Fw: Re: [Peace-discuss] No

[C. G. Estabrook]

Yes, There Are Deeply Angry Democratic Members of Congress
by: Matt Stoller
Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:21

[This email is from a lawmaker and it should give you a flavor for what's going on right now in Congress.]

    Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

    Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

    Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this.  Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that.  That's a real possibility.  

    We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill.  There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.  

    I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

    I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

	http://openleft.com/

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Fw: Re: [Peace-discuss] No  
>To: Peace- Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>The Dems are demanding millions more to further cover homeowners AND 
>more regulatory oversight and transparency before agreeing. Don't    
>bet the farm...                                                      
> --Jenifer                                                           
>                                                                     
>--- On Sun, 9/21/08, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:            
>                                                                     
>  From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>                                
>  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] No                                    
>  To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>                      
>  Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>                   
>  Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 5:10 AM                          
>                                                                     
>  On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook                  
>  <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:                                     
>                                                                     
>      No                                                             
>      By: emptywheel                                                 
>      Saturday September 20, 2008 12:16 pm                           
>                                                                     
>    CR has posted the "bailout plan," as it currently stands:        
>    http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.html 
>                                                                     
>    Glenn Greenwald has an important response, as does gjohnsit over 
>    at DKos.                                                         
>                                                                     
>    But here's all you need to know. Hank Paulson is asking for      
>    $700,000,000,000. That's $2,333 from every man, woman, and child 
>    in the United States.                                            
>                                                                     
>  It's also only 1,000 times Paulson's personal net worth of         
>  $700,000,000, which he "earned" by being a WALL STREET INVESTMENT  
>  BANKER not unlike those who helped get our economy into this       
>  mess.  (I see the author mentions that below.)  If he and 999 of   
>  his similarly-situated buddies would repay the money they          
>  essentially stole, then the problem would be solved without        
>  involving the rest of us.                                          
>                                                                     
>                                                                     
>                                                                     
>    In exchange for that money, Paulson is unwilling to accept any   
>    demands to make markets more transparent, limit executive        
>    compensation, or assist homeowners fighting foreclosure. The     
>    sole purpose of that $700,000,000,000 is to bail out Wall Street 
>    and only Wall Street, but not to fix it, or our larger economy.  
>                                                                     
>    He is asking to be absolutely unbound by any law when he spends  
>    that money.                                                      
>                                                                     
>     "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this   
>    Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and   
>    may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative    
>    agency."                                                         
>                                                                     
>    The only "string" attached is a semi-annual Congressional report 
>    -- one in which they would have zero leverage to influence his   
>    choices.                                                         
>                                                                     
>     "Within three months of the first exercise of the authority     
>    granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the        
>    Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget,          
>    Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of           
>    Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and   
>    Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect   
>    to the authorities exercised under this Act and the              
>    considerations required by section 3."                           
>                                                                     
>    Paulson didn't even have the class to call this a "review" --    
>    which underscores the degree to which he wants to be unbound by  
>    any and all review, legal, congressional, or anything else.      
>                                                                     
>    Hank Paulson -- one of the CEOs who got us into this mess -- is  
>    asking each and every American to give him $2,333 to do with as  
>    he sees fit, with absolutely no strings attached.                
>                                                                     
>    No.