CSPAN The Senate Debate of the House Stimulus Bill in Real Time

All day sessions of Senators' presentations pro and con, without edit--no O'Reilly or VanSusteren selective sound bites, (although I enjoy their shows for different reasons).

Here is what stood out to me as notable from the week's hearings:


The Coburn Amendment to strike tax breaks for the film industry -- approved.

The Coburn Amendment to allow bonus depreciation for the film industry -- approved.

Did I get this right ? Seems as if bonus depreciation would be a tax break.



The McCain Amendment giving the Stimulus Package a chance to work, but after two full quarters of demonstrated growth in the GNP, some new Bill provisions would sunset, and Congress would begin working toward a balanced budget-- defeated.



The Ensign-Boxer bi-partisan amendment on "repatriated funds," which would have offered a tax rate lower than the going US business based rate of 35% to get off shore US company profits back in US banks and working to back more US jobs -- defeated. Apparently defeated on the basis that it was just not fair to offer a tax rate lower than what US companies currently pay, even if it meant instant "found money" for the US economy.



But the Dorgan "Buy America" amendment which McCain opposed, quoting President Obama as having said it would undermine international trade agreements and should be voted down, was passed.



The Vitter amendment referred to a "laundry list" of specifics I did not find in reading the website version of the House Bill:

--$20 million for removal of small and medium size fish barriers (where? in a specific state?)

--$150 million for honeybee insurance

--$400 million to prevent STDs

--$100 million for the 2010 census taking

--$13 million for Amtrak subsidies (which I think is already a yearly regular budget item)

--$75 million for state department training

--Homeland consolidation and streamlining at a cost of $248 million (is this an oxymoron ?)



The Coburn amendment highlighted some additional items, saying that the prohibitions on these, which were in the House bill, were not in the Senate version:



--funding for renovations of museums, swimming pools, aquariums, golf courses, theaters, highway beautification and art projects

-- a Rhode Island tree planting project

--a Chula Vista, CA dog park

-- $100,000. for an Alameda, CA skate park

-- Rhode Island zoo renovation

--$6.1 million for corporate jet hanger renovations for Arkansas

--$ 500,000 for a Dayton, Ohio golf course

--$50 million for a Las Vegas Museum


Would these be called "earmarks" ?

The website version of the House bill states: "There are no earmarks in this package."


Coburn's amendment to prohibit the above -- tabled as of today (Thursday, February 5)


Coburn's amendment requiring competitive bidding on ALL governmental projects -- defeated.


Brasso's amendment to require new projects to begin within 9 months rather than taking months, years to get permitted-- defeated.


The Martinez amendment to provide insurance to protect loan servicers currently stalled in their reworking of toxic loans by the fear of law suits against them (by lenders they serve?) -- withdrawn.


The Bunning amendment to suspend tax increases on social security benefits -- defeated.


The Harkins amendment to give a $10,000. subsidy (ie mandatory trade-in credit on your old auto) for buyers of new, cleaner, more efficient cars assembled in the USA-- withdrawn.

What passed?

--$15,000 tax credits for home buyers

--$2 Billion additional aid for state housing finance for affordble housing, which is now stalled because credit is stalled.

--an increase from $2 million to $5 million for loans to small businesses


And the bulk of the House bill remains in tact.


The purpose of my blog is essentially to clarify and understand for myself, events I consider important to understand as a voter. If it informs you in some way, if I have got something wrong, or if you wish to have a friendly debate, feel free to comment.

Inauguration 2009: Awesome and Inspiring

Regardless of whom you voted for, you would have to be a flatliner not to feel uplifted by the
warm, high-spirited jubilance of this day. A putting aside of politics as usual, a sense of "let's lighten up," for today and savor the celebration of America, its reverence for the will of the people and the rule of law, its tolerance of diverse religions and ethnicities ; and,today, its arms-open-wide joining together of all Americans.

I want the celebration to last for weeks, to last forever. I want the promises for positive change, especially universal health care, made by then president- elect Obama, to begin tomorrow

I applaud all the members of the U.S. security organizations who protected our outgoing and incoming leaders from harm on this day and who will continue to do so from this day forward.

You are my personal heroes.

So called "scapegoating" may be a smart way for prosecutors to get to the big timers guilty of mortgage fraud

An article entitled, "On the Trail of Mortgage Fraud," by Don Thompson of the Associated Press, was forwarded to me by a friend. The article is worth reading for background on the current "whys" as to how the financial melt down came about. However, I take issue with Michael Cardoza, the San Francisco attorney representing one of those charged (with fraud, I believe) in central California. Cardoza, as quoted by Thompson, complains, "Now they're just picking off the little people...They're doing scapegoats is what they're doing." While, Cardoza implies, "... the people on Wall Street walk."



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, not too many years back, the higher ups at Enron were ultimately sacked, not as a result of prosecutors calling before Congress, Enron corporate level officials (who testified so as to protect themselves and each other--remember Jeff Schilling, who was "out of the conference room" when crucial decisions were put on paper and signed off on?), but by the prosecutors who started with lower level employees, who might have witnessed improprieties of their bosses and had more to gain by coughing up information that would get them out from under the fire. It is my understanding that this kind of information solidified the cases against the higher ups.




So Mr. Cardoza can cry no fair picking on my client, that's his job; but in rebuttal, I would point out that, based on the Enron process, starting with "scapegoats,' and working up to corporate level S.O.B.s would appear to have merit.

Politics By Barney Frank

Last Tuesday, December 9, I watched the House debate and vote on the bill to fund automakers 14-15 billion dollars in financial support (HR 7321). About midway in the debate, Rep. Frank rose to encourage the passing of the bill and also to recognize a recent amendment to the bill, which he also applauded. This Green Amendment stated that although financial institutions had promised to use the first half of TARP funds to primarily make new loans to help homeowners facing possible foreclosure, these financials had indeed not yet done so, but instead, were still holding onto the money or using it to buy into new bank mergers. A disappointing show of faith, a lack of follow-through. The Green amendment proposed that before further funding to these financial institutions would be approved, they would need to show that they had in fact, made an appropriate number of new loans to avoid possible foreclosures, with the first TARP funds awarded.



So, Frank implied, you members of the House, can hold them more acountable for the remaining TARP funds if you vote for the Green Amendment, AND, since you should vote for this stellar mandate on accountability, then you must of course vote FOR 7321 to fund assistance for the automakers. (ie If you want the one, why would you vote against the other?)

This happens, I'm sure, on a regular basis in Congress, but it was the first time that I could actually watch the "gotcha" in politics in real time.

Doublespeak ?

Here are some phrases (approximate quotes) from legislative hearings on the plight of the financial sector:

We are still in a policy process.
We need a paradigm shift.
...using a protocol similar to ours.
...regulatory arbitrage
(We) need more even regulations across a wider range of institutions
(We need) a hightened supervisory process

Oh how the verbally skilled can dazzle Congress.

another "seen on camera" wannabe

Reece Witherspoon is being interviewed on camera. Behind her is a--perhaps 40 something-- woman, who moves closer in, up behind Witherspoon, apparently wanting to hear more clearly. But it is soon apparent that she wants mostly to be seen. As W. speaks, the other, while maintaining an expression of rapt interest, rests her chin on the shoulder of the woman in front of her. This woman, I think, doesn't know her from Adam, shrugs the resting chin back, off. The woman then steps back a bit, readjusts her black wrap around her shoulders, leans over into the warmth of the wrap, while shifting an arm up inside the wrap -- to adjust her dress--? reposition her bra? Further define her cleavage on camera ? Definitely a distraction...!

While watching CSpan or coverage from Olympia on Legislative debates, I am sometimes struck by the thought that one could concentrate more fully on the content of speakers' presentations if it were not for the distraction of some of those in the first row behind a given speaker, many of whom apparently want badly to be seen or see themselves on camera (or both).

On the other hand, it can lighten things up.

For example, behind a given speaker, an ear will appear, then half a face attached to the ear, then the full face, as the individual, in an effort to be seen, feigns straining to see more clearly, some point out in front and to the left or right of center of the speaker, and in so straining, gets his full face within camera view.


Or, someone directly behind the speaker and therefore largely blocked from on-camera, will squirm in apparent discomfort, un- cross and recross his/her legs, shifting, so that one elbow rests on the opposite knee, conveniently putting him/her in camera view on one side or the other.



Or, an otherwise absorbed listener, will, upon realizing the camera has shifted to him apparently think of some humorous thought to pass on to his neighbor, leaning sideways within camera view, whispering, some apparently humorous inside joke/observation, smiling--but not for the camera, mind you.