A polling firm supposedly doing data gathering for Gov. John Lynch called my cell phone earlier today (it was a private number, so I can't look up the number to find out about the polling firm). It's the first time I have received such a call on the cell. I spent about 20 minutes talking to the kid, rating various things, and listening to test messages that the governor (or his campaign) are considering.
A few thoughts about the polling: First, the governor is going to rely on previous messages he has used - helping small biz, keeping taxes low, being a leader, etc. He also seems to be considering bringing up some of his previous private sector background, even though he hasn't worked in the private sector for what, eight years or so? In addition, Lynch only seems to be taking one Republican candidate seriously - John Stephen - since none of the other candidates, like Karen Testerman, was even mentioned in the questioning.
The campaign is also testing reactions to possible negative messages used by the Stephen campaign and talking points to attack Stephen, if things get ugly. I found some of the points against Stephen interesting, including whether or not Stephen is truly an outsider, since he has worked for various government entities for more than 20 years. Another issue that may get raised is Stephen's consulting business, in which he reportedly is advising government leaders in South Carolina to raise taxes (I don't know if this is true or what they were even talking about here. I know Stephen was involved in some situation with health care in Kentucky that a friend of mine mentioned to me years ago).
It's not even June yet, so it's a good time to be testing messages, it would seem. However, I wonder if Gov. Lynch is really that worried about re-election. If his strongest opponent is Stephen, he's probably a shoo-in.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Great political ad ...
Via Political Wire ... this is pretty good ... I love the not-so-subtle presence of the rifle ... yee haw!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Comcast: Change the name, raise the rates
Crossposted at OurConcord.com
Finally got a chance to look at the bills this afternoon. Noticed a $7 increase in the Comcast bill. Hmmm, what's this?
Well, it looks like Internet went up $2 per month. The TV side went up $5.01.
I had to go back to April's bill to look up why this was happening.
The HD cable box charge increased by $0.95 per month. If anything, the more people get HD sets, the more the price should go down. In fact, why are we being charged a surcharge for the HD box again? Basic service went up $3. Digital Classic also went up $3 (we have this for the kids programs and other things). Comcast also warned subscribers that Digital Classic will no longer be available for new subscribers. Hmm ...
Standard cable, something we don't have, went up $2.45 per month. Everything else seems to have stayed the same. Expanded basic service, something we don't have, was reduced by $0.50.
Interestingly, two items I don't use - Digital video recorder, recorder service - were also reduced. The "Digital Additional Outlet Service Charge" was increased by $1.
The letter from Comcast stated that the increases were due to "programming and other business costs." But looking at this, one has to really wonder.
Comcast recently started dubbing its services "XFINITY" ... whatever that means. It looks like it means higher rates and a name change. Big deal. Maybe if they spent less money on commercials, the bill wouldn't have to be so high.
More complaints
In looking at Basic Service, one has to wonder what is going on.
First, there are three free "multicultural" channels, specifically, three Spanish channels. Are these really necessary in New Hampshire, where there are few Spanish people?
Second, New England Cable News' HD channel is not on the Basic lineup (the non-HD version is). One has to wonder why we have to pay a surcharge to view this in HD.
Third, still no C-Span or C-Span II in the free service or the Digital Classic. This seems stupid since these channels are free. I have tried to get answers on this in the past and have not received them. I guess I'll be waiting even longer for an answer.
In many ways, these are small complaints. But the $7 increase is a bit much. If anything, the cost of business is dropping, not increasing. We should be seeing decreases in bills, not increases. And, with no competition in Concord, I guess we'll just have to live with it, unfortunately.
Finally got a chance to look at the bills this afternoon. Noticed a $7 increase in the Comcast bill. Hmmm, what's this?
Well, it looks like Internet went up $2 per month. The TV side went up $5.01.
I had to go back to April's bill to look up why this was happening.
The HD cable box charge increased by $0.95 per month. If anything, the more people get HD sets, the more the price should go down. In fact, why are we being charged a surcharge for the HD box again? Basic service went up $3. Digital Classic also went up $3 (we have this for the kids programs and other things). Comcast also warned subscribers that Digital Classic will no longer be available for new subscribers. Hmm ...
Standard cable, something we don't have, went up $2.45 per month. Everything else seems to have stayed the same. Expanded basic service, something we don't have, was reduced by $0.50.
Interestingly, two items I don't use - Digital video recorder, recorder service - were also reduced. The "Digital Additional Outlet Service Charge" was increased by $1.
The letter from Comcast stated that the increases were due to "programming and other business costs." But looking at this, one has to really wonder.
Comcast recently started dubbing its services "XFINITY" ... whatever that means. It looks like it means higher rates and a name change. Big deal. Maybe if they spent less money on commercials, the bill wouldn't have to be so high.
More complaints
In looking at Basic Service, one has to wonder what is going on.
First, there are three free "multicultural" channels, specifically, three Spanish channels. Are these really necessary in New Hampshire, where there are few Spanish people?
Second, New England Cable News' HD channel is not on the Basic lineup (the non-HD version is). One has to wonder why we have to pay a surcharge to view this in HD.
Third, still no C-Span or C-Span II in the free service or the Digital Classic. This seems stupid since these channels are free. I have tried to get answers on this in the past and have not received them. I guess I'll be waiting even longer for an answer.
In many ways, these are small complaints. But the $7 increase is a bit much. If anything, the cost of business is dropping, not increasing. We should be seeing decreases in bills, not increases. And, with no competition in Concord, I guess we'll just have to live with it, unfortunately.
Cool press releases I get ...
Sometimes at work, I get press releases that have nothing to do with my job. A lot of times, these press releases show off something cool.
Earlier this week, I received a press release from this company called BluHomes: ["BluHomes"]. The company manufactures prefab "green" homes, in all kinds of very interesting designs. And prices aren't that bad either. In addition, they don't look like the "normal" prefab house. That is, this isn't a Kid Rock double-wide.
The problem, of course, is where to get the land, which is getting more and more expensive and hard to find. An empty nester home starting at $64K to $125K isn't bad ... until you realize what a lot is going for these days (never mind the property taxes in some New England areas after you make plans to build the house ...). However, BluHomes has it all kinda planned out for folks, and has the payment structure and planning spread out over a year. Having said all that, this company seems to be worth a look.
I have been tracking alternative housing options for about 9 years, since I learned about this guy in Belmont, Mass., building an alternative duplex on a very small site. The home was designed and built in Sweden and then the pieces came over and were plopped together over a period of three days (I will try and find the text of the story at a later date). One of the duplexes had this huge master bedroom loft and the walls were built in such a way to allow air to flow between them, to keep mold from becoming a problem.
I've also been investigating alternative energy for about the same time, since learning about a guy in Belmont who had a two-family with a solar panel to heat hot water for both apartments. I believe the payoff date was eight years, at the time of the story. Meaning, in the ninth year, hot water would be free for the next 20-plus years. Now, with all the incentives, alternative energy is a bit more affordable if you have the start-up costs (I was at a home show recently where they were promoting $20K windmills with a big chunk of the money coming from state and federal grants. If you have a big electric bill, do the math. It almost pays for itself).
Earlier this week, I received a press release from this company called BluHomes: ["BluHomes"]. The company manufactures prefab "green" homes, in all kinds of very interesting designs. And prices aren't that bad either. In addition, they don't look like the "normal" prefab house. That is, this isn't a Kid Rock double-wide.
The problem, of course, is where to get the land, which is getting more and more expensive and hard to find. An empty nester home starting at $64K to $125K isn't bad ... until you realize what a lot is going for these days (never mind the property taxes in some New England areas after you make plans to build the house ...). However, BluHomes has it all kinda planned out for folks, and has the payment structure and planning spread out over a year. Having said all that, this company seems to be worth a look.
I have been tracking alternative housing options for about 9 years, since I learned about this guy in Belmont, Mass., building an alternative duplex on a very small site. The home was designed and built in Sweden and then the pieces came over and were plopped together over a period of three days (I will try and find the text of the story at a later date). One of the duplexes had this huge master bedroom loft and the walls were built in such a way to allow air to flow between them, to keep mold from becoming a problem.
I've also been investigating alternative energy for about the same time, since learning about a guy in Belmont who had a two-family with a solar panel to heat hot water for both apartments. I believe the payoff date was eight years, at the time of the story. Meaning, in the ninth year, hot water would be free for the next 20-plus years. Now, with all the incentives, alternative energy is a bit more affordable if you have the start-up costs (I was at a home show recently where they were promoting $20K windmills with a big chunk of the money coming from state and federal grants. If you have a big electric bill, do the math. It almost pays for itself).
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wrong way road map ...
Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post has a column, via the Concord Monitor, of how to "fix" the fiscal crisis: ["Here's my roadmap toward fiscal sanity"].
I posted some reaction myself and realized, after typing it all, it would make a nice blog post ...
The problem with this is that there is no guarantee that the VAT won't stay at 6%. As Congress has been known to do, even when Republicans control it, taxes can be inched up or noodled around with ... loopholes and exemptions are created ... and the next thing you know, ordinary folks are paying the freight and those with lobbyists or tax shelters aren't.
In addition, most families of four making under $50K don't pay taxes federal income taxes now - or very little. The VAT would increase their taxes to 6% of whatever they spent money on that was under the VAT. This amounts to an increase in taxes for poor and lower-middle-class folks, even with the so-called "rebates," and a decrease in buying power for the sector of the economy that is the most in need of buying power. Of course, families of four making under $50K sometimes pay a lot in income taxes, especially if someone in the family is self-employed I know, 'cause that's our situation). In this case, the taxes are much higher since this person is paying both the corporate and personal taxes. Essentially, our family is penalized for making the sacrifice of having one parent work part-time to raise our children and not put them in day care (if we put them in day care, we'd get a tax break, amazing, isn't it?).
The VAT also doesn't address the increase in the cost of living it will bring on in the wake of its creation. This increase will filter throughout the economy. It will increase costs and inflation. Since 70% of our economy is based on retail spending, this could hurt the "recovery." The VAT also doesn't address the issue of what is a fair or what isn't. Should the VAT on yachts be equal to the VAT on Scotch tape or some other "necessity"? If you increase the VAT on yachts, like they did many years ago when they put a federal surcharge on yacht sales, the sales dropped and lots of boat workers were put out of work. The reshaping of the corporate income tax rate is also a sham. Most corporations don't pay anywhere near 35% now. Moving it down does nothing. They have all kinds of loopholes to keep from paying the taxes. In addition, even if they did pay them, corporations just pass those taxes off to consumers as the cost of doing business.
Ideally, it would be better to raise tariffs instead of a VAT.
Raising tariffs has two benefits: 1) It raises revenues that are badly needed; 2) It allows domestic manufacturers, who often if not always pay minimum wage or more, to compete with foreign manufacturers who are paying pennies an hour for labor. No. 2, in turn, will increase domestic investment and job creation, which also has benefits to our local and national economies.
Of course, we won't see a tariff increase because the free trade cultists have control of the national media, academia, think tanks, and government. They will control the argument and continue to promote foolish ideas like this one instead of having a real discussion about what the United States should be doing about its economy.
Another tax that should be considered instead of a VAT: A Wall Street transaction tax.
This tax, essentially a very, very tiny sales tax on transactions, would raise hundreds of billions of dollars, from global citizens and entities in economic sectors that can most afford to pay taxes - those people and entities that are doing nothing but flip money around.
Of course, we won't see a Wall Street transaction tax because that would be too easy to do and Washington is occupied territory.
I posted some reaction myself and realized, after typing it all, it would make a nice blog post ...
The problem with this is that there is no guarantee that the VAT won't stay at 6%. As Congress has been known to do, even when Republicans control it, taxes can be inched up or noodled around with ... loopholes and exemptions are created ... and the next thing you know, ordinary folks are paying the freight and those with lobbyists or tax shelters aren't.
In addition, most families of four making under $50K don't pay taxes federal income taxes now - or very little. The VAT would increase their taxes to 6% of whatever they spent money on that was under the VAT. This amounts to an increase in taxes for poor and lower-middle-class folks, even with the so-called "rebates," and a decrease in buying power for the sector of the economy that is the most in need of buying power. Of course, families of four making under $50K sometimes pay a lot in income taxes, especially if someone in the family is self-employed I know, 'cause that's our situation). In this case, the taxes are much higher since this person is paying both the corporate and personal taxes. Essentially, our family is penalized for making the sacrifice of having one parent work part-time to raise our children and not put them in day care (if we put them in day care, we'd get a tax break, amazing, isn't it?).
The VAT also doesn't address the increase in the cost of living it will bring on in the wake of its creation. This increase will filter throughout the economy. It will increase costs and inflation. Since 70% of our economy is based on retail spending, this could hurt the "recovery." The VAT also doesn't address the issue of what is a fair or what isn't. Should the VAT on yachts be equal to the VAT on Scotch tape or some other "necessity"? If you increase the VAT on yachts, like they did many years ago when they put a federal surcharge on yacht sales, the sales dropped and lots of boat workers were put out of work. The reshaping of the corporate income tax rate is also a sham. Most corporations don't pay anywhere near 35% now. Moving it down does nothing. They have all kinds of loopholes to keep from paying the taxes. In addition, even if they did pay them, corporations just pass those taxes off to consumers as the cost of doing business.
Ideally, it would be better to raise tariffs instead of a VAT.
Raising tariffs has two benefits: 1) It raises revenues that are badly needed; 2) It allows domestic manufacturers, who often if not always pay minimum wage or more, to compete with foreign manufacturers who are paying pennies an hour for labor. No. 2, in turn, will increase domestic investment and job creation, which also has benefits to our local and national economies.
Of course, we won't see a tariff increase because the free trade cultists have control of the national media, academia, think tanks, and government. They will control the argument and continue to promote foolish ideas like this one instead of having a real discussion about what the United States should be doing about its economy.
Another tax that should be considered instead of a VAT: A Wall Street transaction tax.
This tax, essentially a very, very tiny sales tax on transactions, would raise hundreds of billions of dollars, from global citizens and entities in economic sectors that can most afford to pay taxes - those people and entities that are doing nothing but flip money around.
Of course, we won't see a Wall Street transaction tax because that would be too easy to do and Washington is occupied territory.
Getting to Know Elena Kagan
Guest perspective by Ralph Nader
Given the Niagara of commentary on the nomination of Elena Kagan to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, we know very little about the nominee. For friend and critic alike, the predominant view of Ms. Kagan is that she has publically uttered or written remarkably little of her own views on any subject that directly or remotely relates to her forthcoming position.
As a law school graduate, brief stint as a practitioner, special assistant on domestic policy to President Clinton, professor of Law and Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan has been unusually circumspect, despite her lively tenure as editor of the Daily Princetonian while an undergraduate in Tigertown.
Here is how a colleague of equal rank in the Clinton White House describes many group meetings there on important matters: "She never said much, was very pleasant, smiled a lot, the type of person who rises by not giving offense. She almost never engaged in give or take at the often spirited meetings. Her opinions weren't known. But she is what she is which is exactly what President Obama wants."
The problem for Ms. Kagan is that there was one occasion where she was wonderfully outspoken – her long review of Professor Stephan L. Carter's book “The Confirmation Mess" in the University of Chicago Law Review during the Spring of 1995. Taking Professor Carter sharply to task she comes out as a full-throated champion of confirmation hearings that deal with "substantive issues," adding that the “Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the Court should do and how she would affect its conduct.”
Continuing, Ms. Kagan asserts that “[O]pen exploration of the nominee’s substantive views, ... enables senators and their constituents to engage in a focused discussion of constitutional values, to ascertain the values held by the nominee, and to evaluate whether the nominee possesses the values that the Supreme Court most urgently requires. These are the issues of greatest consequence surrounding any Supreme Court nomination (not the objective qualifications or personal morality of the nominee...).”
Those are strong words in today's flabby pretense of Senate confirmation hearings of judicial nominees – hearings which Ms. Kagan described later in her review as presenting to the public “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”
So, should you look forward to a spectacular demonstration of fire and brain power between the Senators and Elena Kagan? Not likely. The word is that now she has backed away from such authenticity and so has her boss, Barack Obama.
No one can attribute her earlier stands to being naive about Capitol Hill. To the contrary, her strong stand for robust, serious confirmation hearings on “legal issues,” draws on her experience as Special Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee “in connection with the nomination of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.”
So, it looks like the first casualty of her nomination will be the authenticity (one of her favorite words) she craved for such nominees as Justices Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, having been quoted years ago as how to evasively behave in order to finesse any controversies during the hearing process.
So since it takes at least two to make a charade game, it is left to the Senators to fulfill the vision of the earlier Elena Kagan when she sits in that chair facing her inquisitors. Some Senators will use the pretext that deep questions on issues and philosophy would compromise the independence of the judiciary – a view Ms. Kagan explicitly rejected in her book review.
Others, being partisan Democrats, want to get the hearing over at super speed, which means a few pro forma questions. A few will take their constitutional responsibilities or their partisan roles seriously and probe into her qualifications – such as not coming from a judgeship background – or her imputed ideological biases.
In any event, this state of affairs is not the worst of the confirmation process. The deterioration reaches the exclusion of witnesses that reflect just the wide range of questions and judgments that Ms. Kagan championed.
I know this from my own request to testify, for example, on the Roberts nomination regarding an ignored area of his experience. I was turned down by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
During the Stephen Breyer nomination, Dr. Sidney Wolfe and I presented detailed testimony regarding Mr. Breyer's de-regulatory philosophy and the raw empirical reality of human casualties and tortious products that rebut it. That participation would not likely be repeated today. Instead, there are a few carefully choreographed panels of constitutional law specialists, each given five minutes, and all presented as window dressing after, not before or between, the testimony and questioning of the nominee.
So, short of a cumulative public protest before the hearings begin in July, expect the words of assistant professor of law, Elena Kagan, to be relegated to an everlasting limbo as an expression of youthful exuberance replaced by the political realism of autocratic minds.
Given the Niagara of commentary on the nomination of Elena Kagan to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, we know very little about the nominee. For friend and critic alike, the predominant view of Ms. Kagan is that she has publically uttered or written remarkably little of her own views on any subject that directly or remotely relates to her forthcoming position.
As a law school graduate, brief stint as a practitioner, special assistant on domestic policy to President Clinton, professor of Law and Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan has been unusually circumspect, despite her lively tenure as editor of the Daily Princetonian while an undergraduate in Tigertown.
Here is how a colleague of equal rank in the Clinton White House describes many group meetings there on important matters: "She never said much, was very pleasant, smiled a lot, the type of person who rises by not giving offense. She almost never engaged in give or take at the often spirited meetings. Her opinions weren't known. But she is what she is which is exactly what President Obama wants."
The problem for Ms. Kagan is that there was one occasion where she was wonderfully outspoken – her long review of Professor Stephan L. Carter's book “The Confirmation Mess" in the University of Chicago Law Review during the Spring of 1995. Taking Professor Carter sharply to task she comes out as a full-throated champion of confirmation hearings that deal with "substantive issues," adding that the “Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the Court should do and how she would affect its conduct.”
Continuing, Ms. Kagan asserts that “[O]pen exploration of the nominee’s substantive views, ... enables senators and their constituents to engage in a focused discussion of constitutional values, to ascertain the values held by the nominee, and to evaluate whether the nominee possesses the values that the Supreme Court most urgently requires. These are the issues of greatest consequence surrounding any Supreme Court nomination (not the objective qualifications or personal morality of the nominee...).”
Those are strong words in today's flabby pretense of Senate confirmation hearings of judicial nominees – hearings which Ms. Kagan described later in her review as presenting to the public “a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis.”
So, should you look forward to a spectacular demonstration of fire and brain power between the Senators and Elena Kagan? Not likely. The word is that now she has backed away from such authenticity and so has her boss, Barack Obama.
No one can attribute her earlier stands to being naive about Capitol Hill. To the contrary, her strong stand for robust, serious confirmation hearings on “legal issues,” draws on her experience as Special Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee “in connection with the nomination of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.”
So, it looks like the first casualty of her nomination will be the authenticity (one of her favorite words) she craved for such nominees as Justices Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, having been quoted years ago as how to evasively behave in order to finesse any controversies during the hearing process.
So since it takes at least two to make a charade game, it is left to the Senators to fulfill the vision of the earlier Elena Kagan when she sits in that chair facing her inquisitors. Some Senators will use the pretext that deep questions on issues and philosophy would compromise the independence of the judiciary – a view Ms. Kagan explicitly rejected in her book review.
Others, being partisan Democrats, want to get the hearing over at super speed, which means a few pro forma questions. A few will take their constitutional responsibilities or their partisan roles seriously and probe into her qualifications – such as not coming from a judgeship background – or her imputed ideological biases.
In any event, this state of affairs is not the worst of the confirmation process. The deterioration reaches the exclusion of witnesses that reflect just the wide range of questions and judgments that Ms. Kagan championed.
I know this from my own request to testify, for example, on the Roberts nomination regarding an ignored area of his experience. I was turned down by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
During the Stephen Breyer nomination, Dr. Sidney Wolfe and I presented detailed testimony regarding Mr. Breyer's de-regulatory philosophy and the raw empirical reality of human casualties and tortious products that rebut it. That participation would not likely be repeated today. Instead, there are a few carefully choreographed panels of constitutional law specialists, each given five minutes, and all presented as window dressing after, not before or between, the testimony and questioning of the nominee.
So, short of a cumulative public protest before the hearings begin in July, expect the words of assistant professor of law, Elena Kagan, to be relegated to an everlasting limbo as an expression of youthful exuberance replaced by the political realism of autocratic minds.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tell Congress to Support Creation of a Financial Consumers' Association
Guest perspective by Ralph Nader
The Senate debate of the “Wall Street Reform Bill” (S. 3217) has started. Unfortunately, despite the length of this legislation, a major consumer safeguard is absent.
The single most important measure we can advance to protect consumers and taxpayers is embodied in an amendment drafted by Senator Charles Schumer. Senator Schumer’s amendment provides a facility to establish an independent non-governmental nonprofit Financial Consumers’ Association (FCA). FCA has broad support from leading consumer organizations.
Given the powerful influence of the financial industry over the legislative and regulatory processes, it is likely that consumers will continue to be short-changed unless Congress facilitates the creation of an independent, non-governmental organization to monitor the actions of financial corporations. A Financial Consumers’ Association would be voluntarily supported by membership dues. The members would elect a board of directors that could hire researchers, organizers, accountants and lawyers.
A Financial Consumers’ Associations could:
1. Represent consumer interests before regulatory agencies, legislative bodies, and the courts, and in negotiations with financial service providers;
2. Develop data that would provide consumers with the information they need to deal with financial institutions and provide a means of comparing the costs of financial services and products;
3. Address common consumer complaints regarding financial services;
4. Evaluate the performance of mortgage lenders;
5. Monitor the availability of financial services to less affluent and minority borrowers;
6. Advocate policies that will ensure reasonable access to credit for all consumers; and
7. Provide policymakers, consumers, workers, shareholders, taxpayers and the news media with timely information on the effects of financial industry and government initiatives.
It is time to give the millions of consumers and taxpayers who bear the brunt of Wall Street’s recklessness, avarice and crimes a chance to band together to watchdog the financial industry and the financial regulators.
For more information visit: http://wallstreetwatch.org
The Senate debate of the “Wall Street Reform Bill” (S. 3217) has started. Unfortunately, despite the length of this legislation, a major consumer safeguard is absent.
The single most important measure we can advance to protect consumers and taxpayers is embodied in an amendment drafted by Senator Charles Schumer. Senator Schumer’s amendment provides a facility to establish an independent non-governmental nonprofit Financial Consumers’ Association (FCA). FCA has broad support from leading consumer organizations.
Given the powerful influence of the financial industry over the legislative and regulatory processes, it is likely that consumers will continue to be short-changed unless Congress facilitates the creation of an independent, non-governmental organization to monitor the actions of financial corporations. A Financial Consumers’ Association would be voluntarily supported by membership dues. The members would elect a board of directors that could hire researchers, organizers, accountants and lawyers.
A Financial Consumers’ Associations could:
1. Represent consumer interests before regulatory agencies, legislative bodies, and the courts, and in negotiations with financial service providers;
2. Develop data that would provide consumers with the information they need to deal with financial institutions and provide a means of comparing the costs of financial services and products;
3. Address common consumer complaints regarding financial services;
4. Evaluate the performance of mortgage lenders;
5. Monitor the availability of financial services to less affluent and minority borrowers;
6. Advocate policies that will ensure reasonable access to credit for all consumers; and
7. Provide policymakers, consumers, workers, shareholders, taxpayers and the news media with timely information on the effects of financial industry and government initiatives.
It is time to give the millions of consumers and taxpayers who bear the brunt of Wall Street’s recklessness, avarice and crimes a chance to band together to watchdog the financial industry and the financial regulators.
For more information visit: http://wallstreetwatch.org
American Dream unravels
The Associated Press has a very good overview of the alleged Times Square bomber here: ["Times Square bombing suspect's life had unraveled"].
I'm going to refrain from commenting on this situation until more information is put forth. I'm sure all kinds of people will have all kinds of things to say about it.
But I do love it when journalists start to tell stories this way - allowing readers to get a bit of background into people. Isn't it odd that a lot of these alleged terrorists come from wealthy families? You would think that they would realize that they are a bit blessed compared to other folks (or, maybe, obviously, not).
No one will ever know why this guy unraveled - but thank goodness no one was hurt in this incident.
I'm going to refrain from commenting on this situation until more information is put forth. I'm sure all kinds of people will have all kinds of things to say about it.
But I do love it when journalists start to tell stories this way - allowing readers to get a bit of background into people. Isn't it odd that a lot of these alleged terrorists come from wealthy families? You would think that they would realize that they are a bit blessed compared to other folks (or, maybe, obviously, not).
No one will ever know why this guy unraveled - but thank goodness no one was hurt in this incident.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
NH CD 2: DeJoie's out ...
This is kinda disappointing: ["DeJoie Ends Congressional Campaign"].
It's especially disappointing in the sense that there's nothing wrong with having an active primary and there's nothing wrong with losing that primary either (although there is no guarantee he would have lost). Now there are two left. Sigh.
The UL's DiStaso has more here: ["With DeJoie Out, Planned Parenthood Backs Kuster"].
Landrigan at the Telegraph has a blurb here: ["DeJoie drops out of 2nd Congressional race"].
While he seems to have done the best thing for himself and his family, I don't understand why he would drop out at this point (and I will never understand why people quit early like this either).
First, you never know what the electorate is going to do, money or no money, especially during a volatile time of our process, economy, and lives.
In addition, he has spent what, nearly a year of his life running. Why quit now? You've invested endless amounts of time to run. Better to go through the process and do the best that you can. There is no indignity in losing ... and there was no guarantee that John would have lost this race either.
That all said, his choice then to endorse Swett, who kinda pushed him out of the race by getting in, is a little puzzling. The assumption would be that his positions would be more in line with Kuster. And, against Swett and all her influence and money, Kuster sure could have used a DeJoie endorsement. Some folks will make the case that Swett isn't the most "progressive" candidate because of her previous position on the invasion, and other things (I have made that case before too on my blog and then, later, realized, well, people can change their minds, can't they?).
Now, this makes me wonder, will someone else jump in or, is it too late?
It's especially disappointing in the sense that there's nothing wrong with having an active primary and there's nothing wrong with losing that primary either (although there is no guarantee he would have lost). Now there are two left. Sigh.
The UL's DiStaso has more here: ["With DeJoie Out, Planned Parenthood Backs Kuster"].
Landrigan at the Telegraph has a blurb here: ["DeJoie drops out of 2nd Congressional race"].
While he seems to have done the best thing for himself and his family, I don't understand why he would drop out at this point (and I will never understand why people quit early like this either).
First, you never know what the electorate is going to do, money or no money, especially during a volatile time of our process, economy, and lives.
In addition, he has spent what, nearly a year of his life running. Why quit now? You've invested endless amounts of time to run. Better to go through the process and do the best that you can. There is no indignity in losing ... and there was no guarantee that John would have lost this race either.
That all said, his choice then to endorse Swett, who kinda pushed him out of the race by getting in, is a little puzzling. The assumption would be that his positions would be more in line with Kuster. And, against Swett and all her influence and money, Kuster sure could have used a DeJoie endorsement. Some folks will make the case that Swett isn't the most "progressive" candidate because of her previous position on the invasion, and other things (I have made that case before too on my blog and then, later, realized, well, people can change their minds, can't they?).
Now, this makes me wonder, will someone else jump in or, is it too late?
Wealth for Justice
Guest perspective by Ralph Nader
There are signs that some super-rich are revolting against their “wealth fraternity.” Last fall, mega-billionaire, Warren Buffet, traveled to Washington to meet with Democratic Senators and urge them to raise taxes on the wealthy like him. He pointedly said he pays at a lower rate than his secretary.
The liberal Senators were either bemused, or moved away from him as if he had a contagious disease. Buffett is not deterred. Earlier in this decade, he joined with a thousand other rich Americans led by lawyer William Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins (founder of United For a Fair Economy) to successfully block the repeal of the estate tax (applied to 2% of wealthier decedents) by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Just last week, Mr. Gates, father of Microsoft’s Bill, Jr. launched an initiative campaign in Washington state to impose a progressive income tax on the wealthiest citizens (over $200,000 income) and roll back taxes on property and small business revenues. Initiative 1077 would net $1 billion a year for education and health care. Unlike most states, Washington has no state income tax at present. Any later downward expansion of such a tax would have to be decided by a vote of the people themselves, stipulates I-1077.
The “yes” on 1077 Initiative organizers have to collect 241,153 valid signatures by July 2 to get on the November ballot. This is a huge hurdle for a relatively small state, but when the super-rich are on board, the money will be there for the petitioners.
Last week, several megamillionaires held a conference call with reporters to express their desire for high taxes on people like them. “I would with pleasure sacrifice the income,” declared Jeffrey Hollander, CEO of Seventh Generation. Eric Schoenberg, possessing investment banking riches, bewailed his “absurdly low tax rates.”
According to the Washington Post, paper-mill heir Mike Lapham said that “We’re calling on other wealthy taxpayers to join us, send the message to Congress and President Obama that it’s time to roll back the tax cuts on upper-income taxpayers.” He was referring to the Bush-Cheney tax cuts which saved the then-White House rulers hundreds of thousands of dollars, personally, over the near decade of cuts. At the time, I requested Bush and Cheney have the decency to exempt themselves from their own tax cuts, but they declined.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll in March, a solid majority of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year.
Then there is Dieter Lehmkuhl. Last October, he delivered to German Chancellor Angela Merkel a petition signed by 44 rich Germans urging a 5% wealth tax for two years to fund economic and social programs to aid Germany’s economic recovery. The petition asserted that “the path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice.”
Megabillionaires in our country are encountering their peers here and around the world to commit fifty percent of their estates to “good works.” They will grapple with the definition of “good works” as to whether that means charity or justice.
The difference is important. For example, soup kitchens are a necessary and human charity. Whereas justice goes to the causes of why rich economies have any hunger at all.
With some super-rich thinking about moving from soft philanthropy to advocacy, or to shifts of power, I hope my recent work of political imagination—“Only the Super-rich Can Save Us!” will spark their interest. Drawing on seventeen wealthy Americans in fictional roles, led by Warren Buffett and including George Soros, Yoko Ono, Bill Cosby, Ted Turner, Peter Lewis and others of an advanced age and broader perspectives, a massive, fast, well-funded campaign is launched in January 2006 to galvanize millions of Americans to restore their sovereignty over their government and the large corporations that have captured Washington, D.C.
One of the inspirations for this book was the history of the abolitionist movement against slavery—ably funded by rich Bostonians and New Yorkers—and the early civil rights movement in the Fifties and Sixties—significantly funded by rich people like the Stern and Currie families.
Justice movements need a lift, a shoehorn, resources to pay for organizers, facilities, transportation, litigation and media.
Today, with corporations able to amass trillions of dollars to advance harmful corporate interests, a small number of enlightened mega-rich elders putting their money and smarts behind broad redirections in our country supported by majorities can generate very compelling dynamics for a functioning democratic society.
If you want to see what I mean, just read my book (visit onlythesuperrich.org) and see if you agree with Leslie Stahl of CBS’ Sixty Minutes who read and found “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!” “engrossing, creative and funny.” Leslie, I’ll take all three.
There are signs that some super-rich are revolting against their “wealth fraternity.” Last fall, mega-billionaire, Warren Buffet, traveled to Washington to meet with Democratic Senators and urge them to raise taxes on the wealthy like him. He pointedly said he pays at a lower rate than his secretary.
The liberal Senators were either bemused, or moved away from him as if he had a contagious disease. Buffett is not deterred. Earlier in this decade, he joined with a thousand other rich Americans led by lawyer William Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins (founder of United For a Fair Economy) to successfully block the repeal of the estate tax (applied to 2% of wealthier decedents) by a Republican-controlled Congress.
Just last week, Mr. Gates, father of Microsoft’s Bill, Jr. launched an initiative campaign in Washington state to impose a progressive income tax on the wealthiest citizens (over $200,000 income) and roll back taxes on property and small business revenues. Initiative 1077 would net $1 billion a year for education and health care. Unlike most states, Washington has no state income tax at present. Any later downward expansion of such a tax would have to be decided by a vote of the people themselves, stipulates I-1077.
The “yes” on 1077 Initiative organizers have to collect 241,153 valid signatures by July 2 to get on the November ballot. This is a huge hurdle for a relatively small state, but when the super-rich are on board, the money will be there for the petitioners.
Last week, several megamillionaires held a conference call with reporters to express their desire for high taxes on people like them. “I would with pleasure sacrifice the income,” declared Jeffrey Hollander, CEO of Seventh Generation. Eric Schoenberg, possessing investment banking riches, bewailed his “absurdly low tax rates.”
According to the Washington Post, paper-mill heir Mike Lapham said that “We’re calling on other wealthy taxpayers to join us, send the message to Congress and President Obama that it’s time to roll back the tax cuts on upper-income taxpayers.” He was referring to the Bush-Cheney tax cuts which saved the then-White House rulers hundreds of thousands of dollars, personally, over the near decade of cuts. At the time, I requested Bush and Cheney have the decency to exempt themselves from their own tax cuts, but they declined.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll in March, a solid majority of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year.
Then there is Dieter Lehmkuhl. Last October, he delivered to German Chancellor Angela Merkel a petition signed by 44 rich Germans urging a 5% wealth tax for two years to fund economic and social programs to aid Germany’s economic recovery. The petition asserted that “the path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice.”
Megabillionaires in our country are encountering their peers here and around the world to commit fifty percent of their estates to “good works.” They will grapple with the definition of “good works” as to whether that means charity or justice.
The difference is important. For example, soup kitchens are a necessary and human charity. Whereas justice goes to the causes of why rich economies have any hunger at all.
With some super-rich thinking about moving from soft philanthropy to advocacy, or to shifts of power, I hope my recent work of political imagination—“Only the Super-rich Can Save Us!” will spark their interest. Drawing on seventeen wealthy Americans in fictional roles, led by Warren Buffett and including George Soros, Yoko Ono, Bill Cosby, Ted Turner, Peter Lewis and others of an advanced age and broader perspectives, a massive, fast, well-funded campaign is launched in January 2006 to galvanize millions of Americans to restore their sovereignty over their government and the large corporations that have captured Washington, D.C.
One of the inspirations for this book was the history of the abolitionist movement against slavery—ably funded by rich Bostonians and New Yorkers—and the early civil rights movement in the Fifties and Sixties—significantly funded by rich people like the Stern and Currie families.
Justice movements need a lift, a shoehorn, resources to pay for organizers, facilities, transportation, litigation and media.
Today, with corporations able to amass trillions of dollars to advance harmful corporate interests, a small number of enlightened mega-rich elders putting their money and smarts behind broad redirections in our country supported by majorities can generate very compelling dynamics for a functioning democratic society.
If you want to see what I mean, just read my book (visit onlythesuperrich.org) and see if you agree with Leslie Stahl of CBS’ Sixty Minutes who read and found “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!” “engrossing, creative and funny.” Leslie, I’ll take all three.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Sanborn declares candidacy for state Senate
From the inbox:
Small business owner and proven tax fighter Andy Sanborn announced his candidacy today for the Republican nomination in New Hampshire’s State Senate District 7.
Surrounded by his wife Laurie, family and friends, Andy outlined his priorities: Helping small businesses create jobs for the nearly 53,000 unemployed neighbors in New Hampshire, reducing the runaway 23% increase in spending in the last two budgets, rolling back the 38 recent tax and fee hikes, and curbing an over-zealous Concord regulatory bureaucracy that stifles job growth.
As a 4th generation New Hampshire native, small business owner and husband to the girl of his dreams, Sanborn has been a constant advocate of supporting small business owners and regular working families. He has been fighting to create jobs and push back against the constant barrage of increased taxes and regulation coming from the current leadership in Concord.
“It’s become so obvious the ultra extremist liberal leaders in Concord are showing complete disdain for the majority of the people living and working in the State,” Sanborn was quoted saying to a supporter. “The answer to our job and economic challenges is NOT raising more taxes on working families, or creating a hostile regulatory environment against our small businesses. Today our Government should be bending over backwards FOR the people of this state, creating economic and job opportunities, not constantly standing in the way OF them.”
Sanborn continued, “Runaway spending must end. I will work to restructure state spending so we can balance the budget, reduce taxes and improve the business climate so that employers have incentives and opportunities to create jobs.”
Senate Republican leader Peter Bragdon said, “With New Hampshire facing a $220 million budget deficit right now and a projected $600 million budget shortfall in 2011 we need Senators who have the backbone to make tough choices, set priorities, and cut wasteful spending. Andy’s depth of knowledge of how a budget works and his common sense solutions will be invaluable to turning the State around in this difficult economic time. The current Senator in that seat continues to push for an income tax, and that is not what NH needs.”
Andy ran for the seat in 2008. Although he narrowly lost, Andy remained active and committed to job creation in New Hampshire. When the extremist liberals in Concord passed the job killing LLC Tax in the dead of night without a public hearing, Andy almost singlehandedly mobilized the small business community around the state to fight what has become a staggering 13.5% tax on the personal income of small business owners. Andy’s ability to mobilize business groups, trade associations, and thousands of business owners forced the Governor and Concord tax and spend liberals to admit they were wrong, reverse their position and agree the LLC Tax passed a year ago needs to be repealed.
“As a successful small business owner, Andy brings real world experience and leadership to Concord. His effort to organize the grassroots effort to repeal the job-killing LLC Tax proves how hard Andy will work as a Senator to help small businesses and get New Hampshire citizens back to work.” said Retired Congressman and State Senator Jeb Bradley.
“It’s no accident that as the national unemployment crested in October and has inched downward – New Hampshire’s unemployment rate has continued to climb. High business taxes have made Massachusetts more attractive than New Hampshire to start or grow a business. I will fight to change that,” said Sanborn. “Excessive fees, over regulation and an ineffective government are inhibiting our ability to come out of this recession. We need to clear the way for our great small businesses to be successful, hire our unemployed and pull us out of this economic challenge we’re in. We can do this.”
To find out more about Andy and Laurie Sanborn and their solutions to solve our problems or to stay in touch with them please go to www.Andy4Senate.com.
State Senate District 7 encompass 19 towns in New Hampshire, including Loudon, Canterbury, Northfield, Salisbury, Boscawen, Webster, Warner, Bradford, Henniker, Weare, Hillsborough, Windsor, Deering, Antrim, Bennington, Francestown, Hancock, Nelson and Harrisville
Small business owner and proven tax fighter Andy Sanborn announced his candidacy today for the Republican nomination in New Hampshire’s State Senate District 7.
Surrounded by his wife Laurie, family and friends, Andy outlined his priorities: Helping small businesses create jobs for the nearly 53,000 unemployed neighbors in New Hampshire, reducing the runaway 23% increase in spending in the last two budgets, rolling back the 38 recent tax and fee hikes, and curbing an over-zealous Concord regulatory bureaucracy that stifles job growth.
As a 4th generation New Hampshire native, small business owner and husband to the girl of his dreams, Sanborn has been a constant advocate of supporting small business owners and regular working families. He has been fighting to create jobs and push back against the constant barrage of increased taxes and regulation coming from the current leadership in Concord.
“It’s become so obvious the ultra extremist liberal leaders in Concord are showing complete disdain for the majority of the people living and working in the State,” Sanborn was quoted saying to a supporter. “The answer to our job and economic challenges is NOT raising more taxes on working families, or creating a hostile regulatory environment against our small businesses. Today our Government should be bending over backwards FOR the people of this state, creating economic and job opportunities, not constantly standing in the way OF them.”
Sanborn continued, “Runaway spending must end. I will work to restructure state spending so we can balance the budget, reduce taxes and improve the business climate so that employers have incentives and opportunities to create jobs.”
Senate Republican leader Peter Bragdon said, “With New Hampshire facing a $220 million budget deficit right now and a projected $600 million budget shortfall in 2011 we need Senators who have the backbone to make tough choices, set priorities, and cut wasteful spending. Andy’s depth of knowledge of how a budget works and his common sense solutions will be invaluable to turning the State around in this difficult economic time. The current Senator in that seat continues to push for an income tax, and that is not what NH needs.”
Andy ran for the seat in 2008. Although he narrowly lost, Andy remained active and committed to job creation in New Hampshire. When the extremist liberals in Concord passed the job killing LLC Tax in the dead of night without a public hearing, Andy almost singlehandedly mobilized the small business community around the state to fight what has become a staggering 13.5% tax on the personal income of small business owners. Andy’s ability to mobilize business groups, trade associations, and thousands of business owners forced the Governor and Concord tax and spend liberals to admit they were wrong, reverse their position and agree the LLC Tax passed a year ago needs to be repealed.
“As a successful small business owner, Andy brings real world experience and leadership to Concord. His effort to organize the grassroots effort to repeal the job-killing LLC Tax proves how hard Andy will work as a Senator to help small businesses and get New Hampshire citizens back to work.” said Retired Congressman and State Senator Jeb Bradley.
“It’s no accident that as the national unemployment crested in October and has inched downward – New Hampshire’s unemployment rate has continued to climb. High business taxes have made Massachusetts more attractive than New Hampshire to start or grow a business. I will fight to change that,” said Sanborn. “Excessive fees, over regulation and an ineffective government are inhibiting our ability to come out of this recession. We need to clear the way for our great small businesses to be successful, hire our unemployed and pull us out of this economic challenge we’re in. We can do this.”
To find out more about Andy and Laurie Sanborn and their solutions to solve our problems or to stay in touch with them please go to www.Andy4Senate.com.
State Senate District 7 encompass 19 towns in New Hampshire, including Loudon, Canterbury, Northfield, Salisbury, Boscawen, Webster, Warner, Bradford, Henniker, Weare, Hillsborough, Windsor, Deering, Antrim, Bennington, Francestown, Hancock, Nelson and Harrisville
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
In Honor of Doris 'Granny D' Haddock
New Hampshire Citizens Elections Task Force Convenes Campaign Finance Reform Program in Honor of Doris 'Granny D' Haddock
Success of public funding of elections in Connecticut and Maine focus of panel
The New Hampshire Citizens Funded Election Task Force will sponsor a program on Thursday, April 29th at the State House that will highlight the success of public funding of election systems in Connecticut and Maine. The Task Force was created by the New Hampshire Legislature to propose ways to create a system of public funding of elections for the Granite State.
What: Election Reform for a New Century - State and National Perspectives
When: Thursday, April 29th, 1:00 - 3:30 PM
Where: Representatives Hall, The State House, Concord, NH
The program will start with a film tribute to Doris 'Granny D' Haddock and will include a reception in the Executive Council Chambers immediately following the program.
State legislators and program administrators from Connecticut and Maine will describe how public funding of elections works and the benefits that their states have derived by the way that their political leaders are elected. The campaign finance reform panel will include the following participants:
Maine State Representative Les Fosell (R-Alna)
Maine State Representative Alex Cornell De Houx (D-Brunswick)
John Rauh, Americans for Campaign Reform
Shannon Clark Kief, Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Jonathan Wayne, Maine Ethics Commission
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner will describe the history of New Hampshire's leadership in campaign finance reform and how it relates to present day debates about the influence of money in politics.
The New Hampshire Citizens Funded Elections Task Force is comprised of the following members: Chair Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, Sen. Sharon Carson, Rep. Kathleen Hoelzel, Rep. Jim Splaine, Rep. Bob Perry, Rob Warner, Peter Spaulding, Jim Rubens, David Allen, Abigail Abrash-Walton and Gorden Allen.
Success of public funding of elections in Connecticut and Maine focus of panel
The New Hampshire Citizens Funded Election Task Force will sponsor a program on Thursday, April 29th at the State House that will highlight the success of public funding of election systems in Connecticut and Maine. The Task Force was created by the New Hampshire Legislature to propose ways to create a system of public funding of elections for the Granite State.
What: Election Reform for a New Century - State and National Perspectives
When: Thursday, April 29th, 1:00 - 3:30 PM
Where: Representatives Hall, The State House, Concord, NH
The program will start with a film tribute to Doris 'Granny D' Haddock and will include a reception in the Executive Council Chambers immediately following the program.
State legislators and program administrators from Connecticut and Maine will describe how public funding of elections works and the benefits that their states have derived by the way that their political leaders are elected. The campaign finance reform panel will include the following participants:
Maine State Representative Les Fosell (R-Alna)
Maine State Representative Alex Cornell De Houx (D-Brunswick)
John Rauh, Americans for Campaign Reform
Shannon Clark Kief, Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission
Jonathan Wayne, Maine Ethics Commission
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner will describe the history of New Hampshire's leadership in campaign finance reform and how it relates to present day debates about the influence of money in politics.
The New Hampshire Citizens Funded Elections Task Force is comprised of the following members: Chair Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, Sen. Sharon Carson, Rep. Kathleen Hoelzel, Rep. Jim Splaine, Rep. Bob Perry, Rob Warner, Peter Spaulding, Jim Rubens, David Allen, Abigail Abrash-Walton and Gorden Allen.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Empower the People
Guest perspective by Ralph Nader
Dear President Obama, Senator Schumer and Senator Shelby:
On the eve of the portentous Senate debate over the extent to which the financial industry is to be so as to avert future megacollapses on the backs of taxpayers, workers and consumers, a great gap has been left unattended.
That gap pertains to the continued powerlessness of the investors and consumers—the people who bear the ultimate brunt of Wall Street’s recklessness, avarice and crimes and who have the greatest interest in strong regulatory enforcement.
Among all the amendments filed for the upcoming Senate debate, only amendment number 29, introduced by Senator Schumer, provides a facility to establish an independent non-governmental non-profit Financial Consumers’ Association (FCA).
Amendment 29 includes the following for funding this unique institution:
“…the financial industry has enjoyed virtually unlimited access to represent its interest before Congress, the courts, and State and Federal regulators, while financial services consumers have had limited representation before Congress and financial regulatory entities;” and
“…the Federal Government has a substantial interest in the creation of a public purpose, democratically controlled, self-funded, nationwide membership association of financial services consumers to enhance their representation and to effectively combat unsound financial practices.”
Anyone modestly familiar with the history of regulatory failures knows that the gross disparity of power and organized advocacy between big business and consumers outside of government leads to an absence of fair standards and law enforcement.
It also leads, as everyone knows, to massive taxpayer bailouts, subsidies and guarantees when these giant banks and other financial firms immolate themselves, after enriching their bosses, while engulfing tens of millions of innocent people in the subsequent economic conflagration.
Given all the privileges and costly rescues for culpable corporations that flow regularly from Washington, D.C., adopting ever so mildly the principle of reciprocity makes a powerful case for facilitating a nationwide Financial Consumers’ Association—one that would be composed of voluntary memberships by consumers who, through their annual dues, will sustain the FCA for an expert place at the table.
Senator Schumer, when he was a Congressman during the savings and loan bailout in the nineteen eighties, introduced such a proposal. But the bankers took the $150 billion bailout and blocked this reciprocal respect for depositors in the House Banking Committee.
Then Representative Schumer and his supporting colleagues on that Committee understood that without the supposed beneficiaries of regulatory authority being organized to make regulation and deterrence work, the Savings and Loan collapse could happen again. And so they became prophetic beyond their wildest nightmares.
Before he died in a plane crash in 2002, Senator Paul Wellstone recognized the need for such a facility, when he introduced the Consumer and Shareholder Protection Association Act.
A key enhancing feature in amendment 29 is a requirement that invitations to membership in the FCA be included in the billing envelopes or electronic communications of financial institutions with their customers. At no expense to these vendors, these notices would ensure that the maximum number of consumers are invited to join and fund such a democratically run, educational and advocacy organization.
In early 2009 I met with Chairman Christopher Dodd and explained the nature and importance of the FCA and Senator Schumer’s earlier role in advancing this civic innovation. He seemed receptive to the idea and urged us to have his colleague Senator Schumer take the lead, which he has done with amendment 29 just a few weeks ago. Senator Shelby and I have also discussed the FCA proposal.
The major valiant but overwhelmed consumer groups, who experience daily this enormous imbalance of power between corporations and consumers, presently stacked by unprecedented amounts of federal funds and bailout facilities for the misbehaving companies, support the creation of a self-funded FCA.
The Federal Government has long paid for facilities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture for agricultural businesses to band together and assess themselves to promote beef, corn, cotton and other commodities to increase their profits. By contrast the FCA, once launched, would be composed of consumers paying their own way to preserve their hard-earned savings from predatory financial speculators.
Allow one prediction. Even if the ultimate legislation comes out stronger than expected on such matters as derivatives, rating agencies, too big to fail, using depositor funds for speculation, and the consumer financial regulatory bureau, unless the consumer-investor is afforded modest facilities to band together with their experts and advocates, the laws will hardly be enforced with sufficient budgets, personnel and regulatory will power.
Give the consumer a modest round in this prolonged deliberation following the destructive events of 2008.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
(For more information, see: csrl.org)
Dear President Obama, Senator Schumer and Senator Shelby:
On the eve of the portentous Senate debate over the extent to which the financial industry is to be so as to avert future megacollapses on the backs of taxpayers, workers and consumers, a great gap has been left unattended.
That gap pertains to the continued powerlessness of the investors and consumers—the people who bear the ultimate brunt of Wall Street’s recklessness, avarice and crimes and who have the greatest interest in strong regulatory enforcement.
Among all the amendments filed for the upcoming Senate debate, only amendment number 29, introduced by Senator Schumer, provides a facility to establish an independent non-governmental non-profit Financial Consumers’ Association (FCA).
Amendment 29 includes the following for funding this unique institution:
“…the financial industry has enjoyed virtually unlimited access to represent its interest before Congress, the courts, and State and Federal regulators, while financial services consumers have had limited representation before Congress and financial regulatory entities;” and
“…the Federal Government has a substantial interest in the creation of a public purpose, democratically controlled, self-funded, nationwide membership association of financial services consumers to enhance their representation and to effectively combat unsound financial practices.”
Anyone modestly familiar with the history of regulatory failures knows that the gross disparity of power and organized advocacy between big business and consumers outside of government leads to an absence of fair standards and law enforcement.
It also leads, as everyone knows, to massive taxpayer bailouts, subsidies and guarantees when these giant banks and other financial firms immolate themselves, after enriching their bosses, while engulfing tens of millions of innocent people in the subsequent economic conflagration.
Given all the privileges and costly rescues for culpable corporations that flow regularly from Washington, D.C., adopting ever so mildly the principle of reciprocity makes a powerful case for facilitating a nationwide Financial Consumers’ Association—one that would be composed of voluntary memberships by consumers who, through their annual dues, will sustain the FCA for an expert place at the table.
Senator Schumer, when he was a Congressman during the savings and loan bailout in the nineteen eighties, introduced such a proposal. But the bankers took the $150 billion bailout and blocked this reciprocal respect for depositors in the House Banking Committee.
Then Representative Schumer and his supporting colleagues on that Committee understood that without the supposed beneficiaries of regulatory authority being organized to make regulation and deterrence work, the Savings and Loan collapse could happen again. And so they became prophetic beyond their wildest nightmares.
Before he died in a plane crash in 2002, Senator Paul Wellstone recognized the need for such a facility, when he introduced the Consumer and Shareholder Protection Association Act.
A key enhancing feature in amendment 29 is a requirement that invitations to membership in the FCA be included in the billing envelopes or electronic communications of financial institutions with their customers. At no expense to these vendors, these notices would ensure that the maximum number of consumers are invited to join and fund such a democratically run, educational and advocacy organization.
In early 2009 I met with Chairman Christopher Dodd and explained the nature and importance of the FCA and Senator Schumer’s earlier role in advancing this civic innovation. He seemed receptive to the idea and urged us to have his colleague Senator Schumer take the lead, which he has done with amendment 29 just a few weeks ago. Senator Shelby and I have also discussed the FCA proposal.
The major valiant but overwhelmed consumer groups, who experience daily this enormous imbalance of power between corporations and consumers, presently stacked by unprecedented amounts of federal funds and bailout facilities for the misbehaving companies, support the creation of a self-funded FCA.
The Federal Government has long paid for facilities in the U.S. Department of Agriculture for agricultural businesses to band together and assess themselves to promote beef, corn, cotton and other commodities to increase their profits. By contrast the FCA, once launched, would be composed of consumers paying their own way to preserve their hard-earned savings from predatory financial speculators.
Allow one prediction. Even if the ultimate legislation comes out stronger than expected on such matters as derivatives, rating agencies, too big to fail, using depositor funds for speculation, and the consumer financial regulatory bureau, unless the consumer-investor is afforded modest facilities to band together with their experts and advocates, the laws will hardly be enforced with sufficient budgets, personnel and regulatory will power.
Give the consumer a modest round in this prolonged deliberation following the destructive events of 2008.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
(For more information, see: csrl.org)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)