IGNORANT, OR JUST ARROGANT?

Former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is perplexed as to why he's still unemployed and roundly despised after leaving the nation's top law enforcement post. Here's one of his comments during an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal:

What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?

Since Alberto Gonzales is still looking for answers, for a start he could look at his actions here:

* Firing 9 U.S. Attorneys because they didn't go after Democratic politicians, which deliberately politicized America's legal system.

* Signing off on torture and other dubious practices as White House counsel.

* Signing off on eavesdropping without a warrant.

In sum, as the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was little more than a White House tool, who saw the law as something to be skirted rather than upheld. He was the stooge who helped pave the way for Bush, Rove, and Cheney to do their dirty work.

And he wonders why he can't find a job in the legal profession . . .

- Mark

THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM IN PERIL?

It's been a week since I posted anything, so I might as well start back with what is sure to be Barack Obama's top priority throughout his presidency - the economy. An article from Newsmax.com is stating: "The generally gloomy economic news is dramatically raising the stakes for President-elect Barack Obama, and for the future of capitalism."

This is pretty ominous sounding, especially since the guys at Newsmax.com seem to believe "the market" is some kind of magical place that needs to be left alone. They are the last people you would think would be hyping the importance of Barack Obama to the nation's economic health. Here's what prompted the statement.

In the article on home mortgages the author makes it clear that deliquent payments are rising, even for modified home mortgages, where the lender renegotiates the terms of a homeowners loan in an effort to keep them in the house. Things look especially bad when we look at the dollar amount in adjustable rate mortgages that are set to readjust.


As the graph illustrates, we are now in the middle of a small reprieve (of sorts) for adjustable rate mortgages. Modified loans were supposed to help deal with the millions of adjustable rate mortgages coming around the corner. Rising deliquencies in modified home loans are troubling because it tells us that "consumers" and "workers" - rather than "homeowners" - are in real trouble. The housing market may be a red herring.

With unemployment projected to hit 9% by the end of next year, more people will no doubt be leaving their homes - even with creative modified loan programs. All of this tells us that what president-elect Obama faces is nothing short of an economic catastrophe.

So, how bad is it?

Newsmax.com quotes Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International:

"For Obama to be remembered as a great president, he has to do nothing less than rescue capitalism."

Is it really that bad? I think so. I'll explain why in my next post.

- Mark

SPONSOR AN EXECUTIVE

A humorous take on how our taxpayer dollars are being used during this bailout ...



- Mark

RESCUED BANKS TO U.S. TAXPAYER: "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in taxpayer money. They asked how they were spending the money, and what plans they had for what was not spent. Their response, to date, has been a collective "It's none of your business ... now go away."

- Mark

"ME & MY FRIENDS NEED ANOTHER DRINK ..."

Imagine you're at a holiday gathering of close friends and family. You're suddenly brought together at the end of the night to discuss the latest escapades of a well-meaning but ne'er-do-well friend. He's brazenly arrogant, shows up at every gathering, but fails to bring anything. He eats and drinks everything in sight. Worse, while he's fun at first, he's a lousy drunk.

This time, however, your friend has brought uninvited guests, who've made a mess of the place. It's going to take a while to fix everything, and it's going to be costly. John Belushi and his Animal House gang would have been better company. As you're talking they burst into the room and shout out, "Me and my friends need another drink ..."

Well, guess what? This is Hank Paulson & Friends. After running the economy into the ground, and then using the (undeserved) bailout money recklessly, they're now bursting through the door asking for more. Paulson & Friends want a financial night-cap.

Incredible. After allowing the banks and financial institutions to recklessly blow through the first half of the $700 billion in bailout money - by paying dividends, dishing out million dollar bonuses, foreclosing on homeowners, cutting credit card limits, and failing to release money into the economy - Paulson & Friends are now bursting through the door saying "We need the other half of the $700 billion" - no strings attached, of course.

I say we let them sober up first. Assholes.

- Mark

OVERCOMPENSATING INCOMPETENCE

This is an incredible story. The NY Times tells us how Wall Street investment banks handed out well over $100 billion in bonuses and salaries over the past five years to executives who effectively ran their companies into the ground.

Now that everything's gone up in smoke, do you think these incompetents - who should have seen this coming - will pay any of it back?

- Mark

WHY I DESERVE A BAILOUT

This is too funny. It's from Rick Newman at U.S. News & World Report. I've cut the article, but you can read the entire piece here.

****************************************************************************
"WHY I DESERVE A BAILOUT"
December 17, 2008 08:44 AM ET | Rick Newman | Permanent Link | Print

To: Henry Paulson, Bailout Decider, U.S. Treasury

CC: Ben Bernanke, Bailout Buddha, Federal Reserve

CC: Tim Geithner, Bailout Inheritor, Obama Administration

CC: Santa Claus, just in case

Dear Sirs: Please be advised that I am changing my status from ordinary American consumer (OAC) to bank-holding company (BHC) in order to qualify for funds from the government’s Troubled Assets Relief Program. Since I couldn’t find the official application form, I’ve listed my qualifications below:

1. I qualify as a bank-holding company for the following reasons:

My balance sheet is a wreck.

I have posted a sign in front of my house that says “Newman Bank.”

I don’t actually lend money to anybody.

I can certify that I do not employ any unionized workers, only an illegal immigrant, occasionally. And I make her dress nice.

2. I have troubled assets. To wit:

My home. I suspect that other people in my neighborhood have received some kind of mortgage relief, even though I haven’t. This troubles me. If they've gotten something free from the government, then I should, too.

My car. I have a car loan and if I refuse to repay it, the bank will seize my car. Thus my car qualifies as a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) and is therefore eligible for relief under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), specifically, the well-known “Citigroup provision,” which stipulates that if I say so, you have to believe me.

My 401(k). The trouble is, it’s hard to call it an asset anymore.

. . . Without bailout funds, I will be forced to make irrational decisions that will irreparably harm the economy.

This is no time to quibble over a few million dollars. It’s a time to show leadership and act. So come on, give me some money.

************************

Again, you can see the entire article here.

- Mark

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING . . .

Goldman Sachs, which has received government debt guarantees and $10 billion in taxpayer funded bailout money, and saw it's effective tax rate drop to 1%. Why? Because it moved some of its money off shore to avoid paying taxes. Bloomberg News has the story here. But Rachel Maddow does a better job of explaining it here . . .

If the financial industry moving transactions off shore to avoid paying taxes - then asking for a taxpayer bailout - doesn't get your goat, check out this little noticed tax subsidy scam ...




So, I'm wondering ... How does bankrupting America and forcing Uncle Sam to borrow from the Chinese and Middle East make America safer? Why doesn't "America First" apply to Wall Street? Where are the "USA, USA" chanters now?

Just asking.

- Mark

THE BEDWETTERS RIDE AGAIN

With Obama elected president you had to see this coming. Those who support the practice of torture are digging up fear-drenched scenarios only the Cowardly Lion could embrace as policy. Check out this pre-9/11 nonsense from yesterday's NY Times ...

What would Mr. Obama do? After all, if we’d gotten our hands on a senior member of Al Qaeda before 9/11, and knew that an attack likely to kill thousands of Americans was imminent, wouldn’t waterboarding, or taking advantage of the skills of our Jordanian friends, have been the sensible, moral thing to do with a holy warrior who didn’t fear death but might have feared pain?

Hey, I have a better, more realistic set of pre-9/11 questions. And they actually lead us down a path where we have to consider sound analysis and sound judgment . . . you know, the policy stuff that's proactive and actually would have kept us safe.

* What would have happened if the Bush administration had not ignored the outgoing Clinton administration's warning to keep an eye on al Qaeda and bin Laden because they would be their number one concern throughout Bush's presidency?

* What would have happened if we had had a president and an administration that actually read and understood its National Intelligence memos?

* What would have happened if the Bush administration had not downgraded the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism away from Cabinet-level access?

* What would have happened if the Bush administration had listened to Richard A. Clarke, their top counterterrorism official, who was running Washington DC during the summer of 2001, telling agency heads to cancel summer vacations because something big was coming?

* What would have happened if Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Condaleeza Rice had not locked Richard A. Clarke out of a Cabinet-level meeting until one week before 9/11?

* What would have happened if Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld had actually paid attention to Richard A. Clarke's warnings during the September 4, 2001 meeting, instead of wanting to discuss Iraq?

The point here is that REUEL MARC GERECHT's op-ed is asking the wrong set of questions. He's focused on scenarios that, while possible, are highly improbable. More importantly, his line of thinking exposes the U.S. to the world as a nation of bedwetters, so fearful that we compromise our values and institutions.

It almost seems that REUEL MARC GERECHT is unaware that we've already tried his approach. It's called the Bush years. And we all know how that turned out.

- Mark

TWO CHEERS FOR ROD BLAGOJEVICH

This Frank Rich op-ed is an outstanding review of the lack of accountability - from the left and the right - that has permeated our political and economic cultures.

Here's the story in a nutshell: Gov. Rod Blagojevich, while incomprehensibly foolish, is little more than a convenient fool. The real Neros in our evolving theater of Roman-like corruption are still out there, fiddlin' away.

- Mark