10 Worst, 10 Best: Senator Max Baucus

For a long time I've wanted to begin a series that takes a careful look at our federal representatives and their actions. As caretakers of the most powerful country in all known history, we ought to know who they are and what they stand for. When I worked in the United States Senate this Summer as legislative intern (more on that another time), I found an article in a 1970s Washington Journal that called out the best and the worst of the U.S. Senate. So today I begin a similar, albeit more timely, piece called: "10 Worst, 10 Best: Your United States Congress Exposed."

And today I begin with Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Helena, Montana and Chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. Baucus earned both his B.A. and law degree at Stanford University, and went on to work for the Securities and Exchange Commission in D.C. Eventually, he returned to his home state, won a seat in the state House of Representatives, and ultimately a seat in the United States House. In 1978, the Montanian won his Senate seat; a seat that has grown stale and dank and saturated in the corrupt puss that seeps from every pore of Max Sieben Baucus.

Such a scathing judgement is undeserved by most, but let us remember that we are dealing with the United States Senate--a body representative of the most powerful interests this country has to offer. Max Baucus, in particular, has received massive campaign donations from the most invasive and influential industries. OpenSecrets.org reveals the top 5 contributors to this Blue Dog's campaigns: Lawyers/Law Firms ($1,608,823), Securities & Investment firms like Goldman Sachs ($1,480,535) Insurance ($1,190,463), Health Professionals ($1,032,276), and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products ($751,605). In total, Baucus has received $2,880,631 from the Health Care Industry and $4,710,818 from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors!

If those numbers don't bug you, check out where his former staff members work. Jeff Forbes, once Baucus's Chief of Staff, went straight to K Street when he opened a lobby firm for the health industry. David Castagnetti, another ex-chief of staff, went on to work in the insurance industry itself! Several other staff member have gone similar routes, and some (including Forbes and Castagnetti) have met with Baucus in exclusive meetings on Health Care Reform 2009.

These facts would be meaningless if big industry donors wanted nothing in return; but alas, this is the root of corruption. Of course powerful Wall Street bankers and health care hotshots want their interests protected and enhanced! As we have seen in the Bailout and TARP spending--intended to stabilize the economy--the Democrats are just as keen as Republicans in helping big business at the expense of taxpayers. And Max Baucus is in a particularly powerful position as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--arguably the most influential of all committees since nearly every bill that involves spending must go through it.

Now let me tell you how twisted Senator Baucus's health care reform bill is going to be. For one, the man refuses to support the Public Option, which is now the last remaining hope for true, fundamental reform...for the change we can believe in. This corporate Dem will fight any attempt to uproot the perverted and financially idiotic health care system that this country has been victim to for so many years. Instead, cooperatives have been proposed as a substitute for the public option--this is a petty appeasement, and will be destined for failure since co-ops will not have the funding to sustain themselves; eventually they will be used as "proof" that non-private health plans do not--cannot work.

Baucus's bill is being determined by his "Gang of 6" which, besides Montana Max, includes Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico). Seems like a lot of Republicans determining reform they do not even seem to want! Is there not a Democratic majority? In fact, Baucus has shut out certain members of the Finance Committee who do indeed support the public option! And I refuse to believe that the Gang of 6 states are representative of the entire country.

True health care reform is looking more and more unlikely by the hour, and this is largely due to the influential Baucus. How have we allowed this kind of paralyzing corruption to happen? Don't the people of Montana see that this man has little desire to represent their true needs? The needs of the country at large? Must things get bad enough that we must revolt to reform our policies and cut the puppet strings once and for all?

I refuse to believe we have reached that point, but I do know that a voter revolt is needed--that is, people like this can and must lose reelection. If change is on the horizon, it certainly will not come from hacks like Max Baucus--a man perhaps best explained by his response to single-payer advocates (a group of 8 doctors and nurses) demanding to have a seat at the table: "We need more police!"

And so it is official... Max Baucus: you, sir, are my first WORST CONGRESSPERSON

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

A Huffington Post

Will The Madoff Debacle Finally End The "Who Could Have Known?" Era?

by Arianna Huffington

See if this sounds familiar:

An ambitious and risky undertaking carried out with hubris, and featuring the weeding out of anyone who raises alarm bells, little-to-no transparency, an oversight system in which no central authority is accountable, and the deliberate manufacturing of ambiguity and complexity so that if -- when -- it all falls to pieces, the excuse "who could have known?" can be used....

Is it Iraq? Fannie Mae? Citigroup? Bernie Madoff?

The correct answer is: all of the above.

When you look at the elements that were crucial to the creation of each of these debacles, it's amazing how much in common they all have. And not just in how they began but in how they ended: with those responsible being amazed at what happened, because...who could have known? Well, to paraphrase James Inhofe, I'm amazed at the amazement.

In fact, when historians look for a name that sums up the Bush II years, they could do worse than calling them The "Who Could Have Known?" Era.

Each of the disasters listed above was entirely predictable. And, indeed, was predicted. But those who rang the alarm bells were aggressively ignored, which is why it's important that we not let those responsible get away with the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse.

Let's start with Iraq -- specifically the reconstruction of Iraq. This weekend the New York Times got its hands on the unpublished 513-page federal history of the reconstruction. It's not pretty. As the Times puts it: it was "an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." As a result, almost six years and $117 billion later, many essential services are only now reaching pre-war levels.

The report quotes Colin Powell on how the Pentagon, to cover up its failures, "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces [that had reached readiness] -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Hmm, making up numbers to realize a short-term gain, but which end up making the inevitable long-term reckoning much worse? Sounds a lot like what was happening at Citigroup at around the same time.

In late 2002, Charles Prince was put in charge of the company's corporate and investment bank. The banking giant was already knee deep in toxic paper and aggressively looking the other way.

He was so successful at averting his eyes that when, five years later, as Wall Street began to feel the initial shocks of the mortgage meltdown, he was told that the bank owned $43 billion in mortgage-related assets -- it was the first he'd heard of it. Isn't that something he should have known? Or did he prefer not knowing?

Prince had plenty of help ignoring the obvious, particularly from Robert Rubin. According to a former Citigroup executive quoted in the long New York Times analysis of Citi's downfall, despite ascending to the top of the Citi food chain, Prince "didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin."

When it all came tumbling down, both Rubin and Prince portrayed themselves as helpless victims of circumstance, because...Who Could Have Known?

"I've thought a lot about that," Rubin said when asked if he made mistakes at Citigroup. "I honestly don't know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we'd do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I'm inclined to think probably not."

What he means, of course, is the facts as he chose to know them.

Prince's head is even higher in the clouds: "Anything," he said, "based on human endeavor and certainly any business that involves risk-taking, you're going to have problems from time to time."

Sounds like he's reading from the same damage control playbook as former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. According to Raines, he can't be blamed for what happened at Fannie Mae because mortgage stuff is so, well, complicated. In fact, he can't even understand his own mortgage: "I know I can't and I've tried," Raines told a House committee last week. "To this day, I don't know what it said... It's impossible for the average person to understand" mortgage terms such as negative amortization. In other words, Who Could Have Known?

Committee chair Henry Waxman wasn't buying it: "These documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing. Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage markets."

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopoulos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

After Katrina, the White House read from the "Who Could Have Known?" hymnal: No one could have predicted that the storm would be a Category 5, and that this could result in the levees being breached. We now know, of course, that plenty of people knew that the levees could be breached and said so before the storm hit.

Then there is Alan Greenspan, who, looking back in October of this year on the makings of the financial crisis he helped create (I mean, that just happened to come out of nowhere) delivered this "Who Could Have Known?" classic: "If all those extraordinarily capable people were unable to foresee the development of this critical problem...we have to ask ourselves: Why is that? And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

The only problem is, many people did see events that far in advance.

Unlike Greenspan, I don't believe the problem is that we are "not smart enough as people." As we've seen time after time, smart enough people are all too willing to ignore facts they don't like. Or, even worse, they construct oversight systems designed to be ineffective -- and unable to provide to those in power information they don't really want to know.

Much has been made of the smartness of Obama's new team. But I'm hoping that their defining characteristic won't be their IQs but their willingness to confront reality and take responsibility for their decisions.

It's time to say goodbye to the "Who Could Have Known?" era. It's time to know things again. And to know that you know them.

Unity, Organization, HOPE

Two months ago, Ron Paul appeared alongside Ralph Nader on CNN to discuss their plans for a third party/independent presidential debate.  The debate is irrelevant at this point, but I want to convey the united message that the two shared as a continuation of the message from my last post.

They agreed that immediate action must be taken on the following issues:

A.) Foreign Policy

-We do not want the empire! 

-We cannot afford the empire!

-No more unjust wars!

-Cut the outrageous military budget!

-The President cannot declare war without congressional approval (see Constitution)!

-Bring our military home!

B.) Civil Rights

-Abolish the Patriot Act!

-No more torture!

-Appeal FISA!

C.) Federal Deficit ($56 trillion)

-Stop using the deficit for reckless government adventurism!

-Control the spending!

D.) Reform or Abolish the Federal Reserve

-It is funded and controlled by the banks!

-Totally out of control!

So these are 4 issues that are critical to the survival of our country, and activists on all sides need to come together to push them into the Obama agenda.  Somehow the millions of activists around the country MUST come together for common cause.  People need to be thinking about this and leaders must begin establishing the framework for grassroots organization.  The Congress is only 535 people... they have lives and personalities just like you and me... they can be persuaded. Imagine the possibilities.  

But this week we rest to admire the remarkable history that has been made.  By electing a man whose ancestors we once called "slave," we have proven once again that the American Dream is real.  The age of cynicism and fear has come to an end, and the world can once again look to the United States as a beacon of hope and leadership.  We must remember that in no other place in the world could this have happened.  It is like the French electing a citizen of Algerian descent to their highest office!  Ce n'est pas possible!

Coming of age during perhaps the most cynical period of American history prevented me from recognizing why our country truly is special.  It is because of this nation's ability to change that gives me newfound hope.  Today let the world know that the United States can be better, and I believe will.  

And to the Americans who have been disenchanted by our nation's failures and betrayals: I ask you to believe once more in the Dream that is our legacy, and in the government that we cherish so deeply.  Do not let it fail.

Much work is ahead of us, but it can be done.

Just a Quote

Today I will leave you with just a quote as food for thought.  It was written by former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

Absorb and reflect.

Closing the World Markets?!

Berlusconi Says Leaders May Close World's Markets (Update1)
By Steve Scherer

Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said political leaders are discussing the idea of closing the world's financial markets while they ``rewrite the rules of international finance.''

``The idea of suspending the markets for the time it takes to rewrite the rules is being discussed,'' Berlusconi said today after a Cabinet meeting in Naples, Italy. A solution to the financial crisis ``can't just be for one country, or even just for Europe, but global.''

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much 8.1 percent in early trading and pared most of those losses after Berlusconi's remarks. The Dow was down 0.5 percent to 8540.52 at 10:10 in New York.

Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers are meeting in Washington today, and will stay in town for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings this weekend. European Union leaders may gather in Paris on Oct. 12, three days before a scheduled summit in Brussels, Berlusconi said today, while Group of Eight leaders may hold a meeting on the crisis ``in coming days,'' he said.

Berlusconi didn't give any details about what kind of rules leaders were looking to change, except to say that leaders are ``talking about a new Bretton Woods.''

The Bretton Woods Agreements were adopted to rebuild the international economic system after World War II in a hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The aim of the agreements was to establish a monetary management system, initially by pegging currencies to gold. The IMF was set up later to help manage the international financial system.

To contact the reporter on this story: Steve Scherer in Rome at scherer@bloomberg.net

Drudge: "BORING"

Immediately after watching the second hum-drum presidential debate last night, I checked out Drudge Report to see if Matt Drudge felt the same way; sure enough, the headline simply read: "BORING."

Why in one of the most turbulent and terrifying times in this country's history can our presidential hopefuls be so uninspiring? It is clear that the public debate format has been carefully crafted in order to keep the candidates within their safe zones, but that is not what we need right now.  We need rules and moderators who will push the candidates and call them out.  We need to break the barrier of generality, and delve into the heart of such important affairs.  But most of all, we need a different perspective.

Yes, I'm back to the third party rant, but after seeing these establishment candidates "duke it out" once again, I do not believe anyone would disagree that there must be another side to these issues.  Independents and third party candidates provide much needed insight, and keep the others on their toes.  It is truly tragic that the rules of the system prevent such a dynamic.  Don't Americans want more choice?  Or does it just not matter?

More Voices, More Choices!

What Palin Proved

Tonight I had the pleasure of having dinner with Norman Ornstein, an esteemed fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think-tank in Washington). His conversation at dinner was interesting, and he provided some good insight on my questions for him, but I'd like to talk a little bit about what he had to say about the first presidential debate, and what he had to say after watching the VP debate tonight (after his lecture with another Political Scientist named Thomas Mann, he watched the debate with us).

He explained that the pundits got it all wrong in their analysis of the first debate. The media's narrative was about who won the most 'debate points.' Many argued that John McCain was a stronger debater, particularly on foreign policy, but that Obama held his own. Ornstein explained that the debate wasn't about John McCain at all in fact. It was all about Obama proving to voters that he could be presidential, and he succeeded. No one doubted John McCain's knowledge on the issues, or even his experience. But Obama had to provide the image that he could be the man to lead the country.

In that respect, Obama won the debate.

Tonight, however, the tables were turned as all eyes turned to Sarah Palin--the great big question mark of this campaign. What Palin had to prove tonight had nothing to do with her in actuality. It had to do with John McCain and his judgment. Did McCain take a reckless risk in choosing the governor? In this respect, John McCain won because Palin held her ground, and even when she was clearly dodging the question, did it with a certain grace. The point is that Palin didn't screw up. She didn't give us that moment we had all been waiting for. Tonight Palin strongly defended John McCain's judgement (by performing well), and certainly provided much relief for the campaign.

However, both Mann and Ornstein projected a handy Obama victory unless something catastrophic happened. There are only 32 days left until the election, but something could easily happen in that amount of time.

With all that said, I'll just point out that the real winners of these debates are the military-industrialists and militarism, nuclear power, corporate crime and the bailout. The losers?

The Bailout Passed, but Check this Out!

Yes, the new bailout passed in the Senate, and tomorrow it goes to the House for a vote. My uncle brought my attention to this petition ... basically a bunch of the nation's leading economists came together to say that the bailout is a terrible idea: that is, it will disrupt the markets long term, it is unfair to the taxpayers, and it's really shady (they say ambiguous). Essentially what I said before (I think), but this time from experts!

But those in power will do what they want. If they want to go to war against a random country for trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, they will. If they want to give $700 billion to their Wall Street friends and co-workers, they will. If those from within commit crimes, the investigations (if any) will be insufficient and false. This is the age-old story of government.

PS: Obama, McCain, and Biden all voted for the bailout ... I think we all know why.

PPS: Palin showed up to vote, but was told she couldn't.

My Thoughts on the Bailout

Full disclosure: I don't understand the economy like I should (though I'm working on it), but I have been carefully listening to various explanations of what is going on, and what should be done--in fact, the more I read about it, the more I understand that most people don't get it either.

I was watching C-SPAN the other day (we had to for class... seriously), and this Senator from ND named Byron Dorgan was talking about this thing called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999 (when the Senate voted for the further deregulation of the banks and end of GS, Dorgan said: "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past... and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010.")

In response to the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the resulting banking failures of the Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of bank regulations within the Glass-Steagall Act. It created the Federal Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced reforms that were to control speculation. Basically what it did was separate "banks that did risky investing from those that did basic lending" (NYT). Without the regulations, firms began taking bad mortgages and risking lenders' money. When the value of houses went down, the banks were stuck with all these mortgages, etc. etc.... And my understanding quickly dissipates from there (it's much more fun to discuss foreign policy!).

But essentially Glass-Steagall divided the banks into the safe banks that the public could depend on to be consistent, and the risk-taking banks who were allowed to make reckless investments. When this divide was eliminated, all the banks started taking huge risks with your money, and now it's all going to hell.

So the first bailout plan was 4 pages long and called for the Congress to hand over $700 billion to the Wall Street honchos to save their tails, no questions asked--thereby rescuing "Main Street" (what they are calling the common folk). The second one was longer, but still involved giving $700 billion to the same guys who got us into this mess. Granted I don't have a great grasp on all of the technicalities, but this seems REALLY SHADY. I really think that the federal government is being exposed for what it truly is: the Wall Street government. They reap in billions as a result of the criminal and disastrous Iraq War, and now they are trying to make out like bandits by getting a free pass for their reckless actions. When the Treasury Secretary is a former Golman Sachs exec, and the EPA is headed by energy company execs, something has gone terribly wrong.

When did our government become dominated by the selfish elitists? How did they take it from us? More importantly, what happened the last time Americans were abused by their rich minority leadership?

The Bailout: Corporate Socialism?

I'll be posting an essay soon (later tonight or tomorrow). In the meantime, check out these pieces on the bailout:

Watch this informative report ... I had imbedded it, but it would continuously play automatically... quite annoying.

Then watch Nader below!

Nader on the Corporate Bailout

Here is some interesting insight on the corporate bailout plan from our good friend, Ralph Nader:



What do you think?