Philly Saves Homes!

Here's a good article in the NYT about a program in Philly that is saving 80% of foreclosed homes.

Just because this blog is called "Rebecca Rants and Raves ..." (I do way more ranting than raving though don't I?), I'll throw in a rant for good measure:

"Ms. McGrath, a nursing assistant, said she had refinanced her $64,000 loan at 9.75 percent to help pay medical bills. She had expected to pay $1,406 a month, but from the start of the loan she was presented with bills of $1,886, which she could not afford."

Let me just reiterate for the zillionth time - We need Universal Single Payer Healthcare. NOW! (Note that the "single payer" part is key). Think I'm alone? The majority of physicians support universal single payer health care. (Otherwise known as 'Canadian Style' - seriously, when else can you say that outside the realm of bacon?)

Rebecca's Bailout Plan

This might be the only time I will say this: Thank you, thank you House Republicans for voting 'No' to Bush's bullshit "bailout my friends and leave the american people with the debt" plan.

I just got a new issue of the nation with their bailout plan. I haven't read it yet so I'm sure I'll have more to say on this topic later. If you haven't yet, take a glance at Nader on the Bailout and Kucinich's "Main Street Recovery Plan." I, also, saw Paul Krugman on Keith Olberman tonight and he had some good points that found their way here.

First, let's start with what's bad:

1. Buying bank's bad assets. Um, would you buy a house that was ruined by Katrina? No. It's absurd.
2. Giving Bush 700 Billion (or 350 Billion now and 350 Billion later unless you explicitly vote No) to do whatever the fuck he wants. Didn't we already do that in Iraq? Where has that gotten us? Here. That's where.
3. Rewarding people for royaly fucking up the economy ... no, ALL the economies in the whole fucking world. Austrailia's market dropped 15% in the first 5 minutes; Japan dropped 5%. Capitalism is 'sink or swim' but the only businesses that seem to be allowed to sink are small business.
4. Not helping out average americans who are drowning ... BAD. BAD. BAD.

Ok so ... Here's what I think:

1. Yes, we need to help Wall Street. Why? Because they aren't lending to businesses and students and that is the money that makes the world go 'round. Here's what we do: The Treasury buys Preferred Stock in the companies they bail out. Enough stock to have a controlling interest in the company - to prevent ridiculous CEO compensations and ensure that tax payers get their money back ... with interest. This way, if the company is back on it's feet, the tax payers gets payed back by buying low and selling high. If the company goes backrupt, preferred stock holders get paid first.
2. Start with 50 Billion; not 700 Billion
3. In the short term, the Treasury should lend directly to businesses and students alleviating the credit crunch and ensuring, again, that tax payers get their money with interest.
4. Take some of the 700 Billion and create some fucking jobs idiot. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we have an energy and environmental crisis. Let's revive the Tennesee Valley Authority and the Civillian Conservation Corps. Let's build some wind farms all across the country. Let's fund research in energy - I'm sure many of my fellow IT workers at Lehman and other financial institutions would gladly switch over to working in other fields. Gladly. If people have jobs, they have money. They have money, the spend it. Economy better. Seriously, Economics 101 ... and The New Deal 101.
5. Empower bankruptcy judges to renogiate mortgages ... and get rid of any bankruptcy consequences for 6 months to 1 year of the new mortgage. If you still default, then you can ruin your credit.
6. Regulate the fucking economy. Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave guys. This is not capitalism. For example: increase the requirements for buying on margin (buying stock with money you don't have), tax speculation, regulate derivatives; re-instate Glass-Steagall (separate commercial from investment banking).
   

A few things I'd do after the immediate crisis passed:

1. Give stockholders real rights. Stockholders - the owners of a company - should be approving things like executive pay. Let's incentivize companies to do the right thing.
   
2. Expand Medicare and create a universal, single payer health care. NOW. No one should go bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills. (Currently, half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills).
   

There's so many more things we should do - take a look at Kucinich's comprehensive plan - but these are the most obvious and pressing I think.

Some parting thoughts:

- "... there are no libertarians in a financial crisis." Paul Krugman on Real Time with Bill Maher
- Aren't you glad Bush didn't succeed to privatizing Social Security???

Understanding Science ...

I think most competent, intelligent people would agree that our society - mostly fueled by right wing fundamentalist Christians and/or oil execs - is seeing a major assault on science. I would argue that this is more pervasive than even the standard anti-climate change conservatives; it is perpetrated by our poor education system as well as left wing radical animal rights activists, a lazy, profit drive media, and others. My views on that are for another post but the point is that it is clear that there are many misunderstandings about how science works. So here is an incomplete list of things I'd like to see more widely understood about science:

1. Yes, science is based on "theories" but those theories are upheld by consensus among experts in the field. How do you know if a theory, climate change for example, has passed the test? A good rule of thumb is that it is published in a peer reviewed journal. I found a great guide to understanding peer review in the scientific community here. The key points are:

• "Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published. This system is called peer review.
• Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field check research papers for validity, significance and originality – and for clarity.
• Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish them.
• Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
• Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a high chance of being flawed.
• So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical research is, you must always ask… Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?"

2. Almost all research is government funded, especially medical and pharmaceutical research. Just in case you buy the argument that if we had universal, single payer health care that medical "innovation" would take a down turn, you're wrong. (Actually, it's possible that it would take an upturn because the government would actually get compensated for successful drug research. Anyway ...) Most drugs are developed by government funded research grants and then handed over, free of charge, to pharmaceutical companies to market and produce ... in a monopoly for the first few years. (Yay for "free" markets! <- sarcasm)

3. Just because a break-through didn't come directly out of previous research doesn't mean that the break through could have happened without that research. Understanding what doesn't work is just as important, and sometimes more important, than understanding what does.

I'm not the only one with the Great Depression on the mind ....

... according to the consumerist

The Largest Rally in Alaska History was for ... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Despite the angering total lack of respect for life and liberty and the lack of ethics or morality by a conservative, Alaska talk show host, this article about the rally for Alaska Women Reject Palin - the largest rally EVER in the state of Alaska - is quite uplifting.

Biggest Rally in Alaska History... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Oh, FDR, how I adore thee

"The present administration has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army. These unhappy times call for ... plans ... that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the pyramid." - FDR

The Great Depression v2.0

I've been saying or hinting for a while now that the current fiscal crisis we are in is absolutely akin to the Great Depression. I think most people think (thought?) that I was overreacting. Well, now I'm, sadly, not the only one.

McCain & Hoover: The fundamentals are strong!
"The day before Hoover insisted that the fundamentals were strong was the day that came to be known as Black Thursday, when in heavy trading the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 9 percent of its value. And while, in endless stock-footage documentaries showing images of dumbfounded traders over a soundtrack of mournful jazz clarinets, the crash is supposed to begin the Great Depression, it wasn't quite so. The real cause was the collapse of the banking system, which followed the crash in part because Hoover believed strong fundamentals would protect the economy from disaster."

The panic sets in ...:
"At some point, the new president might have to do what FDR did in the wreckage of early 1933--declare a "bank holiday" and announce emergency rules to govern banking and finance until the crisis is broken. For the country's sake, I think this a better approach than buying up junked banks and failed financial firms, one by one. People have the right to ask: what exactly are the rest of us getting for our money?"

I know that after eight years of a President who respects neither the constitution or history I shouldn't be surprised. But really, who hasn't heard the old adage that those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. (Actually, the quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it")

Mostly, when I employ this adage, I'm talking abou t the economy; about, what I see as, the fundamental lesson we learned during the Great Depression: that the government plays a fundamental role in the economy, both to ensure stability and to ensure true capitalistic competition or consumer protection when capitalistic competition is impossible (utilities for example). Ok, all of that didn't come directly out of the Great Depression. The latter came out of the Gilded Age but I thought I'd throw it in for good measure.

Anyway, my point is this: the financial crisis were are seeing is a) exactly what happened during the Great Depression (run on banks causing a crash of the economy), b) a direct result of the financial deregulation of the last two decades, especially the repeals of the Glass-Steagall Acts (a trend that, instead of being nipped in the bud by the government - you know, the one bailing out these free market corporations - is being continued by the process.), and c) is only not as a bad as the Great Depression (well, so far - fingers crossed) because we still have some remnants of the New Deal era regulations and safe guards in place.

Seriously, what is wrong with this country? Why do people buy this bullshit? How is it that I, a financial and economic lay person by most accounts, can say 'I told you so' and we have the top honchos of Wall Street scurrying around trying to justify their greed?

*Just because I know what people assume: I believe in capitalism. But, like, real capitalism. Capitalism that involves competition by many, consumer protections (because consumers are a part of the market too!), government regulation to ensure that competition exists and is fair or, in industries, that lend themselves to monopolies (utilities), ensure that corporations aren't taking advantage of consumers, and little to no government subsidies to private enterprises. I, particularly, believe in supporting and nurturing small business in America. Also, I do believe there are some things that do not benefit from being motivated by profit - education, health care, and the military in particular. Most importantly, though, I believe it's the role of the economy to serve society; not the other way around.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bullshit ....

In writing my last post, I was googling to try to find the democratic party official or worker or something who said that while working for the democratic party, he didn't have to listen to the left at all. Instead, I came across a random blog - I guess it can't be that random if it showed up in google's first page search results - some guy wrote about how both the Democrats and Republicans have it wrong. Don't get me wrong, as evidenced by my voting for Nader, I think both parties have a lot of shaping up to do. However, this guy's reasons for why the democrats need to shape up are right out of the Fox News play book. Seriously, dude, seriously.

Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:

Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because

1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.

Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.


3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai

The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.


5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?

Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.

6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.

I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.


7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).

Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...

Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.

Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.

In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.


-- End Inappropriate Comment --

Why I'm Voting for Nader

I thought I'd start my election '08 blogging off with why I'm voting for Nader. True, I'm a little late on the uptake - in more ways than one. Firstly, I've been meaning to write this post for some time but haven't had a chance until now. Secondly, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004 so why, - you might ask - in 2008, would I vote for him?

Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.

Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.

The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."

Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.

So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.