Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races
$
John Larson
(1st CD)
$
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)
$
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)
$
Jim Himes
(4th CD)
$
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)
$
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

Resources
2007 Legislative "Heroes and Zeroes"
2007 "Worst Republicans In The State"
2007 "Worst Democrats In The State"
CT Congressional Delegation and the Progressive Agenda
CT Clean Elections Funding Explained
Federal Legislative Advocacy Toolkit
State Legislative Advocacy Toolkit
 
 
My Left Nutmeg
Bailout

Did Chris Dodd Actually Agree to This?

by: CaptCT

Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 08:47:28 AM EST

George Bush is asking for the rest of the $700 billion bailout money, and unless Congress shows some collective spine, he's likely to get it.

From today's Washington Post:

Senior Bush administration officials, consulting with the Obama transition team, have prepared a plan to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package [...]

Under the emergency rescue legislation approved by Congress in October, the administration must inform lawmakers that it wants access to the second installment of $350 billion. Unless Congress passes a resolution rejecting the request within 15 days, the Treasury can begin to tap the funds. If Congress turns down the request, the president could veto the resolution and then the Treasury could proceed. The money would be blocked only if Congress overrides the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Why would the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, someone who has seen the Bush Administration mismanage virtually everything it touches, agree to those kinds of conditions?  

Discuss :: (9 Comments)

Whose Idea Was It?

by: CaptCT

Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:59:56 AM EDT

The Senate bailout plan included one measure that everyone seemed to think was a good idea: raising the FDIC cap to $250,000. Whose idea was it? Chris Shays thinks it was his. For a reality check, follow the timeline below:

Monday Sept. 22: Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen introduces a bill to increase the FDIC cap to $200,000, as part of the $700 billion bailout plan.

Monday, Sept. 29: Chris Shays steals Cohen's idea and introduces a bill to raise the FDIC cap to $300,000.

Tuesday, Sept. 30: After discussing options for the bailout package with Democratic leaders, Barack Obama announced a similar proposal to increase the FDIC cap to $250,000, which becomes a key part of the Senate bill.

Wednesday Oct 1: The RNC accuses Obama of stealing Shays' idea to raise the FDIC cap, and Shays goes along with the ruse and accepts credit.

Shortly after that: Gullible writers print the Republican fairy tale, leaving Rep Cohen -- the one who originated the idea -- dumbfounded:

Democratic leaders and I have been discussing this issue for well over a week now, and we certainly welcome the support of Republican Leadership and rank-and-file Republicans to ensure it becoming a part of the rescue plan. So, imagine my surprise yesterday when I found out about a memo being distributed by RNC spokesperson Alex Conant with the headline, "Sen. Obama Steals FDIC Idea from House Republican."

It is true that my friend, Congressman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) introduced a bill on September 29th that would have raised the FDIC cap to $300,000 (H.R. 7235), but he introduced that legislation a full week after I did.

Just another day of "bipartisan leadership," Chris Shays style.
 

Discuss :: (8 Comments)

A Law Professor's View of the Bailout

by: Violet

Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 19:30:09 PM EDT

On September 24th, Steven Ramirez, a professor of law at Loyola University Chicago, gave a very interesting presentation called "The Subprime Debacle & Subprime Bailouts: Subprime Enforcement, Subprime Accountability, & Subprime Responsibility."  

Professor Ramirez kindly wrote down his thoughts and sent me a copy of what he has to say about the mess and his proposed solutions for resolving it.  After you read this, you'll know more than McCain.

If you agree with his solution, please pass this information on to others and contact your senators/representatives.


A Law Professor's View of the Bailout

by Steven Ramirez

Published in its entirety with his permission

The single most remarkable fact regarding the subprime debacle is the breathtaking recklessness of the lenders that now seek the most massive public bailout in the history of the US.  

As shown below, the default rates on loans originated in 2006 and 2007 exceeds 30 percent.  These loans never should have been made and no bank can survive these kinds of default rates-the losses implied from these default rates will wipe out the interest paid on the entire underlying portfolio and much bank capital.  Further, because billions of dollars of such loans were made, their rapid default destroyed the nation's real estate market.

Photobucket

Since 2007 It's Even Worse...

  • "At the end of June, 5.35 percent of prime loans were past due or in foreclosure, up from 4.93 in March. By contrast, 30.48 percent of subprime loans were past due or in foreclosure, up from 29.53 percent."  NY TIMES, 9/5/08

  • Overall, delinquencies on 2007 prime jumbo loans rose to 3.22 percent in July, while Alt-A loan delinquencies increased to 14.56 percent. . . .Defaults on subprime loans from last year hit 31.25 percent."  Reuters - 8/22/08

The line between recklessness and intentional wrongdoing is often thin.  Recklessness may include inexplicable stupidity, but sometimes inexplicable stupidity may be explained by following money.  

There's More... :: (1 Comments, 1141 words in story)

Pick Your Poison

by: CaptCT

Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM EDT

Right now, Congressional Democrats are buying into a bailout plan that lacks details. There's a huge rush to take action, or else the world as we know it will end, or so we're told (sound familiar?). Why the rush, and why hasn't Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, provided details? Here's some analysis by Paul Krugman:

[T]he bipartisan "agreement on principles" released on Thursday looks a lot better than the original Paulson plan. In fact, it puts Mr. Paulson himself under much-needed adult supervision, calling for an oversight board "with cease and desist authority." It also limits Mr. Paulson's allowance: he only (only!) gets to use $250 billion right away.

Meanwhile, the agreement calls for limits on executive pay at firms that get federal money. Most important, it "requires that any transaction include equity sharing."

Why is that so important? ... What taxpayers should get is what people who provide capital are entitled to: a share in ownership. And that's what the equity sharing is about.

The trouble is no one knows what that equity share is.

What prices will taxpayers pay to take over some of that toxic waste? How much equity will they get in return? Those numbers will make all the difference.

Neither Chris Dodd nor Barney Frank nor anyone else on the banking committee seems to want to give out any details ...

Other plans have been suggested as well, including this one by James Galbraith, who suggests the bailout isn't even necessary, and this one by Bernie Sanders.

Clearly there are a lot of ideas being left on the table in a rush to    .... where, exactly? The last time Congress was bullied and panicked into making a rash decision like this, we ended up in Iraq.  

Discuss :: (6 Comments)

Dodd MUST support Bernie Sanders 4 Bailout Principles

by: ctkeith

Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 09:07:29 AM EDT

Here is Sen. Berie Sanders op-ed

Newsroom / Archives
Sanders Op-Ed: Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? -- 09/19/2008

By Senator Bernie Sanders

The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration.  These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.  

The middle class has really been under assault.  Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s.  The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.  The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president.  In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout.  The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all.  This is absurd.  This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:

(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout.  It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities.  Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.

Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:

a)  Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers.  That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;

b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and

c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up.

(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages.  Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.  Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing.  We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.

(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation.  That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999.  That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices.  That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.

(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are "too big too fail," that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy.  If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.  We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up.  Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation's largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation's largest brokerage house.  We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions.  Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.

---------------------------------------------------
Sen. Dodd,as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, will have a major role in the writing of the 1.5 TRILLION BAILOUT that will be pushed through both houses of Comgress this week.Please contact Sen Dodds offices Monday and INSIST Dodd use Bernie Sanders 4 principles as a template for any Bailout Legislation.

U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
448 Russell Building | Washington D.C., 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2823 | Fax: (202) 224-1083

30 Lewis St Suite 101 | Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 258-6940/(800) 334-5341 -CT only
Fax: (860) 258-6958  

Discuss :: (8 Comments)
 
8 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links
Connecticut's War Dead

MLN Facebook Group

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Joe Courtney (CD2)
- Jim Himes (CD4)
- Chris Murphy (CD5)
- Ned Lamont
- Dan Malloy
- Tim O'Brien (HD24)
- Matt Lesser (HD100)
- Deb Heinrich (HD101)
- Lonnie Reed (HD102)
- Kim Fawcett (HD133)

Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin

More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Return to front page

Powered by: SoapBlox