I had no idea that most modern copy machines have a digital hard drive. So, everything is stored. In a way that’s great. In another way, that is very bad. What is the protocol at these Quik-Copy places? What about a check stub that you copied at work? All of your information is on that stub – address, social security number, etc. Not good.
Been travelling today, so I haven’t been able to post.
You would figure after I was challenged about Senator Schumer causing IndyMac to fail (and I proved that any reasonable person would conclude that IndyMac self-imploded because of risky investments and undercapitalization) that said person would go home and lick his wounds. Nope. Like most conservatives, he doesn’t seem to know any direction but straight ahead. I have been challenged again. (I like this challenges because I get to research stuff that I normally wouldn’t read.) I will try to have a post about why the Community Reinvestment Act that was amended under Clinton was not the cause of Wall Street’s collapse.
In the meantime, I would like to leave you with a supergroup that dominated the early ’90s.
Artist: Guy
Tune: Wanna get with U
Day Laborers from AP
The Arizona law which was signed into law earlier this week has caused a firestorm. We have nobody to blame but our politicians in Congress. Immigration has been a problem in this country for more than 15 years. We have seen it. We have studied it. We’ve introduced legislation into both houses of Congress and yet nothing has been done. So, Arizona was fed up with the problem. They decided they’d waited too long for the federal government to do something meaningful. Unfortunately, doing something is not the same as doing the right thing. I think it is clear that this law is racial profiling. I’m not sure that Arizona police have the resources to seriously enforce this law. I suspect the law will be struck down by the courts. I’m not even sure the Supreme Court will hear this argument because this law is so obviously unconstitutional.
Yet, this still doesn’t solve the problem. The fact is that we have millions of people who have come to this country illegally. Why? People did not risk capture, deportation, harassment and even death just to wear American jeans. They came here because they believe the economic opportunities were better here than in their own home country. (This is why I’ve stopped using the term “illegal immigrants.” That term seems to play right into conservative ideology and talking points. “Economic refugee” is a more descriptive term because it explains exactly why these folks came here.)
I discussed this problem just the other day when I was interviewed on Local Edge Radio. The place to start is by enforcing the laws that we have now. We have laws on the books that fine employers for hiring people who are undocumented. These laws must be enforced. If we are going to be serious about reform, then this is the place to start. Economic refugees come here for jobs. If the jobs are available then they have only two alternatives — become an American citizen or return to your home country. There are no alternatives.
Now, I think it is important for all of us to consider the ramifications of enforcing, strictly enforcing, the laws that we have on the books now. When you go to Burger World, who is bussing your table? When you go into your kitchen in the middle of the night to make a BLT sandwich, the lettuce and tomato are extremely affordable. Who picked the lettuce and who picked your tomatoes? As a matter fact, who was mowing your lawn? Who is doing the maintenance at the place where you work? Economic refugees have filled these low-wage jobs for more than 15 years. Employers have kept the wages low,making these jobs unattractive to Americans. So, if we are going to start enforcing our laws, our food is going to cost more. It’s going to cost more to get our lawns cut and our houses built.
Without much fanfare and hoopla, Congress could pass a bill today that would increase the budget for enforcement of the laws that we have on the books now. That’s where we need to start. We can worry about the other stuff later. When American businesses understand that there’s a penalty for not hiring Americans, they will start hiring Americans. If they have trouble filling job positions, sooner or later, they will raise wages. This will put Americans back to work and help us get out of this recession faster. How is this not the right thing to do, right now?
For the first time in recent history, it appears that the Democrats have won a battle with the Republicans. Wow! (More later. I’m off to the OR.)
From TPM:
Senate Republicans announced this afternoon that they will allow financial reform legislation onto the chamber floor for a debate after bipartisan talks hit an impasse.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee who has been in bipartisan negotiations with chairman Chris Dodd, released a statement announcing talks could go no further.
“We have been unable, however, to make any meaningful progress on other important components of the legislation. It is now my belief that further negotiations will not produce additional results,” Shelby wrote.
Shelby said he had gotten assurances from Dodd that “he will address a number of concerns” about ending taxpayer-funded bailouts. Those assurances, however, aren’t enough for Shelby to support bringing the bill to the floor. (more…)
I need sleep. Will blog later.
Although there are some who believe that I’m paranoid and/or too pessimistic, I saw this coming weeks ago. I discussed how financial reform is paralleling the health care reform debate. Now, in spite of the hints that we had last week about bipartisan cooperation, Republicans have blocked a formal debate of financial reform. (Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined the Republicans in opposition.)
First, let’s start with Senator Ben Nelson. Billionaire Warren Buffett has opposed some of the regulations on derivatives. Warren Buffett lives in Omaha, Nebraska. Was Ben Nelson’s vote secondary to Warren Buffett’s concerns? Who knows? It would seem that Ben Nelson would want to keep a low profile after being singled out for a Nebraska provision that was placed in the health-care legislation. The Daily Kos has more. I’m not sure what Senator Nelson’s specific issue is, all I know is that he had plenty of time to try to get a compromise without holding up debate. As a matter fact, the debate on the Senate floor, which was just stopped, was supposed to be for compromise. It was supposed to be an opportunity to discuss some of these issues.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This brings me to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I’m not sure if he’s brain dead or he just assumes that Americans are brain-dead. Maybe it’s both. He stated that Republicans oppose this plan because the plan did not do enough to ensure the government would not again rescue institutions that were deemed “too big to fail.” Would this be something that could be debated on the floor of the Senate? Why would you oppose debate? It simply doesn’t make sense. After the vote on the floor Senator Bernie Sanders stated, “I’m disappointed but not surprised that not a single Senate Republicans voted to allow us to proceed to consideration of Wall Street reform.”
So what are the Republicans doing? In my opinion, they’re doing exactly what they said they were going to do several months ago. They’re going to post anything that Barack Obama and the Democrats propose. If Barack Obama decides that it’s a great idea to have a special day celebrating Ronald Reagan’s birthday, the Republicans will oppose it. Republicans claim to want bipartisanship but are not willing to give anything. This bill was vigorously opposed by the US Chamber of Commerce. Wall Street has opposed it also. What side of the street are the Republicans on? Are they on the side of the street with the American people or are they standing with Wall Street and the big banks? “All of us want to deliver a reform that will tighten the screws on Wall Street,” stated Mitch McConnell. Democrats must understand that they’re being played, yet again. They have to figure out a strategy to pass financial reform. Harry Reid must figure out a way to force Republicans into a corner where they have to support this bill.
Sam Bradford
Starting last Thursday, the NFL put on an extravaganza they called the NFL Draft. They brought out all the pomp and circumstance that they could muster. They moved the draft from Saturday to Thursday night — prime time. The ordeal was held at Radio City Music Hall in New York. They got a high profile announcer. Finally, they persuaded several Hall of Famers to attend — Jim Brown, Joe Montana, Deion Sanders and others. All of this hoopla was surrounding the hope that a given NFL team would choose a 21- or 22-year-old who would make them not just slightly better but significantly better. The hopes and dreams of a team, of a city, land on this one guy.
Before I go on and on and how ridiculous it is to spend millions of dollars on somebody who’s never played professional football, let’s review some of the first-round draft choices over the last five years. I think everybody would agree that the NFL has become a quarterback-driven league. So, let’s look at the quarterbacks. In 2005, Alex Smith was the first quarterback taken by the San Francisco 49ers. He has clearly not lived up to expectations, but I’m not sure the book is completely written on him. Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell were also taken in the first round. Jason Campbell has been mediocre at best. He has suffered from multiple different offensive coordinators. Aaron Rodgers has been everything that the Green Bay Packers have wanted and more. Vince Young was the first quarterback taken in 2006. The jury is still out. I think the same can be said for Matt Leinart, but he will get his chance this year. Jay Cutler was the third quarterback taken in the first round of 2006. He’s had a very rocky career so far. The first player taken in the first round of 2007 was none other than JaMarcus Russell. I think that Oakland Raider fans get nauseated just hearing his name. Brady Quinn was taken at number 22. There were no other first-round quarterbacks taken in 2007. I think it’s pretty fair to say that Quinn and Russell have been complete busts so far. 2008 was a much prettier for first-round for quarterbacks. Matt Ryan was taken by the Atlanta Falcons and Joe Flacco was taken by the Baltimore Ravens. Both of these quarterbacks have had fine careers so far. Everybody expects more great things from them over the coming years. Finally, last year Matthew Stafford was taken at the number one spot and Mark Sanchez was taken at the number five spot. It is clear that Sanchez has shown flashes of brilliance. Stafford suffers from being in Detroit. Josh Freeman was taken at number 17. I think it is fair to say that he’s been relatively unimpressive at Tampa Bay.
So, in the last five years, I think one can say without a doubt that one, maybe two, quarterbacks are really solid — Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan. Two quarterbacks can go either way — they can either be great or awful — Vince Young and Jay Cutler. We’ll have to wait and see how good Joe Flacco can be. I’m not sold on him yet. I am not sold on Mark Sanchez, either. He has potential to be outstanding, but we’ll just have to wait and see. The other quarterbacks are mediocre to awful. So, from a business standpoint, spending millions of dollars on a first-round draft choice just doesn’t seem to be a sure thing. As a matter fact, far from it. From this small sample, it looks to be a 50-50 proposition at best.
I have read Brian’s outstanding analysis of quarterbacks as draft picks. He has come up with formulas, as usual, and then tries to use the data to prove his point. I think this method is overly complex. He looks at something called “adjusted yards per attempt” and gives quarterbacks a 45-yard penalty per interception and a 10-yard bonus for each touchdown pass. I have a problem with this formula. I think there’s more to quarterbacks than just his passing statistics. A quarterback’s presence in the huddle can at times make your offensive linemen block better and your running backs run better. The leadership of somebody like Ken Stabler or Roger Staubach I don’t think and be adequately measured by formulas. Was Terry Bradshaw or Roger Staubach the better quarterback in Super Bowl XIII? Should Staubach be penalized because Jackie Smith dropped a wide-open touchdown pass? Brian’s data suggest that coaches and owners are actually pretty good at picking quarterbacks. His data goes much further and suggest that quarterbacks that are picked in the first round are much better than those that are picked in later rounds. This again suggests that coaches do know what’s going on.
Every now and then, I think that statistics can fool us. Just look at the data I’ve presented above. We’re looking at the best. First-round draft choices. These guys are supposed to be good right out of the gate. We’ve seen that probably half of these quarterbacks are not great. As a matter of fact several of them aren’t even good. I haven’t even mentioned everybody’s favorite whipping boy Ryan Leaf, who held San Diego’s dreams as a first-round draft choice. He was paid $11 million. Not $11 million to play, but $11 million just as a signing bonus. So, I really couldn’t get excited over this year’s draft. Let’s see how these guys do in training camp. Let’s see who will emerge as a real player. (I didn’t come close to getting caught up in the Sam Bradford, Jimmy Claussen, Tim Tebow speculation. I didn’t care. Let me see what these guys do on the field. Then I’ll care.)
The city of Asheville is overjoyed to host President Obama and his wife, Michelle.
For more check out the Citizen Times.
The greatness of Robin Williams should not be understated. Back when cable was new, a friend and I, being in college, were slightly inebriated and we watched Robin Williams’ HBO special, Comedy Faster Than the Speed of Thought. We almost blew out double hernias laughing so hard. It was painful. Unlike some other comedians, Robin Williams has never lost the ability to do standup. He has this stream of consciousness that is simply amazing to watch. Here he is on some show that I’ve never heard of, introduced by one of my favorite comedic actors John Cleese of Monty Python fame.
One of the great lines from this stand up is, “Where did they get Sarah Palin? Did Ronald Reagan and Posh Spice have a child?”
Their are lots of reasons to object to Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg. They are hypocritical. They are nonsensical. They are overly militaristic. They have persecution complexes and they’re never happy. Jon Stewart seems to have a few reasons of his own. This is hysterical.
Watch video:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bernie Goldberg Fires Back | ||||
|
||||
Really tired. Work is kicking my booty.
From PA:
With Republicans and Democrats digging in, I thought we were in for a long hard slog, but something might have happened.
From Political Animal:
After some unpleasant chest-pounding last week, the fate of Wall Street reform looked shaky as recently as Monday afternoon. Yesterday, however, there was evidence of real progress, and today Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a leading negotiator on the bill, acknowledged, “We’re very close to a deal and there will be a substantial number of Republicans that go along with it.”
So, what’s behind all this progress? Brian Beutler and Christina Bellantoni explained that Republican senators weren’t prepared to walk off a cliff on this one.
Key Republicans, sincere about passing new rules for Wall Street, but intimidated by the notion of blocking financial regulatory reform, let it be known to their leadership that, at some point, they would side with Democrats to break a filibuster. Maybe not on round one, or even round two. But eventually.
“Folks on our side of the aisle want a bill,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told me and a few other reporters Monday night. “I know that. I just [had a] discussion with some of our leadership on the floor. You know, we want a bill.”
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) made it equally clear: if top-level negotiations broke down, she and other members would find a solution. “I think it’s important to continue between the two principals on the committee, because that’s where it’s likely to happen,” Snowe told reporters yesterday afternoon. “But if not then we’ll take things as they come. We’ll take the next step.”
This afternoon, entering a Republican caucus meeting, the Republican Deputy Whip John Thune candidly acknowledged that the politics just aren’t playing out for the GOP, and that members don’t want to take a tough vote against regulating Wall Street.
In other words, Dems’ expectations were actually correct on this one.
Evidence that the GOP is “softening its opposition” to financial regulatory reform is apparent in more than just rhetoric and renewed negotiations.
You remember what happened, don’t you? Everything started to unravel late in 2007. The first one who was found without a chair when the music stopped was Countrywide. Bank of America was able to buy Countrywide for $4 billion (a stock swap) in early 2008. Just a year earlier Countrywide was worth over $50 billion. Countrywide’s founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo (Time wrote that he was one of the top 25 people to blame for the financial crisis) was once the darling of Wall Street. He ended up being charged by the SEC for taking more than $139 million in profits. It was Countrywide who first introduced us, the American people, to credit default swaps and CDOs. In a wonderful bit of irony, IndyMac was founded in 1985 by David Loeb and Angelo Mozilo as a means to collateralize Countrywide Financial loans that were too big to be sold to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. In 1997, IndyMac (Independent National Mortgage Corporation) was spun off as a separate company. I mention all this about Countrywide because we’re going to see this exact same cycle again with IndyMac. IndyMac, Washington Mutual and Countrywide were birds of a feather. Each company pushed subprime mortgages. Each company pushed adjustable-rate mortgages. Each company packaged the mortgages into securities which could be sold to Wall Street.
Case: 80-year-old retiree in Savannah, Georgia, loan in 2005 to build a modular house. The mortgage was approved by IndyMac. They approve the application based on the applicant’s Social Security income, which was written down as $3825 per month. The only problem is the maximum social security benefit is less than half this amount.
In late June of 2008, Senator Chuck Schumer released a letter which was volatile to say the least. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find the original letter on the Internet. I have been able to find portions of the letter quoted in several articles. (If someone is able to find the letter please send me the link.) In a statement the senator mentioned that he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses a significant risk to both taxpayers and borrowers.” He went on to say that IndyMac “could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly.”
Let’s back up and look at what the Los Angeles Times wrote in January of 2008. (This was six months before Schumer opened his yap.) This particular article looked at adjustable-rate mortgages. The author noted that adjustable-rate mortgages were usually given to small business owners, self-employed professionals and salespeople with consultative finances and fluctuating earnings. The article notes that adjustable-rate mortgages were given out by Countywide and IndyMac to people who previously would not qualify. Adjustable-rate mortgages usually have a “teaser rate” for around two or three years. So loans written in 2005 and 2006 were now resetting at their higher interest rate in 2008. The article noted delinquency rates in some parts of California of 13-15%. (One particularly egregious variation of adjustable-rate mortgages for something called an option adjustable-rate mortgage. This mortgage gave the homeowner three choices at the end of every month — pay principal plus interest, pay interest only or pay less than interest-only and allow the principle to increase.) So, in January, the Los Angeles Times called out Countrywide, which had just been bought by Bank of America, and IndyMac by name.
IndyMac Stock Price
A report that was published by the Department of Treasury after IndyMac’s implosion shows us the magnitude of the problem. According to this report, by May 2005, officials at IndyMac were aware of problems with their adjustable-rate mortgages. This market completely collapsed in 2007. The bank could no longer sell its mortgage securities because there were no buyers. By May 2008, over 12% of these loans were greater than 90 days in delinquency. Another reason for IndyMac’s failure lies in its lack of deposits. The bank did not have many retail branches. Therefore there were many customers opening up savings accounts and checking accounts. IndyMac had to rely on Federal Home Loan Banks and brokered deposits for funds. Basically, as I understand it, this is simply another way to borrow money. At one point in 2006, IndyMac had over $9 billion in these loans. Finally, every bank is supposed to have a certain amount of cash on hand to balance out possible loan losses. In early 2008, IndyMac hired an outside accounting firm and the firm showed that IndyMac did not have enough cash on hand. As if this wasn’t bad enough, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s decided in April 2008 to re-rate the number of mortgage-backed securities (before this time they simply rubberstamped many of the securities that were brought to them by J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs). This included over $160 million in mortgage-backed securities that Indy Mac was holding, thus lowering IndyMac’s capital ratio (when it rains it pours). Around the same time, IndyMac announced its third consecutive quarterly loss (see graph).
I think it’s been pretty much established that the Office of Thrift Supervision ignored warning signs. Had they acted in a timely manner, the implosion could have been prevented. There is one little side note that I thought was interesting. The Office of Thrift Supervision allowed Indy Mac to accept an $18 million deposit from its holding corp. and backdate that deposit in order to help balance its books. This transaction happened on May 9, 2008. On May 6, 2008 the FDIC told the Office of Thrift Supervision that Indy Mac was “close to failing and needed new money quickly.” (Some at OTS were forced to resign because of IndyMac.)
So, I think that after further investigation it is clear that IndyMac was going to fail with or without Chuck Schumer’s help. Did Senator Chuck Schumer drive the final stake through the heart of a dying Rasputin who already been shot, poisoned and burned? Yes, I think that’s a fairly accurate metaphor. On the other hand, I have clearly shown that IndyMac was dying. Federal regulators were going to have to step in soon. In hindsight, they should’ve stepped in sooner. IndyMac was going to die with a without Chuck Schumer’s help. Their business model simply could not stand the catastrophic failure of the subprime mortgage market.
An April 15, 2010 front-page headline in the local Gannett newspaper, the Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times, caught my eye: “Obama, other Democrats battered in poll.” The story was by Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti, who is so biased by her inside-the-beltway mentality that she apparently doesn’t understand the difference between “what people are saying” and “what is demonstrably, empirically true” (i.e., facts).
The story begins
“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s national standing has slipped to a new low after his victory on the historic health care overhaul, even in the face of growing signs of economic revival, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.
“The survey shows the political terrain growing rockier for Obama and congressional Democrats heading into midterm elections, boosting Republican hopes for a return to power this fall.
“Just 49 percent of people now approve of the job Obama’s doing overall, and less than that — 44 percent — like the way he’s handled health care and the economy. Last September, Obama hit a low of 50 percent in job approval before ticking a bit higher. His high-water mark as president was 67 percent in February of last year, just after he took office.”
HOLD IT. STOP RIGHT THERE! READ THAT AGAIN:
Statement 1: “Obama’s national standing has slipped to a new low. . .”
Statement 2: “Just 49 percent of people now approve of the job Obama’s doing . . .
Statement 3: “Last September, Obama hit a low of 50 percent in job approval. . .”
According to Liz, the president’s approval rating has utterly collapsed, dropping AN ENTIRE PERCENTAGE POINT in less than six months. Battered. Just battered. Poor Obama must not know what hit him.
Sidoti marches on
“The news is worse for other Democrats. For the first time this year, about as many Americans approve of congressional Republicans as Democrats — 38 percent to 41 percent — and neither has an edge when it comes to the party voters want controlling Congress. Democrats also have lost their advantage on the economy; people now trust both parties equally on that, another first in 2010.
“Roughly half want to fire their own congressman. Adding to Democratic woes, people have grown increasingly opposed to the health care overhaul in the weeks since it became law; 50 percent now oppose it, the most negative measure all year.”
STOP AGAIN. REALITY CHECK.
Statistic 1: Congressional Democrats – 41 percent approval
Statistic 2: Congressional Republicans – 38 percent approval
Wow. The Democrats are being battered, too. They’re losing . . . well, falling behind . . . okay, not quite as far ahead as they were a few months ago . . . Um, they’re STILL BEATING THE REPUBLICANS. HELLLLLOOOOO?
And Liz doesn’t even bother to mention the distressing news that, in the half-dozen special elections to the House of Representatives since Obama was elected, Democrats have lost ALL BUT SIX. That means they have beaten Republicans in House races only 100 percent of the time since November, 2009. In the world according to Liz, they better hang it up!
I go to the source.
After reading the four-paragraph version of this article in the C-T, I decided to find the original on the AP website. What did I find?
Well, the AP at least had a more reasonable headline: “Obama, Democrats slip in poll.” A little, teeny, tiny, minute bit more precise way of describing a one-percentage-point drop than “battered.”
But the rest of the story includes details of the AP’s polling, which stood out in light of a simultaneously released in-depth, nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll showing that a grand total of 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as tea party supporters.
Liz Sidoti writes:
“One third [33 percent] of those surveyed consider themselves tea party supporters, and three-quarters of those people are overwhelmingly Republicans or right-leaning independents.
“The tea party coalition remains fuzzy to most people; only 16 percent say they know a great deal or a lot about this political phenomenon born a year ago.”
HOLD IT. STOP AGAIN.
Liz’s world: 33 percent. . . consider themselves tea party supporters
Real world: 18 percent. . . identify themselves as tea party supporters
Liz’s world: 24 percent. . . are right-leaning Independents or Republicans (3/4 of 33 percent)
Real world: 84 percent admit they don’t know very much about what they support or oppose
So…the AP skewed its sample by polling an 83-percent-higher proportion of tea party supporters than there are in the voting population. That means that their approval-disapproval rating is also skewed. Thus Obama’s 49 percent approval is more likely 59 percent; the 41 percent for Democrats is closer to 49 percent; and the 38 percent for Republicans is a losing 46 percent.
Naturally, Liz concludes that this small group of ignorant tea-party Republicans—the loudest, angriest, best-armed, and best-publicized bunch out there—are the most powerful force in the electorate, far more impressive than the 64 million voters who elected Barack Obama 15 months ago.
Outside the beltway and the Fox media echo chamber, real people notice that the huge, massive national protest against gun control drew. . .75 people. Outside the beltway, people don’t think their liberties have been stolen away by an illegitimate Kenyan-born Muslim usurper. Outside the beltway, citizens cannot believe that the Republicans unanimously oppose new, stricter regulations on Wall Street. Outside the beltway, people are crossing their fingers in the hope that they will find a new job and keep current with their car payments, mortgages, kids’ braces, and other expenses. Outside the beltway, the tea party phenomenon is a small, very smelly pile of crap.
But for Liz Sidoti and the Associated Press (now under the presidency of a former Bush political operative), the world of wingnuts is reality.
As a trauma surgeon, I find Monday to be a relief. By Monday afternoon, you have an opportunity to look around and see how bad the weekend truly was. So, unlike most Americans, I like Mondays.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Now this is great tune.
Artist: Paul McCartney and Wings
Tune: Maybe I’m Amazed
These are very cool video of the volcano in Iceland.
From CNN:
An ash cloud from an Icelandic volcano was projected to snarl international travel for a third straight day, as flight cancellations and airspace restrictions stretched into Sunday.
British Airways canceled flights to and from London airports on Sunday, and the United Kingdom’s air traffic agency extended restrictions on U.K.-controlled airspace until at least 7 p.m. Sunday (2 p.m. ET).
Thousands of flights were canceled Saturday. European air traffic officials said 5,000 flights took place instead of the customary number of 22,000. About 10,400 flights took place in Europe on Friday, compared with the normal 28,000.
The eruption began March 20 beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier in southern Iceland, blowing a hole in the ice. It worsened this week, forcing local evacuations and eventually affecting European airspace. Although barely visible in the air, the ash — made up of tiny particles of rock, glass and sand — poses a serious threat to aircraft. (more…)
Professor Elizabeth Warren is standing up for the people and our economy. We need to do more to protect against fraud.
The Errington Thompson Show will look at, discuss and dissect meteorites, volcanoes, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the state of the financial sector, the progress of the financial bill in the Senate, taxes and the tea partiers. We are happy to welcome from the popular blog, Jack and Jill Politics, Rikyrah. Join me this Friday for some fun, entertaining and progressive discussion at 6 PM (EST).
GREAT show. If you missed it, I’ll have the podcasts up later.
It seems at times that Americans have the collective memory of a gnat. We can remember how to work our iPods and how to start our cars, but not much else. Just a few months ago, health-care reform was dead. The Democrats went out of their way to try and appease Senator Susan Collins (Republican — Maine). The Democrats danced and tried to sing in tune in order to woo Susan Collins. (Was she the football of bipartisanship or was she Lucy?) I know the Democrats are Charlie Brown in this analogy. Every time the Dems got close to some sort of agreement on health care reform, Susan Collins would say she was not satisfied (and pull the football away so that the Dems would land flat on our backs) . This went on for weeks. The Dems finally wised up and passed Healthcare Reform without Senator Collins.
Now we have financial reform. Wall Street is showing very nice and healthy profits with the money that we’ve infused into these huge corporations. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. The conditions that caused the meltdown have not been fixed. There are still subprime mortgages. There are still mortgage derivatives. There are still mortgage-based credit default swaps and credit debt obligations (CDOs). All the ingredients are still there to make wildly insane profits based on unsustainable formulas. So to remedy the problem on Wall Street, Senator Chris Dodd has introduced a bill which has been passed by the Senate Finance Committee. The vote, of course, was extremely partisan. The Republicans are saying exactly the same thing about this bill that they said about health-care reform. They’re stating that reform is needed. They’re stating that they support reform but oppose this bill. A letter from the Senate Republicans has been drafted to the Democratic Senate leadership. 40 Republican senators have signed the letter… but not Susan Collins. She is the lone holdout. She stated that she wants reform and is still open to negotiation. Does this sound familiar?
The Republicans are not pleased that they lost the last battle. I suspect that they will dig in and stand up against anything that the Dems propose for financial reform. They will attack Democrats on multiple different levels. They will claim that the bill supports the big banks. They will claim that there is too much regulation in the bill which will stifle innovation, profits and job growth. We’ve heard all this before. We do need better and smarter regulation. We do need appropriate regulation in order to prevent another meltdown. I think when we look back from 1945 through 1980, we have to ask ourselves why weren’t there meltdowns during this time period? The answer is simple. Regulations separated banks from other types of financial institutions. Regulations dictated that financial institutions had to have a certain amount of capital to balance out their debt obligations. Finally, during this time period, we never had banks that were “too big to fail.”
Democrats need to look to the past in order to give Americans a better future. We need not change anything to please Susan Collins. She has proven before that the cost of her vote is too high. The Dems need to let the dream of kicking that football go. Democrats need to do what’s right for the American people. That is all that I ask.
Errington C. Thompson, MD, is a surgeon, scholar, full-time sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats...
