Legislative Lashings?

Congress Bares its Teeth at AIG, Misses the Point

The Congress OK'd a Punitive Excise Tax on bonuses paid to AIG executives worth over $250,000 today to attempt to regain the $165 Million paid out beginning at the end of last week. I've covered this over the last two days and wish that this issue would go away just a little bit.

Democrats, led by Representative Charles Rangel of New York, pushed the bill through the House with astounding numbers on both sides of the aisle, the greatest act of bi-partisanship in this session. Yet there were six Democrats that were political strong enough to stand up to this ridiculous piece of legislation that is purported to retrieve taxpayer money, but is, in fact a, politically speaking, cowardly move to make some kind of movement on the AIG situation without actually solving anything. Way to go, Congress. Way to respond to a symptom and not the illness.

But Congress isn't alone on this one. President Obama echoed an eagerness to sign such a bill once it reaches his desk in cooperation with Congress' and the People's Outrage. Meanwhile House Republicans are seeming to take the stand that I am in this mess: Stop trying to CYA and fix the problems! And the Democratic-controlled House is saying that this measure is the only solution to the problem, apparently unaware of any kind of discussions that are currently going on in committee regarding the return of the bonus millions to the people.

But the real issue here is that while these executives have done really terrible things and they don't deserve the money that they are receiving, it is not okay for Congress to rip those bonuses out of executives' hands through an excise tax. This is where the Executives of AIG should throw a Tea Party, not those fools angry about the government's marginal increase in spending. These bonuses were offered to keep AIG afloat, before the U.S. Government stepped in and as pointed out by some, including Rush Limbaugh, it's not right for Congress to start a pitchfork raid of these people who were promised these bonuses.

It is a complicated issue, the AIG disaster, and there are many people to blame for this situation. But it's my opinion, as I've said for the past couple of days, to move past punishment and focus on fixing the problem. But I guess if we want to focus on getting our elected officials to punish AIG, they are doing a fine job of that. Let's punish them into oblivion and hopefully we can crash the whole system - isn't that why we bailed them out in the first place?

**UPDATE: From Rep Campbell, an interesting viewpoint about Californian's and the Bonus Excise Tax

-----
Today's Political Thought
We currently have a fracturing Democratic Senate Caucus that will leave three voting factions - instead of having a third party, we'll just have two Democratic Parties and one Republican?!?!

Hold on to your Teabags

Teabag protests are breaking out all over the country as Obama's support dips. And everything else that actually happened today.

First, let's look at news that slipped under the radar with the AIG debacle:

Secretary Gates has signaled an end to Stop-loss policy in the Military - this means that the military is actually going to start upholding its contract with military personnel regarding the length of their duty and will pay those it must hold an additional stipend for extended duty.

The GIVE act passes - Almost perfectly along partisan lines, but this legislation has moved out of the House to reauthorize and reform national service laws.

The RNC has seen a dip in Fundraising - But not in a really significant way suggesting that Michael Steele has had no real effect, or rather no overwhelming effect on RNC fundraising.

Attorney General Eric Holder makes a couple big announcements - including a shift in position on marijuana prosecution and a consideration of lessening regulation of anti-trust laws for newspapers.

The Pope says no to condoms while en route to Africa

Gay Rights Ban Signed by U.S. - So while we are debating the legality of it here in the United States, we are proud to say it's not okay to discriminate gays if you're not the U.S.

But most of these stories were overshadowed by the stories surrounding AIG and CEO Liddy's testimony regarding the bonuses that have now been paid out. Of course there are great stories that are riding along with the AIG mess including the new chic teabagging that is happening around the country which will culminate on April 15th. The Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party organized by New American Tea Party promises to be a very interesting event as we have already seen instances of people teabagging their local water sources in protest. These teabaggers are getting quite the media coverage for their antics. Bob Cesca, has published a fantastic little explanation of why that is a little funny.

It is always interesting to me when groups of people get together to throw little protests like throwing tea into the river because they don't agree with the administration. Just a quick question: Do you think throwing tea into a body of water is going to get your Representative or Senator to change their minds? As though they are sitting in their office on Capitol Hill going, "My goodness, my constituents sure have dumped a lot of tea into Lake __. I better ask Liddy questions harder before they get really angry."

This situation with AIG and Bank of America and all of the other banks is a real tragedy and those on the Hill and in the White House are working really hard to fix the problem. You dumping tea into the Potomac is not going to fix it. Neither is mailing it to the White House. And your protests are going to lead to panic, which as I explained yesterday, is exactly what we DO NOT NEED in this crisis. So let the boys and girls in D.C. do their work to try to solve this issue and stop protesting. You're not helping the matter any.

Obama came out with a very measured response to this ridiculousness on the Hill and ya'll should take a hint from him. It's time to take a little responsibility and get through this, not point fingers and whine.

-----
Today's Quote
"Though dissenters seem to question everything in sight, they are actually bundles of dusty answers and never conceived a new question."
- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition (1973)

Banking a U-turn

Banks say, "Thanks, but no thanks" on that bailout to nowhere...

Today, New York Times Journalist Steven Labaton published a story about the major banks that are having a hard time swallowing the new rules that come along with taking federal money in the bailout. This article has raised a number of responses on the topic and I want to cover some of these positions and what this could mean for the financial bailout.

First, each of these banks has accepted bailout funds to help keep their institutions afloat. They have accepted cash, from the federal government because they were in financial trouble. This is what we were told when the bailout began and why the people have asked for accountability regarding the spending of these funds. Let's talk about the banks that are taking the bailout money and talking about giving (or have already given) the money back:

1. Goldman Sachs - $10,000,000,000
2. Wells Fargo - $25,000,000,000
3. TCF Bank - $361,172,000
4. Signature Bank - $120,000,000
5. Johnson Bank - $100,000,000
6. MidSouth Bank - $20,000,000
7. Bank of America - $15,000,000,000
8. IberiaBank - $90,000,000
   

However, over the past few weeks, beginning with IberiaBank on February 27th, many of these banks have stated that they are considering returning the money to the government early due to new restrictions / rules that have been attached to the TARP funds including holding off on evictions and modifying mortgages citing that the new restrictions are more than they bargained for. IberiaBank plans on repurchasing their stock (which was sold to the federal government under TARP) on March 31st, instigating a cascade of similar responses from banks that also want to Bail Out of the Bailout!

Of course the immediate question on many people's minds, including Dana Houle posting on DailyKos is: If you didn't need it, why did you take it?

It seems to me that with many of these smaller banks, as John Marshall posting on TPM explains, not truly hurting like the major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, is that they kind of jumped on a bandwagon, right? As though, hearing that Sachs is getting TARP funding, these banks said, "Hey. Maybe we can help subsidize our losses too and since clearly no one is asking for any kind of accountability, we can just grab a little piece of the pie and probably no one will notice." Except that people have noticed and, even more importantly, are asking what is going on with that money?

A great example of this is pointed out by Charles Karel Bouley posting on Huffington Post, citing Bank of American's unwillingness to publicly account for bonuses paid to its officers using bail out money. I believe this is a great time for Seth Myers of SNL to do a "Really?!?!" segment on the bailout. If you have never seen one, I would suggest this one on Governor Blagojevich.

So if you did not accept this money because you were truly in dire straits, as I thought was sort of suggested in accepting bailout funds in the first place, then why did you take it? C.R. Cloutier of MidSouth Bank explains;

I hope they can finally tell me just what they want community bankers to do. It was sold to us by the feds as a partnership, but its turning out to be something very different. Its looking more and more like the federal government wants to treat this like it was a needs-based issue, and we didn't need the money.

Fair enough. You were under the impression that this was an opportunity for you to help out your local community and were just accepting the funds to enable your bank to loan money and help out. Alright. Sorry to drag you into this. IberiaBank supposedly took the money to free up credit markets in Louisiana and to consider purchasing failed banks in the region.

Wait! Are you telling me that we are putting money into super-sized banks and bailing them out because they are lumbering, unregulated giants, and then asking smaller banks to build up to become larger banks? And there's more! Apparently IberiaBank is returning the money because they've recently made a ton of capital through a matching program from investors.

Let me get this right -

• The government gives you money to invest in the local community
  
• Meanwhile, you make money on the government giving you money through investors
• Then you give the money back saying, "Thanks, but no thanks" when asked to provide more information about your bank to the government regarding salary and bonus information
• In the meantime, making, what essentially amounts to interest on that money, and then walking away with the free money. And you're not the only bank that is doing it?

We've been duped again!

Look, I understand that many of you are not failing and you have been given money under different auspices than the failing institutions. But, your issue with the bailout money is that you have to disclose information regarding your chief officers? C'mon. Don't act like you're trying to help the country, if you're not really trying to help the country.

So the Opinion,
1. We've lost the battle on getting this whole thing under control. We have to ask the tough questions, we cannot take no for an answer, and we have to do it now. It's time for congress to get on this oversight thing. Maybe by either beefing up the Congressional oversight or appointing an independent board
2. Any bank that has made any kind of dividend from the TARP or Capital Purchase Program should be heavily taxed for it if they want to return the money, or it should be seized by the federal government, or they should pay more for those stocks than they sold them for (kind of like an early repayment fee)
3. We should break apart the over-sized companies, or fully federalize them as they can't seem to be accountable to the people
4. We should not trust banks. They are inherently not capable of making nonprofit decisions. They are for-profit institutions. Why we ever expected them to do anything for the greater good is a failure of logic. Stop giving banks money!

-----
Today's Quote
"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee that says 'Fool me once, ...Shame on ...Shame on you ...You fool me, can't get fooled again"
President George W. Bush

Employee Free / Forced Choice Act

Labor and Business go at it over NLRA Revisions

EFCA is proposed legislation that is now up for review in the Senate regarding revisions to the original National Labor Relations Act of 1935. There are already strong arguments that have been made from the left and the right regarding this act's potential impact on business and labor. Here is what some are saying.

Proponents (Labor: AFL-CIO, SEIU)

1. Will protect the middle class
2. Will stop corporate intimidation in organizing a union

Opponents (Conservative Think Tanks, Union-Busters: Heritage Foundation, Labor Relation Institute)

1. Will allow very small units in large organizations to run a "card check" certification, effectively unionizing a small subsection of a business without an election
2. Ends Union elections, and silences employees by banning elections
3. Will require an election to disband a Union
4. Will create more union employees that pay union dues, which will end up back in Democrats hands and make labor standards even more strict on companies, starting a cycle of more Democrats in Congress, less speech for companies and eventually, a Socialist State
   

And some other resources
Ed and Labor Committee Fact Sheet
Language of EFCA

The Issues at Hand
Card Check vs. Secret Ballot - The most hotly debated of all of the issues with the employee free choice act is that the NLRB would now be directed that,

"...whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection."

Campaigning when starting a Union - Unions are often not allowed to campaign on the companies' premises while the company can force anti-union meetings
Collective Bargaining - After an election is held and a Union established, companies can drag on bargaining indefinitely

So what does EFCA actually do?
It would revoke part of Taft - Hartley Act by freeing up the NLRB to recognize a collective bargaining unit with a majority instead of giving a company the ability to require an election after a majority has already been heard.
It would impose harsher penalties on companies that impose unfair labor practices such as intimidation and firing
It would end first-contract bargaining more quickly by requiring arbitration by an outside source when demands cannot be met on both sides within 120 days and lock that contract in effect for 2 years.
It would allow an organizing force to effectively organize a company's employees even before a company has an opportunity to add its opinion to those being weighed by the employees.
It will kill a lot of Union-busting companies by shortening their window of opportunity prior to an election.

At first, I was very skeptical about this bill and thought that I might end up being pulled to the right by it. I had read that it would only take 30% of employees signing a card to form a recognized union. I had read that employees would not be allowed an election and would be forced to use the card-check system. However, these things are not true and if you look at the actual bill's language, there is nothing even close to that in the bill. It will however, probably make it easier for employees to organize, and that will be a dangerous thing for companies and Republicans (as listed as #4 under Opponents, above) and luckily there is a very simple solution for that.

So the Opinion:
1. EFCA, as it stands, is a good bill. It's clean and will make it easier for employees to organize which is a good thing for those employees.
2. EFCA will not end Union elections, nor force public card-checks, but will allow for those who have already done a card-check with 50% or more (the same majority needed during the election) to be recognized. There is no reason to hold an election once 50% of workers have already voted in favor of something.
3. Campaign Finance needs to be changed before this bill is passed or soon thereafter. If there is anything that is wrong with EFCA, it is that the balance of political power in state capitols and D.C. will change and we will see an increase in Labor's power. It will swing the country as more employees are organized. Then paying dues, that money will go to more Pro-Labor Electeds and eventually to a Labor-controlled state. Maybe it's time, those of you on the right who have been anti-campaign finance reform, to reconsider as this is about to tip the balance pretty quickly and leave you out in the cold.

**UPDATE: From the Wall Street Journal, "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act." Granted this article is really negative towards unions, but at least they figured out that it's not un-american...

-----
Today's List
2007 Votes for Cloture in the Senate

Going Galt

Atlases of our Society are pissed and are considering societal fissure

I have to start this by saying that I was really hoping to cover the EFCA. I was also urged to cover the budget today, all of which I will dedicate great care in dealing with this week...but I have to take some time to really flesh out this phenomenon - and this is my format for that.

To begin, an operational definition (note: this definition has been derived from readings that are generally from the persuasion of the oppressed and therefore intimate a personal tie to the phrase) is provided:

Going Galt: (verb)
1. to lead the oppressed creative and successful individuals of a society to begin a new society that is not socialist in nature.
2. to remove oneself from an oppressive state that has actively taxed (literally or metaphorically) you as a producer of wealth within that society

I want to start by talking about the issue that is at hand that leads those who are considering going Galt to do so. This seems to have something to do with the income tax increase of 3% on any income over $250,000 that has been proposed by the oppressive, and now apparently Socialist, Democrats. For those of you out there who do not understand the tax tables that you have your CPA handle each year, that means that you get taxed one rate for your income of $250,000 and then a 3% higher rate for your income that is over $250,000. So if you make $255,000, you will get taxed 3% more on $5,000, not on $255,000. So stop trying to figure out how to make less than $250,001 a year.

Now that we've covered that and already 20% of you have stopped going galt, let's talk about another side of this very complicated polyhedron - I want to talk about patriotism. The reason I want to talk about patriotism is because apparently those of you going galt have very loose definitions of patriotism, namely that if we're following you, you are patriotic, and if we disagree with you, then you're going to shove off and start a new country. That's not patriotism, and I'm pretty sure that Democrats stuck around for a couple of years while your boy Bush played War with our Tonka toys in the Middle Eastern sandbox.

I'll tell you something else, how much of that 3% that you are going to get taxed do you think is going to go to socialized medicine and other social programs instead of trying to pay down a very expensive war that we've carried on now for a seven years?

Here's the deal. You are not going to leave the country because;
1. You still hold out hope that your bitching and moaning is somehow going to turn back time on this issue and we'll forget that we need the money in the first place
2. Your special ass isn't going to make any money in a new country since you'll have no industry and no real capital as you're not really going to get a really good trade value with U.S. Currency then.
3. Your CPA will find some more loopholes for you and you'll end up not really paying much more anyway.

Finally, I would like to say something to Representative John Campbell (R-California) who posted a delightful little plea on The Hill Blog and Townhall.com begging that Obama reconsider the 3% increase in income tax:

I'm not going to worry about the potential collapse of the world because of a slight increase on income taxes. Your friends are not going to disappear off of the face of the planet, we're not going to see a mass exodus of people making over $250,000 and they are not nearly ready to commit to leaving this country, nor are they going to fold their businesses in revolt. They are going to continue to make money and building industry and providing jobs because they can't really do it anywhere else (and certainly not as well as here). Let's cut the end-of-the-world, fear-mongering rhetoric and let's start talking about solutions.

Tomorrow, EFCA and what it's potential pros and cons may be...

-----
Today's Suggested Reading
"Don't Think of an Elephant"
George Lakoff
Summary Blurb: "...much of the success of the Republican Party can be attributed to a persistent ability to control the language of key issues and thus position themselves in favorable terms to voters. While Democrats may have valid arguments, Lakoff points out they are destined to lose when they and the news media accept such nomenclature as "pro-life," "tax relief," and "family values," since to argue against such inherently positive terminology necessarily casts the arguer in a negative light."
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236646413&sr=8-1

Prop 8 goes to Court

Prop 8 discussed in terms of "is." Thank you Ken Starr

Proposition 8, the most watched ballot initiative in the 2008 presidential election, has come to a 90 day hiatus as the California Supreme Court discusses the legality of its original placement on the November ballot in the first place. Here's the deal, and I hope the California Supreme Court is listening very close right now, this is a slam dunk for you!

Proposition 8 should not have been placed on the ballot without being approved first by the state legislature at a 2/3 aye vote

Here's How I know that:
Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a stop order on Gay Marriages coming out of San Francisco saying they were not legal.
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that not allowing Gay Marriage was unconstitutional and struck down your previous hold on San Francisico Marriage Licenses for Gays. Thereby saying that Gays have the right to marry.
Then, an interest group put a ballot measure up that would limit the rights (rights that you had secured in your previous ruling) of Gays to get married. Here's the tricky part. That would substantially change the California Constitution as you are limiting the rights of a group of people.

Therefore, regardless of what you think about the rights of gays to get married, the political process, the will of the people, or whatever - You have to, because of your previous ruling and the posting of this ballot measure, rule it illegally placed on the ballot and strike it down.

On a side note: California State Legislature, you need to find someway to get a civil unions bill out to the Governor that he can sign so this whole thing can be done with. Or you can expect another Prop 8 in 2010, and it will take far less voters next time to win.

So the Opinion:
1. Strike down Prop 8
2. Enact Civil Unions Bill
3. Enjoy the stability in your state economy due to shared partnerships

The RNC's New Bag. NOT!

RNC Chairman Michael Steele tossed about like rag doll. Meanwhile, conservative entertainer Rush Limbaugh continues to spew extreme values.

It's time for a little disclosure. I am a pretty strong Democrat. And by that I mean that I have worked in Democratic politics for a couple of years now and I want everyone to know before reading this that I may display a slant to this opinion. Please note: there is a slant to all opinion

Rush Limbaugh. You are the undisputed king of the Conservative movement. Please continue your ranting tirades through the airwaves. Please continue to spew your hyper-conservative grumblings and point your finger at those who mock you from centrist or just left of centrist (and even sometimes just right of centrist) viewpoints. More fuel for the fire baby!

Has anyone in the RNC considered that maybe Michael Steele is what you need for this party right now? You have elected a leader that wants to broaden the base of your supporters, thereby increasing your electability and your response is that Conservatives will not donate to the RNC?

So, what? Your small group of conservatives (current polls putting you at about 25% of the country) are going to elect individual's with a majority? Yeah, last time I checked majorities in a two candidate system need 50% + 1. With a third candidate, you'll need at least 34%. Sounds like ya'll are gonna get a little screwed.

I am a strong Democrat and I believe that the Democratic Party's platform falls in line with my own beliefs. But I want another party in this country. I think that both the Democrats and the Republicans have widened their platforms to accept more of the electorate and I wish that my party would lean a little bit more to the left, just as you, Mr. Limbaugh, want the Republicans to lean to the right. But that can't happen before a strong third party assumes the vacuum of elections or else your opposition will defeat you. Besides the partisan issues, then an even larger part of this country will be unrepresented in politics.

But maybe that's what it will take for the 35% or so of you out there that have no party affiliation to come together and start fighting the two poles of politics in the United States instead of whining that you don't fit into a party.

So the Opinion:
1. Get rid of Steele - He's making you electable and likable;
2. Swing further to the right - As long as you have a minority in opinion polls and are being referred to as "in exhile" you should definitely not consider making your party more palatable as that would cause people to agree with you;
and 3. Where's our third party? - I thought we might get a third party but I suppose the two are entertaining enough that a third would actually make politics serious in this country and people would actually get to vote on candidates they agreed with.

-----
Today's Political Thought
According to FEC Guidelines, a minor party must receive 5% or more of the total vote in a presidential election to be eligible to receive public funding for the next presidential election.