Translate

Monday, February 16, 2009

Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln and George Washington

O CAPTAIN! MY CAPTAIN!
Walt Whitman (1819––1892).
(First published 1865; about Lincoln’s death)

O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up - for you the flag is flung - for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths - for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head.
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
But I, with mournful tread, Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.



"George Washington Crossing the Delaware," by Emanuel Leutze, depicts a moment in the revolutionary war when Washington led the troops across the Delaware River to surprise the English troops in the Battle of Trenton, the day after Christmas, 1776.

When Washington led the troops to throw out the English and gain independence, the question remained whether Washington would in fact step aside and allow the citizens to choose a civil leader (president) or whether, in command of the military and at the peak of his power, Washington would instead declare himself King. You know, like George W. Bush did after he stole the election. Stole both elections, actually. When Washington stepped down, it was considered an astonishing step forward towards the ideals of freedom and democracy.

John Greenleaf Whittier (1807 - 1892) was one of a group of American poets, in the 1800s, commonly known as the fireside poets. Their poems rhymed and often had a certain cadance that made them easy for memorization by schoolchildren. He was also an abolitionist, opposing the practice of slavery. Below is a part of his poem about George Washington entitled "Washington's Vow."

"Washington's Vow."

The sword was sheathed: In April's sun
Lay green the fields by Freedom won;
And severed sections, weary of debates,

Joined hands at last and were United States.

O City sitting by the Sea!

How proud the day that dawned on thee,
When the new era, long desired, began,
And, in its need, the hour had found the man! ....

How felt the land in every part
The strong throb of a nation's heart,
As its great leader gave, with reverent awe,
His pledge to Union, Liberty, and Law!

That pledge the heavens above him heard,
That vow the sleep of centuries stirred;
In world-wide wonder listening peoples bent

Their gaze on Freedom's great experiment.

Could it succeed? Of honor sold
And hopes deceived all history told.
Above the wrecks that strewed the mournful past,
Was the long dream of ages true at last?

Thank God! The people's choice was just,
The one man equal to his trust,
Wise beyond lore, and without weakness good,
Calm in the strength of flawless rectitude!

His rule of justice, order, peace,
Made possible the world's release;
Taught prince and serf that power is but a trust,
And rule alone, which serves the ruled, is just.

That Freedom generous is, but strong

In hate of fraud and selfish wrong,
Pretence that turns her holy truth to lies,
And lawless license masking in her guise.

Land of his love! With one glad voice
Let thy great sisterhood rejoice;
A century's suns o'er thee have risen and set,
And, God be praised, we are one nation yet.

And still we trust the years to be
Shall prove his hope was destiny,
Leaving our flag, with all its added stars,
Unrent by faction and unstained by wars.
....

George Washington led the colonists to prevail in the war of independence against England, and, in 1789, became the first President of the United States. His policy promoted the goal that the U.S. should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. His farewell address when he left office specifically warned against this nation ever becoming involved in foreign wars. Too bad nobody ever listens.

We Need More Holidays And One Big Union

We need more holidays.

We used to have two February holidays from school and work: February 12 (Abraham Lincoln's birthday) and February 22 (George Washington's birthday). Now those two have been combined into one holiday, called Presidents' Day. A lot of people have to work today despite the holiday. And a lot of people are unemployed. What are we going to do about this?

These are the paid holidays I remember: (1) New Years (2) Lincoln's birthday; (3) Washington's birthday; (4) (in some places) Good Friday; (5) Memorial Day; (6) 4th of July; (7) Labor Day; (8) Veterans Day; (9) Thanksgiving; (10) Christmas. Some places also used to give their employees their birthdays off, paid. Actually, I also recall Admissions Day as a paid holiday (when the state joined the union).

Now many businesses only have five paid holidays: President's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving. They shut down their entire business from December 24 to January 2, without pay, so no paid holidays for Christmas or New Years. If people can't afford to go a full week without pay, they have to use their vacation days to get paid. So actually, people are only getting one weeks' vacation, since the second week is used to cover the one-week when the business closes and nobody gets paid.

Working people in this country used to get at least 10 paid holidays in addition to two weeks paid vacation, two weeks sick leave, employer-paid health insurance, and an employer-paid pension. Every year that an employee worked, the employer would put a certain amount of money into a pension fund for that employee. What the heck happened to workers' rights in this country? In Europe, working people receive much more time off and better benefits than Americans do. But their CEOs also aren't allowed to loot the businesses, rob the country blind. The people are considered to have basic rights like a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare, education, and a pension for when they retire. Why not us? What happened to our rights?

Ronald Reagan, to start. Those of us who bothered to read history knew Reagan was bad news. As President of the Screen Actors Guild, for example, this B-Movie Actor sold out the working people he was supposed to be representing by testifying at Huac and cozying up to the right-wingers in Washington who were intent on destroying the entire movie-making industry.
It isn't like he had no choice. Lots of people in this country, as well as in Hollywood, stood against Huac and its efforts to destroy our constitution. Reagan went over to join the stomping crowd, rabidly right-wing and anti-worker even as a young man. While others took the more courageous stand against the drunken right-wing neo-fascists in Congress who were running these kangaroo courts known as Huac.
After World War II, this country was briefly run in a manner designed to give most Americans (non-whites continued to be excluded) a decent-paying job, the right to join a union, and an income that would allow them to afford housing, food, clothing, and an education for their children. The right-wing was always against the idea that working people, your average schmoe, should have a decent life.

When Ronald Reagan took office, it marked the beginning of this most recent period of destruction and oppression in our country in which any benefit given to working people was considered bad, and only the accumulation of wealth by the elite was considered good.

Needing help was defined as wrong and bad, weak, so Reagan closed all the mental hospitals that provided housing and 24-hour care for the severely mentally ill, and he literally threw those people out onto the streets where, as rugged individuals, he claimed they'd be better off. Go check out any subway grate, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, park in any city of this country, and you will see exactly what happened to those people. And of course Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers and all but destroyed their union, sending the message across the land that the federal government belonged to business and would destroy any working person who stood up for their rights.

During the Reagan era, we also saw the rise of a dogma that continues to plague us today: the work-till-you-die theory of competition. Everybody, no matter where they worked, was told that "real" men work 80 hour weeks, and if the women want to have decent jobs, they have to do the same. For a brief period, you also had to get up at 4 a.m. to go run 5 miles before work, but that began to fade as people's knees gave out. The neocons actually sold the public on the idea, once again, that the strong survive, the rich deserve it, and anyone who is not willing to work themselves to death is not a company man. Or woman. And as that dogma gained popularity, the business owners turned up the heat and began crushing American workers, taking more and more away. No rest for the weary.
This Reagan assault on your average working person was cheered by the right-wing who began setting up privately-funded and sometimes secret organizations to provide the legal, political, and ideological support for the destruction of democracy in this country.

How best to destroy a nation, take away the power or hope of working people? Throw them out of work, take away their income and their ability to support themselves. That is the culmination of what Reagan began and what, unfortunately, Bill Clinton continued and George W. Bush carried out to its logical conclusion. Crush the working people, steal everything from them, berate them, make them miserable, don't pay them enough for their basic needs. Tell them they are stupid and bad, and deserve what they get. Don't treat them with respect or dignity.
We have 7% "official" unemployment today, but if we include people who lost their jobs but exhausted their unemployment compensation, and people who only have part-time work but want full-time, it's 14% unemployment today. Many predict 14% "actual" unemployment (the part the government counts) by the end of this year, which means maybe 21% or more real unemployment if we include those who lost their jobs but also exhausted their unemployment compensation, and those who can only find part-time work. And of course those who still have jobs get less for their labor.

American workers are told that we are stupid and worthless, we don't deserve jobs, we should lick the boots of anyone who would let us work for them for even a day, we don't deserve a living wage, we would not be having money problems if we weren't so wasteful and stupid and lazy. Yet these are the people who will save our lives when we're sick, care for our parents when they are old, teach our children now, keep our communities safe. Should we support a system which makes these people's lives unbearable, does not pay them enough for them to be able to have a home, healthcare for themselves, to retire someday? Isn't this just an abusive relationship writ large?


You know the abused spouse defense? A woman whose husband beats her finally gets a gun and shoots him in his head, but she gets off because -- he deserved it? I wonder how that defense would work on a national level if the working people of this country finally got sick of being stepped on and verbally abused, and decided to take on the abuser. Of course not with violence. By seizing their assets, by taking over the factories and offices, by sitting down at the borders to prevent Mexican truckers from coming in to take Teamsters' jobs, by targeting businesses that have sent their manufacturing overseas, and shutting them down completely inside the U.S., by having sit-ins at companies that use hb1 workers to throw Americans out of work, sitting in at airports and docks to prevent products manufactured in other countries from being brought into the U.S.. Hit them where it counts, in their pocketbooks.

It's cut-backs and take-backs and give-backs for working people. Things that workers struggled for at the turn of the last century, such as minimum wage, and time and a half for overtime work, have been eliminated during the past 30 years. At the same time, the management of the businesses have radically increased the amount of money that they take out of the business. Essentially, the insiders and CEOs (and Wall Street) have looted the American businesses, looted our country, stolen money from the working people. That is why our country is broke and we now live in failed states. The CEOs, Wall Street, and corporate insiders took all the money.

For example, in 2007 the median compensation package (which includes pay, stock options, other benefits) for CEOs in Standard & Poors 500 was $8.4 million. Compared to the average worker's salary of $55,000. And that $55,000 is worth a lot less now that housing costs almost half of people's take-home, they have no pension so are expected to fund their own pensions, and many employers pay only a small part, if any, of people's health insurance costs. The rich get richer and everyone else goes broke. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25106423/
Of course management has always earned salaries grossly in excess of their worth, but the real looting began in 1980 when Reagan came into office, accelerated dramatically under the famed Republican neocon Bill Clinton, and continued to hold that obscene level through recent years.

In 1980, when Reagan took office, CEOs earned 42 times as much as the average worker.

By 1990, CEOs earned 107 times as much as the average worker. So the CEO's share of the earnings of business had increased by 150%.

By 2000, after Bill Clinton's pro-business, pro-nafta, anti-worker years of control, the CEO's earned 525 times as much as the average worker.

So it went from 107 times as much shortly before Clinton took over, to 525 times as much when he left office. That is what Bill Clinton did for this country. As has been said before, Clinton was a true Republican president. He also set up the new trade laws that would lead to millions of manufacturing facilities in the U.S. shutting down their local operations and transferring all their work to third world countries. Thanks again, Bill.

By 2006, apparently having reached fairly obscene levels and retracting just a bit, the CEOs earned 364 times as much as the average worker. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

And you know what they did for all that money? They looted the country, committed fraud on a massive world-wide level, stole retirement accounts and pensions and savings from the entire world, lined their pockets, and bankrupt their own businesses as well as our country.

Who is going to stop these people? If not the working people, then who? Not Congress. Congress takes bribes from the rich people to look the other way and allow them to engage in this plundering of our country, abuse of us as workers. So who else can do it except the working people of this country? Those people who will likely work their entire lives.

The concept of trade unions might need to re-evaluated. Replaced with one big union. The only people with any interest in stopping employers and businesses from doing what they are doing is the working people, who represent about 80% of the people in this country. Probably 10% on top of them think they'll get rich, so they do the bidding of the truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy have already shown us their goals: loot the country, crush the working people, steal it all.

Maybe we need "One Big Union," as Bill Haywood and Joe Hill and the IWW used to say. One Big Union to which any working person can belong. Truck drivers and nurses and teachers and bricklayers and pilots and all sorts of professionals who are quite surprised to be waking up all over this country and finding out that they're not so smart after all, that they are to their bosses simply widgets, that their work too can be sent to India to be done by young people who come to the U.S., graduate from law school, return to India, and will gladly join a sweatshop to do legal research and briefs for very little money.

Same for engineers, computer workers. Same for accountants. And we all know that journalists are being thrown out of work all over the country, replaced by newsreaders and gossipy old men. Nurses have certainly been treated poorly in our country. While doctors routinely earn over $1.0 million/year, nurses are being thrown out of work, or if they keep their job they have to do the work of two or three people, and their wages are being crushed by hospitals bringing in low-paid nurses from other countries.

Maybe we need one big union for all workers. If we don't help ourselves, who will?

Sunday, February 15, 2009

More Tax Cuts for the Rich: Alternative Minimum Tax

As discussed in the post on 2/14/09 "Rahm Emanuel: Son of Hamlet," one of the things Emanuel bragged about in the stimulus bill was $70 Billion for the "alternative minimum tax issue." What issue?

Alternative minimum tax is just a provision in the law that says if rich people have enough tax scams that they can basically avoid paying any taxes, then there is an "alternative minimum tax" they will be forced to pay, regardless of their tax con games. The Republicans hate this tax because their wealthy supporters don't pay taxes. The Republicans insisted that alternative minimum tax "relief" be included in the stimulis bill. Who knew that Rahm Emanuel would be working along with the Republicans to get this provision in the stimulis bill.

So instead of helping working people who have lost everything, instead of creating jobs, this provision devotes more than 10% of the entire bill to more tax cuts for the richest people in this country -- the top 20% of earners in this country. And in order to give them even more money, money that would have gone to schools for all our children had to be eliminated. Way to go Rahm.

Oh yeah: the Republicans insisted more tax cuts for the rich be included in this bill. How many Republicans in the Senate voted for this bill: 3. Three Republicans get $70 Billion. No wonder the Democrats are poor -- they're too stupid with money to ever know what's going on.

Or are they? Because remember, the Democrats favor the rich too. Rich people pay them bribes just like they pay the Republicans. So the real losers here are the majority of people in the U.S. who continue to see their government-for-sale to the rich.

http://scdfa.org/alternative-minimum-tax-and-stimulus-package

Friday, February 13, 2009

Happy Valentines Day

Who better to sing of love than the French.

Rahm Emanuel: Son of Macbeth?

Following the lead of the deaf, dumb, fat guy on the radio and Republican Senator Gregg, Rahm Emanuel was out-front yesterday with the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, favorite reading of Emanuel's generous contributors from Wall Street, giving an interview in which he took credit for putting in more Wall Street give-aways in the new Stimulus package, and for taking even more away from the already desperate working people of this country. He also managed to trash President Obama and pretty much everyone else in the new administration. His public disloyalty (to the citizens and to the Obama administration) is shocking, and his ambition rivals that of MacBeth.
I hope Obama only has Emanuel hanging around pursuant to that old doctrine "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Remember, Emanuel was known as Wall Street's favorite politician, biggest recipient in Congress of Wall Street Money. And he reportedly told the Illinois Governor to just appoint a two-year seat warmer for Obama's Senate seat, because Emanuel apparently plans to run for that office. Will he use his position in the white house to make sure that the Financial Cartels know he's working for them, so they'll contribute generously to his imminent Senate campaign? Not so much a friend of the working people of this country, and apparently not a friend of Obama's. His ambition is obvious. The only question is whether he sees himself as King of Wall Street, or future President of the United States.

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other -"
(Shakespeare's MacBeth, Act I, Scene VII).

I don't mind ambition. But I have a big problem with somebody like Emanuel using his position in the White House to boast about himself, trash everyone around him, including the President and the entire White House team, help the Wall Street Criminals, harm the working people, and act in complete disregard to the fact that our country is in serious economic trouble, and we need every Democrat working together to save the country. We cannot afford to have small men with outsized egos using their energies to advance themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens. Let's leave that to the Republicans. And their leader, the deaf, dumb fat guy on the radio.


"Emanuel Says Obama Team Lost Message On Stimulus."
February 12, 2009, Wall Street Journal
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the message for selling their massive stimulus bill last week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were savaging the legislation." (Note he blames the President and the President's team -- not himself).

According to the article, Emanuel says that the original stimulus proposal was drafted by a white house group but without sufficient details. He, luckily, came along to save the day, working all week-end, almost single-handedly: "On Friday night, after Senate Democratic leaders and three Senate Republicans struck a deal ensuring Senate passage, Mr. Emanuel, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag and others went to work on precisely the kind of detailed proposal many had been calling for, laboring through the weekend." Thank God Emanuel was there to save the country.

Emanuel also clearly advises his friends on Wall Street that he added some favorable provisions for their benefit:

[Inferentially, After Emanuel had to work all week-end to fix the screw-ups from the original draft] "On Monday morning, the president met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) to inform them after Senate passage, the White House would deliver a proposal that he hoped would form the bulk of a House-Senate compromise."

"That proposal contained some measures not included in either the House or Senate version, including an infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to help fund construction projects across the country. That measure made it into the final package, Mr. Emanuel said." What exactly is he talking about? Last week-end, in a very short period of time, Rahm Emanuel and maybe a few other people changed the Stimulus Plan by, among other things, including a provision that will create "an infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to help fund constructions projects."

My guess is this: "leverage" means somebody does not have much, if any money in a deal, but they plan to suck a lot of money out of the deal through various financial trickery. You know, like Wall Street always does. So, for example, it could work like this: (1) "private equity" (meaning Wall Street) agrees to fund a $5 million construction project such as another bridge to nowhere; (2) the government guarantees the funding; (3) Wall Street turns around and borrows $5 million from the federal government (meaning borrows taxpayers' money) for 0% interest per year, and (4) gives that money to insider construction companies also owned by Wall Street, who (5) end up grossly over-charging with change-orders so the government has to kick in even more money, and (6) Wall Street gets a 20% return on "their" investment through various fees, charges, interest, even though Wall Street never put a penny into the deal. That is what is called a "leveraged" transaction.

I don't know what it means. But it bothers me when a politician who is so obviously in the pocket of Wall Street takes control of a bill designed to help working people, and skews it so that it instead will help Wall Street. They're the ones who stole all our money, remember? But it gets better.

"To put skin in the game and get negotiators off of their hardened positions, Mr. Emanuel signaled up front that the president would give ground on his Making Work Pay signature tax proposal, a $500-per-worker tax cut to offset payroll taxes. That tax cut was ultimately pared back to $400, with an income eligibility cap lowered from $150,000 to $140,000."

Okay, let's talk about that. "Put skin in the game" is violent sports talk meaning somebody gets their face or body all cut up and blooded. So this wimpy little loafer-wearing Wall-Street loving dandy talks tough, and we know he uses the F word all the time, so he certainly and truly must really be a tough guy. But whose skin is he putting in the game? It turns out that what he meant by that is that he changed the law, over the week-end, to take more money from working people who already have lost everything.

Rahm Emanuel, Tough Guy, Wall Street dandy, does not think the working people in this country deserve a break. So he took $100 away from all of them. Money that might have bought shoes for their kids, or paid the gas bill, with maybe a little left over for a box of chocolates for Valentines Day. It's the skin off the little children of this country that Emanuel is talking about. Rahm Emanuel, tough guy, re-wrote the law to take more money away from the already sinking and desperate working people of this country.

"They also swallowed hard and accepted a $70 billion, temporary fix for the alternative minimum tax, even if it had marginal stimulative effect and would crowd out more beneficial proposals.
It was the price for getting the deal done, he said, conceding that with some of the compromises, there's going to be an impact on certain economic activities."

Who is the "they" that swallowed hard? Who came up with this $70 billion "fix" for the alternative minimum tax, and who benefits from it? And what is the fix? That will apparently be disclosed someday. But just in general, many rich people pay no taxes whatsoever through a variety of tax scams, and the alternative minimum tax provides that regardless of what all tax-avoidance schemes rich people may claim, they must pay a certain amount in taxes. I think the law should have been left as is, and people should be required to pay taxes. These are not poor people. So Rahm Emanuel apparently again used his position to help wealthier people while taking $100 away from the desperate workers.

"Mr. Emanuel owned up to one mistake: message. What he called the outside game slipped away from the White House last week, when the president and others stressed bipartisanship rather than job creation as they moved toward passing the measure."

Notice how clever Emanuel manages to blame President Obama and others for any perceived shortcomings. And again notice the sports analogies from this little tough guy: the "outside game slipped away from the White House" because "the president and others" made some mistakes. But not Rahm Emanuel, Son of Macbeth.

Actually, maybe he isn't the Son of MacBeth. Maybe he's Iago fluffing the pillows.
Hey Rahm. Here's another sports saying: there's no "Eye" in "TEAM."

If he worked for a private business, and he put out a story like this trashing his boss and co-workers, and taking credit for himself, he'd be fired. Which is exactly what Obama should do.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123449249590080699.html

Thursday, February 12, 2009

To Pres Obama. Re: Secretary of Commerce.

Dear President Obama:

I see you're having problems filling the spot of Secretary of Commerce.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try a woman for a change.

You should realize by now that men are incapable of making a decision, change their minds as often as they change their hats, can't make a commitment to save their lives, often have smarmy secretive financial dealings in the background that make them inappropriate in any event, and generally are a lot less smart and reliable than are women.

Just ask Michelle, she'll explain.

Women are half the country, so why aren't they half the cabinet positions? If not now, then when? I say now. Let's put a woman in charge of commerce and get some brains in there to try to salvage this sinking ship.

One more thing: no more Republicans. Get over that "bad boy" obsession. They're no good. They're dirty, dishonest, anti-social, they'll deceive you and break your heart. They're just not that into you. Wave good-bye to the bad boy Republicans, and come back home to the loyal Democrats. We still love you even though you "strayed" with that New Hampshire loser Senator Gregg.

Barney And Judy Put On A Show

Remember those old Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movies, when they were just kids hanging out in the neighborhood, and they would decide to get all the kids together to "put on a show" as a fundraiser for something.

Well that's kind of what happened yesterday, with Barney Frank (D) Mass. playing the role of Mickey. Lots of singing from a chorus of multi-millionaires who were there to represent "The Bankers," and "Wall Street." They all looked so serious. VERY CONTRITE. Well, not so contrite that they would give back a penny of the money they have stolen from the public. Not that contrite.

Mr. Mack of Morgan Stanley said they were all sorry about all the financial problems in this country. That's a big help. Mr. Pandit of Citicorp promised he would cut his "salary" to $1.00 per year as an act of contrition. Which was a real slap in the face to the public. Here's the thing: every single politician sitting in that room knows that if Mr. Pandit only takes $1.00 in "income," that only means he is taking all of his probably millions of dollars in compensation in the form of stock options, and when he cashes them in he will pay a maximum of 15% capital gains tax, and will pay no income taxes whatsoever. Every single politician sitting in that room understood that Mr. Pandit was sneering at the public because for the most part they don't know anything about this stock option tax con that the insiders use to avoid paying taxes.

None of the politicians bothered to explain to the public that Mr. Pandit was talking about a special law that the Financial Cartels got put into place so that rich people never pay more than 15% tax on their income. And when a few Democrats tried to change that law, Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York, worked on behalf of his generous friends in the hedge fund industry to make sure their taxes would remain much lower than the taxes paid by your average cab driver or factory worker. The politicians and Wall Street are in bed together, and they cover up for each other.

The bankers and wall street, what I call the "Financial Cartels," more brutal and murderous than the Drug Cartels, have robbed the country blind, stolen many people's pensions and life savings, thrown thousands into foreclosure and out onto the street or to live in their cars, thrown millions out of work, crushed unions, crushed wages, all while drinking champagne and doing lines of coke while their pole-dancing prostitute girlfriends entertained them. Or so it seems to the public. So Barney Frank decided to put on a show for the folks back home.

Remember last fall the Secretary of Goldman Sachs (formerly the Treasury Department), Hank Paulson, went to Congress with a note from Wall Street that said: "Give us all your money or we'll blow the country up." When the citizens heard this they were outraged, and called, and wrote, and e-mailed their representatives and senators with one message: NO BAILOUT. But congress ignored the citizens and gave Wall Street the bailout, $350 Billion dollars of the citizen's money. Why did Congress give Wall Street the money? Because Wall Street owns Congress. They pay bribes and kick-backs to all the politicians in order to get Congress to do exactly what Wall Street wants. And what they want is all the money. And now they've got it.
The public is in a slowly simmering rage over what has happened. And many are demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to work independently of Congress, to report to a citizen's group, to investigate financial crimes, to prosecute and imprison those found guilty, including anyone on Wall Street, in the Financial Cartels, and in Congress. Wall Street could never have gotten away with looting our country and destroying our economy without the willing and devoted assistance of Congress, and we need Senators and Representatives sitting in Attica. And we need to attach assets and put them into a public fund. For example, Mrs. Madoff withdrew $15 million right before the fit hit the shan: why doesn't the government go and take that money back. And if the Mrs. claims she can't remember where she put it, throw her in jail until her memory is restored.

The public is angry. Not just at Wall Street but also at Congress. They are particularly angry over the $350 Billion Bail-Out last fall. So what does Congress do to try to cover up their own complicity? Well first they have some guy come out earlier this week with a Twilight Zone level story claiming that if Congress had not given the money to Wall Street, the entire world would have been destroyed. That is absurd and completely baseless.

Remember, Wall Street took the $350 Billion Bail-Out money and immediately paid themselves Eighteen Billion Dollars in bonuses, but did not put the money back into our economy. They didn't have to, because Congress did not attach any strings to the money. Congress to Wall Street: Here my friend, take the $350 Billion, use it in good health. Why didn't Barney ask the oh-so-contrite boys in the band to pay that money back immediately to the public? Come on Barney. If you really want to put on a show, why not add some drama by demanding these people pay back the Eighteen Billion Dollar Bonuses?

Every penny paid to every politician in the past 8 years from any bank, investment, hedge fund, private equity, wall street, and the lawyers who work for them, should be paid into a public fund. It's all corrupt money and the politicians should be ordered to disgorge. Which Barney Frank himself recently described as a fancy word for meaning "Give the money back."

So Barney and Judy put on a show yesterday, for the folks, to fool us. And all the big boys from the Financial Cartels showed up. And the politicians said mean things and acted shocked, and the Wall Street Boys acted contrite.

Here's the problem. They didn't mean it. It's just a show intended to divert the public. Don't be fooled.

Barney Frank, populist extraordinaire, he's going to take on these crooks, right?

Problem is, Barney Frank takes money from these Financial Cartel people. In fact, they are his biggest fans, they're the ones who give him the most money so he can keep winning elections. Which makes sense because he's in charge of the House Financial Services Committee. He's supposed to be the cop, but he's taking money.

From opensecrets.org, Barney Frank's fundraising 2007-2008, reported December 2008, shows the top 5 industries giving him money are as follows: (1) Securities and Investment $224,000; (2) Real Estate $219,851; (3) Insurance $199,548; (4) Lawyers/Law Firms $185,728; (5) commercial banks $114,700.

The top five donors are Brown Brothers Harriman & Co (a bank); Manulife Financial; Royal Bank of Scotland; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; and Bank of America: aka the Financial Cartels.

So Barney and Judy's show was just that: a circus designed to distract the public from their demand for prosecutions, seizure of assets, and prison for the guilty. All we really want, Barney, is a rear view shot of the financial criminals and the politicians who have taken bribes, looking like this:

No more shows. We need an independent special prosecutor appointed who will report only to a special citizens group, not to anyone in Congress because they are implicated in the actions which have bankrupt many of our states and nearly bankrupt our country. We need indictments, prosecutions, and prison for the guilty. We needs assets seized and turned over to a public fund. And we need public televised hearings to expose the crimes and the criminals.

New York Times article on Barney and Judy's Big Show:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/business/12bank.html?_r=1&sq=Barney%20Frank&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print