"The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul. Let them dare, then, to bring me before a court of law and let the enquiry take place in broad daylight!" - Emile Zola, J'accuse! (1898) -

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Let’s Put CEOs On “The Gold Standard”!

Today I heard a Right Wing Radio Talk Jock Lunatic singing the praises of Corporate Executives as regards their right to their super salaries, and at one point he said: “They are worth their weight in Gold and I would gladly have them paid that type of salary.

That’s so stupid that I agree with him. I say as a starting point in trimming CEO salaries we ought to put them on the Gold Standard as a sort of transition into reality.

Now before you write me off as being half nuts tonight; let’s take a really big CEO making $100 million plus in his total compensation/perks/options package, (and I might note here that the more words in the descriptor, the bigger the haul), but, a really Big CEO…300 pounds!

With gold at an average of $800 an ounce, let’s just do a little math: (300 lbs. x 16 ounces in a lb=4,800 ounces. 4,800 (x) $800 per= $3,840,000.

Now let’s just check that math. We want to be “fair”! $800 per ounce (x) 16 ounces in a pound and our CEO is worth $4,800 a lb. That’s a pretty good price for shit. So our 300 lb CEO (x) $4,800 gets…yep…$3,840,000 instead of $100 million plus. Put them on the “Gold standard; it’s a start!

Oh! And Bush at $400,000; we’re getting cheated all to hell, but then we all knew that already. Anyway; the average carpet bagging sack of shit CEO weighs in at 175 lbs. (x) $4,800, or $834,000. Now that’s over twice George’s take home, so maybe as an immediate transitional adjustment  “The Gold Standard” might be just about right. 

Then we can work on merit pay for execs including wage freezes and decreases for failure, fraud and general fucking up. 

See what I mean; you have to start somewhere and have a growing program for the future. 

You just can’t get it all with one bite. 

Their asses are too big!

Do you detect a bit of sarcasm here tonight?

Mercy I just started checking all those salaries and I can save trillion$!

Hell with the $700 Billion; I just solved the entire problem with money left over!

Life $tyle Change Coming To Wall $treet

Special Prosecutor Named in Attorney Firings Case |

Nora Dannehy

DOJ Statement Here:

Full PDF Report Here:

Special Prosecutor Named in Attorney Firings Case (Multi Links)


Published: September 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor on Monday to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other officials in connection with the firings of nine of United States attorneys in 2006.

WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department investigation concluded Monday that political pressure drove the firings of several federal prosecutors in a 2006 purge, but said that the refusal of major players at the White House and the department to cooperate in the year-long inquiry produced significant “gaps” in its understanding of the events.

At the urging of the investigators, who said they did not have enough evidence to justify recommending criminal charges in the case, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey appointed the Acting United States Attorney in Connecticut, Nora Dannehy, to continue the inquiry and determine whether anyone should be prosecuted.

The 356-page report, prepared by the department’s inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility, provides the fullest picture to date of an episode that opened the Bush administration up to charges of politicizing the justice system. The firings of nine federal prosecutors, and the Congressional hearings they generated, ultimately led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last September.

The investigation, which uncovered White House e-mail messages not previously made public, offered a blistering critique of Mr. Gonzales’s management of the department. It called Mr. Gonzales “remarkably unengaged” in overseeing an unprecedented personnel review, and said that he “abdicated” his administrative responsibilities, leaving those duties to his chief of staff. It said that the process for deciding which prosecutors were fired was “fundamentally flawed.”

More troubling, the investigation concluded that, despite the denials of the administration at the time of the controversy, political considerations played a part in the firings of at least four of the nine prosecutors.

The most serious case, the report said, was the firing of David Iglesias, the former United States Attorney for New Mexico, who had tangled with two of his state’s leading Republican lawmakers, Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather A. Wilson, over what they saw as his slow response to voter fraud and political corruption accusations against Democrats in New Mexico.

“We concluded,” the inquiry said, “that complaints from New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists to the White House and the Department about Iglesias’s handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases led to his removal.”

But in looking into the Iglesias firing and others, investigators were hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over internal documents and to make some major figures available for interviews. Investigators interviewed some 90 people, but three administration officials who played a part in crucial phases of the firing plan — Karl Rove, the former political advisor to President Bush; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and Monica M. Goodling, former Justice Department liaison to the White House — all refused to be interviewed.

It was Ms. Miers who first proposed, after Mr. Bush’s re-election in 2004, that the administration consider firing all 93 federal prosecutors, and she helped oversee the process at the White House. The investigation found that Mr. Rove’s desire to see one of his deputies, Tim Griffin, installed as a United States Attorney led directly to the firing of Bud Cummins, the chief federal prosecutor in Arkansas.

The inquiry also focused on the efforts by Justice officials to tamp down the controversy in early 2007 through what the report concluded was a series of misleading and inaccurate statements to Congress and the press. Chief among them was the repeated claim that the prosecutors were fired for “performance” reasons after a careful review of formal evaluations. In fact, the report said, politics was the driving factor, and only two of the nine prosecutors had negative evaluations.

Mr. Mukasey, in announcing the appointment of an in-house prosecutor to continue the investigation, acknowledged that the process for firing the prosecutors was “haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and that the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking.”

The fired prosecutors, he said, “did not deserve the treatment they received.”

The new prosecutor, Ms. Dannehy, has been the acting United States Attorney in Connecticut since April. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she has been a prosecutor for 17 years and specializes in white-collar and public corruption cases. She led the prosecution of Connecticut’s former governor John Rowland, who pleaded guilty in 2004 to accepting $107,000 in gifts.

Mr. Mukasey, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales and has sought to restore a measure of credibility to the department, said the report was “an important step toward acknowledging what happened and holding the responsible officials to proper account.”

While the inquiry will continue, Mr. Gonzales described the report as the closing chapter in the episode. “My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges,” he said in a statement.

His lawyer, George J. Terwilliger III, took issue with the decision by the department to “escalate the matter” by continuing the investigation. “The report makes clear that Judge Gonzales engaged in no wrongful or improper conduct while recognizing, as he has acknowledged many times, that the process for evaluating U.S. attorney performance in this instance was flawed,” Mr. Terwilliger said.

Eric Lichtblau reported from Washington, and Sharon Otterman from New York.



The move came as the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general severely criticizing the process that led to the firings.

The inspector general has been trying since last year to determine who in the Bush administration ordered the firings, whether the dismissals were intended to thwart investigations, and whether anyone had broken the law in carrying out the firings or in testifying about them. Critics have said the firings were politically motivated.

The 392-page report released on Monday was blistering in its assessment.

“The report makes plain that, at a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking,” Mr. Mukasey said in a statement. The report called for further investigation to determine whether prosecutable offenses were committed either in the firings or in subsequent testimony about them.

Nora Dannehy, acting United States Attorney in Connecticut, will lead the investigation, Mr. Mukasey said. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she has served as a prosecutor for 17 years and specializes in white-collar and public corruption cases. She led the prosecution of the former governor of Connecticut, John Rowland, who pleaded guilty in 2004 to accepting $107,000 in gifts.Mr. Gonzales, who resigned last year after coming under criticism because of the firings, has been the main focus of interest, in part because several members of Congress charged that he may have perjured himself in his testimony through his memory lapses and misstatements about the firings.

The report found that primary blame for the “serious failures” in the firing process lay with Attorney General Gonzalez and his deputy, Paul McNulty, “who abdicated their responsibility to adequately oversee the process and ensure that the reasons for removal of each U.S. Attorney were supportable and not improper.”

It also singled out for blame Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who supervised the firings. The report said he did not review formal evaluations of the attorneys’ performance, nor did he consult department officials who were most knowledgeable about their performance.

Mr. Sampson, the report states, “also bears significant responsibility for the flawed and arbitrary removal process.”

The firings were “unsystematic and arbitrary, with little oversight by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any other senior Department official,” the report continues. Improperly, the nine U.S. attorneys were not given an opportunity to address concerns about their performance, nor were they given the reasons for their removal.

In addition, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Sampson, and other officials failed “to provide accurate and truthful statements about the removals and their role in the process,” the report states.

The report’s lead authors — Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, and H. Marshall Jarrett, the counsel for the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility — wrote that their investigation remains incomplete because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed, including Karl Rove, the president’s former chief political adviser; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; Monica Goodling, the department’s former White House liaison; Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; and Mr. Domenici’s chief of staff, Steven Bell.

In addition, they wrote, “the White House would not provide us with internal documents related to the removals of the U.S. attorneys.”

The dismissal that has drawn the most scrutiny is that of David C. Iglesias, who was fired as the United States attorney for New Mexico after he clashed with Republican officials over what they saw as his slow pursuit of Democrats in a corruption investigation. Several of the other fired prosecutors were also working on sensitive public corruption cases; critics have alleged that they were dismissed because they were unwilling to faithfully carry out the White House’s political agenda.

The report states that the most serious investigation that the inspector general was not able to fully investigate relates to the removal of Mr. Iglesias. It singles out his firing as a key reason why a counsel should be appointed to “conduct further investigation, and ultimately determine whether the evidence demonstrates that any criminal offense was committed.”

The investigation reviewed several thousand electronic and hard copy documents, including documents the Justice department produced in response to Congressional investigations of the U.S. attorney removals. Investigators obtained access to and searched the e-mail accounts of numerous current and former employees in the Attorney General’s Office, the Deputy Attorney General’s Office, and other Justice departments, the report states.

While White House officials did not explicitly assert executive privilege as the reason they refused to hand over to investigators internal e-mail messages and other documents related to the firings, the White House Counsel’s Office stated they were protected from disclosure because such material would “implicate White House confidentiality interests of a very high order,” the report states.

Eric Lichtblau reported from Washington, and Sharon Otterman from New York.

House Judiciary Committee Response To The Report.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Bailout Bombs As “Joe Six Pack” Scares Republicans In Tight Races And Idiot Ideology Crazed Right Wingers Leave The Door Open For More Public Input.  


They Are Not Going To Get Their CEO Friends Off The Hook.  They Are Not Going To Dilute Reregulation.  They Are Not Going To Kill The Capital Gains Tax…Sorry Newt. The Best Deal They Has Was Today; Now The Pendulum Swings The Other Way!


Should CEO pay be on shorter leash? No. (I Say Yes)


TIME did an usual lecture on why Congress should not cap CEO’s pay ceiling: It doesn’t work and chances are, it would better if stockholders are the one voicing concern. Really? According to the writer, the last time Congress tried, it was about shortening the so-called golden parachute, which is retirement/severance package for outgoing chiefs:


But Congress should be the first to know that dictating what executives can get paid doesn’t always work as expected. In 1984, Congress passed a law eliminating the tax deductibility of golden parachutes that exceeded three times base salary. Corporate America took that to mean anything below that multiple was fine: golden parachutes worth 2.99 times base salary proliferated, where before there were none at all. In 1993, Congress said only $1 million of an executive’s salary would be tax deductible. So companies began paying their CEOs massive amounts in other forms, like stock options and deferred compensation.


The lecture is spectacularly flawed because it played yet again the musical note that somehow the market, where shareholders belong, would correct the situation. Can I ask, when was the last the time there was a shareholder revolt regarding a company’s CEO’s pay that succeeded?


If companies circumvented a law, as we call it exploiting a loophole, shouldn’t Congress amend the law? I am sure the Constitution was flawed without the Bill of Rights. I am sure that as long as Congress remains vigilant on the subject, they would add precise language onto the bill.


What so unimaginative about throwing a leash on CEO’s pay cap by adding phrases like “all compensations will not exceed the total of…”? This time Congress has enough outrage to get it done.


Dow chopped hundreds of points in biggest-ever point drop; S&P loses $700 billion as Wall Street reacts to failure of bailout legislation


An array of forces lined up against bailout


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The $2 trillion hedge fund industry is bracing for a wave of investor redemptions after recent losses, investors and analysts said Monday. (A Bit Of Economic Darwinism At Play)


House Kills Bailout; Uncertainty Reigns
The Washington Independent - Washington,DC,USA
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). But Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, argued that the homeowner provisions ...See all stories on this topic


Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout
By dandelionsalad 
The financial package looms as a final piece of business before lawmakers leave to campaign for the November
 elections. Just before this broadcast, I caught up with Democratic Congress member Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. ...
Dandelion Salad - http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com 

 Dennis Tells it Like it IS!

By ellurian 
Does Congress have the Right to hold the Tax Payer responsible for the irresponsibility and lack of accountability of Wall St. without asking the Public to at least vote on it in the form of a Referendum onElection Day? I don’t know! ...
Pumas Unleashed - http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com 

 WWJ.950 Detroit


House Rejects $700B Bailout Plan


(CBS/AP) A divided Congress narrowly rejected a highly anticipated, and wildly unpopular, $700 billion plan to bail out Wall Street banks in an attempt to revive a struggling U.S. economy. 

The vote was 205-228. 

The vote followed more than three hours of passionate debate during which one lawmaker exclaimed, "America, you should be outraged by what Washington is about to do, because
Washington is not listening to you." 


Wall Street was listening: the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 700 points

Republicans and Democrats were equally divided: many Democrats voted against the bill, many citing lack of protections for homeowners facing foreclosure; many Republicans voted for using taxpayer dollars to shore up a private market, despite concerns it would usurp the free market. 

The deal comes amid further signs of general economic deterioration Monday, as the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending was unchanged in August - worse than anticipated, and the weakest showing since spending was also flat in February. 

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante said the deal agreed to by Congress and the Bush administration to help relieve the credit crisis is expected to be voted on this morning. 

"It's a bill we've come to and worked on together," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "It's a bill that we believe will avert the crisis that's out there." 

Plante reports that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 will give the Treasury Secretary $700 billion to buy up bad mortgages from banks, but with conditions: Instead of handing over all of the money at once, the bill allocates $250 billion now and requires the president to certify that the next $100 billion is needed. 

Congress can hold up delivery of the final $350 billion. 

Companies whose bad loans are purchased must give the government an ownership stake so that taxpayers will benefit from their future growth. 

The bill requires the Treasury to help the people whose mortgages and purchases keep their homes, something on which Democrats insisted. And in a provision Republicans fought for, it also sets up a program under which banks could buy government insurance for some of the loans, rather than selling them outright. 

There will be restrictions on companies who sell those bad loans to the treasury, as well as limits on executive compensation, and on golden parachutes, and the bill sets up oversight: The Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve Chairman and other government officials must review what's done under the new law. 

President Bush this morning called the legislation a bold bill "that will help keep the crisis in our financial system from spreading throughout our economy." 

He said it was an improved version over what his administration first proposed to Congress a week ago. "The bill provides strong bipartisan oversight, so Americans can be certain that their tax dollars are used carefully and wisely. 

"We'll make clear that the United States is serious about restoring confidence and stability in our financial system." 

Mr. Bush sought to reassure angry taxpayers and nervous congressional members who will soon be facing re-election that "Both the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget expect that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer will be far less than [$700 billion]. In fact, we expect that, over time, much if not all of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back." 

"I fully understand that this will be a difficult vote. But with the improvements made to this bill, I'm confident that members of both parties will support it. Congress can send a strong signal to markets at home and abroad by passing this bill promptly. 

However, if Congress was listening, you might not know it from the anger that came out on the House floor this morning from those opposed to the bill. 

A Raucous Debate 

Democrats were quick to insist that they weren't bailing out Wall Street tycoons, but protecting communities beyond lower Manhattan that would be affected by the tightening of credit. 

Treasure Secretary Henry Paulson told 
60 Minutes he was optimistic of the bill's benefits: "We will have turbulence and turmoil in our financial system for some time, but, I believe that this is going to work." 

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who represented Republicans in the negotiations, likened the bill to "putting a tourniquet on an extremely difficult situation." 

But a number of people in both parties do not like it. 

The final 110-page bill was released Sunday evening after a final weekend of intense negotiating, and Republicans and Democrats huddled for hours in private meetings Sunday night to learn its details and voice their concerns. 

Lawmakers in both parties who are facing re-election are particularly nervous about embracing such a costly plan proposed by a deeply unpopular president that would benefit perhaps the most publicly detested of all: companies that got rich off bad bets. 

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings said he was inclined to oppose the bill. But he added: "A lot of people are going to hold their nose and vote for it, because they've been put in a bad position and they don't have any other option." 


"This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it and I'm not going to eat that cow patty." Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

As lawmakers debated the bill this morning - some ruing that the pressures of bank failures and credit stresses are forcing their hands - Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., said, "I wish we had a president that had enough communication skills and enough credibility with the American people to convince them there is a real problem. Unfortunately that burden hasn’t been carried sufficiently by the administration. But I'm convinced that the odds are bad enough that if we don’t do something today we will regret it for a long, long time." 

Standing in opposition to the bill, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., said the government intrusion into the free market marked would, like the Bolshevik slogan of "Peace, Land, and Bread," promise short-term prosperity at the sacrifice of liberty. "The people on Main Street have said they prefer their freedom, and I stand with them," McCotter said. 

Likewise, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said the bill failed to address the root causes of the financial crisis by neglecting to provide, among other factors, foreclosure relief. "Stability should come from the bottom up," she said. 

"Why isn’t Wall Street paying for the mess they created?" Woolsey asked, suggesting a surcharge on stock trades. "We can raise $150 billion a year from those who caused this mess and profited from it." 

She also questioned the wisdom of giving discretion over the use of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the outgoing administration. 

"Why are we willing to even make available $700 billion to this administration? Bush and Paulson have been wrong from the start on just about everything. If you think they will be responsible with this money, think again." 

"Like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled by fear and hinges on haste," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Tex., who noted the bill does not require Wall Street to pay even a dime in recompense. "All of us want to avoid further economic deterioration, but action or inaction today is a false choice. 

"The vultures have now come home to roost," Doggett said. 

Meanwhile, his fellow Texan, Republican John Culberson, blasted the legal protections impinging oversight of the Treasury Secretary's discretionary use of the funds. He suggested other means (including reducing the capital gains tax to zero) would work better. 

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who is opposed, said, "Just because this bill is unpopular doesn’t mean we have to pass it immediately." 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who called the current crisis "the financial equivalent of a heart attack," said the bill is not popular but is necessary. 

"I know we're tempted to see this as just another train wreck of the Bush administration," said Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., who said the crisis actually threatens constituents' 401(k)s, pension funds, the ability to borrow and establish businesses, and the security of community banks. 

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., decried the bailout of "Wall Street moneygrabbers," and wondered why it is that, the bigger the business, the more government feels it should "swoop in and save them," whereas mom-and-pop business that make bad financial decisions just fail. 

"They expect
Joe Six-Pack to buck it up and reward this nonsense," he said. "It's sad time to be an American taxpayer. 

"Wall Street should pay for Wall Street's mistakes," said Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., who said she was reluctantly opposed to the bill. 

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. denounced the "trickle-down" economics behind the bill, and called the mammoth funds involved "sort of like the financial surge strategy, and just like the surge going into Iraq we know it's not sustainable." 

He also said the golden parachutes for executives were merely switched for "camouflaged parachutes." 

"If we vote for this bill it is the end of the Reagan era," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., who called the bill a gift to Secretary Paulson's "friends," said it was merely a stop-gap measure that did nothing to prevent further economic catastrophe. 

"This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it and I'm not going to eat that cow patty." 

"I have no matching metaphor," Rep. Barney Frank responded. 

Rep. Maxine Waters D-Calif. said she was voting for the bill, but called for the prosecution of financial titans who violate the law and ignore their fiduciary responsibility. "We will tighten the screws on Wall Street." 

Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. said, "This is no longer about bailing out anyone; it is about trying to put together a plan that will do less harm than we would do otherwise by our inaction to every American's financial security." 

Rep, Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. said, "We cannot continue to bail out with borrowed money." 

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex. was angered that management of the assets purchased from failing banks would be outsourced "to the people who caused this problem. 

"Let’s save America from Congress." 

Many complained of the speed of the process, and the fact that hearings and committee deliberations were not held on the legislation. "We need to take out time on this," said Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who noted that the Senate will not be taking up the bill until later this week. "There is a better process. I hope that we can slow down this train. I urge a 'no' vote." 

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he was offended when Paulson offered a three-page proposal asking for a bank account with $700 billion in it for him. "So what happened since then, we added 107 pages of taxpayer protection to this bill. 

"This bill offends my principles but I'm going to vote for it in order to preserve my principles, to preserve our financial system." He urged others to vote for it, even though, "We're one month away from an election &30151; we're all worried about losing out jobs." 

"The White House brought this to a crescendo, to a crisis, so that all eyes of the world are on Congress. It’s a heavy load to bear. We have to deal with this panic, we need to deal with this fear … and if we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us. If we fail to pass this, I fear the worst is yet to come." 

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., said taxpayers had a gun pointed to their heads. "This isn’t legislation, this is extortion. 

"Do you like ten trillion dollars of debt? With one stroke of the pen Congress will have extended that an additional trillion. 

"Make no mistake: a vote for this bailout is a vote to ratify business as usual in Washington." 

Like many speaking today, Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, praised Rep. Frank (the key House member in demanding alterations to the administration proposal) for his "noble work in being handed a pile of garbage and making it better." 

But LaTourette said the taxpayer should pay for it. He also called for the repatriation of offshore funds. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the "staggering" cost of the $700 billion package was "only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. 

"They claim to be free market advocates when it is an 'anything goes' mentality," she said, saying the administration's budget recklessness turned around the budget surpluses of the Clinton administration, and if a crisis got so bad, "you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. 

"Those days are over. The party is over in that respect." 

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said $700 billion spent trying to save home could really stimulate the economy, "but that's not what this bill is about," as the Treasury secretary would not have power to stop foreclosures and keep people in their homes. 

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., called the legislation "the biggest corporate welfare bill in history," and said fear was driving members away from reason. 

Rep. Joseph Crowley, R-N.Y., confessed, "Everyone is angry," but said companies and families will suffer from a lack of credit - and said financial executives should be given metal ankle bracelets and not golden parachutes. 

Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., said she "simply cannot stomach" transferring wealth from Colorado families to the benefit of Wall Street figures "whose avarice and greed put us in this situation in the first place." 

She also castigated Congress for failing to take seriously the crisis of gas prices this past summer, "and yet when Wall Street faced the consequences of its actions we worked around the clock" to bail them out. 

Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said he was confident that the protections put in during negotiations would mean that taxpayers stand to get their money back. 

Bachus said he was not willing to take no action. "I'm not willing to put that bullet in the revolver and spin it. I'm not willing to take that gamble. I'm not willing to pull that trigger because I'm not willing to subject the American people to the worst-case scenario. 

"I will take the political risk but I will not take the risk on the American people and their future and their prosperity and their children and grandchildren." 

Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn. said, with the prospect of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, "I have a responsibility to avert it." 

Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, "If anything we may have overdone the oversight, but none of us want to have underdone the oversight." 

"When the markets go up, Wall Street cleans up; when the markets go down, Main Street gets cleaned out," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "We must protect Main Street across this country: Vote 'yes.'" 

In confronting the opposition to the bill, particularly from the left, and the compromise needed to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, "Meeting a national crisis does not give us the luxury of doing everything we want. 

"You have got to accept reality. I wish this was a bill that more reflected my priorities. I wish I could eat more and not gain weight. 

"The poor people will get nothing if we don’t compromise," he said. "This bill can put in the president's hands the power to do good; please don’t throw it out." 

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio., admitted the unpopularity of the bill: "No one wants to be anywhere around it. I don’t want to be around it. 

"These are the votes that we have to look into our soul and understand and ask, 'What is in the best interest of our country?' 

"While imperfect, while not having everything everybody wants, I believe we have to vote for this bill and keep ourselves from the brink of an economic disaster that would harm all of our constituents." 

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D- Md., called it "a day of consequence for the American people. This is a day of consequence to our country. This is a day when the Democratic leader, myself, rises to follow the Republican leader and they speak with one voice as America faces crisis. That’s what Americans want us to do. 

"Why should taxpayers loan out their own money to solve a crisis brought on by someone else's greed? Because when it comes to our economy, none of us is an island; we're all bound together, in boom or bust." 

"Inaction will result in greater pain for our people and our country," he said.


 September 29, 2008 At Democracy Now


“Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?” Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout


The House is set to vote today on a $700 billion emergency bailout plan for the financial industry. The proposed legislation was forged during a marathon negotiating session over the weekend between lawmakers from both parties and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The 110-page bill would authorize Paulson to initiate what is likely to become the biggest government bailout in US history, allowing him to spend up to $700 billion to relieve faltering banks and other firms of bad assets backed by home mortgages, which are falling into foreclosure at record rates. [includes rush transcript]

FDR in 1933: "There Must Be a Strict Supervision of All Banking and Credits and Investments. There Must Be an End to Speculation with Other People's Money."


We now move three-quarters of a century back in time to 1933. It was the middle of an era that our current moment is sometimes compared to: the Great Depression. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took his oath of office in March of that year, over 10,000 banks had collapsed, following the stock market crash of 1929. 

One-quarter of American workers were unemployed, and people were fighting over scraps of food. We play an excerpt of FDR’s inaugural speech on March 4, 1933, and speak to Adam Cohen, author of the forthcoming book, Nothing to Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America


Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 

Summary of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 

Section-by-Section of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 

PDF: Summary of proposed $700 billion financial rescue legislation

PDF: Text of Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Michael Moore On The Money…Read And Act!  The Congress Ought To Read What They Are Preparing To Vote On.  They Are Either Stone Stupid, Evil Or In Such A Rush To Get Home To Campaign That They Just Don’t Care!







Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.


No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:


"Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it. 

"Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages. 

"At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees. 

"Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions."


Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to "consult" in the bailout.


The problem is, nobody truly knows what this "collapse" is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn't know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can't figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone.


And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!


Falling for whom? NOTHING in this "bailout" package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance.


Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What's this got to do with the Wall Street collapse?


It has everything to do with it. This so-called "collapse" was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people's home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it's because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.


This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!


I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately:


1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street.


2. Take to the streetsParticipate in one of the hundreds of quickly-called demonstrations that are taking place all over the country (especially those near Wall Street and DC).


3. Call your Representative in Congress and your Senators. (click here to find their phone numbers). Tell them what you told Senator Obama.


When you screw up in life, there is hell to pay. Each and every one of you reading this knows that basic lesson and has paid the consequences of your actions at some point. In this great democracy, we cannot let there be one set of rules for the vast majority of hard-working citizens, and another set of rules for the elite, who, when they screw up, are handed one more gift on a silver platter. No more! Not again!


Michael Moore


P.S. Having read further the details of this bailout bill, you need to know you are being lied to. They talk about how they will prevent golden parachutes. It says NOTHING about what these executives and fat cats will make in SALARY. According to Rep. Brad Sherman of California, these top managers will continue to receive million-dollar-a-month paychecks under this new bill. There is no direct ownership given to the American people for the money being handed over. Foreign banks and investors will be allowed to receive billion-dollar handouts. A large chunk of this $700 billion is going to be given directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks. There is NO guarantee of ever seeing that money again.


P.P.S. From talking to people I know in DC, they say the reason so many Dems are behind this is because Wall Street this weekend put a gun to their heads and said either turn over the $700 billion or the first thing we'll start blowing up are the pension funds and 401(k)s of your middle class constituents. The Dems are scared they may make good on their threat. But this is not the time to back down or act like the typical Democrat we have witnessed for the last eight years. The Dems handed a stolen election over to Bush. The Dems gave Bush the votes he needed to invade a sovereign country. Once they took over Congress in 2007, they refused to pull the plug on the war. And now they have been cowered into being accomplices in the crime of the century. You have to call them now and say "NO!" If we let them do this, just imagine how hard it will be to get anything good done when President Obama is in the White House.



Join Mike's Mailing List | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Become Mike's MySpace Friend


This Tool Box Can Be Used To Contact Any Member Of Congress


Reading For Everyone, Congress Included:










































Even Conservatives Saw the Coming American Dictatorship