Gizmodo highlights this year’s edition of a poster every American should have.
Category: Policy Page 18 of 35
A few days ago, I pointed to a Washington Post story that noted bailout recipient banks were not using the government money to increase liquidity (the stated justification for the bailout), but to acquire other banks. The New York Times advances the story:
In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this [J.P. Morgan] executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.
(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,†he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.â€
Read that answer as many times as you want — you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy.
So, let’s see, where have we seen this happen before? You know, where the American public is rushed in to commit enormous resources to protect the common good, only to find out that the effort is mostly benefitting the already strong? Hmmm:
It is starting to appear as if one of Treasury’s key rationales for the recapitalization program — namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again — is a fig leaf, Treasury’s version of the weapons of mass destruction.
Gosh. I’m shocked. I don’t doubt that there was/is an enormous problem requiring an enormous solution. What I was 99% sure of before the bailout, and 100% sure of now, is that no one should ever have taken the “trust us” requests of the bailout proponents seriously:
There are lots of reasons the markets remain unstable — fears of a global recession, companies offering poor profit projections for the rest of the year, and the continuing uncertainties brought on by the credit crisis. But another reason, I now believe, is that investors no longer trust Treasury. First it says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.
There’s that theme again – a constantly shifting rationale covering up what seems to be a pretty straightforward underlying plan. We can be sure Congress won’t let them get away with it this time, right? There’s a quote near the end from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) about how there will “be hell to pay” if the banks are hoarding the cash rather than using it for loads. For some reason, I can’t quite bring myself to trust that, either.
A couple of developments on the travel monitoring “security” front have made the news, lately. First, the Department of Homeland Security, come January, will:
take over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists beginning in January, and will require travelers for the first time to provide their full name, birth date and gender as a condition for boarding commercial flights.
Even assuming that DHS can use this to better filter its “No Fly” list of false positives, we’re still left with the question – how can the government know someone to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed onboard a plane, yet they cannot arrest them? My view is that they can’t, and that this is merely another bit of security theatre. It has the added bonus, however, of permitting the gradual building of an all-encompassing monitoring structure that I’m sure will never be abused.
The second story speaks to the “all encompassing monitoring structure”, too. The ACLU highlights recent government efforts to create what the ACLU is calling a “Constitution Free Zone” that is defined as 100 miles inland from the external borders of the US (including coasts).   The ACLU summarizes the issue:
- Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
- The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.â€
- But what is “the border� According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary†of the United States.
- As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
- Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative†stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
- However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
Yesterday, the ACLU held a press conference to illustrate some of the results of this expansive view of the border and related powers:
Vince Peppard, a retired social worker, told of being stopped and harassed by the border authorities at least 15 miles from the Mexico border with his wife, Berlant.
Craig Johnson, a music professor at a San Diego college, told how he participated in a peaceful demonstration near the border to protest against the destruction of a state park so that offense could be constructed along the U.S. border. CBP agents monitored the protest and collected the license plate information of those who participated. Since this protest, Mr. Johnson has twice crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and, each time, he has been pulled aside for additional screening. He was taken to another room, handcuffed and questioned. On his first crossing, he was also partially stripped and subjected to a body cavity search. A CBP agent also told Mr. Johnson that he was on an “armed and dangerous” list. Before the protest, Mr. Johnson crossed the U.S.-Mexico border numerous times without incident. It is difficult to believe that his subsequent harassment at the border is unrelated to his protest activity. If it is related, that would constitute a significant abuse.
This is something to take seriously. The grip of the state on individual freedoms has been tightening, and there’s no reason to believe that trend will reverse without significant public attention. Obama is not going to wave a magic wand and make this all go away in January. It’s up to you and me.
(And in case you’re wondering why I focus so much on these issues, this might help explain.)
Late last week, I noted this great Jeffery Goldberg article demonstrating what a joke TSA security continues to be. Bruce Schneier was involved, and he points us to TSA head Kip Hawley’s response, noting:
Unfortunately, there’s not really anything to his response. It’s obvious he doesn’t want to admit that they’ve been checking ID’s all this time to no purpose whatsoever, so he just emits vague generalities like a frightened squid filling the water with ink. Yes, some of the stunts in article are silly (who cares if people fly with Hezbollah T-shirts?) so that gives him an opportunity to minimize the real issues.
Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process.
It is simply impossible that the TSA catches dozens of terrorists every week. If it were true, the administration would be trumpeting this all over the press — it would be an amazing success story in their war on terrorism. But note that Hawley doesn’t exactly say that; he calls them “terrorist-related individuals.” Which means exactly what? People so dangerous they can’t be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent they can’t be arrested — even under the provisions of the Patriot Act.
Ayup. Kip Hawley is still an idiot. When Obama and Congress are looking for budget fat to cut next year, they should start at the TSA.
That bailout money that went to banks so they could provide that so-essential-we-need-it-yesterday liquidity to the market? The banks seem to think they’ve found a better use for it. Buying other banks:
Several major U.S. banks are leaning toward spending a portion of their federal rescue money on acquiring other financial firms rather than for issuing new loans, the primary purpose of the government’s $250 billion initiative to invest in banks.
J.P. Morgan Chase, BB&T, and Zions Bancorporation have all said in recent days that they are considering using some of their federal money to buy other banks.
About 10 financial institutions belonging to the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents 100 of the nation’s largest financial services firms, are also considering making acquisitions with the money, said Scott Talbott, the group’s senior vice president.
Interesting story on the adoption of rules permitting land lease/transfer in China:
Although China’s 800 million farmers own their produce, farmland in China is still collectively owned and parceled out in 30-year leasing contracts. Allowing the transfer of land-use rights is a major step toward privatization.
Okay, this sounds like a good idea. Why? In theory:
Markets for land leasing and rights transfer will be set up to allow farmers to subcontract, exchange and swap their rights, the agency said. All transfers of land-use rights must be voluntary, with adequate payment.
I suspect, however, there’s going to be no small problem with that last part. If you’re interested in the future of China, that’ll be something to follow.
Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate:
[T]he libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong. The argument as a whole is reminiscent of wearying dorm-room debates that took place circa 1989 about whether the fall of the Soviet bloc demonstrated the failure of communism. Academic Marxists were never going to be convinced that anything that happened in the real world could invalidate their belief system. Utopians of the right, libertarians are just as convinced that their ideas have yet to be tried, and that they would work beautifully if we could only just have a do-over of human history. Like all true ideologues, they find a way to interpret mounting evidence of error as proof that they were right all along.
To which the rest of us can only respond, Haven’t you people done enough harm already?
Heh. Here’s the rest.
(And with that, I’m going back to my libertarian comment system ways, and turning off the moderation. The spam seems to have abated. However, I’m heading off for the day, so if there’s an avalanche of it . . .)
Atrios points out the obvious, in response to “there are more voters on the rolls than people in town!” cries:
When people move, most do not bother to contact their local elections board and ask to be removed from the voter rolls. When people die, most do not bother to contact their local elections board and ask to be removed from the voter rolls.
I was probably part of this problem when I was in college. I suspect there was a time in Georgia in which I was listed on the voter rolls of at least three different counties in the Atlanta area. Whenever I moved I just registered in the new county. It never even occured to me that that action didn’t simultaenously remove me from the rolls of the previous county. I’d happily support a plan to put such a system in place, but there are about a dozen more important elections issues that should addressed first.
So I’ve fallen off with the Friday notes the past couple of weeks, which means the inventory of things left unnoted is a bit of a mess. Thus the scattershot approach today:
I’m not really a fan of either journalist involved, but this Matt Taibbi-Byron York conversation about the origin of the financial crisis amused me greatly:
M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I’m saying that you’re talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren’t going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They’re going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I’m still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I’m guessing you’ve never even heard of them.
I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn’t pay off their mortgages?
B.Y.: When you refer to “Phil Gramm’s Commodities Future Modernization Act,” are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?
M.T.: In point of fact I’m talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.
Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.
~
I went through the Houlton, Maine border crossing to get to Canada last week. This is how the process went, as I pulled up in my car next to the booth:
Canada: Hi, folks. What’s the length and purpose of your trip to Canada?
Me: Just a bit of fun. Camping and cycling up around Cape Breton. For a week or so.
Canada: Do you know where you’re going?
Me: I hope so!
Canada:Â Okay, have a good trip.
Me: Thanks! [begins to release the break]
Canada: Oh, wait – you don’t have any weapons or firearms, do you?
Me: Nope! Bye! [and I drive away]
And this? This is what folks heading into the US at that same crossing have to deal with on the American side:
Keene Valley resident Jerilea Zempel was detained at the U.S. border this summer because she had a drawing of a sport-utility vehicle in her sketchbook.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers told Zempel they suspected her of copyright infringement.
She was released after more than an hour in custody at the Houlton, Maine, port of entry from New Brunswick, Canada.
Her release came only after she persuaded border guards she was an artist doing a project that involved a crocheted SUV as a statement against America’s dependence on oil and love for big vehicles.
You have to click through to see the “industrial spy” level drawing.
~
~
This dKos post reminds us of something we need to be aware of when considering traditional media characterizations of the state of the presidential race:
Every state in which McCain has a lead, even if it’s just 2.2%, is a “leaning Republican”. Every state in which Obama has the lead, even if it’s over 10 percent, is a “battleground”.
[ . . . ]
They are invested in the horserace for ratings purposes, and they are certainly fearful of being accused of pro-Obama bias. So instead of providing an accurate picture for their readers, they misinform them.
I mean, Washington Post really thinks New Jersey is a battleground state? Really?
Yup.
~
Who didn’t get that “I bet this is a crock of shit” feeling when McCain trotted out the Joe the Plumber claims at the debate? And if you didn’t get it at that moment, I sure hope it came when he was interviewed the next morning. In any event, yes, it’s pretty much as fraudulent as you thought it was.
Semi-related: a well-written response to all the idiots who hopped on the “spread the wealth” line around and yelled “socialism!”
Jeffery Goldberg has spent the past couple of years demonstrating (for himself, apparently) what an utter joke the TSA’s system has become. And I’m not just talking about simple little things – like the small blade I usually carry, or the fact that I’ve decided to just leave the liquids in my bag – but things that would make even me think there might be an actual threat:
During one secondary inspection, at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, I was wearing under my shirt a spectacular, only-in-America device called a “Beerbelly,†a neoprene sling that holds a polyurethane bladder and drinking tube. The Beerbelly, designed originally to sneak alcohol—up to 80 ounces—into football games, can quite obviously be used to sneak up to 80 ounces of liquid through airport security. (The company that manufactures the Beerbelly also makes something called a “Winerack,†a bra that holds up to 25 ounces of booze and is recommended, according to the company’s Web site, for PTA meetings.) My Beerbelly, which fit comfortably over my beer belly, contained two cans’ worth of Bud Light at the time of the inspection. It went undetected. The eight-ounce bottle of water in my carry-on bag, however, was seized by the federal government.
If the Presidential candidates are looking for a budget to cut? Start at the TSA. I don’t need someone spending this amount of money to simply (try to) make me feel better.