Some Things Never Change

Another Wild Bushman Ride

From The Fed Can Buy Commercial Paper Directly From Corporations: Who Knew? by Dean Baker:

Remember way back to last week when it was going to be the end of the world if Congress didn't pass the bailout package? Remember the Washington Post's account in which Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told President Bush, "there is no Plan B."

Well, it looks like the Fed has discovered a Plan B. It turns out that the Fed can buy commercial paper directly from non-financial corporations needing credit to maintain operations. This will keep the credit markets working even if the zombie banks aren't up to the task. In other words, the threat of a complete meltdown in the absence of a bailout was nonsense and the media once again got taken for a ride by the Bush administration.

Read the rest here.

My Friends

I’m really tired of hearing John McCain say “my friends.” It really bothers me for some reason.

This bit of information from MF'er by Paul Collins may help explain my negative reaction:

Perhaps that's why this Foghorn Leghorn-ish turn of phrase also finds popularity among conservative populists. Since its last major outing in 1989, the phrase's most notable public users have been Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan…

The thought of McCain, Limbaugh, and Buchanan as friends of mine makes me shudder. What a nightmarish scenario.

Henry Paulson - Bush Appointee

Political Animal on April 1, 2008:

No surprise there. After all, Paulson created his plan a year ago, well before the current crisis exploded last summer. Far from being a way to rein in banking industry excesses, it was originally a conservative wish list designed to "streamline" the federal bureaucracy and lighten the regulatory burden on Wall Street, which was, um, slowing down the growth of sophisticated new financial instruments that — that, er, were needed to keep the American financial industry in its place as the leader of the world.

But just for once, would it kill the Bush administration to address an actual problem, instead of merely using it as an excuse to jam some long-wished-for piece of money-con flim-flam through Congress?

From 'Paulson's new 'Global Banking Corp.' IPO 2009 by Paul B. Farrell:

1. Opening scene: Paulson and Goldman Sachs, 1974-2006

Harvard M.B.A., 1970. Then a staffer at the Pentagon and with Nixon. Joins Goldman in 1974. CEO in 1999. Paid $38 million in 2005. Federal ethics laws let him sell $484 million in Goldman stock tax-free when he left. Net worth, about $700 million.

And I have to pay taxes every time I sell any stocks, even if it is only a fraction of a share.

From A Loophole For Poor Mr. Paulson by Jessica Holzer:

But don't shed too many tears for Paulson. He has amassed quite a fortune--a roughly $700 million equity stake in Wall Street's premier investment banking house. And soon, he will have the chance to diversify a good chunk of those holdings without paying a dime to the Internal Revenue Service.

By accepting the Treasury post, Paulson is poised to take advantage of a tax loophole that allows government officials to defer capital gains taxes on assets they have to sell to avoid a conflict of interest, as long as the proceeds are reinvested in government securities or a broad array of mutual funds approved by the government within 60 days.

Technically, the tax kicks in once these replacement assets are sold, using the purchase price of the original assets as the cost basis, says Tom Ochsenschlager of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. But why sell when you can avoid the tax altogether?

"The idea is never to sell," says Robert Willens, the top tax and accounting analyst at Lehman Brothers. "If you're able to hold onto the replacement assets until your demise, you never have to pay it."

The tax break was designed to ensure that the wealthy are not deterred from taking posts in government because they fear a big tax hit. But it amounts to a significant perk of public office.

From Can you trust a Wall Street veteran with a Wall Street bailout? by Kevin G. Hall:

Back then, Bush saw Paulson's Wall Street experience as a plus. "Hank will follow in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and other distinguished Treasury secretaries who used their talents and wisdom to strengthen our financial markets and expand the reach of the American Dream," Bush said at the time.

Nothing like the wisdom and foresight of George W. Bush.

Has George W. Bush ever done anything positive for this country?

Bailout Blues

George W. Bush and Henry Paulson and Congress don’t seem like the U.S. Cavalry to me.

From Stock crunch deepens by Aaron Smith:

Stocks were in for a bruising Monday after a deepening financial crisis in Europe heightened worries about a global economic slowdown.

The S&P, Dow and Nasdaq futures - trading that gives an indication of how stocks may move in the early going - were sharply lower about one hour before the open. That followed a broad sell-off around the world on Monday.

Japan's Nikkei index plunged 4.3% to close at a four-year low. European indexes - the Britain's FTSE 100, Germany's Xetra DAX 100 and France's CAC 40 - were down about 5% as investors looked beyond the bailout, focusing instead on Europe's growing crisis.

"It's this fear factor ... continuing to grow," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist for Avalon Partners. "It's becoming like a cancer which is spreading all over the place."

From U.S. bank failures almost certain to increase in next year:

Here's a safe bet for uncertain times: A lot of banks won't survive the next year of upheaval despite the U.S. government's $700 billion rescue plan to restore order to the financial industry.

The biggest questions are how many will perish and how they will be put out of their misery, whether it's outright closures by regulators scrambling to preserve the dwindling deposit insurance fund or in fire sales made under government pressure.

Congress does what Bush and Paulson want, and things get worse. You guys are doing a heck of a job. Perhaps McCain needs to cancel his campaign, not just postpone it.

Bible Verse For Sunday 10-05-08

Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side…

What the hell?

Without God On Their Side

From Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day by Scott Bauer:

The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.

The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," the lawsuit said.

Read the rest here.

Visit The Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Niche Dating Sites Thrive Online

From Pet-Loving Atheist Seeks Green Geek by Ki Mae Heussner:

Forget tall, dark and handsome. Try geeky, wealthy and Wiccan.

As the online dating marketplace continues to flourish, up sprout more and more sites that cater to nearly every belief system, hobby and lifestyle.

Are you a hardcore sci-fi fan? Trek Passions might be for you. Interested in meeting other atheists? Try Free Thinker Match. Hung up on horse lovers? Maybe you'll find Mr. or Ms. Right at Equestrian Cupid.

According to Internet traffic monitor Hitwise, the top-five dating sites enjoy about 46 percent of the market share. But literally hundreds of niche sites populate the rest of the online dating world, including services for vegetarians, farmers, plus size singles, geeks, golfers, Wiccans, bikers, the goth community, the incarcerated and the very wealthy.

Partisan Mischief?

From Florida 2000 Redux? by Daphne Eviatar:

You know it’s going to be a heated election when a state attorney general sues his own state agency for not cracking down on voter fraud. But that’s just what’s happened in Wisconsin. It’s indicative of the kinds of legal challenges now being brought in hotly contested states around the country. The outcomes of those challenges will decide whose votes get counted and whose don’t — and in a race as close as this one, that could make all the difference.

In each case, Republicans claim voter fraud is rampant and the government has to crack down on it. Democrats, meanwhile, argue it’s rare – and far less of a problem than intimidation and harassment of voters at the polls.

Read the rest here.

The Toxic Mess Is Your Own Damn Fault

At first I thought she had made a mistake, a slip of the tongue. She said Main Street when she meant Wall Street and vice versa. On reflection, I think otherwise. I think she is reaching out to those who believe this garbage, that basically it is poor people who caused the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

A Contest Of Reason

Sarah Palin wore a great big flag pin. Now that the most important thing about last night is out of the way, let’s move on.

I like this definition of the word debate:

Debate is a formal method of presenting arguments in support and against a given issue (expressed in a form of a debate topic) in which debaters present reasons and evidence to persuade an audience or a group of judges.

How much evidence did we see last night? It all depends on who you believe. One side says one thing, the other side says it’s not true. The other side says something else, the other side says it’s not true. This is a debate? What is gained by this?

Perhaps the debates could stand to have a panel of referees. Someone to point out what is true and what is false. This is especially true in the case of someone’s voting record. The senators themselves probably don’t really know what they are voting for half the time, how are we supposed to figure it all out? How many members of Congress read the Patriot Act before voting on it? How do you weed out what’s really going on when there is so much pork attached to everything they vote on? Like wooden arrows for children. Last nights bickering about who voted for what does not add clarity, it only muddies things up even more. What is the average American voter supposed to make of all of this?

“Analysis” from the talking heads does not help at all. Style trumps substance in their world, and they try as hard as they can to make it be that way in our world as well. So the meme that spreads about last night is that Sarah Palin held her own. I think that Sarah Palin is Bush redux. Not only in substance, but also in style.

A debate is supposed to be a contest of reason. That’s not what I saw last night.

Update:
From George W. Palin by digby:

Last night Palin appeared to have mastered the art of George W. Bush style gibberish --- obnoxious, confident and dumb. And the conservative elite are all relieved. They were afraid they had a real problem on their hands --- a candidate who was timorous, insecure and dumb and that is a sure loser.

I'm going to start referring to her as George W Palin. She has every one of the characteristics that people thought were so refreshingly "authentic" when he ran in 2000 and which led us to disaster. This arrogant, empty, anti-intellectual faux populism has just proved itself to be inadequate for the presidency and yet they've put up another one.

I Missed Monday's Depression

“I woke up this morning
I woke up this morning
I woke up this morning with the Monday morning blues” Mississippi John Hurt

Did you happen to see it? The bailout didn’t happen over the weekend. There should have been a depression on Monday.

From McCain calls for debates to be delayed by Domenico Montanaro:

McCain advisors say they will do all the debates but the schedule is up in the air.
They also deny that there is a political calculation in this and say without action the country could slide into a Depression by Monday and added "we'll see 12 percent unemployment" if action is not completed.

As I write this no bailout plan has been passed. Yet, somehow the McCain campaign is no longer suspended. Have I missed the recovery also? Things happen so fast these days.

From David Brooks Has A Fetish by Turkana:

Anyone notice a theme, here? Of course, as Brooks already made clear, whatever reforms that would be later undertaken must necessarily not include too much regulation, so it's not clear what he means. Except that the bailout bill needed to be passed. But what's worse is that even after it failed, even after the market had already reacted, Brooks still wants the same bill! Now! Because whatever else happens, we must panic! Pass the "Patriot" Act without reading it. Invade Iraq for no reason. Allow spying on anyone and everyone. The key is to panic! And submit! And not think! And have that strong and powerful Big Brother making all the decisions. To make everyone feel calm, again. If not sedated...

I missed Monday's depression, yet for some reason I still feel blue and down. Too many lunatics running the asylum, I suppose.

Sick And Tired Of Reading About The Bailout?

If you’re not, try the following tidbits.

If Bush is for anything, I’m usually against it. Never did trust the man, and now I trust him even less.

From Bush Presses House to Pass Rescue Package by Carl Hulse:

The day after the Senate strongly endorsed a $700 billion economic bailout plan, the administration and Congressional leaders tried to muster support on Thursday for the rescue package ahead of a crucial vote in the House.

Speaking after a meeting at the White House with representatives of American businesses, President Bush said it was essential that the House “get this bill passed so we can get about the business of restoring confidence” in the financial system.

From Salon Radio: David Cay Johnston on the bailout by Glenn Greenwald:

Glenn Greenwald: My pleasure. So, I want to begin with a piece that you wrote, actually last week, as the financial crisis was literally exploding, and you wrote at poynter.org, at the Romanesko site, a place where lots of journalists talk to one another, and is a very popular site among professional journalists. And you essentially issued at the time an admonition in advance, about what the media should do and in particular what they should avoid in covering this financial crisis. And in particular, you said -- let's not make the same mistakes as were made with the run-up to the Iraq War, and the PATRIOT ACT that so eroded our credibility, in terms of how we cover this financial crisis.

What did you mean by that, and have those admonitions been largely followed in your view?

David Cay Johnston: Well, what I meant was, the line I opened my piece was, "Journalists, start your skepticism." The core value of journalism, the first rule of a journalist is check it out. Just because the President of the United States says something doesn't make it so. And so my initial concern was, is there really a crisis going on, and if there is, let's hear the case - tell the government we want a comprehensive, comprehensible and clear explanation of what the problem is, and then journalists should begin questioning that, and checking things out, and cross-checking them, and then they should begin looking at the solution. We've been told there's only one solution. Well, a whole group of economists have come forward with solutions. I proposed one area that might help ease this crisis.

We've been seeing some of this. Some of the journalism has been better, some of it has been atrocious. And I'll give you an example of the fear-mongering I see going on now. Monday night, after the bail-out was rejected, Katie Couric opened up the CBS Evening News with the clerk reading the vote total, and said: "that sets off the biggest decline in stock prices ever." Well, it did not - it wasn't even close to the biggest decline. Brian Williams on the Nightly News said the very same thing - the worst single day drop ever. That's just wrong. And there's an enormous amount of just wrong reporting going on.

From Why the Bailout Sells America Short by Nomi Prins:

The $700 billion bailout bill that failed in the House after a dramatic Monday afternoon vote addressed many things, but not the regulatory vacuum that allowed Wall Street to get us into this mess. Wrapped in a bipartisan bow, this plan—dubbed a "rescue" package on the Hill and a "bailout" elsewhere—will neither save the economy nor permanently shore up Wall Street.

Across the media, the proposal has been described as the largest government intervention since the Great Depression, but it by no means delivers the financial stability to the banking system or the economic security to the general population that the post-Great Depression Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 did.

I really like the title of the following one.

From Why Bail? The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger by Dean Baker:

If you have a real story, you don't have to make up phony stories. That's pretty straightforward.

I've heard lots of phony stories. Much of the country's political and economic leadership has been running around raising the prospect of the Great Depression and a breakdown in the banking system (I actually had taken the latter seriously). These stories are absolutely not true.

There is no plausible scenario under which the no bailout scenario gives us a Great Depression. There is a more plausible scenario (but highly unlikely) that the bailout will give us a Great Depression. There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. We will not lose our modern system of payments.

At this point I cannot identify a single good reason to do the bailout.

Perhaps Wall Street changed their aim, Mr. Baker?

From Wall Street Held a Gun to Our Heads by Dean Baker:

The $700bn bail-out bill is a victory for wealthy bankers who exploited fears of a financial crisis for their own gain.

Most authors of books on politics or economics are happy when they get one or two prominent members of Congress to endorse their work. It looks like I'm about to get majorities of both chambers to endorse my book, The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (free download available). There is no other way to describe Henry Paulson's $700bn bail-out deal.

The point of my book is that the battle between progressives and conservatives is not about a policy of government intervention as opposed to free market policies. Rather, it is a battle between those who want to use the government to benefit the middle and bottom of the income distribution and those who want to use the power of government to redistribute income upward.

The bail-out is a big victory for those who want to redistribute income upward. It takes money from school teachers and cab drivers and gives it to incredibly rich Wall Street bankers. These bankers have in turn distinguished themselves by their incompetence, having driven their banks into the ground.

Steve Chapman sees a gun, too.

From Bailing out Wall Street with a gun to our heads by Steve Chapman:

The late comedian Jack Benny made a career of claiming to be a cheapskate. In one joke, a robber accosted him and said: "Your money or your life." Getting no response, the thug repeated his demand. Benny replied, "I'm thinking about it!"

That's the sort of dilemma posed by Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke in their proposed rescue of financial institutions. They predict dire consequences if they don't get their way. But the consequences of letting them have their way are so awful that the alternative doesn't look so bad.

What they prescribe is for the federal government to buy $700 billion worth of lousy assets from banks and other lenders, exposing taxpayers to a potentially crushing liability. This plan would nationalize the money-losing part of the financial sector, to the benefit of capitalists who have made spectacularly bad decisions -- fostering more bad decisions in the future.

And finally, I’m not sure if they were shot by a gun or not, but many subprime lenders are no longer with us.

From Subprime’s dearly departed by Ronald Campbell:

The list of major subprime lenders for 2006 and 2007 resembles the casualty roster from the Battle of Verdun in World War I. Only difference: way fewer walking wounded this time.

Of the 30 biggest subprime home lenders in 2006, measured by dollar volume, 22 have gone bankrupt, shut down, been sold or been seized by Uncle Sam. Most of the survivors have scaled back.

Religulousosity

Bill Maher gets religulous.

From Bill Maher takes on religion for laughs -- and more:

Bill Maher has taken his crusade against religion to the big screen.

Maher, who has been picking on organized religion for years on his TV shows "Politically Incorrect" and "Real Time," zealously traveled the world for "Religulous," his documentary challenging the validity and value of Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths.

Raised in a Roman Catholic household by a Catholic father and Jewish mother, Maher decided at an early age that the trappings and mythology of the world's religions were preposterous, outdated and even dangerous.

"Religulous," directed by fellow doubter Larry Charles ("Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan"), is intended to inspire similar skepticism in others -- and perhaps get nonbelievers to talk more openly about their lack of faith.

Read the rest here.

Surprise, surprise. Some Catholics don’t like it that Bill Maher got religulous.

From Bill Maher’s Ridiculous Religulous by Rev. Robert Barron:

It seems that every time I turn on the television, I hear the comedian Bill Maher bad-mouthing religion. In the last several years, Maher has appeared dozens of times on Larry King’s show, where he consistently mocks the beliefs of religious people, especially Christians. Well, he’s come out with a new documentary film on his favorite subject, and he’s called it, subtly enough, Religulous. I had the opportunity to see an advance screeing of the movie last week in a theatre on the near north side of Chicago. Please don’t go to see it — and I say this for two reasons. First, it’s a mindless and utterly unpersuasive attack on religious faith, and second, it’s remarkably unfunny. Religulous is basically a one-joke movie: put Bill Maher in the presence of simple-minded folks and let the clever comedian take apart their beliefs. This might have worked as a five-minute sketch, but twenty minutes into the movie, I was gazing at my watch in boredom. Practically all of Maher’s interlocutors — Christian fundamentalists, anti-evolutionists, a holocaust-denying rabbi, or even a man who thought he was the re-incarnation of Jesus — had in common a complete intellectual incapacity to deal with the standard objections that the comedian raised. Again and again, I found myself muttering, “Come on, Maher, pick on someone your own size.”

Read the rest here.

Saving Millions

From Here's Why by Turkana:

…I'd just like to say that if the board of any other failing bank is looking for a temp CEO, I'm willing to step up to the challenge. I'm even offering my services at a marked down bargain price of half what Fishman got. I promise to do absolutely nothing. Maybe just take long naps. Granted, I'm not even remotely qualified for the job, but I am ready, willing, and able to wing it. Which seems to be enough, these days, for just under half the population. And I guarantee I won't do any worse than Fishman did. If WaMu had only called, I could have saved them millions.

Katie And Sarah And John

“I wanna go and moose-hunt with her. And then we can, maybe we can have a look.” John McCain

Or maybe not. Aw shucks Katie, did you really expect straight talk from us two mavericks?

Here is the transcript of the interview by CBS News anchor Katie Couric with John McCain and Sarah Palin that was broadcast on Sept. 30.

The Uncooperative White House

The Bush Administration does not like to play nice and share their toys. I wonder how many tax payer dollars have been wasted because of this. Maybe the real reason Bush keeps pushing for so many tax cuts is so there won’t be any agencies left to investigate him.

From Report Implicates White House by Carrie Johnson:

In 18 months of searching, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett have uncovered new e-mail messages hinting at heightened involvement of White House lawyers and political aides in the firings of nine federal prosecutors two years ago.

But they could not probe much deeper because key officials declined to be interviewed and a critical timeline drafted by the White House was so heavily redacted that it was "virtually worthless as an investigative tool," the authorities said.

Read the rest here.

What is the Office of Professional Responsibility? Look here to find out.

U.S. Attorneys Scandal

From U.S. Attorneys Scandal Reignited by Matthew Blake:

The controversial and complex U.S. attorneys scandal reignited Monday with the release of an internal Justice Dept. report that details how former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales turned a blind eye as his chief of staff orchestrated the unprecedented dismissal of nine federal prosecutors.

In response, Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey named a special prosecutor, Nora R. Dannehy, acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut. He said Dannehy would investigate whether there was a “prosecutable offense” in the firing of the federal prosecutors, which Mukasey described as “haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional.”

Read the rest here.

Money For Nothing

Edward McSweegan could have quit his job and started another one somewhere else. He chose not to. Would you consider what he did to be immoral? Or are you OK with it?

From Money for (almost) nothing: Fat paychecks for very little work by Ethan Trex:

…McSweegan claimed that he did nothing for seven years while employed as a scientist at the National Institutes of Health.

In 2003 McSweegan told the Washington Post that he hadn't really been given any job responsibilities since 1996.

Prior to that, he had been a researcher and program officer on Lyme disease, but he was removed from that position in 1995 for arguing with a sufferers' support group.

Although he had a title as director of the U.S.-Indo Vaccine Action Program and a list of nominal duties associated with that role, McSweegan claimed that he only carried out the tiniest of tasks like ordering coffee. In exchange, he received a salary in the neighborhood of $100,000.

When the NIH vehemently disputed McSweegan's story that he simply went to work and did nothing all day, he maintained that he never received any assignments. McSweegan would show up, sit in his office, and read to kill time.

He took up fiction writing to fill his workdays and published a pair of novels he allegedly wrote while at the office. He told CBS in an interview that he also joined a health club near work "just to sort of break up the day."

The most amazing part of McSweegan's story isn't that he managed to stay employed through this seven-year period, but that he received positive performance reviews from his superiors. He wryly explained to CBS, "I guess I'm good at doing nothing."

I wonder if he got his chicks for free?

What You Know And Who You Know

From Between Thee And The Bedpost by Cernig:

It simply doesn’t compare, though, with the likes of Andrea Mitchell reporting on the bank bailout plan - and blaming Obama for its failure - while married to Alan Greenspan and not making full disclosure of that fact before every report.

I was having a similar thought this morning while watching Mrs. Greenspan on the Today Show. Perhaps the assumption is that everyone knows who she is married to, although that certainly is no excuse for not making full disclosure.

Who is Henry Paulson married to? George W. Bush and Goldman Sachs and his investment banking buddies, that’s who. Are we really to believe that he cares more about the average American than he does about his current work buddies and his former work buddies?

The same thing holds true for Jim Cramer giving advice and opinions on the bail out on the Today Show. Does he really care more about my financial future than he does about his own or his investment buddies financial future?

I’m not saying that these people don’t know anything and shouldn’t be listened to. All I’m saying is we should consider who they have been associated with and who they represent. A little balance from less self-interested parties would also be nice. Plus more informative and pointed questions from the likes of Matt Lauer would help. Instead we get things like Jim Cramer scoffing at economic academics (who opposed the bail out) for not being part of the real world. (As if college buildings are less tangible than financial derivatives.) There is no analysis of content, just an attitude of superiority. “I used to trade these things, so I know better.” (I’m relying on my memory here, but I think that’s close to what he said.) And Matt Lauer just lets that go. He doesn’t ask Cramer if he helped contribute to the problem because he used to trade these things. He doesn’t ask Cramer about the uptick rule and whether he ever benefited from the elimination of it. Chances are that Cramer never did (He even called for its reinstatement), but the point is that Lauer doesn’t ask these questions. I don't know who is right here, I'm just saying that we heard Cramer's point of view, and nothing else.

Steny Hoyer and Roy Blunt were also talking to Ann Curry on the Today Show this morning. Their talk disturbed me greatly. From what they said one could infer that short term stock market moves on Wall Street are what is driving how they will decide what policies to put into place. This is scary. Short term gambling on Wall Street, rather than long term investing on Wall Street is part of the problem. To have legislation that is driven by the former, rather than the latter will only make things worse.

We seem to think that the very same “experts” that have been part of the cause of the problems we now face are going to come up with a solution. The President and Congress allowed for way too much deregulation and too little oversight. The investment bankers (like Henry Paulson), and other financial speculators “played” the market with greed as their guide while things were good, and fear as their guide when things were bad. They weren’t investing, they were gambling. And to make matters worse, they were gambling with things they didn’t understand. Now we turn to them to not only explain what they were doing, but to come up with a solution. How insane are we? Instead of reporting on the dangers of the deregulation and lack of oversight, the media focused on the ups and downs of the market on a daily basis. The roller coaster ride of greed and fear probably got better ratings than the text of the newest bill passed by Congress and the President. Yet, who is now supposed to be fixing everything, and who is telling us about it all? The very same people once again. Why should we trust any of them? Do we have any alternatives?

Let’s look at another marriage. Mr. and Mrs. General Electric. General Electric owns NBC. NBC produces the Today Show. General Electric is also largely a financial company, and as a financial company they are heavily involved with loans.

From General Electric:

Since over half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services, it is arguably a financial company with a manufacturing arm. It is also one of the largest lenders in countries other than the United States, such as Japan.

The conflict of interest of Andrea Mitchell, while important, kind of pales in comparison.

Update:
This Modern World