Political Context | Politiculous

Let the world know what you believe. Vote:

Are we a nation that lets corporations put large parts of our population out on the streets just to support quarterly profits and executive welfare?

In my opinion the 3 linchpin issues are:

1. Are we a nation of laws or are we, as VP Dick Cheney said on 9/16/2001m “a nation of men”. Being a nation of laws has gotten though since the American Revolution.

If we are now officially a nation of men, that means connected men not you or I. Not even the media talking point readers – although they at least make a nice living for their services to the rich.

The next two issues are the result of our recently official status as “a nation of men”. Here they are:

2. As a nation of connected men, are we going to have continual economic upheaval and raiding of the public coffers for the enrichment of financial executives?

3. Can we continue to look the other way while at least 16% of our population doesn’t have access to healthcare.

Can we continue to look the other way while almost 20% of the all of the money made in the U.S. in one year goes toward healthcare? Do we continue to let executives at insurance companies take advantage of a broken unorganized system that allows them to ‘tax’ your average healthy* family nearly 30% of their income ‘just in case’ they get sick?
* Because they don’t insure the unhealthy. And, by the way, good luck getting your healthcare paid for if you do get sick.

y67uwktjcd

If you are like me and believe that being able to find all of the US government data sets in one accessible place is one of the key’s to building a better country, then you have to check out Data.gov in all it potential glory.

Technorati Tags:
Economic Policy, Public Policy, Sustainable Economy, U.S. Policy

General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
Saturday, October 27, 1787

by ALEXANDER HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting
federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new
Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its
own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the
existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it
is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting
in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been
reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to
decide the important question, whether societies of men are really
capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and
choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their
political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in
the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be
regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong
election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be
considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of
patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good
men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be
directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and
unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this
is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The
plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests,
innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its
discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views,
passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution
will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest
of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may
hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the
offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted
ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize
themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter
themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of
the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under
one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature.
I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve
indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their
situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious
views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated
by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the
opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its
appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not
respectable — the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived
jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes
which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many
occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right
side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance,
if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who
are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any
controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be
drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who
advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their
antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition,
and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate
as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a
question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing
could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all
times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion,
it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.
Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have
already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all
former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and
malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the
opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually
hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the
number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the
bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and
efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a
temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which
is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be
represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity
at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one
hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble
enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and
illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that
the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that,
in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their
interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more
often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the
people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and
efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been
found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the
latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of
republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an
obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending
tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my
fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts,
from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the
utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which
may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same
time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed
from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my
countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive
consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it.
I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your
dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel.
I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have
decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely
lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness
of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply
professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my
own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by
all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace
the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting
particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY
OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A
GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO
THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN
STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS
ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT,
TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a
satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their
appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the
utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts
of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be
imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it
whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new
Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any
general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate
confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.[1] This doctrine will,
in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough
to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to
those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the
alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of
the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the
advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers,
to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall
accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS

1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held
out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

Barack Obama | Change We Need | Barack’s Small Business Rescue Plan: Key Points: “Barack’s Small Business Rescue Plan: Key Points

EXPANDED ACCESS TO CAPITAL

Barack will unlock credit needed to keep small businesses growing by implementing a nationwide emergency lending facility for small businesses.

PROVIDE TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF

To stimulate investment and job growth and spark our long-term recovery, the Small Business Rescue Plan will provide temporary business tax incentives through 2009.

ELIMINATE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES

Barack’s plan will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments made in small and start-up businesses, encouraging investment and innovation.

CUT OR FREEZE TAXES FOR 99% OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

To help individuals with small business income — including the country’s more than 20 million self-employed individuals — Barack will provide a $1,000 Making Work Pay tax credit to 95 percent of workers and their families, and freeze any tax increases for the remaining 4 percent.

LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS AND EASE THE HEALTH CARE BURDEN

Barack will give small businesses new incentives, help cut costs, and improve efficiency for all firms to provide health care to their workers at an affordable rate.

EXPAND OPPORTUNITY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Barack will put in place far-reaching reforms to expand the ability of women-, service-disabled veteran-, and minority-owned firms to compete in today’s marketplace.

Read the full plan

Join Small Business for Obama “

(Via Barack Obama | Change We Need | Barack’s Small Business Rescue Plan: Key Points.)

Technorati Tags:
Water Filtration

Comment: If all the republican talking points about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are making your head spin as much as they made mine. Here’s a good explanation.

The Real Truth About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

–Stone & McCarthy (Princeton) — It’s become fashionable in the final weeks of the presidential campaign to lay most — if not all — of the blame for the global financial market crisis at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has also been identified as a culprit.) For instance, in last night’s debate, Senator John McCain said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ‘were the catalyst, the match that started this forest fire.’

Yes, the GSEs bought some subprime loans and Alt-A loans. Yes the GSEs bought some private-label MBS. Yes the GSEs became too big to fail because of the systemic risk they posed to the housing markets and financial system.

But let’s not rewrite all of history for purposes of campaign soundbites. To put it mildly, it’s a stretch to say that the GSEs were the ‘match that started the forest fire.’ As we all know the match that started the forest fire was bad underwriting — extending all sorts of newfangled loans — no-doc, exploding 2/28 ARMs, negative amortization loans — to people who could never afford to repay them based on traditional measures such as income. Why were those loans made? Because 1) people thought home prices would go up forever, 2) the loans were bundled into complex securities that many investors didn’t understand, but bought anyway, because a) people thought home prices would go up forever, and b) rating agencies put their AAA stamps of approval on them.

Was that decline in underwriting led by the GSEs? Well, we thought we would go back a few years when everyone was happy and see what the GSEs’ regulator had to say on the subject. We looked at the report published each year by OFHEO, called ‘The Mortgage Markets and the Enterprises.’ In this case we looked at the report published in 2006 about 2005, the year in which subprime mortgage originations peaked.

The report discusses at length the ‘The Proliferation of Non-Traditional Single-Family Mortgages.’ OFHEO discusses the rise in home prices from 2001 and 2005, and how non-traditional products, ’such as piggy-back and limited-documentation loans, addressed the affordability constraints for many home purchasers, changing the mix of mortgage originations. Product innovation was also driven by greater access to mortgage finance for many formerly credit-impaired renters, significant financial innovation in credit markets, and sluggish investment alternatives in equity and capital markets relative to real estate.’

‘Beginning in 2003, the mortgage market began to see a significant increase in alternative financing arrangements and lender-specific mortgages that differed significantly in terms and conditions from traditional loans. Much of the innovation first took place in the ARM market and later surfaced in the FRM market . Among the non-traditional mortgages are Alternative-A (low documentation, known as Alt-A) and subprime hybrid ARMs, interest-only ARMs, option ARMs, and, most recently, interest-only FRMs. Of the recent origination years and based on volume of activity, 2004 was the year of the hybrid and interest-only ARM, 2005 the year of the option ARM, and 2006 is shaping up to be the year of the interest-only FRM.’

OFHEO then goes on to say how those changes in the primary mortgage market led to a drop in the GSEs’ share of MBS issuance:

‘Shifts in the primary mortgage market in 2005 led to a decline in the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the secondary mortgage market. As discussed above, the overall increase in mortgage originations in 2005 was fueled by higher consumer demand for non-traditional mortgages and an increase in the non-prime share of single-family originations. Those trends drove an increase in private-label MBS issuance during 2005. Private-label MBS backed by Alt-A and subprime collateral increased to 15 percent and 22 percent of total issuance volume, respectively…While total private-label issuance rose 38 percent to $1.2 trillion in 2005, combined enterprise issuances of single-class MBS fell 1 percent to $908 billion, the lowest level in five years.’

OFHEO goes on to say ‘Private-label MBS are typically collateralized by non-conforming loans or loans that do not meet standards prescribed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including loan size. Non-conforming loans include home equity, jumbo, and subprime loans. Depository institutions, Wall Street firms, insurance companies, mortgage banks, and homebuilders issue private-label MBS…

‘The record $1,191 billion of private-label MBS issued in 2005 was led by the subprime sector, which exceeded $460 billion in issuance. That issue volume was driven by an increase in the number of borrowers with blemished credit seeking housing financing and lenders willing to extend credit to those borrowers.’

Recall that the GSEs aren’t primary lenders, but provide mortgage credit to lenders through their purchases of mortgages that have already been originated. OFHEO is telling us here that private-label MBS issuers were the main buyers of subprime loans from ‘lenders willing’ to make them, not the GSEs.

As the saying goes, you’re entitled to have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Technorati Tags:
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Final Report: Humans Caused Global Warming: Scientific American: “PARIS — For the first time, a panel of climate experts has confirmed that global warming is occurring and that it is ‘very likely’–90 percent certain–man-made. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change–and the findings were grim. ‘There can be no question that the increases in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity,’ says Susan Solomon, co-chair of the working group and an atmospheric scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ‘Warming of the climate system is now unequivocal. That is evident in observations of air and ocean temperature as well as rising global mean sea level.” More…

Technorati Tags:
Climate Change

The Economist has an article comparing now with 1929…

Our Depression index—and the parallels | 1929 and all that |

Oct 2nd 2008

From The Economist print edition

How today’s financial crisis resembles the one that happened three-quarters of a century ago, and how it does not

EASY credit, some say, was one problem. It was amplified by newfangled, flighty financial techniques, notably buying assets with borrowed money and watching leverage work its arithmetical magic. And underneath it all was a breezy, unthinking optimism, that prices could only ever go up. This was a perfect recipe for a runaway boom—and for a ruinous bust.

more...

Since McCain/Palin are talking about clean coal like its ready to go today, here’s a great article on the real state of clean coal technology.

The Energy Challenge – Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal – Series – NYTimes.com: “But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed.

The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020.”

(Via The Energy Challenge – Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal – Series – NYTimes.com.)

Understanding our clean energy options | Yahoo! Green: “Nuclear

Many experts have called for a new generation of nuclear power because it does not release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

In the U.S., no new nuclear plant has been opened since 1996, partly due to safety concerns highlighted by the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Though today’s technology may be safer, high costs still make nuclear an irrational investment. See Amory Lovins’ recent, peer-reviewed report.

The waste issue also remains unresolved and nuclear plants can take upwards of ten years to bring online due to regulatory and permitting delays, construction requirements, and safety inspections.”

(Via Understanding our clean energy options | Yahoo! Green.)