contact your Senator
contact your Representative
representative offices

or course, some of use don't have a vote in congress, just sayin'

.

My Zone 5b Representatives and Senators -- and, unfortunately, their lines weren't busy, so get to work, people!

Although I also called Clinton (to thank her for leading on HOLC) and Obama (to request a little leadership) and their lines were busy, so that is a good result.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

i was just coming over to post this. heh. gtma, n shit.

"i'll have him get back with you on that."

he's a republican. and i swear, i'm going to do...something drastic if/when this passes. his office is right up the road, and it's not like my business is so jumpin that i won't have the time to take some action.

i really hate these fuckers.

Could either be full or partial (partial meaning govt takes an equity stake and some say in management). Krugman has been all over this. Chuck Schumer threw out a proposal to this effect right before the Paulson proposal went out.

Voinovich and Mean Jean give a damn.

I don't know what I'm talking about, really, but calls historically haven't worked. This seems like something there could be large demonstrations about this weekend if they could be organized, particularly in NY and D.C., but I would think every major city could get people out. The question is how?

Because right now, this is all starting to sound very familiar. Buried in the NYT article, is this very depressing paragraph:

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, made clear earlier that she would push for a stimulus initiative, likely as part of the budget resolution Congress must adopt before adjourning. Such a plan could include an increase in unemployment benefits and spending on infrastructure projects to create jobs.

Now, that's talking about a different bill, the budget resolution, but I don't think there's going to be a budget, although there may be a continuing resolution. But Bush will have no problem vetoing that and then the Dems will cave. Historically the way the Dems have reacted to bad Bush Administration initiatives is to let the GOP buy their support through spending bills. That's what they did with the Energy Bill buying off enough Dems to get the votes (including Obama). And then more recently with Iraq (hope their constituents like their new bridges, kids died to pay for them). It also echoes an email a lawmaker sent Open Left:

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

And why would I be so worried that this will all end with Democratic capitulation? First lawmakers are emailing bloggers, which shows they're worried about where this is headed and trying to up the pressure, IMO. Second, this diagram of potential action provided by another lawmaker (at least I think it's another one) to Open Left sounds all too familiar:

Here's the industry's play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she'll agree to push for their proposals, and she'll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy's crazy ideas would be, and how we can't rush into something like that without much, much more thought. Maybe Barney will try to talk to Dennis or Melissa, but it will become apparent quickly that they have no idea what they're talking about; they're just repeating by rote what the lobbyists told them to say. Melissa may actually be dumber than Sarah Palin. Barney will realize he might as well talk to the lobbyists directly and save a step. The lobbyists will agree to something inconsequential, but certainly nothing that would really affect the industry's conduct. Then the leadership will do the math and conclude that because the vast majority of Republicans will vote against any bill, we can't get enough votes without the Dennis and Melissa crowd. The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we'll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we're staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets.

He's the de facto leader of the Dems. He also has the media in his hand. If he comes out forcefully, he can stop this. Hillary, did her best, but since Obama needs to win the presidency, I don't see many Dems eager to follow her lead.

Good questions, BDBlue.

However, last night Pelosi put out a statement that no way are Democrats going to hand Wall Street a blank check. That is at least beginning of the correct re-framing of the issue.

My suggestions: Focus your calls. Target your own Senators and Rep first, or don't bother if you think they're unreachable, but then call Pelosi's office, and Reid's, and more important, perhaps, Chris Dodd, you can also try calling or sending emails to the Senate Banking committee - each committee and each Senator and Rep have the capacity for that right on their website- that's the place to spell out alternatives, and don't hesitate to quote people like Krugman...

Sorry...getting long again

My targets - Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, Clinton, Barney Frank, both committee House and Senate who are dealing with this...yes, any other liberals...but the most important thing is to keep those phones ringing off the hook - to create the sense that there is a huge negative response to the idea that Democrats are going to accede to Bush once again. And let them know that everyone you talk to is outraged. For every call they are getting there are ten to fifteen people you know who are just as angry.

Don't be afriad to use the AUMF example - it's Iraq and WMD all over again...agree that there is a problem, question if it's a crises - if it is why are all those lobbyists up there trying to "dirty" up the bill with their wish lists.

Stress especially the need for oversight and transparcy -

Look, here's how the Paulson plan deals with Supervision:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Transparency is about how these "distressed" assets are going to be evaluated.

In emails especially, but also on the phone, ask why we shouldn't get shares in any company we recapatlize...

Here's Krugman in a short pithy warning you could include in an email:

I’d urge Congress to pause for a minute, take a deep breath, and try to seriously rework the structure of the plan, making it a plan that addresses the real problem. Don’t let yourself be railroaded — if this plan goes through in anything like its current form, we’ll all be very sorry in the not-too-distant future.

And From Calculated Risk:

A better plan would be transparent (all deals would be publicized), involve a share in ownership for the taxpayers, and have substantial oversight. We can do better.

Priortize your points.

For me it's no blank check for Wall Street which means Secretary Paulson -

need for close oversight

need for transparency - we want those leveraged bundles of distressed assets disaggregated so we can see what we, the taxpayers are buying

relief for Main Street - if not in this bill, later on...

TIME LIMIT - this is my most important one: six months - that's it; no longer than that, no matter the complaints that financial markets need to be reassured; if this plan doesn't unfreeze liquidity in six months, it's the wrong plan

Jared Bernstein made that point, about six months, at Firedoglake.

Maybe ask Barney Frank's office and Dodd's why they can't arrange for at least one hearing where they and we can hear from Economists.

How to organize yourself: call or email five friends and ask them to make the same call, and then to call or email five more people; make sure you tell them who your contacts are so you don't duplicate.Ask them to email you who they successfully contacted so you can keep track.

As of this morning I know of 60 separate people who've promised either me or a friend to make phone calls and take the time to send emails through the congressional websites.

Lastly, go to Obama's website and use their email comment function to ask Obama to provide leadership for the sake of his own possible presidency. Thank him for his statements over the weekend, but suggest that more is needed, including the possibility that he interrupt his campaigning to work with congressional Democrats. Put in links to Krugman and to sites which discuss better ways to handle this than Paulson/Bush's blank check approach. Tell him this is the Iraq war all over again, and the Patriot Act...he saw through Bush co then, he should be able to see through Paulson/Bush on this one.

According to press reports, Obama has talked to the key congressional Democrats over the weekend, including Hillary Clinton, and he also spoke with Bill Clinton.

Go to it.

A friend just called me; she heard Dodd on NPR this morning, and although he did say there would be changes he was full of praise for Paulson and appeared to have accepted the basic frame of crisis and Paulson's the man approach.

Let him know that every Democrat you know is horrified by the Paulson plan and wants something markedly different if taxpayer money is to be used to bail out Wall St. And emphasize a time limit - six months, no more. Get your friends to call him. Only a massive response will catch his attention.

Members of the Senate Banking Committee

House banking committee

if you are not a constituent, I don't think they are interested in hearing from you. But you can contact the campaign committees:

info [at] dscc [dot] org
info [at] dccc [dot] org

from here.

I’m not going to waste time with a preface. Let’s just get right into why this is a massively bad decision.

No oversight. The Bush administration is asking Congress to hand it a blank check for $700 billion without any controls or strings attached. This is the same corrupt regime that has wasted uncountable billions in Iraq through fraud, graft, corruption, and simple wasteful spending on unnecessary projects. The same regime that demanded vast new powers of surveillance with only the most minimal oversight to ensure that it is not abused. Do you really think Paulson is going to tell the truth in those reports to Congress, or that Congress will do anything about it if he lies?

Unchecked power. If this bill passes as written, it will make Henry Paulson the most powerful man in America, with incredible leverage to utilize trillions of dollars’ worth of capital as he sees fit. As an unelected official not chosen by the people, do you trust him to look out for your interests?

Foreign bank bailouts. Henry Paulson is on record as saying that Americans are too stupid to care if he uses our money to prop up banks based outside of the United States (Seriously, go read this article--that’s essentially what he says.) If that doesn’t set my right-wing friends in firm opposition to this plan, I don’t know what will.

No protections for homeowners or curbs on CEO pay. Paulson is actively resisting any attempt to add punitive or regulatory measures to the package, including foreclosure protections, additional economic stimulus packages, or stronger oversight of the financial markets to prevent something like this from happening again. This is a life raft to the very people who got us into this mess, mortgaging our financial futures to do so.

Rewarding irresponsibility. This is a clear message to Wall Street and the global markets that it’s completely okay to engage in ever-more-complex and opaque financial tomfoolery, because the government will bail you out when it gets rough. No consequences, no responsibility, no real fear of the vicissitudes of capitalism. In a true free market, banks that overleveraged themselves with crappy loans and nonsensical derivatives would collapse. It would be painful and turbulent, but is that really worse than enabling them to keep on going with the same awful practices that have left thousands of people with homes worth less than what they paid for them, with 401ks barely performing at a value worth the investment, and a dollar that can’t buy a fraction of what it used to? Again, tell your right-wing friends that this is as blatant an example of ignoring personal accountability as there ever has been.

Constraining our future. As I said yesterday, not only will this bailout deny us access to capital that we could have used for countless new projects and investments that we desperately need, but it will further constrain us from engaging in any sort of new infrastructure building or real innovation to put this country back on track. While Obama’s administration may be able to push through legislation that amends or changes existing laws, the real big-ticket items–climate change mobilization, national health care, broadband investment–will not happen without capital to fund them. This is a political time bomb designed to sabotage any attempt Obama will make at real change by hamstringing him financially until the Republicans move to take back Congress in 2010. It’s no coincidence that Paulson’s package is on a two-year timeframe, after all.

It won’t solve anything. Most of all, this bill is a Band-Aid on cancer. As this excellent article by Joshua Holland details, our financial structure and system is fundamentally sick, crippled, and retooled to act solely as a process to transfer money from the many to the few. Pumping more capital into it is like giving a blood transfusion to someone who’s undergoing heart surgery and is being kept alive by machines–it’ll help keep them alive, but it won’t fix the problem at hand.

So there you have it. Pass these points around. Call your representatives, call the media, tell your friends and family. Let them know that this bailout needs to be opposed until we come back with a better plan that protects individual Americans and doesn’t reward the wealthy for their mistakes. If you want a preview of a better plan, Ian Welsh has some thoughts on that front.

I see we're all reading each other and interlinking on this. good job blogosphere.

One is a lame duck, and on the wrong side of most issues, so I can assume his yes vote is bought and paid for, since he hasn't drawn a courageous breath in decades.

Friday Sept 26. No blank check. Okay, how about $799,999.000.000.00 for Wall Street, $1,000,000.00 for foreclosed homeowners in the form of a $200.00 income tax deduction, and no exec receives more than a $20 mill bonus? Deal!

It's always most likely people will call if they know where to make that initial contact. Again, thank-you.