The Politics of Accountability

Health Care Summit Drinking Games

A few thoughts on today's "bi-partisan" health care summit. "Bi-partisan" is in quotes because it will only be bi-partisan from the standpoint that both Democrats and Republicans will be in the same room at the same time.

They can't do that- can they?

No matter what happens tomorrow, I have been convinced since December, and remain convinced, that the Senate is planning on using "reconciliation" to pass a final draft of the health care reform bill with 51 votes, rather than the normally-required 60. Reconciliation is a procedural rule which has been invoked by both Senate Republicans and Democrats over the years.

Reconciliation was intended to be used only in case of an impass on budgetary items- where failure to authorize the necessary spending would cause the federal government to literally shut down, fail to pay its employees, etc. It has been abused by both parties over the years; however, the White House and Democratic leadership in the Senate, rather than adhering to the Constitution, will ram health care reform through, and justify it based on the half-baked excuse that Republicans have invoked reconciliation before, too.

That's certainly true, but does it justify cramming a bill of this magnitude down the throats of the American people, the majority of whom oppose Democratic proposals for healthcare reform- particularly when getting sixty "yea" votes required the now infamous "Louisiana Purchase" and "Cornhusker Kickback" be inserted into the original Senate bill?

In any case, political-fallout-be-damned, Reid's going to push this through the Senate with a simple majority if necessary no matter what happens today. There's a lot of talk about whether Pelosi has the votes in the House or whether the House will vote first, etc. Those issues notwithstanding, if a health care reform bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote, reconciliation will be invoked; fifty-one (or fifty with Biden casting the tie-breaking vote) will be enough. Time to call your senators.

"I can't believe I ate the whole thing."

Hardcore fans of The Simpsons will immediately recognize Homer Simpson's senior yearbook quote- in this case it's a reference to the over-reaching of Congressional Democrats on this issue in their desire to do everything-at-once on healthcare reform. There's an inherent, and reasonable skepticism on the part of the American people when it takes Congress more than 2,000 pages to do anything. 

Also, many Americans are fearful of the frenetic pace at which the Democratic Congress has been working to cram its agenda through, and with virtually no Republican support to boot. Against the backdrop of Obama's campaign promises of bi-partisanship and Nancy Pelosi's promise of "no earmarks" this legislature stands out in stark contrast. As the deficit grows more Americans are pushing back against the urgent need of the Democratic majority in Congress and the White House to 'do it all, do it now, and do it by any means necessary.' That's not the change people are looking for.

 

Baby Steps

President Obama seems to have resigned himself to the notion that, when it comes to health care reform, failure is not an option. His legacy is on the line, or so he seems to believe. It was surprising even to me, then, that rather than "pivot" and move to the center on healthcare reform in his State of the Union Address, as most political pundits predicted he would, Obama remained on the far-Left of this issue and further dug his heels in. This is further evidenced by the White House's release of its health care plan Monday morning (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100222/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare), which was largely a re-tread of the same ideas his party has been pushing all along.

If the White House and Congressional Democrats are serious about a bi-partisan solution on health care that the majority of Americans would support, they'll have to do two simple things differently than they have to this point.

First, they would make sure NOTHING in the bill gives any unfair exemptions to any particular groups- no special deals for certain states, no earmarks, no exemptions for union employees if the bill contains a tax on so-called "Cadillac plans" and, most importantly, members of Congress and all federal employees are all required to participate in the same plan or be subject to the same requirements and restrictions as everyone else.

Second, take an incremental approach. No 2,500-page monstrosity- no single bill, but a series of bills which can stand on their own merits and addresses a few agenda items at a time. Reform should begin with the issues about which there is most bi-partisan agreement and work backwards rather than the-other-way-around. Here are five key area where Democrats and Republicans could pass true bi-partisan reform:

1) Medicare Reform

Medicare is rife with waste and fraud. It's so rampant, so profitable, and, apparently, so easy that even the Mafia has jumped in to the business of defrauding the program (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B5OKO01&show_article=1).

Estimates on the amount of fraud perpetrated against the Medicare system each year range from 60-120 BILLION dollars a year! Let's suppose that there are thirty-million uninsured Americans (despite the fact that excluding illegal aliens and households making over $75,000 per year, the number of uninured is probably half of that); eliminating the fraud from Medicare alone would fund 166-333 dollars per month per uninsured American that they use toward the purchase of health care.

Given that every health care reform bill proposed by Congressional Democrats proports to pay for itself, in part, by scrubbing this fraud out of Medicare, three questions come immediately to mind:

First- what exactly makes lawmakers think they can eliminate fraud from Medicare? 

Second, assuming that the federal government is competent and capable enough to eliminate Medicare fraud, why haven't they done so before now?

Third, wouldn't proving that they can clean up Medicare be a good jumping-off point for reform? Seriously, is there anything that's been proposed in the entire health care debate that makes more sense? Regulating commerce is an enumerated, Constitutional power of the federal government. If dishonest physicians and organized crime are bilking the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars, shouldn't stopping this be at the top of Congress' to-do list?

If Democratic lawmakers want to claim that this savings, as well as eliminating other "waste" from Medicare, is going to provide much of the funding for their health care reform legislation, how about they prove it can be done and go from there?

Maybe next they can go after the three-billion dollars in unpaid taxes owed by federal government employees (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/12/federal_employees_owe_3_billio.html).

2) Insurance Reform:

This is largely the "let the people purchase insurance across state lines" mantra, which has been a key piece of every Republican proposal for health care reform. Most Democrats have opposed it, mantaining that only a public option will create "choice and competition" and that the 'evil insurance companies' will collude on pricing no matter how many new carriers are introduced into the marketplace for consumers to choose from. I disagree. 

Democrats can make this claim all they want- they still haven't offered a shred of proof for that argument, and if allowing competition across state lines doesn't drive down premiums, you still haven't cost the taxpayer a dime in additional governemnt spending. Let's try it and see what happens.

One caveat: this type of reform will be a bit sticky because most insurance plans are regulated at the state level and every state has its own department of insurance and its own state "mandates" as to what provisions policies sold in each state must include. Larger companies which have locations in multiple states do not have to comply with state mandates; instead they are requireds to comply with ERISA- the federal law regulating benefit and retirement plans.

Unlike most members of Congress, I am very wary of intruding on states' rights; however, we've got some very "creative" lawmakers on Capitol Hill these days. I'm sure they can work with the states to craft something which will make mandates more uniform on a state-by-state basis, thereby increasing competition and reducing administrative costs to insurers and consumers. 

3) Tort Reform:

This is also a states' rights issue. States like Mississippi and Texas, whose legislatures have passed tort reform, have seen increased access and lower costs as a result(http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/Tort-reform-must-be-part-of-health-care-reform-53083662.html). Trial lawyers are vehemently opposed to it- go figure.

The empirical evidence regarding tort reform needs to be presented at the next Governor's conference, presented to the state legislatures, etc.- put everyone involved including the trial lawyers together and let them make their case, and let each state make its own determination.

The line of demarcation between states that have enacted tort reform and those who have not is already clear- in states that have not enacted it providers are fleeing and malpractice attorneys are flocking. What more evidence do we need?

4) Individual Empowerment:

This one is simple- encourage increased deductibility (higher contribution limits) on contributions made to medical savings accounts; increase portability of health insurance, including (rather than COBRA) allowing individuals who would lose their coverage when they lose (or quit) their job to convert to an individual policy or enter Medicaid for such time as they can demonstrate that they cannot afford individual coverage; finally, allow individuals who purchase their own health insurance the ability to deduct their premiums just as businesses are currently allowed to do.

5) Expand Medicaid:

When Barack Obama was running for President, he vowed to make "affordable" (without defining affordable) to the uninsured and those who can't afford insurance, 'the same coverage members of Congress have.'

As President, he's walked in lock-step with Congressional plans to radically transform the entire healthcare system and specifically exempt members of Congress and other federal employees from participating in the public option that's been proposed. That's not exactly the same thing. 

Assuming the fraud and waste can be scrubbed from Medicaid and Medicare, those savings could be used to provide Medicaid coverage to the uninsurable and subsidize premiums for those who cannot afford
to purchase health insurance on their own, whether they use their subsidy to purchase private insurance or pay for access to Medicaid or Medicare coverage.

Drink!

I don't know if anyone is actually planning on watching the health care summit, but the American people will finally have the opportunity to see their elected leaders debate health care reform on C-SPAN just like the President promised...a year-and-a-half ago. Let's face it, little will be accomplished today. Democrats will use this forum to paint Congressional Republicans as "the party of 'no'" and allies of the greedy, evil, insurance companies, validate their parking, and move full-steam ahead on passing their proposal for health care reform with no bi-partisan support. This is merely political theater for the American people- period. 

That being said, if you do tune in for this six-hour dog-and-pony show, you might as well enjoy yourself and have some fun with it. You're going to need a drink, so might I suggest you invite your friends over and make a game of it. Depending on how you set up the rules you might need Speaker Pelosi's alcohol budget to get through it (http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosis-in-flight-food-and-drink-costs-101000-2010-1). You can divide up these catch-phrases amongst the various players or break into teams- I wouldn't recommend everyone drink every time one of these happens, but you can make your own rules. Here are a few suggestions:

1) Each time a member of the summit mentions Insurance giant Wellpoint by name- someone has to drink. (Remember that when I say drink, I mean a sip- not an entire drink; you want to make it through the whole six hours- don't you?)

2) If someone specifically describes Wellpoint using the phrase "insurance giant"- that's two drinks.

3) If someone accuses the Republicans of being obstructionists (can use another form of the word), that's a drink.

4) If they specifically use the phrase "party of no"- that's two drinks.

5) If someone references greedy insurance executives, drink.

6) Someone mentions tort reform, drink.

7) Someone mentions or implies the use of reconciliation, drink.

8) If anyone mentions the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers, Framers' intent, the enumerated powers of the federal government, or state's rights, everyone playing at home has to finish their drink (don't worry- this won't happen very often).

You get the idea. Feel free to make other rules and send me your suggestions as well. And if anything other than partisan bickering and political posturing takes place, if something substantial happens that both sides can build on...

...I owe you a drink.

"Tabloid Trash" - Why the Edwards Affair Matters

John Edwards is finally, while predictably hiding behind a spokesman, admitting what everyone in this country with an IQ over 70 already knew: that 2-year-old Frances Quinn Hunter, daughter of former Edwards' campaign videographer Reille Hunter, is his child. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34963767/ns/today-today_people/?GT1=43001).

This "revelation" comes in advance of- you guessed it- a tell-all book by Andrew Young, the former Edwards' campaign staffer who originally claimed to be the child's father despite reports by The National Enquirer that Edwards actually was. The publication had alleged since October 2007 that Edwards was having an affair with Hunter.

Of the reports of the affair and paternity of the child, Edwards had said at the time, while still running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, "I don't respond to tabloid trash that's full of lies."

Only upon being caught and photographed by Enquirer reporters visiting his "former" mistress and her child at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California did Edwards admit the affair- in an interview on ABC's Nightline, which, conveniently, aired opposite the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. He still maintained that the child was Young's, raising a philosophical question: If a politician lies in an interview and no one sees it, is it still a lie?

Edwards' spokesman, "close friend and personal adviser" Harrison Hickman, maintained in an interview with NBC's Lisa Myers that the timing of the Edwards announcement had nothing to do with the upcoming release of Young's book, and that Edwards could not respond personally due to an ongoing investigation into allegations that Edwards illegally misappropriated campaign funds to support Hunter and her child and to prevent the scandal from going public.

Young also alleges that Edwards offered him a bribe to maintain the pretense that the child was his, and that, at one point, Edwards directed the campaign worker to find a doctor to falsify the DNA test results in order to exonerate himself of any extra-curricular hanky-panky. Rumors have recently been confirmed that Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, have separated. Edwards denies any legal wrongdoing such as misappropriation of campaign funds, and why shouldn't anyone believe him?

Should anyone care? True, Edwards is no longer a politician; however, keep in mind that John Edwards was, until recently, one of the biggest stars in the Democratic Party, a U.S. Senator, a former Vice-Presidential nominee in 2004, and a Presidential hopeful in 2008. After dropping out of the primary and endorsing Barack Obama, Edwards was said to be a leading candidate for the Attorney General nomination should Obama win the White House.

The Edwards affair raises a myriad of questions regarding the character of our elected officials and resurrects the arguments over whether someone who would violate an oath sworn to their spouse can be trusted to honor their oath of office, "protect and defend the Constitution," and deal fairly and honorably with their constitutents. Edwards has repeatedly lied to the American people, and, finally, incrementally, conceded only as much of the truth as he has had to, and only when efforts to conceal it proved futile. If anything, Edwards is a case study in just how arrogant and deceitful many of our elected officials have become, and the sense of self-righteous entitlement that so often accompanies high office.

Yet the much bigger issue has to do with the credibility of the (liberal) mainstream media- who have virtually ignored or downplayed this story at every turn for more than two years. So much for journalistic integrity- while that "tabloid trash" publication, The National Enquirer reported the facts, "credible" media outlets buried the Edwards affair by treating it as a minor story, ignoring it altogether, or offering themselves as a forum for Edwards' repeated denials and half-truths.

One has to wonder why a story that has everything- money, power, sex, lies, illegitimate children, corruption, the works- has still not been fully been exposed in the mainstream press.

At best, the mainstream media has been intentionally asleep at the switch on this story, much as it has stories such as the ACORN corruption scndal. At worst, it has been accomplice to Edwards lies and deceptions in the same way a friend of a philandering spouse might pretend to know nothing about his indiscretions- "No Mrs. Edwards, John was with me the whole time. We were having drinks with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, and we must have lost track of time..." Yeah, right.

In either case, the real story is no longer Edwards himself, but the failure, and the potential breach of trust of the mainstream media.

At this point, one has to question not only its credibility, but its priorities- its agenda. One has to wonder whether it is more committed to shaping public perception to manifest its ideology than it is to reporting the facts. One has to wonder whether these same media outlets might willingly deceive the Public in other areas. For example, might they paint a far-Left Presidential candidate as a centrist? Might they have other priorities? Might their job description have changed?

P.S.- Prediction--- we will learn that there were other women before Ms. Hunter. If you recall, Edwards met Hunter in a hotel bar in New York City; he subsequently hired her as a campaign videographer. According to Edwards, the affair did not begin until after she started working for his campaign. That may or may not be true, but Edwards wasn't in a hotel bar talking to women he didn't know because he was scouting for campaign videographers. And Elizabeth hasn't left him because he's been upfront and honest with her to this point, either, and she knows at least as much as the public does. The more this unfolds, the worse it looks for Edwards, and don't expect it to get any prettier any time soon.

"'D' Is For Duplicity"

"I have shown repeatedly my independence, willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people in Pennsylvania...required it.  Take one example:  There's a bill on employees choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose mandatory arbitration.  I said when I made the switch I'm still against that bill." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/page/3/)

These were the words of Arlen Specter, in his first television appearance since changing his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat, on Meet the Press on May 3rd. This Labor Day, however, Senator Specter appeared with Joe Biden at a rally in Pittsburg, PA in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, the very "card check" legislation Specter presented in May as proof of his "independence." The Associated Press report's headline read, "Biden, Specter Push 'Card Check on Labor Day.'  (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_labor_day_biden/2009/09/07/257111.html)

(True to form, Specter, left, "would rather switch than fight" on Card Check)

Should anyone be surprised at Specter's sudden change of heart? Not if they've been reading this blog. I predicted at that time that Specter's so-called "independence" wouldn't last. (http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2009/05/specter-loses-seniority-on-five-committees-politicocom.html)

And it didn't: http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2009/05/arlens-sellout-takes-less-than-two-weeks.html.

Now, Specter is actively campaigning for a bill that threatens to eliminate the secret ballot in the workplace, and which could lead to open intimidation by pro-union advocates against employees who are not in favor of unionizing their workforce- causing them to "reconsider" their position.

Perhaps more disturbing, if "Card Check" becomes the law of the land, it would effectively trump the rights of so-called "right to work" states (http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/02/over-180-state-and-local-chambers-say-no-to-card-check.html) to keep trade unions from requiring membership and the payment of dues (a portion of which goes to the organization's preferred political candidate) as a condition of employment. 

Card Check legislation is nothing more than a shameless effort to unionize America from the ground-up, which effectively rewards labor unions, long a staunch Democratic voting bloc, for their support and also promises to shore up their numbers for Dems in the years to come- sort of like giving organizations such as ACORN stimulus money, AND letting them take the 2010 census and just knowing they'll do the "right thing." (Fortunately, the recent exposure of ACORN's bad behavior have taken them out of consideration for the census- http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/breaking-senate-votes-to-defund-acorn/).

This is political gerrymandering by the Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress, as it seeks to further consolidate its power at the expense of the states, individual businesses, and the individual worker, all without a mandate from the U.S. Constitution; members of the SEIU, Acorn, and other organizations (the so-called "paid volunteers") will descend on states like Texas and Mississippi, pushing private sector employees to "empower themselves." The New York Times, MSNBC, and Nancy Pelosi will praise this "grass-roots movement by workers' rights advocates everywhere."

Many businesses in these states will lose their competitive advantage over businesses in widely unionized states- the states that, not coincidentally, have the highest levels of unemployment and the most economic turmoil today. Union workers, like government workers, do make significantly more than private sector workers. Also like the federal government, many unionized industries such as the automakers- are broke.

Card Check would also have the effect of making an increasing number of U.S. businesses less competitive in the global marketplace. Union supporters who look to union leadership to protect their jobs and decry the export of manufacturing jobs overseas are missing the point: Jobs are leaving highly unionzed states for right-to-work states or being exported overseas because the union model has become a bloated albatross around the neck of American commerce.

No matter- what's important to the far Left in this country is equality, not of rights or opportunities, but of outcomes- even if their policies do nothing more than make everyone equally miserable. Still, I can't recall a time in our recent history that the elected majority in Congress and the White House were so openly hostile to such a large portion of the electorate as is clearly the case today. Even as Democrats paint Tea Party protestors as racists and diminish critics of runaway spending and government-run health care, they make it clear that Senator Specter is right where he belongs. 

Dictionary.com defines duplicity as "deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing." In the last two national elections, duplicity has clearly been embraced as an effective political strategy of the Democratic Party.

Consider that in 2006 the Democrats seized the majority in both houses of Congress, promising to "end the culture of corruption in Washington, D.C." In the midterm elections disillusioned voters, fed up with the Republicans and their "bridge(s) to nowhere," seized on Democratic promises of reform. Socially conservative Democratic candidates in traditionally conservative strongholds, key states and districts (such as Jim Webb in Virginia) across the country, who opposed Bush's then-unpopular war in Iraq, won independents across the nation- giving the Democrats their first Congressional majority since 1994.

(Jim Webb)

Webb is a Naval Academy grad, a Vietnam-veteran, and all-around tough guy who served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan- the kind of "moderate" Democratic strategists knew could win a large number of independents and perhaps even siphon-off a few conservative votes. Still, he and his newly elected, so-called moderate Democratic colleagues in both houses promptly rolled-over and voted Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John Murtha, Charles Rangle, et al- the most liberal members of Congress, to the most prominent Congressional leadership positions. This paved the way for an acceleration of Congressional spending, numerous Democratic scandals, and an increase in political patronage.

In 2008 the Democratic Party increased its majority in Congress and won the White House using similar tactics- blaming Bush and twelve years of Republican majorities in Congress for the recent economic downturn and the lack of success in Iraq. Again, Dems promised a more centrist, more moderate approach than Bush, Cheney, and their gang of "neo-cons."

Likewise, during his campaign, candidate Obama promised Americans who could not afford private healthcare "the same health care members of Congress have," ; that he would "consider" offshore drilling (when oil was nearly $150/gallon and 70% of the Amican people were clamoring, "drill here, drill now,")- he's now reversed himself; that it was 'not the job of the federal government to pick winners and losers,' ; that there would be no lobbyists in his administration; that he would accept federal matching funds in the general election; that he would "go line-by-line through the budget" and cut wasteful spending (Congress passed a record-breaking, four-trillion-dollar budget); that he would eliminate earmarks (Congress passed an omnibus bill with 8,500 earmarks); that his would be "the most transparent administration ever" ; that he "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

Not only has he broken every one of those campaign promises- it's difficult to find a major issue regarding which Barack Obama hasn't, at one time or another, painted himself to be more to the center as a candidate than he has shown himself to be as President of the United States. Still, that's become the modus operandi of the Democratic Party; they've expoited the trust of the American people to an astonishing degree. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise to the Democratic Party to find their support waning after selling the American people a proverbial bill of goods in the last two elections.

Now, Democrats are admittedly looking to insert a "trigger" mechanism to force a public option on health care even though the majority of the American people oppose a public option:

Democrats such as Speaker Pelosi can feign dismay or decry racism and "astroturf" all they want; the American people haven't suddenly changed. What's changed is the leadership on the far Left finally showing its true colors. The People were fed up with runaway spending under Bush- now they are fed up with a Democratic Congress that promises moderation leading up to the election and delivers something quite different after an election. A stimulus bill most Americans are opposed to, "cap and trade," a record-breaking budget, earmarks galore, TARP, etc. Dems may consider their victory a mandate from the people; they would be better served to either stick to their promises or remember these words from The Outlaw Josey Wales:

The Health Care Debate: Profiles in Stupidity

"You're free to speak your mind my friend
As long as you agree with me
Don't criticize the father land
Or those who shape your destiny
'Cause if you do
You'll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew
We'll send out all our boys in blue
They'll find a way to silence you"

    -Lyrics from The Ostrich, by Steppenwolf

It's never easy to "speak truth to power." It has been nearly forty years since that Vietnam-era protest song was recorded. Few would deny that Richard Nixon was probably our most paranoid President- from his infamous "enemies list" to his use of "plumbers," ex-FBI and CIA operatives such as Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy, leading operations such as breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and Pentagon Papers' leaker Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office looking for "dirt" to undermine his credibility.

Nixon was said to have used the audit power of the IRS against his enemies, and circulated phony campaign literature and false rumors to pick off rival political candidates and opponents- a practice notoriously referred to by Nixon operatives as "rat f**king." Protesters of the war in Vietnam often noted the not-so-subtle presence of government "suits" in their midst, taking photos of the demonstrators in an effort to to intimidate and gather information on protest leaders.

Much has changed, but much remains the same; the same liberals who decried the efforts of the government power structure to quash dissent over Vietnam, now in charge of that power structure are using the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook to marginalize dissenters in the fight over health care reform.

In their efforts to "find a way to silence you" advocates of unconstitutional, government-run health care have employed methods ranging from intellectual dishonesty and deceit to cherry-picking questions (and attendees) at press conferences and town halls, to questioning the other side's patriotism, and even outright aggression and intimidation- as we saw when SEIU (Service Workers International Union) thugs crashed a peaceful protest outside a recent town hall and assaulted an African-American man, Ned Gladney, who was selling "Don't Tread on Me" merchandise in the crowd.

I'm sure the SEIU rent-a-mob (who were paid to be there) couldn't resist the opportunity of a two-for-one: beating up a member of the protest who was also there as a capitalist (or a three-fer given that the left apparently presumes all the 'good blacks' are on their side-and if you don't believe me ask Barbara Boxer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FoekBjhtWE).

 

Who needs the "boys in blue" when you've got the SEIU at your disposal? Likely the Justice Department will see to it that the charges against these men will be dropped, just as the charges against members of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia were dropped, to say nothing of the multiple indictments against ACORN for voter fraud which have gone nowhere.

Of course, the SEIU thugs protest their innocence, but ask yourself, why would one man selling flags amidst a throng of demonstrators take the initiative, and the risk, to pick a fight with several members of the opposition wearing matching t-shirts who were obviously there together? Are we to believe that Mr. Gladney is that stupid, or do the new "powers that be" think we are that stupid?

Speaking of stupidity, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer collaborated on an op-ed piece that apppeared in Monday's USA Today, outraging many Americans opposed to government-run health care:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

In it, Pelosi and Hoyer argue that, "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." What has been lost amidst the outrage over the "un-American" comment are several important points.

First, the people Pelosi and Hoyer characterize as un-American are not drowning out dissent ("opposing views"). These people are the voice of dissent. Congress is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, and, were it not for the rising level of dissent, they might already have passed a health care bill before the August recess. Now the majority party is looking to do something by September. Unlike the Nixon era that burn-out liberals like Pelosi remember so fondly, dissent is no longer on their side. It's actually preventing them from strong-arming a critical piece of their agenda through, and they clearly don't respect that kind of dissent. As the "un-American" remark proves, "you're free to speak your mind my friend, as long as you agree with me."

I'm not in favor of stifling "healthy" debate; however, as to making differing views known, the majority position on health care has been heard and known for months (at least the party "talking points" and scant details Democrats have been willing to address)- and alternative proposals from Republicans have been excluded even from debate in committee meetings on Capitol Hill.

Now members of Congress are home. Since their last visit, Democrats have rammed through, with little bi-partisan support, an $800 billion dollar stimulus bill the majority of Americans didn't support by the time it made its way to the floor (as more and more of the American people began to realize what was in it), a record-setting four-trillion-dollar budget, an omnibus bill containing more than 8,500 earmarks after repeated campaign promises of no earmarks in legislation, and in June the House passed a massive "Cap-and-Trade" energy tax that fortunately did not make its way through the Senate.

So, if someone feels their elected representatives have been disregarding (or even mocking) their views for the last seven months, these town halls are their first, and probably last, opportunity to be heard on the health care reform issue. Unless Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have something new to say, what's "fair" is for the to hear the other side out (for a change).

We know, however, that Madam Speaker isn't particularly interested in hearing the other side- she's made that known since this Spring, when she responded to criticism that no efforts had been made to reach out to House Republicans in drafting the stimulus bill: "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." As far as the Speaker is concerned, opposing views don't need to be considered when you have the numbers to pass the legislation anyway. When you don't have the votes or the popular support, of course, you marginalize your critics as "un-American" or make other, unfounded accusations.

As to the Pelosi and Hoyer's assertion that "opponents are afraid...of the fact themselves," that's probably the most outrageous part of the entire USA Today piece- given how few facts are actually known about the bill itself. The entire Pelosi/Hoyer editorial contains exactly two specific details regarding their plans for health care reform; the first is that there will be a national medical database, and the second is that the plan contains a provision to close "the notorious Medicare Part D 'doughnut hole' that denies drug coverage to those with between $2,700 and $6,100 per year in prescriptions."

Astonishing. An opportunity for the Speaker and House Majority Leader Hoyer to make the case for health care reform contains only two references to actual provisions in the legislation. The rest of the editorial is filled with either broad, and as yet unproven, assertions of savings and efficiency which directly contradict the findings of the Congressional Budget Office or predictable criticisms of those in opposition to the federal takeover one-sixth of our nation's economy. The American people understand that the Devil is in the details, and it's difficult to have a rational dialogue when your Congressman hasn't even read the damn bill.

Still, with her track record, shouldn't we trust Madam Speaker's word over those in opposition? After all, these malcontents are not representative of the American people- are they?

Astroturf indeed. One can hardly fathom the audacity of woman who has yet to provide a single piece of concrete evidence to substantiate her allegations that 'the CIA misleads (Congress) all the time' and who is making it up as she goes along in the name of political expediency again.

Speaker Pelosi, how can a movement be characterized as "astroturf" (not a true grass roots movement but "manufactured outrage" on the part of the GOP and other "right wing extremists") and at the same time be observed dispaying swastikas and other radical monikers? Is it your contention, then, that members of the GOP rally artificial opponents of health care reform, saying, "Don't forget to bring your swastika flag- we're trying to appear as mainstream as possible,"?

(Or perhaps Pelosi missed the fact that the swastika has a line drawn through it- as in "we regard your policies as socialist (Nazi is German shorthand for National Socialist Party) and we reject them.")

Perhaps your efforts to "punch back twice as hard" at opponents of government-run health care (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html) led you to presume the American people would be stupid enough to ignore the internal inconsistency of your two statements. Perhap that's why your party accuses opponents of government health care of greed and racism. Or perhaps you traded Botox in for brain cells a long time ago.

Don't sell the American people short Nancy. They understand. More and more, they understand. They understand how brazenly you dismiss their concerns. They reject the passage of yet another bill most members of Congress won't even bother to read. They reject the assertion that government can handle health care any better than it has Social Security, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the US Postal Service, or any other failed big-government program.

They recognize the difference between President Obama's promise that 'uninsured Americans will have the same access to affordable health care members of Congress have,' which is what they voted for, and a public option from which Congress is exempt, which is what they are confronted with now.

They reject a White House which asks the people to inform on fellow citizens (http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/?keywords=flag@whitehouse.gov).

They reject an administration that tells them to get out of the way- because the people's concerns, the people's dissent was never part of the problem. They realize the hypocrisy of a President who made his mark as a "community organizer" telling them to get out of the way, as though they created the health care mess.

They reject the chorus of that song:

"But there's nothing you and I can do
You and I are only two
What's right and wrong is hard to say
Forget about it for today
We'll stick our heads into the sand
Just pretend that all is grand
Then hope that everything turns out ok"

Arlen's sell-out takes less than two weeks!

    "I have shown repeatedly my independence, willing to cross party lines when I thought the interests of the American people in Pennsylvania were required it.  Take one example:  There's a bill on employees choice known as Card Check, which would take away the secret ballot and impose mandatory arbitration.  I said when I made the switch I'm still against that bill.  Democrats are all for it, Republicans are all against it and I'm the critical vote. "

That's what Senator Arlen Specter said less than two weeks ago on Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/page/3/), following his recent conversion to the Democratic Party. Only days later Specter was stripped of his committee seniority in a voice vote in the Senate. In response, this blog predicted:

    "Fortunately for Senator Specter, he's well practiced at the art of self-preservation. No doubt he can read between the lines of the statement released by Senator Reid's office today, following the voice-vote last night that stripped him of his seniority: 'This is all going to be negotiated next Congress,' said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Reid. That's political speak for, 'We'll see if he falls in line with our party, then we'll decide if we want to support his re-election bid in 2010, let alone restore his seniority on any committees.'

    Welcome to the Democratic Party, Senator. I'm sure you'll do them proud, and prove that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Just find out he really wants and dangle it in front of him for a year-and-a-half."(http://prasifkapolitics.typepad.com/the_politics_of_accountab/2009/05/specter-loses-seniority-on-five-committees-politicocom.html)

Your humble correspondent predicted not only that this sort of pressure was being brought to bear in order to motivate Specter to fall in line with the Democratic agenda, I predicted it would work. Today I was proven to be prescient...again.

 

Specter raises hopes for deal on major labor bill

By KIMBERLY HEFLING and SAM HANANEL – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday the "prospects are pretty good" for a compromise on legislation making it easier for workers to form unions.

Specter had come out against the bill in March, disappointing labor leaders. They had hoped he would be the crucial 60th vote needed to overcome an expected GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Pennsylvania senator has since switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, and he said he's been meeting with labor leaders and fellow senators in hopes of coming up with a compromise he could support.

President Barack Obama also said Thursday that he hoped a compromise could be worked out that would "get enough votes to pass the bill."

A top priority of labor groups, the bill would allow a majority of employees at a work site to form a union by signing cards and would take away the right of employers to demand secret ballot elections. It would impose stiffer penalties on employers who threaten workers who try to organize unions and would provide for government arbitration if management and workers cannot agree on a first contract.

Specter has said he opposes the "card check" and arbitration provisions of the bill. But he does support other union-friendly alternatives such as speeding up the election process and giving unions more access to campaign at work sites.

Specter faces the prospect of a primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and pro-union groups have placed intense pressure on him to support the bill as a condition of their support.

Randel Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president on labor issues, said business leaders are against negotiating from the card check bill as a starting point "because it's too radical of a place to start."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Specter loses seniority on five committees- Politico.com

The newest Democratic Senator must feel like Faust today, but if he's surprised, he hasn't been paying attention. While he's been making the case in the last week that he will remain independent regardless of his party affiliation, he's apparently missed the point: the Democratic leadership in Congress doesn't appreciate members of its party who fail to march in lock-step with its agenda.

If he wasn't so self-absorbed, he might have noticed how, just days after the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took Joe Lieberman to the proverbial woodshed. Under threat of removal from his own committee chairmanship, Reid convinced Lieberman it would be in his best interests to fall in line with the party after he committed the nearly-unforgiveable sin of endorsing and stumping for John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/lieberman-tries-to-cling_n_141876.html).

Fortunately for Senator Specter, he's well practiced at the art of self-preservation. No doubt he can read between the lines of the statement released by Senator Reid's office today, following the voice-vote last night that stripped him of his seniority: "This is all going to be negotiated next Congress," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Reid. That's political speak for, "We'll see if he falls in line with our party, then we'll decide if we want to support his re-election bid in 2010, let alone restore his seniority on any committees."

Welcome to the Democratic Party, Senator. I'm sure you'll do them proud, and prove that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Just find out he really wants and dangle it in front of him for a year-and-a-half.

Here's the Politico article:

Sen. Arlen Specter lost big under a resolution approved by the Senate Tuesday night: He won't be able to retain his seniority on five committees this Congress.

In announcing his switch to the Democratic Party last week, Specter said that Democratic leaders assured him that he would be treated as if he were elected as a Democrat 29 years ago — essentially allowing him to leapfrog most Democrats and put himself in line to become a committee chairman if he wins reelection in 2010. Several Democrats have taken exception to the notion that Specter would be taking possession of their prized real estate.

By voice vote on Tuesday night, the Senate sided with that sentiment in approving a resolution that adds Specter to the Democratic side on Judiciary, Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, Aging and Environment and Public Works — expanding Democrats' majority on those panels.

Specter will be treated as the most junior member of those panels — putting him last in line in speaking time during committee hearings and limiting his influence on those panels. When the Judiciary Committee considers Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Specter will be the last Democrat to speak, and he's last in line to chair the committee if the current chairman, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), steps down.

The move may have come as shock to Specter. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, he said that it's an "entitlement" for him to retain his seniority on those committees.

"I was elected in 1980. I think that's not a bribe or a give for something extraordinary," he said. "I'll be treated as a Democrat as if I was elected as a Democrat."

A Democratic aide said Tuesday night that Specter's fate was sealed by comments he made suggesting that he wanted Norm Coleman to win the disputed Minnesota Senate race and by senior Democrats who were angry at the prospect of losing seniority to Specter.

Who's to Blame? Really?

    Although the Democratic Congress, the Obama Administration, and the media have all seen fit to blame the current economic crisis exclusively on the Bush Administration, there are, as they say, two sides to every story. I'm was certainly not a fan of the runaway spending of the Republican Congress in its six years under Bush, and the record will reflect that "W" has proven himself to be no fan of fiscal conservatism and smaller government. His medicare prescription drug benefit, for example, was the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Johnson Administration. 

    However, it was the (subprime-lending, CDC's, etc.) housing crisis, and lack of responsible government oversight of GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that ultimately toppled this economic house-of-cards (and that also included irresponsible Democratic appointees to the GSE's and incompetent regulation of the financial markets by political cronies at FINRA and the SEC)- oversight which was controlled by powerful congressional Democrats such as Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank and New York Senator Chuck Schumer.

    What will the Democratic Congress do to likes of Schumer, Frank, and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who apparently exchanged political favors for campaign contributions and sweetheart loans from lenders like troubled Countrywide mortgage? Most likely, nothing- just as I predicted in October when I began this blog: "I can assure you of this, Barack Obama will see to it that no Democratic senator or representative will 'swing' for their roles in the current financial crisis." See for yourself.

Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions- WSJ

    Mark Twain once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Two years ago, the Democratic Party won the congressional majority amidst promises that it would "end the culture of corruption" in Washington, D.C.. To say that the leadership on Capitol Hill has failed to mend its corrupt ways and earn its citizens' support may well be the understatement of this young century.

    If anything, things have become even worse, as leaders in the House and the Senate jockey for position to bestow TARP dollars (read: YOUR MONEY) to businesses in their respective states or districts, whether they deserve them or not, rather than infusing cash where it would do the most good.

    Was the TARP intended to revive our struggling economy, or to provide billions in taxpayer dollars for the same crooks who got us into this mess in the first place to distribute to banks which were already "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use"? Yes, you read that right. Thank you, Barney Frank.

    Perhaps the worst part of this corruption in Congress is how powerless and disconnected it makes "we the people" feel, in as much as many of us are directly impacted by it, but seem to have no recourse to stop it. It's ironic that Paul Carrack's "How Long" was playing in the background as I sat down to write this. You may remember the lyrics:

        "Well your friends with their fancy persuasion, don't admit that it's part of a scheme, but I can't help but have my suspicions, cause I ain't quite as dumb as I seem...how long has this been going on?"

    I'll tell you how long it's been going on- too damn long. Write or call your Congressman and your Senators and tell them you expect a full Congressional investigation into just who on Capitol Hill and amongst the various regulatory agencies- FINRA, the SEC, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.- got us into this mess and who's wasting the TARP money, and you expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Americans have lost 11 TRILLION DOLLARS due to the current financial crisis. Enough is enough.

    As John McCain said, "You will know their names and I will make them famous." That he lost his Presidential bid is no reason for him not to keep his promise to the American people. The Declaration of Independence says, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Let our elected officials know they do not have your consent to conduct themselves in this way anymore. Remember the words of Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross and, "get mad you son-of-a-bitches!...Go and do likewise...you don't I got no sympathy for you." These people are counting on your apathy.

    To find your representative go to: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

    To find your senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    To hear the full Alec Baldwin monologue from David Mamet's award winning play/film just 'cause it's a must see for anyone in sales (but NOT for little ears!):

Here's the full Wall Street Journal Article:

By DAMIAN PALETTA and DAVID ENRICH

Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn't look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund last fall.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

View Full Image

The Washington Times /Landov

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), seen here leaving a December news conference, urged regulators to consider TARP money for a local bank.

As President Barack Obama's team sets about revising the $700 billion TARP program, following last week's release of the second half of the money, among the issues it faces is widespread dissatisfaction with way the program has been implemented. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, testifying Wednesday at his Senate confirmation hearing, acknowledged "there are serious concerns about transparency and accountability...confusion about the goals of the program, and a deep skepticism about whether we are using the taxpayers' money wisely."

Bankers, regulators and politicians complain of a secretive and opaque process for deciding which banks get cash and which don't. The goal of aiding only banks healthy enough to lend -- laid out by the Treasury when the program began -- clearly seems to have shifted, but in a way that's hard to pin down and that the Treasury has declined to explain. Part of the problem is that some powerful politicians have used their leverage to try to direct federal millions toward banks in their home states.

"It's totally arbitrary," says South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. "If you've got the right lobbyist and the right representative connected to Washington or the right ties to Washington, you get the golden tap on the shoulder," says Gov. Sanford, a Republican.

Several Ohio banks received funds after Ohio's congressional delegation complained bitterly about the treatment of Cleveland-based National City Corp., which regulators forced into a merger rather than provide with cash. And in Alabama, the state's top banking official says a windfall there -- five banks are slated to receive funds -- is testament to the influence of two powerful Alabama lawmakers who sit on key congressional committees.

TARP Funds by State

Click below for a sortable chart and interactive map detailing allocations by state and by institution.

More on the Bailout

• On Dec. 3, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.) forwarded a Dec. 2 letter from Alabama bank regulators complaining about the complexities of applying for federal funds. Alabama banks later received billions in funds.
• The FDIC and Massachusetts slapped OneUnited Bank in Boston with a cease and desist order on Oct. 27, 2008, less than two months after it received $12 million in capital from Treasury.

A link between such lobbying and the release of TARP cash can't be proved. Treasury officials have said that political influence plays no role in the selection process. "The decisions are made by a committee of officials at Treasury based on recommendations and data provided by the regulators through the applications process," said Brookly McLaughlin, who was a spokeswoman for the Treasury until the Bush administration ended on Tuesday.

Restoring Credit Flow

Treasury and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly said the TARP program was successful in its primary purpose, which was to bring the credit markets back from the precipice.

The task of further restoring credit flow now falls to Mr. Obama's team, which has spoken in favor of pumping more money into banks, as has Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The new administration is weighing a range of ideas, including using at least $50 billion of the TARP money to prevent foreclosures, and possibly other measures such as setting up an "aggregator bank" to hold toxic assets now burdening banks' books.

The federal plan to invest in banks was controversial from the start. The Treasury said it would acquire preferred stock in banks, and sometimes warrants for common stock as well, but not any voting or management rights. Within the broad structure known as TARP, this is called the Capital Purchase Program.

At a hastily arranged meeting on Oct. 13, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson basically forced the chiefs of the country's nine biggest banks to accept cash infusions. The government invested $125 billion in the nine. Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. subsequently returned for more money.

A further $125 billion was committed under the Bush administration to buy stakes in some of the remaining 8,500 U.S. banks and thrift institutions. More than 250 have received cash or commitments so far, totaling about $68 billion. The recipients range from large regional banks to Saigon National, a 12-employee lender catering to Vietnamese-American businesses in Southern California.

The procedure for getting a capital injection is complex. State and federal regulators sometimes complain that even they don't understand how it works.

A bank applies through its federal regulator, which either recommends to the Treasury that the bank receive money or quietly tells the bank to pull its application. A public turndown could be a death sentence because it would tell investors and consumers the government thinks the bank isn't viable.

If the regulator forwards the application, the Treasury decides whether to approve it. If the Treasury's reviewing team is uncertain, it sends the request to a panel of federal regulators to debate the matter.

The results have many in the industry scratching their heads. Two banks in Green Bay, Wis., have received federal investments. But in Arizona, a state hit hard by the housing slump, officials say they are perplexed that a dozen or so state-chartered banks haven't heard back from Treasury about the status of their applications.

Arizona's banking superintendent, Felecia Rotellini, says she is teaming up with local bankers and state legislators who plan to start lobbying Arizona's congressional delegation for help. "Some states are getting better treatment, and we just want it to be a level playing field," Ms. Rotellini says. "I think it's just a question of advocacy. It has to be a congressional voice."

A body set up to monitor the program, the Congressional Oversight Panel, has said the process of allocating money lacks transparency and accountability. The Treasury declines to explain why one bank is chosen for a federal investment and not another. Those that receive federal cash sometimes boast they have a government seal of approval, leaving banks that are shut out facing awkward questions about why they didn't.

In mid-October, days after summoning the nine big-bank executives to Washington to accept aid, the government took a far different approach with Cleveland's National City, which was struggling with soured real-estate loans.

National City executives consulted with their examiners at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is a division of Treasury, about whether they should apply for a capital injection. Local OCC officials gave them the green light, according to people familiar with the matter.

In Washington, National City got a chillier reception. The company was facing mounting losses stemming in part from its ill-timed purchases of two Florida banks shortly before the state's real-estate market imploded. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan informed National City executives they shouldn't apply because their bank was too weak. Instead, he told the bank to sell itself. Within a week, it agreed to a $5.6 billion takeover by PNC Financial Services Group Inc. in Pittsburgh. (PNC declined to comment.)

A political firestorm erupted in Ohio when it became clear the government had turned down National City, a 163-year-old bank with deep roots in Cleveland. Ohio's congressional delegation sent dozens of letters to Messrs. Dugan and Paulson and threatened to hold hearings on how the Treasury had supposedly wrecked a bank they said wasn't in immediate danger of collapsing.

Some lawyers, bankers and analysts say the case marked a turning point in the Treasury's handling of capital injections. For one thing, since then, some weak regional banks have pocketed billions of dollars in TARP funds.

In addition, Ohio banks are now faring better. Twelve Ohio banks have subsequently received a total of $7.7 billion in taxpayer funds. In neighboring Michigan -- like Ohio, hurt by the auto-industry slump -- only two banks have had federal infusions and a third has preliminary approval, for infusions totaling $638 million.

Among the Ohio beneficiaries is Huntington Bancshares Inc., of Columbus. It received a $1.4 billion federal investment in November, even though, like National City, it was hurt by souring real-estate loans and the weak regional economy. Amid mounting losses, the bank last week replaced its chief executive.

In Alabama, Colonial BancGroup Inc. asked for Treasury cash in November. With its application blessed by its state regulator and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Montgomery bank figured it was a shoo-in for funds, say people familiar with the bank.

Real-Estate Loans

But because Colonial was weighed down by real-estate loans, the Treasury sent the bid to its panel for reviewing controversial applications, consisting of four federal regulatory bodies: the FDIC, the Fed, the OCC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Negotiations lasted several weeks. Eventually, the Treasury gave preliminary approval to Colonial's request for $550 million in capital.

The slow process infuriated Alabama officials. The same day that Colonial announced its application had been approved, Trabo Reed, Alabama's deputy banking superintendent, wrote a letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, complaining that the government had dragged its feet and kept banks and state officials in the dark. The letter didn't specifically cite Colonial (which had no comment).

Rep. Bachus's office forwarded the letter to the heads of bank regulatory agencies and asked them to examine the situation. Since the letter was forwarded, two more Alabama banks have received TARP funding. Five Alabama banks, including Colonial, are slated to collect a total of about $4.2 billion.

In all, about 50 state-chartered Alabama banks applied, according to state banking superintendent John Harrison. He says his office helped shepherd them through the process, figuring that "the more applied, the more had the chance to get it."

Mr. Harrison says that in addition to Rep. Bachus, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, "has been a big proponent for Alabama state-chartered banks...and he was really concerned that the TARP money went here." The banking official added: "We're blessed with a U.S. senator that was on the banking committee and Spencer Bachus being the ranking Republican" on the House panel. "I think [the Treasury] got the message."

Aides to Rep. Bachus said he did nothing more than forward Mr. Reed's letter and ask for consideration. Sen. Shelby has consistently opposed the financial-system bailout. His office denied that he was involved in helping Alabama banks get money. "Sen. Shelby has never intervened on anyone's behalf for TARP money," an aide to the lawmaker said.

The bank that Rep. Frank of Massachusetts went to bat for, OneUnited, saw its capital level sink in early September after the U.S. took control of the overextended mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. OneUnited, a closely held Boston-based lender with offices in Florida and California too, held large amounts of Fannie Mae preferred shares. Their value plunged after the U.S. put Fannie and Freddie into a federal conservatorship, acquired preferred shares in them and took warrants entitling the government to nearly 80% of their common stock.

The moves left OneUnited's capital badly depleted. A measure called "Tier 1 risk-based capital" equaled only 1.88% of assets at the bank, versus a desired level of about 6%. A OneUnited lawyer, Robert Cooper, says he called Rep. Frank and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, both Democrats, to complain that the Treasury's move had hurt the bank.

Rep. Waters heads the House Financial Services subcommittee on housing, and until last spring her husband, Sidney Williams, was a OneUnited director. Rep. Frank, besides heading the Financial Services Committee, has longstanding ties to OneUnited, and recalls having had a deposit account at a predecessor bank in the 1960s.

Later that month, Rep. Frank was intimately involved in crafting the legislation that created the $700 billion financial-system rescue plan. Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited bank, he inserted into the bill a provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low- and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"I did feel that it was important to frankly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.

Porsche for Executives

On Oct. 27, the FDIC and Massachusetts bank regulatory officials, alleging poor lending practices and executive-compensation abuses by OneUnited, slapped it with a strong enforcement action, a cease-and-desist order. Among other things, the officials told the bank to get rid of a 2008 Porsche for executives.

Mr. Cooper, the bank's attorney, dismisses the order as a "hastily cobbled together" action. "What we are talking about is a hiccup, a blip on the screen of an otherwise-stellar enterprise," he says. Asked whether the bank had sold the Porsche, he said only that it was complying with the order.

Mr. Frank -- who has played a leading role in both the initial design of TARP and current planning to revamp it -- says he spoke with a federal regulator and asked that OneUnited be given consideration for TARP money, "without in any way impinging on their general safety and soundness rules." Mr. Frank said he didn't remember which federal regulator he spoke with.

On Dec. 19, OneUnited received $12 million from the Treasury, on condition it raise $20 million from its shareholders, which it did.

Ms. McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Bush administration Treasury, said that OneUnited's application was subject to the same review process as other banks faced.

Mr. Frank said he didn't try to interfere with the regulatory process. "We have never told the regulators that they should ease up on them or not order them to do this or that," he said.

He cites the bank's status as the state's only financial institution owned by African-Americans. "We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that's why I think it was important to try to help them."

Rep. Waters said she was unaware that the bank received money. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com and David Enrich at david.enrich@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

"Political" Appointments and the Blagojevich Scandal

    Doubtless the most depressing political news I've heard all week has to do with the ongoing scandal involving embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich- but it isn't what you think. No, it's not the fact that Illinois politics is largely corrupt- that's hardly a surprise. It's the casual ackowledgement of just how rotten the political system in this country as a whole has become and the apparent lack of genuine outrage from, well, anyone.

     Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell ackowledged as much in her column this Sunday,(http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1329871,CST-NWS-mitch14.article) Get Away From Pay to Play: Vote. In it, Mitchell called for a special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama; her reasoning, quite matter-of-factly, was that the Blagojevich scandal was hardly an isolated incident, but rather an endemic part of Illinois politics and politics in general:

        "I suspect that Blagojevich's biggest sin, and the thing that has members of the General Assembly gnashing their teeth, is that he was so inept at the sleazy gamesmanship that is an integral part of Illinois politics...

        Because regardless of how we rail against Blagojevich, at the heart of all politics is pay to play.

        Yes. There's a thin line between expectations and shakedown. But do any of us really believe that the people who raise huge sums of money for a particular political candidate aren't expecting something for their efforts?

        Do we really believe that a person who is vested with the power to give away a Senate seat isn't going to give it to the person who will somehow do him or her the most good?"

    Mitchell went on to elaborate on this point in her appearance later that morning in a rountable discussion on NBC's Meet the Press featuring Mitchell, host David Gregory, and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd. On that show, Mitchell had this to say:

        "Reality check. Pay to play- everybody knows it. Not just in politics- office politics- pay to play. You know, if you know the boss and you need something from the boss, he's gonna look around and find the person gonna do him the most good. He's not gonna put somebody in a place of power that isn't doing him any good- that's the world. That's how the world works.

        But there is a line. You gotta know how to play the game and Blagojevich, Governor Blagojevich was tacky in playing the game. That's what people are upset about. They're embarassed that this man had the nerve to get caught on the wire-tap using foul language, actually giving voice to, you know, the wink-and-the-nod thing. He didn't just wink and nod. He actually tried to shake people down, according to the wire-taps."

    As if to drive home Mitchell's point about the "wink-and-nod thing," David Gregory referenced an article from Sunday's New York Times about New York Senator Chuck Schumer's prolific fund-raising from Wall Street contributors (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html?ref=us), saying, "This is part of entrenched politics in Washington."

    Chuck Todd responded, "...what happened in the financial situation, you look at what some of the contributions Wall Street made and, you know, there is a connection here. You wonder why legislation, why some things were overlooked or why Wall Street was allowed to do these credit default swaps or what- there are lines here of, you know, huge donations made to people that are in charge of these regulations, (to members of) the Senate Banking Committee, uh, and elected U.S. Senators."

    Gregory added, "And none of this is illegal, by the way. Even to raise it as an example is, nothing wrong with it- it's part of the system."

    Well, it may not be illegal, it may be "part of the system," but that doesn't mean there's "nothing wrong with it." The points raised by these political pundits about how the game is played notwithstanding, I think the people of Illinois would prefer that their elected officials base their decisions on what's best for the people of Illinois rather than "the person who will somehow do him or her the most good."

    I also assume that the people of Massachusetts would prefer that a contract for construction of the Boston Tunnel had been awarded to the most reliable, competent contractor. I'm pretty sure that the people of New Orleans would have preferred that President Bush appoint the most qualified candidate to head FEMA, or that money appropriated to building and fortifying the levees didn't instead make its way into the pockets (or freezers) of their local elected officials.

    And I'm quite certain that every American impacted by the current economic fiasco should be outraged that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and their political cronies at the SEC, FINRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. were more concerned with acquiring political power, lining their own pockets, or fattening their campaign coffers than they were with acting in the best interests of you and me.

    If Blagojevich's greatest sin was not corruption, but merely a lack of tact, if political appointments are regularly based on who raises the most money for your next campaign and not "best man for the job," if "the heart of all politics is pay to play," perhaps it's time to cut the heart out.

    Are we all so numb to the corruption and cronyism of political patronage in this country that we look to the same crooks who got us into this mess when the fallout from it hits us where we live? Caroline Kennedy is now the favorite to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant senate seat; her only qualifications are her popularity among the Manhattan Democratic elites, her ability to raise money, and her last name. How is that any less ethical than the Illinois Governor's pay-for-play scandal?

    Here's hoping the New York Democratic elites prefer to fulfill their party leader's promise of change we can believe in rather than opting for politics as usual...

Well, What Do You Expect From a Politician?

    Outgoing U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican convicted just weeks ago on seven felony counts related to his failure to report some $250,000 in "gifts," said his final, formal farewell to his colleagues on the Senate floor. The 84-year-old Stevens was the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate.

    Just eight days before the election, a D.C. jury took less than five hours to unanimously convict Stevens on all counts. Despite that, Stevens' re-election bid fell just short in an extremely tight race against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

    Stevens' popularity and support by Alaskans, even in the face of his conviction, shouldn't come as a surprise to those of us in the lower forty-eight. Stevens, who has a long record of service, was highly polpular with Alaskans over most of his career, and was voted Alaskan of the Century in 2000 by the Alaskan of the Year Committee; however, Stevens popularity took a big hit in Alaska and nationwide when his "bridge to nowhere" became synonymous with wasteful pork spending amid criticism by Democrats and fiscal conservatives alike that the irresponsible spending of the Republican Congress under Bush was saddling the taxpayers with record deficits.

    That said, Stevens' farewell address to the Senate was, other than the usual "thanks for the memories" formalities, largely an almost boastful reminder of the most significant accomplishments of his career and a reiteration of his commitment to fight his conviction. That, too, should come as no surprise.

    As one of the most powerful members of the Republican-controlled Congress that, with George W. Bush's rubber stamp, spent like "drunken sailors," Stevens was one of the Senate's leading drunken sailors. Stevens, who chose to use his political power to load up on pork, also rebuffed calls from his own party to end his re-election bid (after his indictment) in an effort to allow his party to retain the seat.

    Stevens' protestations and self-aggrandizement to this day, his obsession with preserving his legacy, even in the face of his sins, harkens back to the infamous denials of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, etc.

    It's exactly what we've come to expect from a politician.