Looks like the library is a go.

Told ya so.

SD-55 race challenger David Nachbar delivered his second ad.

It is another positive themed ad with the tag line, “Maybe it takes someone from business to mean business”.

I like how this ad uses lawn signs to represent growing support for David Nachbar’s candidacy.

What do you think?

The 1370 Connection covered a lot of ground during the show with David Cay Johnston.  Johnston is a smart, plain-spoken man who not only knows his stuff but knows how to get it across.  It’s no wonder he’s a prize-winning author.  Rochester is just a little cooler because we’ve got a guy like him around.

It’s tough to boil down what got us into this mess and what we need to do going forward, but somehow Johnston managed to put it into soundbites that don’t insult the intelligence.  I’ve put them below in case you didn’t want to read my transcript of (most of) the show. (I welcome any corrections.)

Just one of the many services we provide here at RT.

On the Bush/Paulson plan and priorities:

This is the plan: Paulson could buy whatever assets he wants, at whatever price he wants. No requirement that he look for best price for taxpayers.  Oversight board would include Paulson and Bernake. [i.e. Fox & henhouse].

We couldn’t afford $7B/year for schip, providing healthcare to kids, but we can afford this?

On the corruption driving the immediate crisis:

Backstory: Lehman bros collapse triggered this.  Paulson decided not to help Lehman.  Why? Goldman Sachs (Paulson’s company before he became Treasury Sec) is competitor to Lehman.  Only non-gov’t person in room when deciding to not help Lehman Bros was the CURRENT head of Goldman Sachs.

Congress needs to bring in Goldman Sachs execs under oath.  How much of this bailout is to protect Goldman Sachs?

On what the American people need to do:

Call congress: We want options.  We want the least expensive solution.

On the problem with corporate capitalism:

Congress doesn’t respond to the voters. Gerrymandering has made most districts either safe Dem or safe GOP.  Congress responds to the political donor class.  Americans hopefully are realizing that our country has outsourced itself to people that make money off bad business decisions that are bad for America.

On why it’s not how much you’re taxed, it’s how that tax money is invested:

I was just in Europe interviewing people for new book, on finances. In Stockholm, a group of bus drivers owned two homes (city and country), free and clear.  what are the chances of that in the US?  They pay the highest taxes in the world. 85% higher taxes than in the US. It all depends on what you spend those taxes on. Most swedes have a higher standard of living than we do.  Why?  Their taxes go to oil the wheels of commerce, alt energy, mass transit, health care, etc.

On bailouts in general:

A study of bailouts show that bailouts don’t work.  They reward the bad decsions. They keep in practice the same things that got in the mess. They’re a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

On why it’s patriotic to pay taxes, especially if you’re rich:

The reason that we have democracy is: no wealth without civilization.  The greater the wealth of civilization has helped you, the greater your moral burden to help civilization back.

A simple explanation of what Wall St. is hoping the bailout will do:

There’s a fundamental thing going on: through government action and inaction, Wall St. has inflated all kinds of assets.  They have to come back down.  There’s no escaping that pain. And Wall St. wants YOU to absorb the pain.

On the anti-capitalist danger of mega mergers:

[Companies that are] too big to fail? That’s not capitalism. Why are we getting more consolidation?  We need more competition, not more consolidation.

On why you NEED regulation:

The bailout happened because banks came to lawmakers and said: get rid of government regulations, we know how to manage money.

Compare that to if you went to state government, and say “Most drivers are responsible, let’s get rid of speed limits, DWI laws, etc.”  Regulation is not for the responsible, but when people make bad choices.

On what the government needs to do next:

DCJ: The market is not the problem. The problem is, who holds these illiquid assets?  If they’re highly concentrated in few banks, let them fail.

BS: And eliminate the bad debt.

DCJ: Right. If they’re spread around, it’s a bigger problem.  We need to find out where these assets are, and strategically apply the least expensive solution.  Know first, then act.

“Know first, then act.” Sound advice.  Reminds me of my Dad advising me to not “run off all half-cocked”.

Today is Mendon’s vote for Library funding.  Polls are open from 1:00-9:00 PM.

This is rough, I’ll try to clean up later. But DCJ’s suggestion on the next step is to call Congress and say “We want options.  We want the least expensive solution.”

—–

David Cay Johnston: calls are running 300-1 against.

People are saying, I call my banker, there’s no problem.  My bank keeps calling me and offering me loans.  A number of bizmen tell me that there’s no problem with their biz.

One proposal is to  sell preferred assets.

My thoughts: temporary moratorium on bankruptcy laws.

Other plans aren’t being discussed.

This is the plan: Paulson could buy whatever assets he wants, at whatever price he wants. No requirement that he look for best price for taxpayers.  Oversight board would include Paulson and Bernake. [i.e. Fox & henhouse].

Couldn’t afford 7B/year for schip, providing healthcare to kids, but can afford this?

Bob Smith: question of priorities,then.

DCJ: Congress should hold hearings, bring in folks with different plans.

Backstory: Lehman bros collapse triggered this.  Paulson decided not to help Lehman.  Why? Goldman Sachs (Paulson’s company before he became Treasury Sec) is competitor to Lehman.  Only non-gov’t person in room when deciding to not help Lehman Bros was the CURRENT head of Goldman Sachs.

Congress needs to bring in Goldman Sachs execs under oath.  How much of this bailout is to protect Goldman Sachs?

Gareth in Rochester: POV of people in street.  Old retired school teacher.  Unfair for me to pay off mortgage offered by a bank or who overshot price of house.  What about huge Wall St. CEO Salaries?

DCJ: Understanding of both issues is not correct.  Gov’t is not bailing out homeowners.  Homeowners were lured into mort where docs were changed.  People still have to pay mortgage, even if gov’t is now holding loan.

Bill appears to have caps on exec.  But no teeth in rules.  Execs will say: I’ll gladly wait 5 years for my 100B bonus, if you bail me out for my bad decisions today.

BS: what about ways comps get around salary?

DCJ: they are very good at getting around these things.  If we had a tax on really high wages, like >$10M, it would have an enormous effect.

BS: So we’d have a more progressive system, and in effect a salary cap.

DCJ: People who make 100-200k, you pay a higher share in taxes than those >10M.

BS: Tax rate is progressive until you get to top 99.9%.  Then you get the Bush tax cuts.

Andrew in Irond: 2 questions. 1) Did the gov’t get us into this mess by getting poor people into houses?

DCJ: Not true.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated just fine for 60+ years.  Then decided we needed to deregulate banks and the shadow financial markets during Reagan years.

Andrew: Why didn’t Barney Frank reform it in 2003?

DCJ: He was in the minority then, plus Bush promised to veto any re-regulation.

Call congress: We want options.  We want least expensive solution.

Bush/Paulson proposal gave Paulson unconstitutional powers.

Andrew: Have they done anything about sound regulation?

DCJ: Not yet.

Andrew: They can keep doing the crazy stuff they’re doing?

DCJ: Absolutely!  You can go on internet and still find ads for low interest loans.

Andrew: They won’t even stop this stuff??

DCJ: Congress doesn’t respond to the voters. Gerrymandering has made most districts either safe Dem or safe GOP.  Congress responds to the political donor class.  Americans hopefully are realizing that our country has outsourced itself to people that make money off bad business decisions that are bad for America.

More below.

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Bob Smith was giving a brief preview of the show this morning, and at 1 PM he’s going to have Brightonian David Cay Johnston on, talking about “why the bailout plan that failed yesterday may not have been such a good idea after all” (in Smith’s words, roughly). Here’s the number for the show if you want to call in: 585-263-9994.

Macro-economist Dean Baker on Diane Rehm this morning:

For the last 10 years, we’ve been warning about this bubble forming [due to the degregulation and subsequent Wall St. Gone Wild!], Paulson, Bush, Bernanke all said there’s no bubble.  And we’re supposed to trust them?  [The failure of the bailout bill] is an example of democracy working.

…

If we’d kept all the rules that were put in place the last time this happened, we would’ve avoided all this.

My wife just called and said excitedly “He says all the same stuff you’ve been saying, but really well!”  Gee, thanks.

And how about that not-so-secret conference call where Paulson’s “Treasury Boys” assured Wall St. executives that they were planning on ignoring what feeble safeguards that Congressional Dems had managed to get into the bill.

Even Krugman, tepid supporter of the bailout, wrote today:

What if we turn to a different and better plan…

Whatever form the ultimate plan takes (and it’s sounding like they’re working the next proposal even now), I’d like to see this be part of it:

- Give Paulson $150 billion, with the transparency and oversight of the bailout bill that just got voted down. Better yet, instead of vesting one person with that much power, set up a Reinvestment Finance Corporation like we did during the S&L scandal.

- Include the Blue Dogs’ plan for a financial industry tax, or Bernie Sanders millionaire surtax.

- Pass $50 billion in job-creating infrastructure spending, and $50 billion in aid to struggling homeowners.

- Repeal the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act.

- Include provisions allowing judges to renegotiate the terms of subprime loans, as well as the executive compensation limits and the equity stake language - only make the language much tighter so as to require these things, rather than merely urging them.

The more that comes out the more it’s clear that the plan was a corrupt attempt to throw what’s left of our money at a problem, by giving it to the very people who caused the problem, and leaving the rest of us to clean up.  And our grandchildren, as well.

If you can keep your head about you when all about you are losing theirs…..(thank you Rudyard Kipling)

NY-25th Congressional Candidate, Dan Maffei released this statement and plan yesterday:

“Last week I outlined four steps I felt needed to be taken in order for any proposed bailout plan to be successful,” said Maffei. “Unfortunately what we have is a rushed plan that contains very little help for homeowners while providing a massive bailout to Wall Street big banks. As the New York Times has reported, there is no guarantee this will work. And, perhaps worst of all, we are depending on the big banks and same Bush Administration officials that got us into this mess in the first place.”

[snip]

“This legislation simply gives President Bush too much discretion, and we have seen the disastrous effects of these kinds of policies in the past with this administration,” said Maffei.

Maffei said that while bad debt assets are being purchased, the deal contains no guarantee that more lending will happen in the future. He said a better plan would include:

• More help for homeowners. They need a simple way to restructure their mortgages to help them stay in their homes.

• A $100 billion infrastructure fund to pump money into the economy. If Wall Street has been helped, it’s important we keep American workers on the job.

• Restrictions on greed. The greed on Wall Street won’t be restricted without a way for the U.S. Government to eliminate the ability for CEO’s to make huge bonuses without regard for their companies or the economy as a whole.

As Stlo7 has written:

Skepticism is the watchword. We don’t have to rush head long like fools to resolve this bail out.

That’s all we’ve been saying here-take your time, consider 700 billion dollars, wrap your head around it slowly and realize that no man, or institution should be given that much power, carte blanc.

Rochester for Obama went to Erie, PA this past weekend.  Here’s how it went, in their words, not mine:

Several Rochester Obama volunteers traveled to Erie, Pennsylvania today to canvass neighborhoods. We met at 6:50 a.m. (yes - that’s in the morning! at Pittsford Plaza. With bagels in hand we departed, three vehicles with eleven people. This group included volunteers as young as 14 and 16, and as old as two of the women, one in her 60s, the other in her 70s (But both easily more energetic than I!) As we drove, we reviewed some of Obama’s positions and discussed how we would answer certain questions. And of course, we also discussed last night’s debate. An easy two and a half to three hours later, we arrived at the Obama headquarters in downtown Erie.

When we arrived we encountered another six to eight people from the Rochester area. Almost 20 people from Rochester today!

The headquarters are located in a building on the corner of French and East 10th Street. The office is bright, spacious, and consistently busy with people entering data on computers, making phone calls, sorting literature and walking packets, and greeting those who entered. We were offered pretzels and donuts, and gathered for a briefing as to what we would be doing. There were several staff there - some paid staff, and some likely volunteers. Among the paid staffers (I’m assuming she is being paid) is a young woman named Brittany from Irondequoit, who has taken off time from college to work for the campaign.

All of the Erie office staff remained busy as we came in and out of the office through the day. Packets and other documents were checked and sorted in neatly labeled drawers - voter registrations that were complete, voter registrations that needed to have additional information added to be completed, walking lists that were completed, lists that weren’t, and phone lists. The organization was impressive.

And what about the Erie voters? We met a mix. Erie is a town that seems battered by hard economic times. Some voters were easily Obama voters; others less satisfied with him but planning on voting for him despite what they perceived to be his lack of experience. Many, even registered Democrats, were undecided and many said they wouldn’t be voting. Those seemed to affect our group most profoundly - these voters seemed to have just given up. Some were McCain voters, and a few were just plain odd.

One young man from Buffalo, who must have had the magic touch, described how he transformed several McCain voters to Obama voters. And of course, on a Saturday afternoon, many people weren’t home.

Is it worth it?

A post on fivethirtyeight.com describes a Yale Study “for every twelve voters who you talk to at their doors, one voter goes and votes who would not otherwise have voted.”

So if folks are thinking about a drive to view foliage, why not stop for a few hours in Pennsylvania or Ohio to help canvass the local neighborhoods. Contact Rochester for Obama at, http://www.rochesterforobama.com/ , if you’re interested in an upcoming trip.

Good for them

Check out Dollinger’s latest Ad. We got an early preview and like it.  We think you will like it too.

It will start airing this morning.  I have a note into the campaign asking if they can tell me the duration of the ad run.

Anyway, you see Dollinger’s face, hear his voice and see his name.

We have always maintained that Dollinger can close the gap and defeat Joe Robach in November.  In terms of Ads, this is a step in the right direction or, if you like, will help continue to build on the previous ads and other activities and help build momentum going forward.

Now, it depends how often it will be aired.    There are 35 days until the election.

The Dollinger Campaign, like most campaigns, read us regularly, so let them know what you think about the Ad.

Driving through Mendon and northern Ontario county on an errand last week, I saw dozens of Obama signs, some, unexpectedly, in the most rural of places. I also saw a few Massa signs, and in Mendon, tons of “Vote Yes” signs for the Mendon Library. Here’s a sampling:

I’ve heard tell that “lawn signs don’t win elections”. Of course they don’t, getting 50+1% of the voters wins elections. I haven’t seen any studies correlating number & placement of lawn signs with electoral performance, but I do know this: lawn signs increase voter awareness of your candidate, and the more that are out there, the more swing voters are curious about why your candidate has all the dang support, and the more the supporters feel free to express their support. I know my morale sure got boosted a lot more than when I drive through Brighton.

Am I missing something? I’m willing to be educated here. How is less visibility better for your candidate than more visibility? (Sarah Palin excepted, of course.)

ladkiddo here: Lawn signs may not win elections, but you’re not going to win an election without them. Let me say just 2 words: Name recognition.

This video has completely changed my mind.  Watch it.  I think you’ll be convinced too.

So, Jim Alesi, Randy Kuhl, John McCain and Sarah Palin-I think this video does a supreme job of showing us Progressives the error of our ways.  What have we been thinking?

Our weekend in Akron was happily successful.  26 people from Rochester made up the group.  Before we headed back out on Sunday, the group had knocked on 900 doors, made contact with 300 voters and swayed a total of 26.  In 2004’s election, Kerry lost by 9 votes per precinct in Ohio.  I’d say we did very well.

The biggest issue out there, unfortunately, seems to be Pro-life vs Pro-choice.

It was my experience that former Hillary voters had come over to Obama’s side, albeit somewhat grudgingly and they wanted to voice their frustration that Hillary was not picked for VP.

There are caravans going out to swing states regularly.  Check out rochesterforobama’s website if you would like to get involved.   The calendar is right there, so you can work it into your schedule.  I will be traveling to Cleveland over the election weekend and staying past election.  I encourage anyone who cares about the future of our children, our country and our world to become an activist for Hope!

The bill failed in the House by a vote of 205-228. Democrats voted 140 to 95 for the bill, while Republicans voted 65 to 133 against it.

The four members of Congress from Monroe County voted as follows:

• NY-25: Retiring Republican Rep. James Walsh voted “aye”
• NY-26: Retiring Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds voted “aye”
• NY-28: Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter voted “aye”
• NY-29: Republican Congressman Randy Kuhl was the only one who voted “no”

Frequent commenter Andrea raised an understandable concern about the dangers of not passing a bailout, after all, none of us (front pagers and commenters alike) are one o’ them fancy city economists. Especially with progressive economist Paul Krugman’s “better than a sharp stick in they eye/hope they fix it next year” lukewarm support.

I’m not against A bailout, but I sure as hell am against this bailout, and when commenter davesnyd says the plan doesn’t pass the “smell test”, he’s not far from why I’m opposed to this plan.  There’s plenty of specific reasons (it rewards the people who got us into this mess, doesn’t protect us, and doesn’t re-regulate the financial market), but my gut-feel reservations come down to two main points:

1. This plan was proposed in haste by the Bush administration.  When has this administration ever acted in good faith?  Remember, these are the same people who still want to privatize Social Security.
2. There are a few other (decent) plans on the table. Why haven’t they been let see the light of day? Here’s a couple:

The SEIU plan is here. The progressive caucus plan is here (page one and page two).  There are alternatives to this piece of s@@t.  Democrats should not have listened to their leadership, because they are now on record for a massive bailout of Washington, DC.  And the Republicans lied to them about being able to deliver the votes.

Doesn’t this whole thing remind you of the FAIR plan a little?  Maggie Brooks unveils the Plan amid claims of a county in crisis, then a mad dash to the GOP majority voting it in less than 2 hours later. Denying any opportunity to review or propose alternative plans. How did that work out for us?  I’m a little fuzzy on it but if I recall I believe it really really sucked.

My opinion: if we’re going to do something of this magnitude– we’re mortgaging our children’s future with this kind of money– let’s do it right.

Update: Sirota’s simple question:

Anyone who thinks we should pass the $700 billion bailout bill as is needs to answer a simple question: How does handing over $700 billion to Wall Street help the economy any more than, say, handing over $700 billion to homeowners, or spending $700 billion on a New Deal-style full employment program? In fact, you have to answer an even simpler question: How is handing over $700 billion to Wall Street a BETTER way to save the economy than helping homeowners or investing in the economy?

In considering this bill, the burden of proof is on those who want to spend 5% of our entire economy on a gift to Wall Street. If you can’t answer that simple question, then I would suggest the White House fearmongering - the same kind that we all bewailed during the lead up to the Iraq invasion - is inhibiting your ability to think clearly. And not a single supporter of this bill - not Paul Krugman, not Brad DeLong, not Nancy Pelosi, not Henry Paulson, not ANYONE - has been able to answer this very simple question. The only thing most of the proponents have done is make a substance-free political argument - that this is supposedly the “only thing that can pass,” even though DEMOCRATS CONTROL BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

I’d say being able to answer basic questions should be a prerequisite for spending 5% of our economy.

Contact your member of Congress and ask them to go back to the drawing board and pass a plan that includes re-regulation, New Deal style economic stimulus, bankruptcy reform, homeowner aid and a speculators’ tax.

How far would you go to express your outrage at the corporate bailout?  Here’s what Sandor and Tracey Bors did: living on busy Jefferson Road, they realized their house was an ideal location to remind everyone to call Congress to protest the bailout.  They’re part of a wave of indignation that is sweeping the nation, crossing party lines, as Americans everywhere finally realize the bill of goods we’ve been literally sold by corporate America. So this Pittsford family put up a sign:

Call Congress Now!

I spoke with Sandor and Tracey yesterday on what drove them to take this unusual step.  They were clearly angry about the proposed bailout as it stands, but I was impressed with how calmly, clearly, and firmly they spoke about it.  Here’s Tracey:

It’s [the bailout] is foisting the errors of Wall St. on the public.  It blows me away, it’s absolutely unbelievable. Wall St. is now dictating policy, and it’s unconstitutional.

They’ve been talking with everyone they know about this, and I asked what kind of response they’ve been getting.

Righteous indignation. People are fired up [against it]. They know that it’s unconstitutional.

At that point, Sandor joined the conversation and added:

It’s not a left vs. right issue.  It’s financial terrorism. A handful of bankers are dictating policy. It’s not right for us to just give them [Wall St.] money without fixing the problems [like rampant de-regulation] that allowed this to happen.

One thing about this issue, people across the board are getting fired up and involved, and it’s great to see, since how we handle this may be the single most pivotal event in recent history.

As I was taking the picture, a man who just happened to be walking past said to me out of the blue “Do the math.”  He explained.  “They’re talking about $700 Billion, and about 1.5 million mortgages?  That averages out to $500,000/mortgage.  You think there are that many mortgages out there for $500,000?  We’re paying for all kinds of extra stuff.”  Like CEO bonuses and golden parachutes? “Yeah, just like that.”

Here’s my takeaway messages from the interview:  1) why are we letting bankers dictate unconstitutional policy, without fixing the underlying problems that got us here? 2) The math pretty much proves that we’re using taxpayer dollars for a lot of extra stuff.

Note: Ugh.  The “deal” that Congress reached over the weekend is still horrible– basically lipstick on the pig that was the original plan.  We’re selling out our future to save Wall St. CEOs.  Even if you called your Rep and Senators, time to call them again and keep the pressure on.  Say “Hell no!” to this non-solution to the non-crisis.

Update: The plan was voted down. Yay. The American People won this one.  If Congress wants to do something about this, do it right and make us proud.