Eliot Spitzer Editorial on the Mortgage Crisis, and Bush's House of Cards

I heard Thom Hartmann read part of this little article today about the mortgage crisis and I found it hard to maintain my equilibrium. I knew part of this story. I knew that a lot of people were worried about all the crazy loans and the housing bubble and this and that. I just didn't realize that Bush can add to his resume that he actually stopped the states from protecting their citizens against predatory lenders. Unbelievable. And a few days ago he stood before us like this (check out Bush, coming in at about 2:40 into the clip):



In the Spitzer article, published shortly before he was taken down in the prostitution scandal, he said this (from the Washington Post, February 14, 2008): [In the face of predatory lending] "Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye."

Using a law dating from the civil war, the Bush administration derailed efforts by many state attorneys general and several state legislatures to protect consumers from predatory lending. The article is short, but stunning. I mean, I knew the Bushies didn't do anything to help, and I knew their lax policies had helped the crisis grow. I just didn't know that they actively prevented consumer protection. It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. Is this why Spitzer was taken down?

The whole article is here:
Washington Post article by Eliot Spitzer
Project Censored article: Bush's Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

Too Much Money in Too Few Hands

The thought that keeps coming back to me as this whole new (manufactured?) crisis unfolds, is that this is what you get when you get too much money in too few hands. The economic policies of the last thirty years have been all about a shift of wealth from many hands into few. The tax policies and trade policies of the "conservatives" have allowed us to buy cheap toys with easy credit, but have done nothing to ensure the long-term security of the middle and lower classes--quite the opposite, in fact. We've become a nation drunk on debt, where debt seems to be one of the only things we reliably know how to produce.

When you have rich people with too much damn money, all they want to do is invest it to make more money. Hence the creation of ever-more-creative "vehicles" for investment. Tech stocks stop making money? The money flows to mortgage-backed securities. Those start to tank? The money flows to commodities, like corn and oil. Where it goes doesn't really matter. The imperative is just to make more and more money. Of course, there is a need for more stringent regulation. But I think we cannot overemphasize the importance of this wealth shift and what it means for us, ordinary people, who have seen our real wealth erode as the cost of everyday needs has soared: housing, energy, food. When regular people have more money, they can pay their bills. They can pay off their loans. They might even be able to save some money, so that they have a cushion in tighter times that doesn't rely on a credit card. But the wealth shift orchestrated by the free traders and the tax avoiders has made the whole world more and more vulnerable. It's crazy.

What I would like to see in these debates about the bailout is this: You can have the money, with all these conditions (oversight, an equity stake, limits on executive compensation etc)--and... you know all those tax cuts we gave you that added more money to the huge pots of money you guys were sitting on already? We'll have them back, thank you very much. You can pay for your own bailout. For icing on the cake, we could also end that war that has continued to bleed us dry, because we just can't afford it anymore.

I got an email yesterday from Food First about the crisis that I wish I could link to, because I think it was a very powerful synopsis of the problem. But it doesn't appear to be on the internet yet except as a comment to a New York Times blog post! But you can at least see that here.

Other links:
Food First website
Article: Let Them Eat Free Markets

The Theft of the 2008 Election

The theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections has been well documented. Although it got very little attention in the corporate media, there were so many shenanigans with the vote in the last few elections as to make one's head spin, especially if one wants to believe in democracy.

I just stumbled over to Greg Palast's website the other day to see if he had any updated information about what was going on with Venezuela (because thanks to Greg, I know that when Chavez starts saying that the US is out to topple him, it isn't something that can just be dismissed out of hand, since it wouldn't be the first time).

At any rate, there are some alarming numbers there. Over a million people whose voter registrations have disappeared. The purging of huge numbers of voters from the rolls in battleground states. This is serious stuff.

They've gotten away with it before. They will try to get away with it again. All they need is a close-enough election, which it looks like they will have. Greg Palast is asking for support to get his message out into the media in the next few weeks, to see if shining a spotlight on what is going on with these states can make a difference. If you care about democracy in this country, I'd encourage you to consider throwing some $$ Greg's way.

Links:
Greg Palast talks about the theft of 2008
A good collection of links about problems in the 2004 election, and to organizations working on this issue

New Stuff In the Shop!

I have added some new items to the Lovely Flower Bright Idea Shop. The first is one I've been thinking about for a long time. Thom Hartmann likes to play the audio clip of Ronald Reagan saying, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Well, after watching New Orleans drown in Katrina, and after watching veterans coming back from war to inadequate support, and generally watching how government under conservative rule has failed to help ordinary people much while it has helped a few rich people and corporations to grow even richer and more powerful; how the agencies filled with cronies have failed to protect us and do what they were created to do--well, all I have to say is, yes, the government can fail to deliver. But when it does, it does for a reason. And there are things we need our government to do, things we can't possibly do on our own. In my opinion, that's why we have a government to begin with--or at least, that should be the reason.

The whole conservative "You're-on-your-own-ership society" is not something that is going to work out well for most of us.

The other design is a modification to another design in the shop. I'm not thrilled with some of the Dems we have out there. But maybe if we can get solid majorities in Congress, especially in the Senate, we can make some real change happen.

Jon Stewart has a go at "Reformed Maverick" McCain

This was cute, had to share.

So I've had this dream...

...of designing bumper stickers. I had a bunch of anti-Hillary ones all over the place. In my head. On little notes. I don't hate her or anything. Just didn't want her to be president.

While I was on vacation last week, I opened up a very small shop with not-yet-so-many offerings at CafePress.

I just couldn't help myself with this one. The whole Maverick meme just gets me. What is left of my rational mind cannot understand why he is permitted to get away with it. So I offer this to the world, at the Lovely Flower Bright Idea Shop.