that perhaps six years from now, gasoline might only be $7 a gallon instead of $8 or $9.  Meanwhile, we’ll all be enjoying the consequences of an iceless Arctic sea.

Over the weekend I posted a videoblog entry critiquing some comments made by Attorney General Rob McKenna in a video voters guide posted online by the Association of Washington Businesses.  And tonight I discover that YouTube has pulled the video.

Why?  I can only assume that the cowards at the AWB complained to YouTube that I had violated their copyright by including clips from their video.  And at this point, I’ve had so many bogus complaints filed against me by the likes of the BIAW, the AWB, the Washington Association of Realtors and other Republican front groups, that YouTube just automatically yanks my videos assuming I’m a shameless pirate.

Whatever.

So, I’d like to offer the AWB the same deal I offered the Realtors:  sue me. Really.  Sue me.  Because every time you have my video yanked, I’m just going to repost it somewhere else, as is my right under the fair use doctrine.  So if you think you have a case, take me to court.

Or don’t you have the balls?

UPDATE:
And apparently, I’m not the only one who has trouble seeing John McCain as an agent of change.  According to the latest NY Times/CBS poll:

Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

And that Palin bounce?

[T]he Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general.

[…] This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s running mate. More than 6 in 10 said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.

The Times/CBS poll shows Obama leading McCain 48 to 43, which is right in line with the latest Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, that shows a 48 to 44 margin.