Freshman Dem Jackie Speier

Freshman Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, Jackie Speier, understands the financial mess we got into, and she has just done something amazing about it -- although we shouldn't have to be amazed because it is the logical, reasonable thing to do.

She introduced an amendment to the regulatory bill under committee consideration that would require that banks not lend out or invest more than 12 dollars for every dollar they keep in reserve. The big guys that failed so miserably, like Bear Sterns, Merrill, and Lehman, were all leveraged at 30-1. And that's why they failed so dramatically. They didn't have the reserve when it all collapsed.

As reported by Ryan Grim on Huffington Post, Speier's amendment was considered a long shot that at best would get a roll call vote, requiring Republicans and bank-friendly Democrats to go on record with their opposition. Then it would be soundly defeated. But Grim writes:

It wouldn't be a novel idea. Until 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission limited leverage ratios to 12 to one. Speier's cap would only re-apply a cap to financial institutions deemed to be a risk to the overall financial system.

But in 2004, the SEC caved in to pressure from banks to let them use much more of their reserves, and exemptions to the limits were granted to the larger banks, justified by the fact that they were large and had huge reserves. One lone, dissenting commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, presciently warned that because they are the big guys, "that means if anything goes wrong, it's going to be an awfully big mess." It did go wrong, and it was an awfully big mess.

Here's what happened in the committee Thursday. During the all-day hearings, Speier's amendment came up when only a few members were in the room. One Republican asked for a roll call vote, and then quickly withdrew the request, and the amendment passed on a unanimous voice vote. Of course the amended bill still has to be passed by the full committee. Will bank-friendly congressmen go on record in opposition to changing something that so obviously contributed to the huge banking failures of 2008-09?

Speier hits the nail on the head.

There's a pattern here. We put these good laws in place, whether it's Glass-Steagall or, in that case the SEC cap. But then the industry comes to us and says, 'Oh, this is cramping our style. We could make' -- of course they don't say it this way -- 'we could make so much more money if you just lifted this cap.' And they were right. They made a lot of money and they also brought the entire country to its knees.

It was written two thousands years ago: "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Ralph

Obama's Afghan dilemma

Dan Froomkin has a very well thought out piece on Huffington Post about why Obama's decision about a new strategy in Afghanistan is taking so long.

All along, Obama has insisted that any plan he accepts has to have an exit strategy. But here's the dilemma . . .

The only real exit strategy -- unilateral disengagement -- is political suicide. According to Froomkin,

Up until a few months ago, Obama evidently thought he had one. Presumably, it involved handing the country back to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's stable, united government in fairly short order.

But then Karzai's re-election turned into a fiasco, exposing Afghanistan's still-deep divisions and still-profound corruption -- and making it abundantly clear to everyone that there will be no exit under those conditions, certainly not anytime soon.

This is complicated by the fact that Obama has called Afghanistan "the war of necessity," as opposed to Iraq, which he called "the war of choice." So he has sort of painted himself into a corner. If he pulls us out unilaterally, without some way of declaring it a win, he will be portrayed widely and derisively as just giving up and "not having the courage to stand up for America."

And here is where our current poisoned political atmosphere makes this an anathema. The public by a large margin opposes continuing the war, by 57% to 39%. In a recent CNN poll, 49% favor reducing the number of troops, while 28% want to pull them out immediately.

But that doesn't seem to carry much weight with Republicans and conservative Democrats, to say nothing of HolyJoe Lieberman. They seem more interested in exploiting this dilemma for political gain, never mind public opinion, the good of the country, or what the American people want.

And the public opposition to continuing the war does not have the fervor of the anti-Viet Nam movement. There are too many other pressing needs: jobs, finance system regulation, health care reform, climate legislation right now.

As much as I would like to see Obama stand up on principle and not worry about the political fallout, that would probably mean losing the political capital to get his ambitious domestic programs -- which are just as vital -- through an obstructionistic congress.

This must be an enormous weight Obama is carrying. But I don't know anyone more capable of making the right choice.

Ralph

Jon Stewart nails it, again

In the modern day version of "the fool is the one in a Shakespeare play who can speak truth to the king," comedian Jon Stewart is the most effective truth-sayer on tv, in my opinion. And now he's done it again, in his pitch-perfect explanation of why he doesn't like Sarah Palin:

"When you peel back the pretty, shooty layers of the Palin onion, there's no onion. It's just a conservative boiler plate mad lib: 'Freedom is good and taxes are--ooh I need an adjective--how about, I don't know, silly?' And the worst part - it's a mad lib delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived."

I especially like the last line. It's what bothered me in all her interviews. She delivers cliches and inanities as though she has just conveyed to you "the wisdom of a life well lived."

Ralph

Well, all right, now !!

The Senate health care reform bill that Harry Ried has unveiled sounds promising. It is the result of merging to two senate bills and includes the following:

1. 94% of Americans would have health care insurance.

2. As vetted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would cost $849 billion, while lowering the deficit by $127 billion, over the next decade.

3. It would have a public option plan with an opt-out provision for the states.

4. It would prohibit federal funds being used for abortion (as is the law now); but, unlike the Senate Finance Committee bill, the insurance exchange from which one could choose a private insurance plan would have to offer at least one plan that offered abortion coverage and one that did not.

5. It is also expected to result in at least $1 trillion in cost savings within the health care system.

6. It has a tax on the expensive, "Cadillac" insurance plans.

7. And of course. like all the bills, it eliminates preexisting conditions and the possibility of losing your insurance due to illness or changing jobs.

This sounds to me like a winnable bill. It includes the essentials, it saves money, it comes in at a lower cost that some, and is more "universal" than some.

I'd vote for it in a minute.

Ralph

The coded message in the "Pray for Obama" bumper stickers

I have only had time to read the introduction to David Plouffe's book about the Obama campaign, but his description of the election night brought back the euphoria, and I felt my discouragement and cynicism begin to melt.

Then . . . I logged on to Huffington Post for my news fix and found this: the latest fad promoted by the right-wing religious movement is bumper stickers and T-shirts, extolling people to

"Pray for Obama, Psalm 109.8."

Now that sounds nice, doesn't it? Pray for our president. Until you read Psalm 109.8.

Psalm 109 begins as King David's hymn of praise to God. But then he turns peevish and exorts God to do bad things to his enemies, the "unjust rulers." And verse 8?

"May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership."

And what comes next, verse 9?

"May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

This is serious, folks. Christians issuing a veiled call for the assassination of our president !!!

Frank Shaeffer, who has written a book about the evangelical movement, has this to say about this:

The situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, [reminding people that Obama is foreign, not like us, not a real American]. . . .But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. . . . .

Most of them are not crazy, they're just deluded. But there is a crazy fringe to whom all these little messages that have been pouring out of Fox News, now on a bumper sticker, talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him.

Really, this is trolling for assassins. This is serious business. . . These are no jokes.

Rachel Madow had a discussion of this on her program.

And I am very very scared.

Ralph

Winning and governing

I've slid into one of my slumps. A loss, not of hope, but of confidence that good things are going to get done.

If Barack Obama could have simply taken Washington by the storm he stirred up on the campaign trail, we would already have most of the progressive reforms we had hoped for. But then he met the brick wall of Congress, the influence and power of money and incumbency, the huge problems of war, and the end stage of our unregulated financial system -- and things screeched to a halt, or at best a creep.

There I was in the book store this morning, faced with promotional tables full of Sarah Palin. I've read enough excerpts online to know I did not want to read any more.

But there, on the other side of the table in a more modest stack, was David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win.

Now it's on my desk, and I'm ready to begin reading how Obama's campaign manager managed this amazing feat of winning the presidency for "the tall skinny guy with the funny name."

It seemed like just what I needed to restore my hope and rebuild my confidence. Stay tuned.

Ralph

It's called "The Truth," Sarah

OK, OK. So I'm obsessed with putting down Sarah. It's not just her, per se. It's that she so epitomizes those who disdain "the reality-based world." It wouldn't even be quite so bad if she just wanted to live in "the faith-based world." But that's not where she is either. She lives in a world of know-nothing arrogance, masquerading as "family values," and she wants to force her way onto the rest of us.

The Hill reports that Palin has blasted the AP for fact-checking her book, calling it "opposition research." She said: "They're now erroneously reporting on the book's contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards."

Yes, Sarah. It's called Truth. You know, as in a reality-based universe.

Ralph

Palin 2012

Columnist Walter Shapiro says that the Republican party rules allow winner-take-all primaries, and that could make it possible for Sarah Palin to win the nomination in 2012.

He points out that, in a multi-candidate field (say, Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Gingrich, plus a couple of minor candidates), a well-financed and well-known person with a passionate following could easily lead in the early primaries. A 28% vote, say, and she could walk away with each state's full delegation. And before they knew how to stop her, before any major debates, she could have the necessary votes. She's already got Bill Kristol shilling for her (of course, there's comfort in the fact that Kristol is always wrong about everything he supports or predicts.)

Shapiro also points out: winner-take-all is permitted, not required; and states could change their way of allocating delegates before then.

OK. This makes it possible she could win the nomination. But could she win running against Obama? Imagine them in a one-to-one debate. We shouldn't be too complacent. Remember that we felt the same way about George W. and Al Gore? Folksy and fear-mongering sometimes trump articulate intelligence and knowledge of details. But (I hastened to reassure myself) Obama has articulate intelligence, knowledge of details, AND the best way with a speech in memory, whereas both Gore and Kerry were wooden, prolix, and boring.

Of course, a lot hinges on the economy, jobs, and the war in the coming year. But I'm a little less sanguine about the GOP nominating her -- the prospect of her actually winning is just too scary.

Ralph

"Much Ado About . . . (a bow?). . . Nothing"

Now I'm going to echo Richard's comments from a few days ago. Aren't there more important things to talk about than President Obama's bow to the Emperor of Japan? The buzz of criticism was as predictable as it is ridiculous.

In Japan, everybody bows to everybody. Meet your neighbor on the street: you both bow. It's their custom -- and a rather nice one, I think, having lived there for 3 years. Of course, there are intricate hierarchical rules about who bows first and deepest, and how many times. But it's also simply a gesture of respect for the other person.

But FOXNews this morning tried to make news -- playing a clip of the bow and then a clip of the XVP from some years ago, standing tall and straight as he shook hands with the same emperor. No kowtowing for the XVP, no sir. Gotta show 'em who's the alpha dog.

Chris Wallace asked the panel what they made of "Bow-gate." To be sure, they were laughing to indicate that this wasn't serious news. But, YUK. Who needs it? (OK, so why am I amplifying such a waste of time?)

Bill Crystal, never one to miss promoting his gal-pal Sarah Palin, chirped, "Sarah Palin wouldn't have bowed. She wouldn't even have curtsied."

And then fellow commentator and XVP daughter, Liz Cheney, piped up: "You could also look at the comparison and think 'Cheney 2012.'" Everyone took her to mean Dick Cheney and went off in gales of ooohs and aahhs. I'm not so sure. Maybe she meant Liz Cheney.

I seriously expect her to run for office at some point. And I think she may be more dangerous to our country than Sarah Palin, a caricature who fires up their right wing base and attracts attention but who demonstrably does not have the knowledge or the interest to become informed. Is their party suicial enough to nominate her? Maybe. Let's hope so. I do not believe that 51% of voters would risk giving her the red phone at 3 am.

On the other hand, Liz is smart and mean, and she has the connections.

Ralph