The Seventh Sense

Lesson Not Learned

WSJ:

Wall Street On Track To Award Record Pay

Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their employees about $140 billion this year -- a record high that shows compensation is rebounding despite regulatory scrutiny of Wall Street's pay culture.

Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers and stock and commodities exchanges can expect to earn even more than they did the peak year of 2007, according to an analysis of securities filings for the first half of 2009 and revenue estimates through year-end by The Wall Street Journal.

Total compensation and benefits at the publicly traded firms analyzed by the Journal are on track to increase 20% from last year’s $117 billion—and to top 2007’s $130 billion payout. This year, employees at the companies will earn an estimated $143,400 on average, up almost $2,000 from 2007 levels.

I have no comment.

That's because I'm speechless.  We're facing double digit unemployment because of these bastards, the deficits are huge because we bailed out these bastards, and now they're increasing their own compensation?

UPDATE:  Thankfully, Kevin Drum, while as dumbfounded as me, can eke out a few thoughts:

There's an insanity here that's almost beyond analysis.  Wall Street can spark an economic slowdown that misses destroying the planet and causing a second Great Depression only by a hair's breadth — said hair being an 11th hour emergency infusion of trillions of taxpayer dollars — and then turn around and use those trillions to return to bubble levels of profitability within 12 months.  And they can do it even though the rest of the economy is still suffering through the worst recession since World War II.  It's mind boggling.

Is there any silver lining here?  Probably not, but I'll try: If Wall Street can shrug off the worst recession of our lifetimes as if it's a minor fender bender and get the party rolling all over again in less than 12 months, it means the next bubble is already in the works and its collapse will be every bit as bad as this one.  That in turn means it will almost certainly happen while today's politicians are still in office.  So maybe news like this will finally spur lawmakers to realize once and for all that the financial industry needs to be cut down to size.  Half measures won't do it.  Self-regulation won't do it.  Compensation limits won't do it.  Byzantine, watered-down rules won't do it.  Something like a Morgenthau Plan for Wall Street is the only thing that has even half a chance of working.

Will Congress finally get this?  Probably not.  The financial lobby is just too strong.  But we can hope.

RELATED:  The Dow surpassed 10,000 today.  Republicans are downplaying the significance of that.  And while I tend to agree with them (10,000 is just a number), recall that Republicans weren't singing that tune a few months ago.  The Wall Street Journal ran an entire editorial on this in early March. The drop in the Dow, the WSJ insisted, was a direct result of investors evaluating "Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance."  Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made the same case. So did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. It was one of Mitt Romney's favorite talking points for a while, too.

To Republicans, Obama was to blame for the continuing fall of the Dow last spring.  But now that it keeps going up and up?  Well, the Dow doesn't mean anything.

But since when has logical, or even rhetorical, consistency been a characteristic of today's Republican party?

UPDATE TO RELATED:  OMG!  Fox News is pitching that the surge in the Dow is an example of the "Bush recovery"!!

The Other New FTC Rule

Earlier today, I mentioned a new FTC rule which, rather unusually, applied to bloggers: if you endorse or recommend something in exchange for payment (or a free sample), you must disclose the fact that your review was paid for.  While I tend to frown on the regulation of bloggers (and the Internet in general), this regulation struck me as reasonable.

The FTC issued another regulation -- a "guideline" actually -- which applies to advertisers running testimonial ads, and I really like this one:

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides - which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as "results not typical" - the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

So if the new weight-loss pill ad feature a woman from Bumblefuck, Kentucky who lost 50 in three weeks, look for the part of the ad (whether it is on TV, on the radio, in print, or on the web) that says "Results not typical".

The Lehman Crash: One Year Later

We may be seeing the hint of a whiff of the first signs that our economic woes are taking a turn for the better, but what about the long term?  What about the reforms that Obama promised to ensure that Wall Street greed and bungling don't get us into another mess 5, 10, or 20 years down the road?

For my money (literally), the best suggested reform was a consumer protection agency.  Like the ones we have for food and drugs (FDA) and consumer products (CPSC), except that the focus is on financial products.  Yeah, private ratings agencies (it was thought) should do that, but they dropped the ball as well.

So where is it?

Answer: it's coming.  Wall Street will oppose it, and they'll line up the usual suspects to whip the ignorant mobs into a frenzy ("More government regulation!  That's socialism!").  But it has to pass.  It has to.

The New Gilded Age

The first Gilded Age was a time in the late 19th-early 20th century.  It was a time of huge ecnomic disparity.  On the one end, you had masses of poor immigrants and farmers, huddled in tenement shacks, and ekeing out a living.  Child labor, poor health -- these were the earmarks ofOn the other end of the spectrum, you had huge "robber-barons" with incredible wealth owned such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan.

Well, new figures have come out, and we're now living in a situation where the disparity between the wealthiest in the country vs the poorest in the country are even greater than the Gilded Age.  Here's the chart that explains it all:

As of 2007, the weathiest top 0.01% in this country received 6% of the entire national income.

Look, I'm no socialist, but I think these people, whoever they are, can afford to pay higher taxes than people who make even, say, $100,000 per year.  Seriously.  If someone making $100,000 pays 36% in taxes, then someone making $10,000,000 a year can probably be put in a brand new uber-rich tax bracket of 40%, which will reduce the deficit, pay for health care reform, etc.*

I mean, as Charlie Sheen said, "How many yachts can you ski behind?"

* Remember, this isn't the burden you might think it is.  Our tax rates are progressive and marginal.  In other words, under my plan, a person making $10M a year will pay 36% in taxes on every dollar he earns above $100,000 but under $10M.  Then, for every dollar above $10M, he pays 40%.

Financial Regulation

This subject is waaaay above my pay grade, but -- shooting from the hip here -- I think Obama needs to do at least these things:

(1)  Get rid of the alphabet soup of federal regulators.  Just as our national defense and security was merged under the new Department of Homeland Security, many financial regulation departments can be merged/eliminated with one board overseeing every aspect of the financial community.

(2)  For God's sake, don't allow financial institutions to pick which oversight department gets to regulate them.  That was bone-headed from the start.  If financial institutions get to pick which regulatory body oversees them, then they will do exactly what they did -- pick the most lax regulator (in recent years, it was the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was too overworked to actually do any oversight).  In fact, what happened was that regulatory bodies competed to get business by effectively saying to financial institution that they were lax in oversight.  How dumb is that?

(3)  Allow the Fed to limit the amount that large financial institutions can leverage.  That's pretty straightforward and self-explanatory.

(4)  Set clear rules.  The markets like certainty; business likes certainty.  If you establish regulations, make them airtight... without loopholes.

(5)  Include oversight of ratings agencies.  It is staggering that all those agencies gave those toxic assets AAA ratings, when they were clearly junk.  Of course, the financial institutions are the ones who pick the ratings agencies, so there is a conflict of interest.  At the very least, those ratings agencies should be audited to make sure they "did the work", rather than just act as a rubber stamp to various financial packages.

(6)  End unregulated financial products.  Every consumer good -- from soup to nuts -- is overseen by at least one federal agency (like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the FDA, etc.).  The same should be true for financial products.  Nothing should be traded on any market -- either the public one or the private one -- without someone in government looking at the nature of the commodity to see if it has the potential to create economic turmoil.  This obviously applies to the credit swaps of the recent past, but all future financial products.

(7)  Executive compensation reform.  Bonus compensation should be tied to merit and success, not an automatic "gimme".

Today Obama rolls out his plan for overhauling the financial regulatory system.  We'll see what the details are....

Metered Bandwidth Fail

A lot of people didn't know this, but Time Warner announced that it wanted to test the idea of metering bandwidth.

What does that mean?  Well, basically, the idea was to start charging more to Internet users who used more bandwidth.  If you access/download songs or video (like YouTube), you would end up paying more for Internet service.  It's what Time Warner called "consumption-based billing".

Where was Time Warner planning to test this idea?  Right here in North Carolina.  Here and New York.

I had heard about this and was not pleased.  Like many around here, I use Time Warner's Road Runner service for Internet access at home. 

But the people in New York went ballistic.  Representative Chuch Schumer got involved.

And the bottom line?  Bandwidth metering is dead in the water.  Read more.

Executive Compensation

If there's anything to glean from this NYT chart on executive compensation, it's the fact that it is so arbitrary.  For example, each of the executives below received wildly different compensation in 2008, yet all of their companies had revenue at around $37 billion that year:

 

What gives?  There seems to no rationality to this.

But Matt Yglesius notes two patterns:

One is that American executives get paid wildly more than do European executives to run basically comparable firms. Look at executive pay in the supermajor oil firms and it’s clear that nationality rather than business acumen is driving the differentials.

The other big issue is that CEOs of newish companies, especially tech companies, tend to have much lower salaries. The issue, presumably, is that these guys are major stockholders in the firm. Steve Balmer is one of the richest men in America notwithstanding his low pay since Microsoft is a successful company. But if he were to pull a John Thain and render his company worthless through business blunders, he’d tumble down the list.

He argues that the Balmer model is the way to go.  If Microsoft were to tank, then Balmer's overall compensation would tank.  Seems fair.

Perspective

I was going to write a post about the media obsession with the AIG bonuses, but this cartoon says it all:

About Those AIG Bonuses

The political news this weekend was about AIG, recipient of $170 billion in bailout money (so far) -- the largest bailout given to a single company in the history of capitalism.

The outrage at AIG this weekend came in response to the revelation that it paid out $165 million in executive bonuses after the bailout.

I can understand the outrage, but then again $165 million is peanuts compared to $170 billion.  It is 0.1% of the entire bailout.  Then again, on principle, it stinks.

AIG responded that it was under contractual obligation to pay out these bonuses to executives, stemming from certain contract made with them in the year 2000.  If it failed to pay these bonuses, they could be sued for breach of contract.

Fair enough, but -- wait what? 

I don't think big business understands the concept of "bonuses".  You don't contract for them before you do your job.  You get them after you've done your job, at the end of a fiscal year, and even then, you receive a bonus only if you have done well.  Now AIG is stuck with paying bonuses for people who ran the company -- and the world economy -- into the ground.  Jeez.

And now comes Treasury Secretary Tom Geitner saying, in effect, "Well, there were contracts.  We can't do anything about that."  Maybe so.  But it is interesting to compare the greedy AIG executives insisting on their contractual bonuses' with the  auto workers in Detroit; the UAW actually made contract concessions in an attempt to help the companies for which its members work.

I think this is at the root of the backlash against financial institutions.  Everyone, it seems, is suffering and/or making sacrifices.  Everyone, that is, except for the corporate big wigs who got us here in the first place. 

"We have a contract," they cry.  "If we don't get compensated, then we'll leave our employers and take our considerable financial skill elsewhere."  Really?  That's supposed to be a threat?

Renegotiating those contracts should have been made a pre-condition of the bailout in the first place.  The Obama administration needs to be more hands-on and attach strings to further bailouts.

From Robert Reich:

Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid ... indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street ... This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market.

UPDATE:  Obama orders Treasury secretary to block AIG bonuses.

Banks Upset To Discover There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Bailed-out banks are complaining:

Financial institutions that are getting government bailout funds have been told to put off evictions and modify mortgages for distressed homeowners. They must let shareholders vote on executive pay packages. They must slash dividends, cancel employee training and morale-building exercises, and withdraw job offers to foreign citizens.

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the Obama administration and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

The conditions are necessary to prevent Wall Street executives from paying lavish bonuses and buying corporate jets, some experts say, but others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.

Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds. On Tuesday, Signature Bank of New York announced that because of new executive pay restrictions in the economic stimulus package, it notified the Treasury that it intended to return the $120 million it had received from the government only three months ago.

Other institutions like Johnson Bank of Racine, Wis., initially expressed interest in seeking bailout funds but have now changed their minds. Bank executives told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that one reason they rejected the government money was to avoid any disruption in the bank’s role in the local community, including supporting the zoo or opera company if they chose to.

[Emphasis added]

WTF?  Yes, banks -- if you get millions, or even billions, in taxpayer money because you f'ed up your business, you've got to expect some taxpayer oversight.

The article goes on to note that some of the "strings attached" might cause banks to lose money.  Well, join the club.  Everybody has lost money.  (Want a gander at my 401(k)?)

But, you might argue, we can't have banks lose money.  That will make them insolvent.  And how will that help the economy?

Well, apparently some banks are not too concerned about insolvency, if they intend to return the bailout money.

Which brings up the larger point in this: If the banks are in such a position where they can return bailout money, then why did we give it to them in the first place?

The Chutzpah Of Wells Fargo

Campbell Brown:

(CNN) -- Wells Fargo gets the "chutzpah" award for its PR counter attack. You may have heard about the bank's swanky Las Vegas trip that it had planned for its employees last weekend at two high-end casino resorts.

Keep in mind Wells Fargo took $25 billion in bailout money from taxpayers. It was only after The Associated Press broke the news that the annual getaway was still on, economic crisis be damned, that Wells Fargo, under public and government pressure, decided to cancel.

So, lesson learned? Not quite. This Sunday, Wells Fargo took out full-page newspaper ads in the New York Times and The Washington Post, by our calculation spending at least $200,000.

In the ads, Wells Fargo's CEO announced all of its big employee events for the year have now been canceled. He then blamed the media and said that our one-sided reporting on this subject makes every employee recognition event sound like a boondoggle. And that ultimately, our misleading reports have hurt Wells Fargo employees who deserve a pat on the back, and hurt the tourism industry since they aren't taking these trips anymore.

To which the reply can only be: Give me a break. This is really very simple: Taxpayers lent you $25 billion because of a national financial emergency. We don't think in the current environment you should be throwing lavish "thank you" parties. Period.

Yup.  Sometimes, I just don't think these bankers get it.

The Economic Outlook Is GREAT....

...if you're an oil company.  They've enjoyed record profits this quarter:

Profits at oil companies this quarter continued to reflect oil prices that almost doubled in the second quarter from the year earlier.

Exxon Mobil on Thursday reported that second-quarter profit rose 14 percent, to $11.68 billion, the highest-ever profit by an American company. Exxon broke its own record.

The profit of $2.22 a share compared with $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, in the quarter a year ago.

Bush's Off Camera Comment

First, the video:

Bush was speaking at a July 18 fundraiser for Pete Olsen. 

The first moments form the event find him speaking almost incoherently in admitting, for once, that his friends in big business had screwed up:

"There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk ---that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras -- it got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments."

Now, this is getting a little play on the blogosphere, and of course what is controversial is not what Bush said, but the fact that he said it.

He's basically placing blame for the mortgage crisis on those on Wall Street who create "fancy financial instruments" which hide the value (or lack thereof) of investments.

And he's right!

What's telling is that he wanted the cameras OFF when he said that.  Apparently, he didn't want to piss off his fatcat buddies.  But what does that say about presidential leadership???

Overpaid

Nice work if you can get it:

Lazard reported 2007 profits of $122.6 million today, and gave CEO Bruce Wasserstein a bonus of $36.2 million for the year - on top of a restricted-stock grant of $96.3 million. How did Lazard's share price perform over the course of 2007? Well, it started the year at $47.33, and ended the year at $40.68 - a fall of 14%. It's now lower still, at $37.39.

Think about that.

The company makes a profit of $122 million, and the CEO's bonus (not including stocks) is one-quarter of that.  Despite the fact that the stockholders' value in the company dropped 14%.

When Edwards campaigned about corporate greed and Two Americans, this is what he was talking about.

Stars And Writers Of "The Office" Explain The Writers' Strike

Sounds like they have a legitimate beef:

\

UPDATE:  Another video explains the strike...

Why Our Toys Are Unsafe

Because the GOP is all into deregulation, that's why.  They've gutted the consumer protection statutes and bureaus (note: the CPSC under Bush actually doesn't want to do it's job) and left it up to the businesses themselves to behave responsibly.

Mother Jones explains what has happened as a result:

What happens when manufacturers are left to police themselves

Zenith projection TVs   In the early morning of October 20, 1998, 13-year-old Stephanie Arzie and her 10-year-old brother Michael were killed when their family's large-screen Zenith projection TV caught fire. The company had gotten reports of burning projection TVs since 1996; two had caught fire on showroom floors. Companies are required to notify cpsc within 24 hours of learning that a product may have a dangerous defect. But Zenith did not meet with regulators about a recall until October 21, 1998—the day after the Arzie children died. After the deaths, Zenith agreed to recall the TVs, but in an unusual move the cpsc agreed not to issue a press release, instead letting Zenith send a "safety notice" to dealers. Many sets remained in people's homes, and by 2003, 45 more had burned. At that point, cpsc finally mentioned the five-year-old recall in a press release, stating that "no injuries have been reported." Asked about the Arzie children, a cpsc spokesman said he couldn't comment.

Daisy BB guns   In May 1999, 16-year-old Tucker Mahoney's best friend shot him in the head with a BB gun he thought was empty; he had fired it eight times before, producing only air pops. Tucker's parents sued the manufacturer, Daisy Co., and learned that the company knew the guns had a design flaw that allowed them to fire even when appearing empty. Fifteen children had been killed by the air guns, and 171 more were seriously injured. Tucker's shooting prompted a cpsc investigation. But when the commission declared the guns unsafe and asked the company to recall the 7.5 million it had sold, Daisy refused; the commission then voted 2-1 (two Democrats versus one Republican) to force the recall by suing Daisy. That same day, President Bush nominated Hal Stratton as cpsc chairman, giving the commission a gop majority. Two years later, after a closed-door meeting with company lawyers, the commission settled the suit without issuing a recall. Tucker Mahoney had died of his injuries the month before.

Baby carriers   When manufacturers introduced hard-handled infant carriers in 1993, there were no safety standards of any kind for the product. The industry began work on a voluntary standard in 1997 and completed it in 2000; during that time, tens of millions of carriers were sold, some 7 million of which were ultimately recalled because the handles unlatched and babies fell to the floor. Hundreds of children suffered concussions, fractured skulls, and other serious injuries. And the industry's standard seems to have done little to fix the problem: Last May, seven years after it took effect, Evenflo recalled hundreds of thousands of its carriers because handles had unlatched and at least 160 babies had been injured.

hasbro easy-Bake Ovens   In 2006, Hasbro overhauled its iconic oven with a new design and heating system. By the following February, the company had to recall nearly 1 million ovens because children had suffered burns after getting their hands caught in them. Rather than taking the ovens back, Hasbro got the cpsc to sign off on an easier fix: It would send a repair kit to any consumer who requested it. The ovens were recalled again this July, after 77 kids had gotten burned; one five-year-old had to have a finger amputated. This time, consumers got to return their ovens—for a voucher, good only for another Hasbro product.

RELATED:  Same deal with drugs.

What You Don't Know Can't Hurt You, Right?

Hmmmm:

Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.

NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.

***

Among other results, the pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results who was not authorized to discuss them publicly.

The survey also revealed higher-than-expected numbers of pilots who experienced "in-close approach changes" — potentially dangerous, last-minute instructions to alter landing plans.

So why keep it a secret?  Here's why:

A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits.

Yeah.  Wouldn't want to hurt airline profits....

File Under "Chutzpah"

Wow:

A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to an Army base in Texas, U.S. officials said.

The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.

What I wonder is why it took so long for them to get caught.

Fox? Meet Henhouse.

Geeeez:

A senior lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers nominated by President Bush to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission will receive a $150,000 departing payment from the association when he takes his new government job, which involves enforcing consumer laws against members of the association.

What's next?  The head of the NRA to head the Commission on Gun Control?

No Chocolate? Jesus!

This is something that even non-political people can get behind.

The FDA wants to take away your chocolate.

That's right.  Pending right now is a "citizen's petition" which would allow chocolate manufacturers (Hershey's etc.) to use vegatable fats instead of cocoa butter, and still call the result "chocolate".  Of course, the "citizens" who submitted this petition are the Chocolate Manufacturers Assn., the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., the Snack Food Assn., and several other big producers.

If the FDA approves, that means that your favorite chocolate bar, ice cream, fondue, whatever -- will not necessarily contain actual cocoa (the raw ingredient of chocolate).

Cybele May, who writes a candy blog, explains:

This is what they think of us chocolate eaters, according to their petition on file at the FDA:

"Consumer expectations still define the basic nature of a food. There are, however, no generally held consumer expectations today concerning the precise technical elements by which commonly recognized, standardized foods are produced. Consumers, therefore, are not likely to have formed expectations as to production methods, aging time or specific ingredients used for technical improvements, including manufacturing efficiencies."

Let me translate: "Consumers won't know the difference."

She goes on to argue that consumers do know the difference.  They can tell the difference between "chocolate-flavored" candy (like those waxy "chocolate" rabbits we get at Easter), and actual chocolate candy.  She notes that:

Nine of the 10 bestselling U.S. chocolate candies are made with the real stuff. M&Ms, Hershey Bars, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups — all real chocolate. Butterfinger is the outlier.

Fortunately, you can fight back.  Send a comment to the FDA, through this website (just follow the "How To Help" links).

I'm No Socialist, But....

This doesn't seem right:

Let's break this down.  (All figures, by the way, are adjusted for inflation)

From 1990 to 2005, the average CEO pay went up almost 300 percent, whereas the average worker pay went up 4.3 percent.  And minimum wage, in real dollars, went down 9.3 percent.

Look, I get capitalism.  The heads of corporations get more money.  I get that.  And I'm quite content -- barely -- for them to earn 107 times as much as the average worker (which was the case in 1990). 

But now there are earning 411 times as much as the average worker.

Does this strike anyone else as, well, wrong?

Data and more graphs here.

UPDATE:  And five minutes after I wrote that, I read this:

Citigroup plans to eliminate one of every 20 positions as part of what Reuters describes as a "a broad restructuring designed to cut costs and bolster its long underperforming stock."

The company says 17,000 of 327,000 positions are targeted for elimination, with 9,500 jobs moving to off-shore locations with lower-cost workers.

"This is the beginning of a change in how we manage expenses," CEO Charles Prince said on a conference call. "You will see a more efficient, more tightly managed, and a more tough-minded Citigroup than you've seen in the past."

Very nice. 

Oh, by the way, according to this, Citicorp CEO Charles Prince's total compensation for 2006 was over $25,000,000, an increase of 20% from the previous year.

Let Me See If I Get This Straight

Let's get a timeline:

In 1995, Clinton cuts off all trade and investment with Iran.  U.S. companies were no longer able to do business with Iran.

After that announcement, Halliburton decided that business with Iran, then conducted through at least five companies, would all be done through a subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands.  This way, Halliburton could skirt around the ban.  (Halliburton also did business with Saddam, up through 2000, in this manner.)

When Halliburton made that decision, its chief executive officer was Dick Cheney.

Twelve years later, Halliburton is still working in and for Iran.

Does this make any sense to anybody?  The vice-president of the United States was CEO of a company that did business with our enemies, despite the fact that it was well-known that these countries were dangerous.  Can you imagine a Democratic vice-president getting away with this?

And they call us "traitors"?!?

A Double Does Of Wingnuttery

First up: Marsha West, a "freelance writer specializing in Christian worldview".  Let's see what her Christian worldview is:

Radical feminism: The kiss of death

Oh, this isn't going to be pretty.

The "great strides" made by the feminist movement have been lost on young celebrities. Britney Spears has been spotted frequenting nightspots with actress Lindsay Lohan and heiress Paris Hilton. Spears made headlines when the paparazzi photographed her pantyless, climbing out of a car.

Yes.  Don't these celebrity women understand that radical feminism is about burning bras, and not going around pantyless?  Geez.

As a result of the feminist movement there are no gender-based role differences in many marriages. Wives wear the pants in the family, husbands show little or no leadership and are often wimps, and children are unmanageable. Is this what God intended for the family?

No.

God intended women to wear skirts.  It's in the Bible.  Somewhere.  I guess.

The Bible teaches that the husband is to lead, provide for, and protect his family. The wife is to help her husband by managing the household and taking care of the children. Children are to be raised with discipline and love. That's God's way.

"And while we're at it -- what happened to all that slavery that was in the Bible?"

Today's children are train wreck.

What is that sentence?  Haiku?

They're undisciplined, disrespectful and, frankly, as lazy as a Sunday morning. Sadly, this is the rule not the exception.

I don't know about Marsha's Sunday mornings, but there's nothing disrespectful about my Sunday mornings.  (Lazy, perhaps... but never disrespectful).

Obviously something has gone terribly awry. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles, ordained by God as part of the created order, have been blurred. Men have become un-masculine, thus unattractive to women; women have become un-feminine, thus unattractive to men.

Geez.  No WONDER everybody is gay.

Granted, some women have a feminine appearance. But don't let that fool you. In the blink of an eye, females spew obscenities that would make a bull rider blush.

Hey, hey, hey.  I like women who spew obscenities.  Time and a place for everything, Marsha.

Marsha then bemoans all the terrible youth trends, like this:

At student dances all across America (including middle schools) kids are dirty dancing. Teens are simulating sex to the beat of the music, usually with, but not limited to, a partner.

Why, they're even cutting "footloose"!  Somebody do something!

This sort of tawdry teenage conduct spooks some administrators. The principal of Manuel High School, Beverly Keepers, witnessed teens doing the nasty and had the good sense to turn up the lights.

That Beverly Keepers is one smart cookie.  There's nothing that can stop students getting their freak on like a heavy dose of flourescent gymnasium lighting.

Soon chaperones were moving through the crowd, separating couples. "Nothing seemed to calm them down," Keepers said. "It's difficult when you have 800 students to tap every one on the shoulder when they're dancing inappropriately." Tapping 800 students on the shoulder would be exhausting!

I just love that last sentence.

(P.S.  Not that I want to help your cause, Miss Beverly Keepers, but rather than tapping students on the shoulder like some campy 1950's movie, you could have turned off the music.  Just saying...)

But these are merely the problems.  Now it's time to find the scapegoat:

The feminist movement has certainly done its fair share to corrupt the younger generation. Hollywood is partly responsible for the decadent behavior of our youth. Liberal educators also play a role.

Especially them liberal educators.  Bring back the good ol' days when students were forced to WALTZ to algebra class.

But the bulk of the blame goes to parents for not doing their part to protect their children from indecency. One of a parent's primary responsibilities is to instill moral values. It's Mom and Dad's job to teach their kids right from wrong. Which begs the question, "Why do so many parents trust liberals to educate their kids?"

Did we mention that Marsha West writes how-to books on homeschooling?  Oh.  Well, Marsha West writes how-to books on homeschooling.

Children are on loan from God.

Oh, lord.  I can't take any more of this.  I'm losing interest in Ms Mrs. Marsha West.

At this point in time liberals are winning the culture war. In an interview with Rachel Davis, 13-year-old Kalli Kearney from Darnell-Cookman Middle School said nonchalantly, "Girls make out with girls. They have boyfriends, but they make out with girls."

Sadly, girls making out with girls has become commonplace.

Suddenly, I'm interested again.

No doubt sexual freedom is a dream come true for radical feminists. But it's a nightmare for loving, sensible parents. Adolescents are having sex with no strings.

Right.  They're using double-strength ropes and handcuffs now.

Okay.  Let's move on to one of our stand-by favorites, Miss Marie Jon Apostrophe.  Ostensibly, Marie is writing about the fake Nancy Pelosi "scandal" (for background, see here). 

But Marie starts off, somewhat awkwardly, with some diatribe about capitalism.  I'll leave in her original links.

In America, everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy. In our country millionaires and billionaires thrive because of opportunity afforded our citizenry. Monetary means can be gained under our capitalistic system. Most of America's amply-rich are self-made, hard working entrepreneurs.

If you stay in school and live a decent life, you also can obtain the American dream. Becoming successful in life no longer has anything to do with one's race, creed or color; it has to do with one's personal goals and achievements, and how high one sets the bar.

America's Top Ten Self-Made Billionaires

1. William H. Gates III
2. Warren E. Buffett
3. Sheldon Adelson
4. Lawrence J. Ellison
5. Paul G. Allen
6. Jim C Walton
7. Christy Walton
8. S. Robson Walton
9. Michael Dell
10. Alice L. Walton

It's very nice of Marie to link to the wikipedia definition of "capitalism".  But perhaps she ought to look up the word "self-made". 

Look at her list of "America's Top Ten Self-Made Billionaires".  Interesting how nearly HALF of these "self-made" billionaires achieved their enormous wealth by setting their goals high, and going through the hard-working rigors of, well, being BORN to mega-billionaire Sam Walton, or by MARRYING one of his children. 

Nice work if you can get it.

Way to shoot down your own point, Marie.

Strange Acquisitions

Nestle to buy Jenny Craig for $600 million

I'm Playing The World's Smallest Violin

Actual article headline: Bill Gates Wishes He Wasn't So Rich

And indeed, the article is about Bill Gates moaning over his 50 billion dollar wealth.

Yeah, it must really suck.

Times Explains "Net Neutrality"

Good editorial:

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause.

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

Pump Prayers

I don't know what to make of this:

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI) -- A U.S. Christian group has grown tired of escalating gasoline prices and is set to stage a national prayer rally to lower the numbers at the pumps.

Various Christian clergy from around the country will convene around a Washington, D.C., gas station Thursday at noon to pray. For those who can't attend, a live Internet site and toll-free prayer line have been established.

In a release, the Pray Live group said many people are "overlooking the power of prayer when it comes to resolving this energy crisis."

Apart from sending a message to God, the rally had a message for humanity, said Wenda Royster, the group's founder.

"It is our hope that seeing and hearing some of the nation's most powerful preachers gathered around a gas station and the United States capital as a backdrop, will remind everyone who is really in charge of our world -- God," Royster said.

The Web site is at praylive.com. The toll-free phone number is 888-PRAYLIVE.

And if that works, maybe they can pray for the end of world hunger, universal peace -- naaaah!  Let's only pray for important things, right?

Gas Profit Guzzlers

One day after Exxon Mobil announced huge profits, Chevron announced that its first-quarter profits were a record $4 billion.  That's an increase of 49% over last year.

Fat bastards.

UPDATE:  The folks at The American Street think they know why gas prices are going up:

Kellie Pickler, who’d performed the ballad “Unchained Melody” during Tuesday night’s episode became the latest “Idol” wannabe to be ousted, sending oil prices soaring to a record $74 a barrel. “The market had been worried about Kellie,” Deborah White of SG SIB Commodities in Paris noted. “An underwhelming Elliott Yamin performance next week just might send it over $80.”

Net Neutrality Loses In House

It happened:

Internet carriers would have a free hand to charge the likes of Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and eBay Inc. extra for faster delivery of services to consumers under a bill approved by a House committee Wednesday.

The vote, 42-12, brings a two-tier Internet one step closer to reality despite the wishes of a broad coalition of Web site operators and public interest groups that insist the fees will crush innovation.

The Web companies had hoped to amend Wednesday's legislation, thereby enshrining the status quo of "network neutrality," the catchphrase that has come to represent a system in which all Internet traffic is treated equally. But the effort failed when an amendment introduced by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., was defeated 34-22 in a largely party line vote earlier in the day.

I'm telling you people, net neutrality is something you want preserved.  Fortunately, there's still a fight in the Senate about this, and prospects look better.

Exxon Records Huge Profits ...Again

Read about it here.

I watched The Daily Show last night, as host Jon Stewart talked with Kimberly Strassel, a Wall Street Journal senior editorial page writer.  She was on to discuss the gas prices, and the reason for it.

What Stewart wanted to know was, quite simply, why gas prices were so high.  Strassel, clearly defending the oil and gas industry, explained about how the problems in the Middle East were creating a supply problem.  That, and increased demand, were driving up prices. [SIDEBAR:  Josh Marshall snarkily writes: "It's hard to figure why blowing up the Middle East hasn't had the intended effect of lowering gas prices.  Weird."]

Stewart understood that; so did I.

Then Strassel went on to talk about how congressional requirements of ethanol funding was leading to high gas prices, and Stewart stopped buying it (calling it, in a good-natured way, "bullshit").

Finally, Stewart asked the question that has been bothering me.  He started off by saying that he understood the whole concept of supply and demand, but what he didn't get was why energy companies were reporting huge PROFITS now (as opposed to income).  Why, Stewart wondered, can't energy companies keep their profit margin constant?

His guest stammered, but didn't really respond (Stewart graciously and self-effacingly "saved" her, by owning up to being a layman who didn't understand these things).

So, the question remains unanswered.  And even this answer doesn't make much sense to me.

By the way, very often you hear people say, "Well, when you adjust for inflation, the gas prices back during the crisis in the Carter era were far worse". 

NOT TRUE. 

As this graph shows, when adjusted for inflation, the price of a gallon of gas back in the Carter era was $3.00 (actually, fractions of a penny below that).  Right now, the average price is $2.96.  And it is expected to rise.

Slap On The Wrist

In a story related to the one below (in which the U.S. government pays Halliburton's overcharges), we learn how our government is abdicating responsibility for making mines safe.

USA Today reports how the fines assessed on Sago Mine (the West Virginia mine which collapsed last month, killing 12) were minimal.  Not the number of violations -- there were plenty of those.  But for each violation, it was assumed that the safety of only one miner was jeopardized, thereby minimizing the fine:

• On Aug. 16, 2005, an inspector found a main escape path "obstructed by concrete blocks." On Nov. 8, 2005, an escapeway was "not being maintained in a safe condition to assure passage of anyone." Sago got six citations for blocking escapeways miners use to flee a fire or explosion. Each citation said one miner was endangered. The mine paid $60 fines for two violations. The amounts of the four other fines are being decided.

• On Aug. 16, 2005, an inspector found "chemical smoke" being blown toward areas where two mining teams were working. A team typically has eight to 10 miners. The citation said one miner was endangered. A fine is being determined.

• Sago was cited for 22 violations from July 2004 to December 2005 for "accumulation of combustible materials" — coal dust and coal chunks that can spread fires and explosions. All 22 violations said one miner was endangered. MSHA fined the mine a total of $1,768 for 17 violations and is deciding fines for the five others.

"If you have coal dust in the air, that becomes part of the explosion," says Robert Ferriter, director of mine safety training at the Colorado School of Mines. "That would certainly affect more than one person. That would affect everybody in the area."

Halliburton Overcharges; U.S. Pays Anyway

It kind of makes you wonder what these people are thinking.

Halliburton had a contract with the U.S. Army to deliver fuel and repair oil in Iraq.  (It actually was one of many no-bid contracts that Hallilburton has with the government with respect to Iraq).

The contact was for $2.4 billion, but Halliburton overcharged Uncles Same by $236 million.  Obviously, since our government is run by responsible fiscal conservatives, the Bush Administration refused to pay for the overcharge of $236 million, right?  Right?

Citing Army officials, the [New York] Times said the military had decided to pay Halliburton engineering and construction unit Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) all but $10 million of the costs which Pentagon auditors had identified as potentially inflated or unsupported by documentation.

Unbelieveable.  So far, the folks at Porkbusters are silent.

Oil Exec Follow-up

As I wrote yesterday, it looks like oil exceutives lied to Congess (not under oath, however).

Well, today I can report that the story may have legs:

Democrats asked the U.S. attorney general Wednesday to investigate whether top executives from big oil companies lied to Congress when they said their companies did not take part in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

Democrats and environmental groups have fought unsuccessfully to find out which energy industry executives met privately with Cheney's group in 2001 as it prepared a broad plan friendly to oil industry interests. Environmental groups said they were mostly excluded from the discussions.

At a Senate hearing last week on record oil profits, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked five executives, "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy force in 2001?"

Each executive answered the question in the negative.

However, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a White House document showed some companies did in fact meet with the task force.

An Explanation

Some people scratched their heads when oil executives testified before Congress last week.  The custom is that people who testify -- from tobacco executive to Raphael Palmiero -- take an oath.  For some reason, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, steadfastly refused to have the oil executives take an oath.

Matt Yglesius discovers a possible reason:

Meanwhile, this is in many ways the craziest scandal yet. Documents leaked to The Washington Post reveal that some of the secret meetings of the Cheney energy task force were attended by . . . people from oil companies. Not exactly the surprise of the year. The thing of it is, though, that just last week Frank Lautenberg had a bunch of oil company executives in a committee hearing and asked if their companies met with the task force and . . . they all said no.

Gotcha.

If This Doesn't Piss You Off, You Must Be Dead

Or Cheney.

From CNN Money:

Exxon's $10B net a U.S. corporate record
The oil company gains from soaring oil and gas prices, but falls short of estimates.
October 27, 2005: 1:25 PM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted a quarterly profit of $9.9 billion Thursday, the largest in U.S. corporate history, as it raked in a bonanza from soaring oil and gas prices.

Record profits for Big Oil at a time when consumers are paying sky-high prices for gasoline have brought calls for a windfall profits tax or other penalties on oil companies.

The companies have been enjoying an unusually rosy environment for months. In the third quarter, oil prices and refining margins rose sharply after hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf of Mexico, disrupting energy operations in the region.

Think About This Next Time You Fill Up

From Daily Browse:

Punishing Competence

What happens if you actually do your job, and the result is a potential embarrassment to the Bushies?

You get demoted:

A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.

The demotion removes her from the elite Senior Executive Service and reassigns her to a lesser job in the corps' civil works division.

Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.

"She is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs," Mr. Kohn said Sunday in an interview. He also said the Army had violated a commitment to delay Ms. Greenhouse's dismissal until the completion of an inquiry by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Not Angry

In response to a comment on that his blog is "full of hatred and anger", Corrente not only denied the charge, but set out to compile a list of things he was not angry about, as well as things he doesn't hate. 

It's not only long, but a work-in-progress, so check out  Corrente's site for the latest revisions and updates:

1. We are not angry at Bush for his war of choice in Iraq.
   1. We are not angry at Bush because 2,000 Americans have died in Iraq, together with many thousands of Iraqis.
   2. We are not angry at Bush because in Iraq quot;the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
   3. Nor are we angry at Bush because the WMDs were not found.
      1. Nor angry that the aluminum tubes story was not true.
      2. Nor angry that the drones story was not true.
      3. Nor angry that the bioweapons story was not true.
      4. Nor angry that the "yellowcake uranium" story was not true.
   4. Nor are we angry at  Colin Powell because nothing he said in his UN speech to justify the war was true.
   5. Nor are we angry at Bush for claiming that Iraq and 9/11 were connected when they were not.
   6. Nor do we hate the members of the press who enabled Bush's war of choice.
      1. Especially we do not hate Judy Miller whose WMD reportage helped Bush "fix the facts"
         1. Nor her boss, Bill Keller.
            1. Nor his boss, Arthur Sulzberger.
   7. We are not angry at Donald Rumseld because his "Revolution in Military Affairs" resulted in sending our troops into urban warfare in Iraq without proper armor.
      1. Nor do we hate Donald Rumsfeld because after three years the problem is not yet corrected.
      2. Moreover, we do not hate Donald Rumsfeld for using an automatic signature machine to sign condolence letters to the parents of dead soldiers.
      3. And furthermore, we do not hate Donald Rumsfeld for taking souvenirs from the Pentagon site on 9/11, a felony.
   8. We are not angry at Alberto Gonzales for writing memos purporting to justify torture.
      1. Nor are we angry at the higherups who set up torture camps and then let their subordinates take the blame when the truth came out.
         1. Nor do we hate the higherups who got promotions after torture occured on their watch
      2. Neither do we hate the doctors and psychiatrists who violated their Hippocratic oaths by abetting torture at Gitmo.
      3. And if the torture techniques we have spread in Iraq are ever used in this country, we promise not to get angry about it.
   9. We are not angry at the Republicans for losing $8 billion dollars meant for Iraq.
   10. We are not angry that Iraq has become what it was not before the war, a training ground for terrorists.
   11. And we promise we will not get angry if Iraq ends up as an Islamic theocracy.
       1. And we further promise not to get angry that 2,000 Americans will have died to make that happen.
   12. And we promise never to hate the members of the White House Iraq Group (Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and Rove), who worked together to make it all possible.
       1. Even if Bush gave them all promotions. Every single one of them.
2. We are not angry at Bush for stealing election 2000 in Florida by using the "felon list."
   1. Nor do we hate those who helped him to do so.
      1. We do not hate Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
      2. We do not hate Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Bush's brother
      3. We do not hate the freepers who staged the "bourgeios riot" to intimidate the vote counters, not even Buckhead.
      4. We do not hate the majority in Bush v. Gore, not even Antonin Scalia
      5. We do not hate Al Gore for not getting all the votes counted.
   2. Nor are we angry at the Republicans for claiming a "Bush Mandate" in 2000.
   3. Neither are we are angry at the press for dropping the story.
3. We are not angry at Bush for stealing election 2004 in Ohio by preventing Democrats from voting
   1. Nor do we hate those who helped him to do it
      1. We do not hate Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell
      2. We do not hate any Republican election official
         1. We do not hate Tom Noe and his wife, Bernadette, even though they steered contracts to Diebold for machines that left no paper trial.
         2. We do not hate the Republicans in Warren County who closed their building during the count, claiming a terrorist threat when there was no threat
      3. Nor do we hate any of the electronic voting machine manufacturers
         1. We do not hate them, even though they are all Republican contributors
      4. Nor do we hate any of the authorities that certify electronic voting machines
         1. We do not hate them, even though they too are all Republican contributors
   2. Nor are we angry at the press for refusing to cover the story.
4. We are not angry at Bush for making all his appearances before screened audiences of Republicans only.
   1. We do not hate Bush for doing this during the campaign.
   2. We do not hate the Republicans for removing citizens who visibly did not support Bush from campaign events.
      1. We do not even hate the Republicans for removing schoolteachers and then stripsearching them.
   3. We do not hate Bush for doing the same thing during his Social Security barnstorming
      1. Nor are we angry because we, as taxpayers, must pay for events that we will never be allowed to attend.
   4. Nor are we angry because White House political operatives removed citizens from a barnstorming rally while impersonating Secret Service agents.
      1. Nor are we angry that the White House will not tell us the name of this operative.
5. Because we consider hypocrisy the tribute that vice plays to virtue, and a natural part of the human condition, we do not hate any Republican who exhibits it, not even those put forward to us as moral exemplars
   1. We do not hate Rush Limbaugh, even though he had a 30-a-day Oxycontin habit
      1. In fact, we do not even hate Rush Limbaugh because he got his housekeeper to buy his drugs for him.
   2. We do not hate Bill Bennett, even though he had a million-dollar gambling habit.
   3. We do not hate Bill O'Reilly, even though we can't forget the word "loofah."
   4. We do not hate Newt Gingrich for handing his wife the divorce papers when she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer.
   5. We do not hate Henry Hyde for his "youthful indiscretions."
      1. Or Robert Livingstone
         1. Or Arnold
   6. Especially we are not angry at the Republicans for spending $70 million investigating a blowjob.
   7. We do not hate war-backers who do not or have not served their country in the military
      1. We do not hate any administration official who has not served the country in the military.
         1. Above all, we do not hate Dick Cheney for having "other priorities."
      2. Nor do we hate Bush, even though his missing year in TANG has never been explained.
      3. Nor do we hate those Republican war-backers who do not ask their eligible adult children to serve.
         1. Not even Bush.
      4. Especially we do not hate Jonah Goldberg, even though he says he can't serve because he has a job and kids.
   8. We do not hate gay Republicans who back a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
      1. Not even Ken Mehlman.
         1. Let alone "Jeff Gannon."
6. Nor are we angry that Bush used Homeland Security as a pork barrel in the red states while leaving blue state cities unprotected against nuclear attack.
7. We are never angry at Beltway Dems even when they are gutless and feckless.
   1. Especially we are not angry at John Kerry for taking the Swift Boat attacks lying down.
   2. Nor are we angry at John Kerry for not keeping the Ohio 2004 in the forefront of the public mind.
      1. Even though he solicited contributions for doing precisely that
   3. Nor are we angry at Tom Daschle for losing the 2002 mid-terms because he wouldn't confront Bush on the war.
   4. Nor are we angry when Joe Lieberman attacks other Democrats on FOX.
   5. Nor are we angry when the Democratic Leadership Council calls war opponents "anti-American."
      1. Not even when they don't call Republican war opponents, like Chuck Hagel, anti-American.
   6. Nor do we hate any Democrat who voted for Bush's war of choice in Iraq, not even John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Evan Bayh.
      1. Even though the Democratic netroots had Bush dead to rights on this one from the start.
   7. Nor are we angry at any Beltway consultant, not even eight-time-loser Washington General Robert Shrum.
8. We do not hate Rush Limbaugh, or any Republican, or any member of Little Green Footballs, even when they call us traitors and call for our exile or summary execution.
9. We do not hate any member of any Republican think tank, not even the Discovery Institute.
10. We do not hate the right wing for calling political operatives "scholars."
11. We do not hate any so-called Christian.
    1. Not the so-called Christians at the Air Force academy who called their fellow pilot a "filthy Jews."
    2. Nor Pat Robertonson, who supports assassination as a way to get rid of Hugo Chavez.
12. We are not angry at the billionaires who funded the right.
    1. We do not hate Richard Mellon Scaife, who funded the attacks on President Clinton.
    2. We do not hate R.J. Rushdooney, who funded the Dominionists
    3. Nor do we hate Koch, Olin, Coors, or Bradley
       1. Nor the Bush Rangers and Pioneers, even though many of them are criminals
13. We are not angry that 50 million Americans don't have health insurance.
14. We are not angry that the No Child Left Behind Act is designed to destroy public education by requiring tests but not funding the teaching for the tests.
15. We do not hate Doctor James Dobson, or any other theocrat, not even Reverend Moon, or Reverend Moon's backers on Capitol Hill.
16. Nor are we angry that Bush is trying to destroy Social Security.
17. Nor are do we hate the CEOs who make hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies fail and workers lose their jobs.
    1. In fact, we don't even hate Bush's top contributor, Enron's Ken Lay, who is not yet in jail.
       1. Even though Enron's market manipulation caused California Democrat Gray Davis to lose the governorship to a Republican.
18. Nor are we angry that ...

ExxonMobil-Cooney Timeline

I could rant and rave about the White House’s ass-licking of the oil industry, but sometimes all it takes is to let the facts speak for themselves:

Seven days ago: "President’s George Bush’s decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world’s most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian."

Also seven days ago: "A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents....The official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors...had already approved." [Note: Cooney was a former lobbyist for the oil industry]

Five days ago: "Philip A. Cooney, the chief of staff to President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, resigned yesterday, White House officials said."

Today: "Philip A. Cooney, the former White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, will go to work for Exxon Mobil this fall, the oil company said yesterday."

Acknowledgement: Kevin Drum

Halliburton Follies

Are you kidding me?  Halliburton charged $27.5 million to get $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel into Iraq?  Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Support The Troops

From The Left Coaster:

Did his duty - then lost his job

Michael Warren, a native of Port Jefferson, L.I., is suing International Business Machines Corp. for firing him because since 9/11 he's been called up too often by the Army Reserves.

And IBM has HOW MANY Pentagon contracts?

The Bankruptcy Bill

Let's start with a story ripped from today's headlines:

In Cleveland, for example, a municipal court judge tossed out a case that Discover Bank brought against one of its cardholders after closely examining the woman's credit card bill.

According to court papers, Ruth M. Owens, a 53-year-old disabled woman, paid the company $3,492 over six years on a $1,963 debt only to find that late fees and finance charges had more than doubled the size of her remaining balance to $5,564.

When the company took her to court to collect, she wrote the judge a note saying, "I would like to inform you that I have no money to make payments. I am on Social Security Disability....If my situation was different I would pay. I just don't have it. I'm sorry."

Judge Robert Triozzi ruled that Owens didn't have to pay, saying Owens "has clearly been the victim of (Discover's) unreasonable, unconscionable and unjust business practices."

Read the whole thing.

Now, that is the rationale behind the new bankruptcy bill, laughingly called "The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ". 

Consumer Protection?  Don't be fooled.  All the bill will do is close the loophole on people like Ms. Owens.  In other words, it is so credit card companies, who already make a huge fortune off of people, can squeeze that last penny out of everybody.

I mean, are credit cards companies hurting because people are declaring bankruptcy?   Nope.  Take a look at this chart here on the right.  Credit card companies profits are skyrocketing.  Yet all this bill does is give protection to the credit card companies.

Let's look at some more info about the credit card industry, this time from the Washington Post:

Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39 a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, [Cardweb CEO Robert] McKinley said. "If you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging," he said. "Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up $900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000 balance can add another $1,000, so you could go from $2,000 to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments."

According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up from $10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the first year the firm began to track penalty fees.

That's a $4 billion increase in penalty revenue in two years in case you're keeping score at home.

And you have to love this: that penalty rate of 30-40% can be imposed for missing a single payment — in fact, in can be imposed for missing a single payment on a different account, like your telephone bill — but a card spokesman said this was perfectly reasonable because it was "clearly disclosed on account applications." Something tells me that their idea of "clearly disclosed" is a wee bit different from most people's.

Bottom line: credit card companies now make half their profits from penalties and late fees. They actively seek out customers who are likely to miss payments and end up in a penalty fee spiral, and they make a fortune from them.

In a normally functioning market there's at least a small incentive to limit loans to these high-risk customers, namely the possibility that they might go bankrupt.  And what does this bankruptcy bill now before Congress do?  It is a brazen attempt to remove even that small but annoying incentive to act responsibly.

Credit card companies want the ability to make risky loans, but they also want federal protection that protects them from bearing the risk that goes along with making those loans. That's a pretty cushy setup, as long as you can buy yourself enough politicians to make it happen.

And apparently they can.  This is corporate welfare at its worst.  Look at some of the amendments that were attached to the bill -- ones that actually might help consumers -- and looked how badly they failed to pass:

• S.AMDT 16 to protect servicemembers and vets -- VOTED DOWN 58-38
• S.AMDT 17 to protect the elderly -- VOTED DOWN 59-40
• S.AMDT 28 to protect people whose own medical problems caused their debt -- VOTED DOWN 58-39
• S.AMDT 29 to protect homeowners with medical debt -- VOTED DOWN 58-39
• S.ADMT 31 to limit the amount of interest charged to 30% -- VOTED DOWN 74-24
• S.AMDT 32 to protect people whose debt is incurred from being caregivers to ill/disabled family members -- VOTED DOWN 60-37
• S.AMDT 37 to protect people whose debt was incurred through identity theft -- VOTED DOWN 61-37
• S.ADMT 38 to protect people from predatory lending practices -- VOTED DOWN 58-40
• S.ADMT 49 to protect employees & retirees from corporate practices that rob them of their earnings/retirement savings when the business files for bankruptcy -- VOTED DOWN 54-40

Source.

There's much more to write about.  But I will leave it to John Podesta from ThinkProgress.org, whose strategy memo is reprinted below the fold.

Cheneyburtongate

Cheney has stated that he has had no role or influence in the government's award of no-competitive-bid contracts to Halliburton.

As Time and CNN are reporting, a March 5, 2003 e-mail puts those comments into question. The email is "an internal Pentagon e-mail from an Army Corps of Engineers official to another Pentagon employee". As the story says:

The e-mail -- dated March 5, 2003 -- says Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, approved the arrangement to award the contract to the oil-services company. According to an e-mail excerpt in Time, the contract was "contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w[ith] VP's office."

. The contract was awarded 3 days later. Time reports the e-mail also says Feith got the "authority to execute RIO," or Restore Iraqi Oil, from his supervisor, Paul Wolfowitz.

Now, all that's bad enough, but listen to the excuses.

[A] senior official told CNN the e-mail was a typical "heads-up" memo from one government agency to another that "a decision has been made, we're about to announce this contract, and as a courtesy we are alerting the White House of a public announcement. This is a standard practice."

The "coordinated action" referred to, the senior administration official said, was "that of publicly announcing the contract decision that has already been made."

So the decision to award the contract to Halliburton had "already been made"? Okay, but then why does the email itself say that the contract was "contingent about informing WH [White House] tomorrow"?

The lame excuse-making goes on:

The heads-up would have been given because of Cheney's previous involvement in the company as chief executive officer, and the anticipated controversy over the noncompetitive bid, the official said.

But the email itself says "We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w[ith] VP's office."

So let me get this straight - - The e-mail was a heads-up that there might be controversy over the Halliburton non-competitive bid contract, yet the email itself says that there would be "no issues . . ."?

Seriously . . . WTF?!?

Cheney Is A Lying Liar

Hat tip to Lizard Queen for catching this recent news item:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President Dick Cheney coordinated a huge Halliburton government contract for Iraq, despite Cheney's denial of interest in the company he ran until 2000.

The March 5, 2003 e-mail, from an Army Corps of Engineers official, said that top Pentagon official Douglas Feith got the job of shepherding the contract, according to the newsweekly Time that hits newsstands Monday.

Feith had approved the multi-billion-dollar deal "contingent on informing WH (the White House) tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w(ith) VP's (vice president's) office," said the e-mail obtained by Time.

The newsweekly said it was three days later that Halliburton won the contract, although no other bids had been submitted.

"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September, Time said.

Whatever . . . you liar.