Nepotism Everywhere in this Meritorious USA? Waaaaahhh!!!

It's being argued seriously that the "wingnut" mobs are providing cover for the Blue Dog Democrats and their allies to defeat the health care reform bill.

You be the judge.

On the edge of your seat about Sibel Edmonds' video deposition and transcript? Me too. (It's been released!!!) (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)

The deposition included criminal allegations against specifically named members of Congress. Among those named by Edmonds as part of a broad criminal conspiracy: Reps. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA), as well as an unnamed, still-serving Congresswoman (D) said to have been secretly videotaped, for blackmail purposes, during a lesbian affair.

High-ranking officials from the Bush Administration named in her testimony, as part of the criminal conspiracy on behalf of agents of the Government of Turkey, include Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, and others.

During the deposition - which we are still going through ourselves - Edmonds discusses covert "activities" by Turkish entities "that would involve trying to obtain very sensitive, classified, highly classified U.S. intelligence information, weapons technology information, classified Congressional records . . . recruiting key U.S. individuals with access to highly sensitive information, blackmailing, bribery."

I hear the military is looking for "A Few Good Kids" nowadays (h/t to Quaker Agitator!).

In the essay from Glenn Greenwald that you will access if you click on the title link, you will see the nepotistic ties between the players and their connected kindred that he wrote about in 2008.

It's much worse now.

Here's a current example of the rule by "divine right of kings" theory (which, evidently, most people still dig). (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)

Brenton Williams - a Professor of American Constitutional & Legal History at DePaul University - details one of the most egregiously undemocratic cases of nepotistic succession:

Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Dan Lipinski

His father, Bill, the long-time incumbent ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and won easily. A few weeks before the general election he withdrew and the Illinois Democratic Committee met with him for 15 minutes, late at night, behind closed doors before emerging with their new nominee, his son, then residing in central Tennessee where he was an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee . . . .

Still worse, a family friend [Ryan Chlada] with no funding ran as the Republican in 2004 to help insure that Dan faced no more than token resistance.

As Professor Williams notes, the Lipinski son, ever since, has been vigorously supported by the Democratic establishment, particularly Rahm Emanuel, in order to defeat progressive (and meritocratic) primary challengers. He was simply handed the seat by his dad.

Up to date financial info on our media (and other) bosses!

Peter Chernin . . . In February, Chernin announced that he was going to leave his longtime position as Rupert Murdoch’s number two at News Corp. instead of struggling to right the media giant in the midst of a recession. Chernin will get a cushy production deal with Fox Studios; News Corp. insiders will get the chance to diminish his accomplishments in Hollywood and argue that it was his fault that the News Corp.-owned MySpace site sputtered after a strong start. Among Chernin’s recent executive poachings: Nicholas Weinstock (from Judd Apatow’s production company), Lauren Stein and Katherine Pope (from NBC Universal), and Mike Larocca (from Spyglass).

Henry Kravis . . . The chickens from a cheap-money-fueled buying binge came home to roost in 2008, as KKR reported a $1.2 billion loss for the year — only the second decline in its 33-year history. Worse, the economy is pummeling its highly leveraged portfolio companies, investor interest is scant, public opinion could hardly be worse, and President Obama is still very likely to eliminate some favorable tax loopholes as soon as he has time to get around to it. Still, as of June 30, KKR had $50.8 billion in assets under management, up $3.5 billion from three months before.

Steve Schwarzman . . . In an era when excessive executive pay attracts public ridicule and government regulators, the Blackstone chief still managed to take home a whopping $702 million last year — on top of the $684 million he banked when the company went public in 2007. Meanwhile, shares of his private-equity behemoth — the company manages more than $90 billion in assets — are trading at a steep discount compared with its public-offering price. No matter. The company appears to have weathered the financial storm intact: second-quarter earnings topped $170 million this year.

Suzan _____________________

Rahm Emanuel and Jamie Dimon "Hold Sway" in D.C. (You? Not So Much)

Can we dare to "look away" (from the financial destruction wrought on the lower classes)? It's nice to have friends in the right places. Don't you agree? And to have your whining (to them) pay off so richly. (It's really unfair that outsiders think they have a stake in this country's financial sector.) Driftglass: Chicago Operatives Alert!

I've said this before (all right, not exactly this, but I'm not the writer that David Michael Green is), and DMG says it much, much more definitively here. (And you didn't think President Obama had a favorite banker!) I'm running this essay in its entirety because no one wants to read an article from the Business section of the NYT anymore. Okay, I do, but no one else will admit to it. (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)

If the Democrats are given four years to govern and they adopt half-measure after Milquetoast point-four-three-rounded-up-to-half-measure – all to little or no effect – then there will be a little surprise in November of 2012. If they fail to produce a robust economy, or if they end the recession but produce a jobless recovery, it’s not gonna go the way it looked after last November. If they fail to use the bully pulpit to sell good ideas and aggressively discredit the disastrously failed ones, there’s gonna be a different script three years from now, no matter how good a speech Obama gives.

Normally, I’d put Sarah Palin down as an easy shot for the nomination but a long shot for winning the general election. But if the Democrats do all the stupid things listed above, then the battle for the Republican nomination will wind up being be the actual contest, with the victor in that race easily beating the incumbent president who failed to produce a recovery or vanquish the bankrupt ideas of those who made the mess in the first place.

But who could be stupid enough to allow them to do that?

Can you say “Barack Obama”?

Jamie Di(a)mon(d)! The name almost sings with promise, doesn't it? It did anyway. And somehow, still does - seductively serpentine (over and over). Jamie Dimon is the name. JPMorganChaseGovernmentSex is the game. And I think it's hilarious that Tim Geithner says he's worried about how his past associations will be perceived. (Please excuse the emphasis marks, which I've added; somehow they seem necessary - Ed.)

WASHINGTON — Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, will hold a meeting of his board here in the nation’s capital for the first time on Monday, with a special guest expected: the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel’s appearance would underscore the pull of Mr. Dimon, who amid the disgrace of his industry has emerged as President Obama’s favorite banker, and in turn, the envy of his Wall Street rivals. It also reflects a good return on what Mr. Dimon has labeled his company’s “seventh line of business” — government relations.

The business of better influencing Washington, begun in late 2007, was jump-started just as the financial crisis hit and the capital displaced New York as the nation’s money center. Then Mr. Obama’s election brought to power Chicago Democrats well-known to Mr. Dimon from his recent years running a bank there. One of them is Mr. Emanuel, who has accepted the invitation to speak to the board pending a review by the White House counsel. The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, declined out of concern that he would be seen as too cozy with a company that has numerous business issues before the department, an administration official said. “It’s a very nice thing for the board to have happen,” said the chief of a major financial company. “But you’d have to have a lot of influence to pull it off.”Mr. Dimon and his company enjoy a prominence in the city’s K Street lobbying world that parallels their recent rise on Wall Street; JPMorgan went into the crisis stronger than most rivals and reported robust quarterly gains last week that confirmed its place at the top of the heap. With the crisis, Mr. Dimon, a longtime Democratic donor, has become even more politically engaged, in the process becoming perhaps the most credible voice of a discredited industry. Other onetime giants like Citigroup and Bank of America find themselves muted as wards of the state. JPMorgan gave back its bailout money quickly, though like all the country’s big banks it still benefits from government loan guarantees and lending facilities. He is “one of the few Democratic C.E.O.’s in that line of work,” said Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House banking committee. “And look, he’s been less impaired by failure than some of the others, so that’s given him a kind of lead role.”

Mr. Dimon, JPMorgan’s chairman and chief executive, comes to Washington about twice a month, compared with maybe twice a year in the past. He requires senior managers to commute as well. In recent months, he has met with officials including Mr. Geithner; the White House economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers; and lawmakers of both parties. He phones or e-mails Mr. Emanuel at whim. Each week, his staff gives him the names of a half-dozen public officials to call.

“It’s got to be a regular thing. You’ve got to have a few relations where people know and trust you; you can be an honest broker,” Mr. Dimon said in an interview. “You can’t just fight everything.” While he has been quick to criticize the administration, JPMorgan has chosen its fights carefully, viewing his activism as a good investment, particularly as the government considers a historic rewrite of financial rules. Mr. Obama has singled out Mr. Dimon for praise more than once. Yet some Democrats say Mr. Dimon can be too outspoken, and deaf to the anti-bank sentiment of the country. When he complained in a March speech about Washington’s vilification of Wall Street, more than 40 House Democrats shot off a protest letter. “That was nonsense,” Mr. Frank said. Yet Mr. Dimon helped persuade Mr. Frank and Congress to ease the terms for banks, allowing JPMorgan to repay $25 billion in bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. He did so by complaining publicly and privately that JPMorgan only reluctantly took the money last year from the Bush administration to avoid stigmatizing more needy banks, and now was being hit with new limits — on hiring skilled foreigners, executive pay and more. JPMorgan and the industry lost when a pro-consumer credit card bill became law. But it beat back a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to lower the amount homeowners owe on mortgages. That victory came with a cost: JPMorgan angered Republicans by negotiating with Democrats and then enraged some Democrats when those talks collapsed. But Mr. Dimon and JPMorgan are willing to bear such defeats if it translates into victory on the broader financial regulation fight that is just beginning. A centerpiece of that effort involves regulating the market for derivatives, which Mr. Dimon’s firm dominates. While JPMorgan favors new reporting requirements for the complex financial instruments, it opposes the administration proposal to force trades onto public exchanges; doing so would likely cut into the firm’s lucrative business of selling clients custom-made instruments. Like other banks, it also opposes a new consumer agency for financial products.

Meanwhile, the company’s reputation could be tarnished by investigations into the crisis. Among them, JPMorgan is under scrutiny from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible antitrust and securities law violations, including derivatives deals with local governments.

As he comes into these battles, Mr. Dimon, 53, must relish his and his company’s hard-won status in both Washington and New York: For years, such pre-eminence was widely accorded to Citigroup, the financial supermarket that he helped build, and to Citigroup’s former chief, Sanford I. Weill, who was Mr. Dimon’s mentor and famously fired his protégé in 1998.

Mr. Dimon’s midcareer exile took him from his native New York to Chicago. There he rebuilt his career, reviving BankOne and merging it with JPMorgan in 2004 before returning to New York full time in 2007. In Chicago, he got to know the fast-rising Mr. Obama and his friends.

Mr. Dimon and Mr. Geithner know each other well from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Mr. Geithner was president and, as such, a JPMorgan regulator. Mr. Dimon sits on the New York Fed’s board. The two men spent untold hours negotiating in 2008 when the government enlisted JPMorgan to buy some of Bear Stearns’s assets and Washington Mutual to prevent their collapse. Mr. Dimon said the two had spoken by phone perhaps 10 times this year.

A recent conversation involved their impasse over the warrants the government received from JPMorgan last fall in return for the bailout money. When the bank insisted on a lower price, the two sides agreed to let the Treasury auction the warrants. Even then, Mr. Dimon called Mr. Geithner to argue that the government’s valuation was wrong, according to administration and company officials.

But Mr. Geithner reiterated that the auction would protect the Treasury from any criticism that it had cut a backroom deal.

Mr. Emanuel was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when he met Mr. Dimon, and briefly entertained a job overture from him at Citigroup.

When Mr. Dimon was fired, he got a supportive call from Mr. Emanuel, who recalled his own firing early in the Clinton years and how he worked his way back into the inner circle.

“The bond here is both of us lost at some place in our career and both rebuilt,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview. Now, he added, “He’s not afraid to express his opinions and I’m not afraid to express mine.”

He recalled that Mr. Dimon once phoned to protest the anti-business populism taking hold as voters tired of bailouts, and snapped, “Washington doesn’t get it!”

“You guys don’t get the anger out there,” Mr. Emanuel replied. “Jamie, you’re asking the American people to bail out the industry. And if they’re going to bail out the industry, it’s got to change its habits.”

Another Obama associate is on JPMorgan’s payroll. Mr. Dimon hired William M. Daley, a former commerce secretary and Chicago powerbroker, in 2004 as vice chairman and head of Midwest operations. Since 2007, Mr. Daley has overseen global government relations.

It was at that time that Mr. Dimon assessed his own performance for his board and gave himself a “D” for effort in Washington. He subsequently revamped the firm’s government affairs office, mindful of Democrats’ ascendance: They had won control of Congress and were favored to seize the White House in 2008.

Rick Lazio, a Republican former congressman, was replaced as head of government relations, reporting to Mr. Daley, with a wired Democrat: Peter L. Scher, a former official in the Senate, the Commerce Department and the trade representative’s office.

Read the rest here. Hope you do. Suzan ___________________

Criminals, Felons, Liars Arise Anew - Taxpayers Await Your Latest Orders! ($12.8 Trillion to Wall Street - So Far)

How did it get so easy for thugs and criminals like our friendly banksters (and perhaps even the solid citizens behind the Madoff scam) to put another ripoff into play whereby the taxpayers fund their latest schemes on top of the older and now boring ones (which no one even wanted to explain until forced to by the holding back of the rest of the bailout moolah)? (Please note the essay I published on April 6, 2009, for background on the latest one: Larry Summers' part-time lover gig.)

The Associated Press this week reports that “companies that spent hundreds of millions lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment” — $100 billion in all.

David Sirota has the facts secreted away within this humorous essay. (Emphasis marks the spot that's hot.)

The Best Investment Money Can Buy! By David Sirota Feeling sorry for yourself? Struggling to get by? Wondering how you can get a bailout? Well, stop moping, because it’s not too late! I may not have Suze Orman’s verve or Billy Mays’ voice. But I’ve discovered a revolutionary risk-free investment plan straight from those who brought us the economic meltdown. So in this column-fomercial, I won’t waste your time with Ginsu knives or cash-for-timeshare schemes — I’m going to help make you rich beyond your wildest dreams! Look, we’ve all heard about Wall Street’s losses. But you probably didn’t hear about Corporate America’s newest sure thing: a path to financial freedom far more reliable than any decent-paying job. It’s something so old-fashioned that even amateur investors can understand it! It’s called graft — a surefire wealth creator that takes your investments, modifies laws, and delivers returns that the best stock trader could never dream of! This is the ShamWow of strategies, the Flowbee of economics, the Ronco of investing. Just look at the profits it generates! In the last decade, the financial industry’s $5 billion investment in campaign contributions and lobbyists resulted in deregulation, which delivered trillions to executives. And when the bubble burst, there was another boatload of free money! By Bloomberg News’ account, $12.8 trillion worth of taxpayer loans, grants and guarantees — all to Wall Street! But wait . . . there’s more! The Associated Press this week reports that “companies that spent hundreds of millions lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment” — $100 billion in all. That could be you! Of course, the secret is investing heavily in specific political stocks. For example, the banking industry recently paid Rahm Emanuel $16 million for about two years of work. That investment was recently paid back when, as President Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel led the January campaign to release another $350 billion in bank bailout funds. Turning a $16 million down payment into a $350 billion payout—that’s huge! Likewise, Goldman Sachs hired former Senate aide Mark Patterson as one of its lobbyists — an investment that proved a huge winner when Patterson became the Treasury Department’s chief of staff and the agency subsequently killed proposals to limit executive compensation at bailed-out banks. Cha-ching! And the hedge fund industry paid economist Larry Summers $5.2 million in 2008 for part-time work — an investment that hit pay dirt when Summers became Obama’s top economic aide and the administration resisted tough international hedge fund regulations that some G-20 countries wanted. Show me the money! That’s right, the surest way to make big cash is not to invest in people with proven business experience or in valuable entrepreneurial ventures, but in blue-chip members of Permanent Washington — career politicos and bureaucrats who inevitably get back into positions of power and payback! Now I know you think that I sound like the guy in the question-mark suit and that my plan seems like a scam. But it’s perfectly legal! So how much would you pay for this kind of opportunity? $100 trillion? $50 trillion? What if I said you could get all this for just a few billion in pocket change? Because that’s all it takes to start no-risk investing! It’s THAT easy! Why let the corporate guys make all the money off government? Why waste time working for companies that make stuff when you can buy the one company that simply prints cash? Order now and try my product! It’s not available in stores, but if you call within the next 15 minutes, we’ll throw in free congressional and White House phone directories valued at $49.95! Operators are standing by!

Sounds like a winner. Again. Suzan ________________________

Rahm and Jesse - O U T ?

A few words about the developing Blagojevich Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) hatefest:

Pressure grew on two of President-Elect Barack Obama's closest political aides today as new details emerged of the "pay-for-play" allegations against the governor of his home-state. Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama's new chief of staff, and Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible involvement in the scandal.

Why have the media gone haywire over Blagojevich (granted, a slimy politician-guy). How has his corruption factor exceeded what happened as a matter of policy during the eight years of Cheney/Bush? I didn't notice the FCM even sneezing at most of that. I guess the selling of a Senate seat (which used to be accepted SOP in politics (re: the Rethugli-Con Murkowskis in Alaska and dozens of others if not more prolly)) is of much more significance than murder and the traitorous selling of wars and the destruction of entire countries done at the whim of our leaders at the top to great applause. I'm not going to mention my detestation of legally unauthorized wiretaps again (and, yes, these undoubtedly were authorized), but if they were, how did politically-connected people like dear Rahmbo and Jesse get caught? Or did they? After all, the first news comes from Faux Noise and perhaps they are just having some fun. Jest sayin' (but it has an odd smell about it). And doesn't this timing seem, well, a little bit suspicious? (Never mind.)

Mr Jackson Jr met Gov Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday morning by prosecutors who said they were trying to thwart a "political crime spree".

I also thought it interesting that we are offered a precious glance at the ethnic connections of money (a word to Charlie Rose - the next time you bring in an Indian who captured millions of U.S. jobs for his shoestring enterprise, ask him whom he had to pay off; now there's a story). As if that mattered anyway - it's just about money, Suzan, pay attention. And if you thought all our high tech industry went to India without the "proper" payoffs to those benefitting stateside, you'll be interested in this Blagoevich/Emanuel/Jackson nugget. (I'd love to hear Dennis the K chime in on this soon.)

A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr Jackson and Gov Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the governor's campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as Senator, the Chicago Tribune said. Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, then co-sponsored a fundraiser for the governor attended by Gov Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr's brother Jonathan, the newspaper said. Mr Nayak, a leader of Chicago's Indian community, owns a string of surgery clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan Jackson.

I've thought Jesse Jr. a good kid in the past, but now that he's all growed up I wonder about this word parsing:

"People know me. They know who I am. I'm confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it were offered under those circumstances," he said.

And if I could write like the insuperably talented Driftglass, I'd say even more.

Among his catalog of sins, Rod Blagojevich tried to turn Barack Obama’s Senate seat into a 401K, and shake down a children’s hospital for 50 grand. And for this he richly deserves and will do time in the House of Many Doors. Among their catalog of sins, our Wall Street overlords have nearly destroyed the global economy. And for this, the sun is being blotted out the sheer number and size of their Platinum Parachutes as they float away from the scene of their crime on a gentle breeze of taxpayer dollars. Among his vast catalog of sins, George W. Bush lied us into a war that got hundreds of thousands of people killed and pissed away trillions of your dollars into the sands of Iraq and the pockets of his cronies. And for this he will get a Presidential library and a retirement plan that will make the most lavish UAW pension look like a rounding error. We are a nation which, for some congenitally fucked-up reason, cannot seem to grasp that modern Big Dollar government – at all levels – is barely more than “…the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex” (h/t Frank Zappa).

Don't miss the Rude One on this subject either! (Maybe we can get everyone in blogtopia to write on this most important news item ever!) Suzan

The “Dirty Little Secret” Of the US Bank Bailout

Obviously I'm overjoyed that Obama carried North Carolina and nailed down the largest victory since Lyndon Johnson's in 1964 (which mainly happened then because the country had been traumatized by the assassination of John F. Kennedy the year before). With the just-announced choice of and acceptance by Mr. Pro-War* "Let's Choose New Blue-Dog Democrats to Populate Our Side of the Aisle" Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff, I am not so sure that the changes I would like to see are going to made very quickly (if at all). Was he on the board of Freddie Mac? Stephen Colbert has had a few things to say about Emanuel. (See picture of him and his seating partners at the Democratic Convention here.) One concern that must be addressed immediately is the cessation of the taxpayer bailout that is funding the new too-large-to-fail banks (formerly the too-large-to-fail investment houses), who are hoarding the cash and using it to buy other banks, many of which are not even troubled. Barry Grey dissects the “Dirty Little Secret" Of the US Bank Bailout for us.

27 October 2008 "WSWS" --- In an unusually frank article published in Saturday's New York Times, the newspaper's economic columnist, Joe Nocera, reveals what he calls "the dirty little secret of the banking industry" -namely, that "it has no intention of using the [government bailout] money to make new loans." As Nocera explains, the plan announced October 13 by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to hand over $250 billion in taxpayer money to the biggest banks, in exchange for non-voting stock, was never really intended to get them to resume lending to businesses and consumers--the ostensible purpose of the bailout. Its essential aim was to engineer a rapid consolidation of the American banking system by subsidizing a wave of takeovers of smaller financial firms by the most powerful banks. Nocera cites an employee-only conference call held October 17 by a top executive of JPMorgan Chase, the beneficiary of $25 billion in public funds. Nocera explains that he obtained the call-in number and was able to listen to a recording of the proceedings, unbeknownst to the executive, whom he declines to name. Asked by one of the participants whether the $25 billion in federal funding will "change our strategic lending policy," the executive replies: "What we do think, it will help us to be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling." Referring to JPMorgan's recent government-backed acquisition of two large competitors, the executive continues: "And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way, and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop." As Nocera notes: "Read that answer as many times as you want--you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy." Later in the conference call the same executive states, "We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side." "It is starting to appear," the Times columnist writes, "as if one of the Treasury's key rationales for the recapitalization program--namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again--is a fig leaf.... In fact, Treasury wants banks to acquire each other and is using its power to inject capital to force a new and wrenching round of bank consolidation." Early this month, he explains, "in a nearly unnoticed move," Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, put in place a new tax break worth billions of dollars that is designed to encourage bank mergers. It allows the acquiring bank to immediately deduct any losses on the books of the acquired bank. Paulson and other Treasury officials have made public statements calling on the banks that receive public funds to use them to increase their lending activities. That, however, is for public consumption. The bailout program imposes no lending requirements on the banks in return for government cash. Already, the credit crisis has been used to engineer the takeover of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual by JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, Wachovia by Wells Fargo and, last Friday, National City by PNC. What the Wall Street Journal on Saturday called the "strong-arm sale" of National City provides a taste of what is to come. The Treasury Department sealed the fate of the Cleveland-based bank by deciding not to include it among the regional banks that will receive government handouts. It then gave Pittsburgh-based PNC $7.7 billion from the bailout fund to help defray the costs of a takeover of National City. PNC will also benefit greatly from the tax write-off on mergers enacted by Treasury. All of the claims that were made to justify the bank bailout have been exposed as lies. President Bush, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson were joined by the Democratic congressional leadership and Barack Obama in warning that the bailout had to be passed, and passed immediately, despite massive popular opposition. Those who opposed the plan were denounced for jeopardizing the well being of the American people. In a nationally televised speech delivered September 24, in advance of the congressional vote on the bailout plan, Bush said it would "help American consumers and businessmen get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs." If the bailout was not passed, he warned, "More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account.... More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs ... ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession." One month later, the bailout has been enacted, and all of the dire developments--banks and businesses disappearing, the stock market plunging, unemployment skyrocketing--which the American people were told it would prevent are unfolding with accelerating speed. While Obama talks about the need for all Americans to "come together" in a spirit of "shared sacrifice"--meaning drastic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other social programs--and the cost of the bailout is cited to justify fiscal austerity, the bankers proceed to ruthlessly prosecute their class interests. As the World Socialist Web Site warned when it was first proposed in mid-September, the "economic rescue" plan has been revealed to be a scheme to plunder society for the benefit of the financial aristocracy. The American ruling elite, utilizing its domination of the state and the two-party political system, is exploiting a crisis of its own making to carry through an economic agenda, long in preparation, that could not be imposed under normal conditions. The result will be greater economic hardship for ordinary Americans. The big banks will have even greater market power to set interest rates and control access to credit for workers, students and small businesses. While no serious measures are being proposed, either by the Bush administration, the Republican presidential candidate or his Democratic opponent, to prevent a social catastrophe from overtaking working people, the government is organizing a restructuring of the financial system that will enable a handful of mega-banks to increase their power over society.

Don't miss the comment section at the end of the article. Two of my favorite comments are below:

PNC Bank of Pittsburgh, PA is using this money in an attempt to buyout Ohio's leading bank. That was sure nice of me to lend them the $ to do that - what with no risk and no returns. Morrissey | 10.29.08 - - - - - - - - - Possibly the best documentary I have seen to date, which both predicted and explains this phenomenon is available on DVD, created by William T. Still, titled "Money Masters". Google the name "Money Masters" and buy a copy, or if you have to, get a pirated copy and sit down for a 3 1/2 hour lesson of shocking facts. For anyone paying attention, the crash and bail-out plan was very obvious from the begining of this charade. The only purpose of bailing out banks, was consolidation. It is an indisputable fact, the 480 page "Bail-out" bill was already drafted and waiting to be introduced, long before Paulsen, Bush, McCain and Bernanke began selling the notion US economic fundamentals are sound. As you may recall, it was only a few days later when these same scumbags marched out in the media and began singing the exact opposite song, timed to coincide after all the big money was in position for the stock markets to begin crashing. Imagine how many lying thieving scumbag accUntants and lawyers it would have taken to draft 480 pages and pass it around for approvals ? Months, if not years. Unremarkably, there is not one single high powered lawyer, accUntant or politician is raising even a small complaint, and nobody has mentioned the "Sarbanes Oxley" rulings which sent a few executives to jail from Enron, Worldcom, Imclone and that bitch Martha Stewart. It is easy to understand why these classes of people are not dissenting, because they are both the design engineers and bail-out profiteers, control freaks who will be the only people left standing with money to spend at all the liquidations of property, machinery and many other forms of assets. This "crash" in the stock markets and bank consolidation is just the tip of the iceburg, because the vast majority of sub-prime mortgages will only begin to roll-over in 2009, with millions more coming due through to 2012. Many more financial analysts are begining to see this point in just the last week, and a few have been brave enough to say so on public airwaves, which we can be sure will be quickly vetted to remove these warnings. The average common person is equallly as pathetic as many people who are supposedly "educated" with Ivy league diploma's, incapable of turning off the TV and doing some reading, afraid to know what just happened to their 401K plans, or still trying to figure out what just happened a month after the "parade" left town. Many people will try to pretend they have not incurred the losses until they try to redeem their shares into money. But unfortunately this is the same kind of thinking as to be held up and have your watch and wallet stolen, then to pretend you have not been robbed - as long as you dont try to look at the time or reach into your back pocket. Many more people will be caught in the quagmire within the next 12 months, which is why the US military is already preparing a branch of its forces to implement Martial Law during years of predictable civil disobedience and rioting in the streets which will make Watts look like a christmas party. A number of Asian countries are now reporting dramatic rise in suicide rates due to the market fears, anger, and increasing levels of depression. The exact same thing will happen here in North America over the next few years, as more people sudenly discover they have been completely wiped-out financially, with no job, no food, no roof overhead, and no place to run, hide or escape. There can be no question this crash and financial disaster was as well planned as the crash in 1929, and it is also a fact these events were intimately planned to the last detail and executed by exactly the same groups of people in the Bilderberger consortium, made up from the most wealthy private individuals in all 4 corners of the globe, including decendents of Rothschild, JP Morgan, Schiff, heads of state in England, Europe and North America, along with all the new players on the field who dominate ownership of the media, Turner and M and military industrial complex of the United State of Asassination My suggestion, is to stop paying all taxes, all bank mortgages and equity loans, and especially all government debts. Bring this mess to its knees en-mass, show solidarity to each other citizen in need, and remove these powers from the consolidated hands of the thieves on Wall St, Bay St, and every other stock market around the globe. Peter Carson Vancouver CanaDUH cansteel1978@yahoo.ca

* On these electronic pages during the electoral season we have tracked the machinations and motives of Rahm Emanuel (1,2). Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in Illinois's 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy ("Stay the course") Duckworth who lost in the general election. In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election. Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar. So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that they had found a new host in the Dem party ­ but the voters now perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the wings for 2008Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? A good question. A footnote to all this is the skullduggery behind the scenes in the campaign of one of Rahm's losers, Diane Farrell, who lost to Christopher Shays in CT. Farrell successfully passed herself off as antiwar in some quarters, getting the last minute endorsement of Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation. But here is Farrell's "plan" for Iraq according to her web site: "Have Congress step up to its proper oversight role and get the administration to articulate and implement a transition plan in which the U.S. will reduce its role and begin to bring troops home. Set achievement benchmarks, rather than dates, for implementing such a pullback." Farrell does not support the Murtha or McGovern bills; she even rejects "timetables," and puts the onus of getting out of Iraq on "the administration" as opposed to Congressional action, namely her had she won. Why would The Nation support such a candidate? Was it simply incompetence, not doing one's homework? At the same time backers of Farrell, calling themselves Greens, managed to get the hard working and principled Green candidate in her district to withdraw on the basis of "private" and still secret assurances that Farrell would be antiwar in the end. Maybe we will now find out the nature of those assurances. One suspects that if Farrell had adopted a strong antiwar position and challenged her Green opponent that way, rather than conniving to force him out, she might have won the race. But then of course she would have lost Rahm's lucre.

Suzan