Distinction without a Difference?

Why do "conservatives" view the mainstream media as "liberal" while "liberals" view the same mainstream media as "conservative"? Do we knee-jerk at viewpoints that differ from our own rather than listening? Or are we letting ourselves get suckered into "us vs. them" thinking by political parties that need the perception of differences to justify their continued existence?

The terms liberal and conservative have changed in meaning over the last several hundred years, just as other words in our language evolve over time. Classical liberal and traditional conservative both bespoke views of limited government and greater individual liberty. The ideas of personal freedom, safety from interference in one's beliefs, privacy in one's property and personal life - all are shared by classical liberals and traditional conservatives.

But what do the parties that "represent" these terms really stand for today? I believe they stand for power - self empowerment - that is, bringing power unto themselves. They aren't about empowering us citizens, that's for certain!

Rule by the People is the Only Option

"And to say that society ought to be governed by the opinion of the wisest and best, though true, is useless. Whose opinion is to decide who are the wisest and best?"

-- Thomas Babington Macaulay, "Southey's Colloquies on Society"

Financial Meltdown: Middle Class Bailing Out the Rich... Again?

The following is reprinted from www.truthout.org. Please subscribe and support their reporting.

Financial Meltdown: Time for a Holiday From Progressive Politics?
By Dean Baker
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 24 March 2008

Progressives usually fight for the interests of those at the middle and bottom at the expense of those on top. However, during this period of unprecedented financial crisis, when the Wall Street rich are begging for the helping hand of the government, most progressives appear to be on the sidelines. Rather than taking advantage of this extraordinary opportunity to reduce inequality and educate the public about how the economy really works, progressive voices have been unusually quiet.

While the basic story on the economic crisis should be well known, it is nonetheless worth repeating. The Federal Reserve Board allowed the growth of an $8 trillion housing bubble ($110,000 of housing bubble wealth for every homeowner) in the years from 1996 to 2006. While this bubble was easily recognizable to competent economists, the entire political and financial establishments managed to ignore the housing bubble until it began to burst last year.

The collapse of the bubble is now pushing the economy into a recession. This is the result of both the direct effect of the collapse on the housing market and, more importantly, because of the indirect effect the loss of trillions of dollars of housing wealth has on consumption. Homeowners are rapidly scaling back their consumption after losing much of their life's savings in the last year.

The collapse of the housing bubble has inflicted enormous pain on tens of millions of people, but it is also inflicting pain on Wall Street and the financial sector. The honchos in this sector include many of the richest people in the country. With the collapse of the housing bubble, we are finding out they were far less financially sophisticated than any of us could have imagined. Many banks, brokerage houses and investment funds took highly leveraged bets that assumed the housing bubble would not burst. Now that it has burst, some of the richest people in the country face the risk of a middle-class lifestyle - unless the government comes to the rescue.

This is where things really get painful. Rather than taking this opportunity to tighten the screws, many progressives are standing by the sidelines or actually cheering on plans to bail out the ridiculously rich. The same people - who, on other days, are fighting to raise the income tax rate on the rich or for preserving the estate tax - are just watching as the Fed hands taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, and hoping Congress will come up with tens of billions for buying the bankers' bad mortgage debt.

There is, of course, a cover story - there always is. We have to let the Fed bail out the banks or the financial system would collapse. This would hurt everyone, especially ordinary workers. And the mortgage bailout is supposed to help low- and moderate-income homeowners.

But the cover stories don't hold water. We can keep the banks running without bailing out the incredibly rich people who drove them to ruin. England showed us the way earlier this year with its takeover of Northern Rock, a major bank that got itself in trouble with bad mortgage debt.

We can also help homeowners without bailing out the banks. The rescue proposals currently on the table would have the government buy or guarantee mortgages on homes that are still hugely overpriced. These proposals could give hundreds of billions of dollars to the banks, while providing little help to homeowners. Most would still be paying far more on their mortgage, property taxes and insurance than they would to rent a comparable home. Furthermore, the bailout conditions virtually guarantee they will never have a dime in equity.

As an alternative to bailing out the banks, we can temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to give homeowners the right to rent at the fair market rate. This would provide them with security in their home. More importantly, it would likely create a situation where most homeowners stay in their house as owners, since banks would rather renegotiate mortgage terms than end up as landlords.

The Wall Street boys got themselves in a huge mess through their own greed and stupidity. Now is the time to make sure they enjoy the fruits of their labor. These are the same people who don't think they should have to pay higher taxes so kids can get health care and childcare. There is no reason the rest of us should pay higher taxes so they can keep their mansions in the Hamptons, their private jets and retinue of personal services. Let's leave this one to the market.

---

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (www.conservativenannystate.org). He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.

-------

Government Lists Endanger Our Freedom & Rights

This item is reprinted from www.truthout.org. Please subscribe and support their reporting.

Papers Detail Complaints of Links to Treasury List
By Neil MacFarquhar
The New York Times

Wednesday 19 March 2008

A sheaf of documents that a federal court forced the Treasury Department to release indicate there have been repeated complaints from American consumers who have been falsely linked to terrorism or drug trafficking during routine credit checks, the organization that sought the documents in a lawsuit said Tuesday.

The more than 100 pages of documents released Monday to the organization, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, include a variety of complaints about the list maintained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control in the Treasury Department, said Philip Hwang, a lawyer for the group.

The documents include e-mail messages from a Navy veteran who had been unable to use the Internet service PayPal, and an 18-year-old who wrote to say that he was not a Libyan minister who was apparently on the list.

A client of a Maryland Toyota dealer reported being checked by a salesperson for tattoos because of a Treasury list match.

A Treasury Department official was baffled by the last claim, saying information on the list did not include physical characteristics.

The released documents include e-mail messages and letters from consumers who have been denied cars or home loans or faced difficulties with other financial transactions because their names allegedly appear on the list. Financial institutions are supposed to check clients' names against the list, which is known officially as the Specially Designated Nationals List.

A Federal District Court judge in San Francisco last month ordered the Treasury Department to release all the complaints after a Freedom of Information Act request, Mr. Hwang said. He said his organization believed that what they received was only a small fraction of the complaints filed. Among other indications, he said, was that Henry Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, said in Congressional testimony last year that his department fielded up to 90,000 telephone complaints about the list over one year.

The documents released Monday also included some half-dozen complaints from members of Congress on behalf of constituents, Mr. Hwang said.

The names and other personal information on the documents have been inked out, Mr. Hwang said, and the group is considering going back to the judge to force further compliance.

A Treasury Department spokesman, speaking on the condition of anonymity because a lawsuit was involved, said the Lawyers' Committee was asking for records that did not necessarily exist, as many of the complaints are handled by phone.

Another official said the department did not have numbers on how many people might have been falsely identified, since institutions can check their clients' identity against the list and ignore it if something like the date of birth obviously does not match the person in front of them.

Few people in the United States are actually on the Treasury list, which includes about 6,000 individuals or organizations, along with information like aliases, dates of birth and passport numbers. The 322-page list is on the Treasury Department's Web site (www.treasury.gov).

But given that many common Latino or Arab names are on the list, like "Carlos Sanchez" or "Mohamed Ali," the possibility for false matches is high. Mr. Hwang said most consumers discovered the problem only when they asked for a credit report and were shocked to find a notation on it associating them with terrorists or drug traffickers.

-------

Congress GOP Suppressing Citizens Right to Petition

This item reprinted from www.truthout.org. Please subscribe and support their reporting.


GOP Gags Witnesses on Credit Card Woes
By Mike Lillis
The Washington Independent

Friday 14 March 2008

Partisan maneuver blocked testimony on fee hikes.

They came to the nation’s capital this week from as far away as Denver, Chicago and Niagara Falls—five people who’d had tough experiences with their credit cards and were asked to share those tales with a House panel. Instead, they ran headfirst into the buzz-saw of Washington politics when the panel’s Republicans insisted the visitors allow their lenders to discuss their financial histories publicly—in any forum, at any time.

For four of the five, it was a deal-breaker. Instead of signing the waivers allowing them to testify Thursday, they all sat silently in the audience.

"I didn’t want all my … information out there for just anybody," said Denver’s Susan Wones, who saw the interest rate of her JP Morgan Chase card jump from 0 percent to 23 percent in one month last summer, without notification or explanation. "I’m extremely upset I can’t talk about this."

Marvin Weatherspoon, a grandfather from Chicago, echoed the tale. "The waiver was very vague," said Weatherspoon, who claims his card rate jumped from 4.25 percent to roughly 25 percent in the wake of one late payment to Bank of America. "It didn’t address the issues we were here to deal with."

The controversy came as members of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Consumer Credit met to discuss legislation that would add a number of consumer protections to current credit card policy. Among the changes, the bill would prevent card sponsors from applying interest rate hikes to existing balances. It would also require issuers to provide 45 days notice of such hikes, and increase the minimum advance billing requirement from 14 to 25 days.

Bill sponsor Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said her proposal will add balance to a market that has grown wildly off-kilter. "The credit card industry has been clear about the responsibility imposed on consumers: make your minimum payments on time and stay under your limit," Maloney said in a statement. "But what about the reciprocal responsibility of card companies?"

The proposal has met considerable opposition from banks and other credit card sponsors, who argue that it would steal their power to set interest rates based on the risk of the individual card holder. Without that option, companies say, rates for everyone would rise, while many borrowers would lose their cards altogether. Most House Republicans have sided with the industry.

"As with any government intervention in the free market," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, said in a statement, "the bill presents a real danger of restricting the range of products and services that credit card issuers currently offer."

Republicans and card sponsors both want Congress to remain on the sidelines while the Federal Reserve applies reform through regulations. Oliver Ireland, a banking consultant with the Washington-based law firm Morrison & Foerster, told lawmakers that regulators will make more precise and appropriate changes than Congress ever could.

But supporters of congressional intervention say the Fed has a history of putting bankers’ interests above those of consumers. "The regulators have been lax in enacting consumer protections, except under the threat of legislation," said Lawrence Ausubel, an economics professor at the University of Maryland.

At Thursday’s hearing, the first panel was to consist of five card holders who had suffered interest rate hikes or unexplained user fees despite a claimed history of responsible borrowing. The GOP waiver requirement came as a surprise, the witnesses said, not least because it surfaced just one day before the hearing. "I didn’t have time to contact a lawyer or anything," Wones said.

In addition, witnesses said they were concerned with the vagueness of the one-sentence waiver language, which offered no limitations on where or when the lenders could discuss their credit histories.

"I think we would have ended up in a banking journal five years from now as a case study," said Steven Autry, of Fredericksburg, Va. "I don’t know."

In 1999, Autry said, he picked up a Capital One card because the 9.9 percent interest rate was advertised as "fixed for life." But last year, without indicating any problems with Autry’s credit, the company hiked his rate to 16.9 percent.

Both Autry and Wones said they were prepared to sign more detailed waivers that wouldn’t give the card companies so much freedom to discuss the witnesses’ finances outside of the hearing, but the committee’s Republican staff refused to compromise. Wones said one GOP staffer "got belligerent and wasn’t happy" with her suggestions to modify the waiver.

The committee’s minority office did not respond to several calls for comment.

The plight of the borrowers—combined with the GOP’s efforts to silence them—have riled a number of House Democrats, some of whom accused the Republicans of protecting the credit card industry at the expense of consumers. Colorado Rep. Mark Udall (D) called Thursday’s removal of the consumer panel "a form of intimidation."

"Susan Wones is not going to put the credit card companies out of business," Udall said at an impromptu gathering after the hearing. "She just wants her story to be told."

Maloney has scheduled a second hearing on the topic for April 9. The New Yorker said she wants to work out a compromise allowing the same consumer witnesses to return.

Meanwhile, those would-be witnesses were openly frustrated with the odd experience surrounding their canceled testimonies—not to mention the partisan animosity that has come to define Washington politics.

"I couldn’t deal with this stress on a daily basis," Wones said. "I’m not sure how anyone does."

-------

Congress Must Defend the Constitution

“If we permit our constitutional rights to be watered down out of fear, we have given up our democracy. Congress must stand firm and defend the Constitution.”

-- Dennis Kucinich

The Great Money Fraud

"Practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people."

-- Friedrich von Hayek (Nobel Prize Winner in Economics)