Please Respond Immediately Forthwith In Confidence

Dear American:

I cordially correspond today to request you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude which is most seriously important.



I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused urgent need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion USD. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.



I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who (God willing) will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a former U.S. congressional leader and the architect of the PALIN / McCain Financial Doctrine, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. As such, you can be assured that this transaction is 100% safe.



This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred. For this inconvenience you will be rewarded with grand fees of 1/1,000,000th of 1% of possible profits due to off shore laundering of skim funds due to reprinting of said funds.



Please reply with mother's maiden name, routing and account numbers of all of your bank account, IRA, 401K, pension funds, gold and silver accounts, serial numbers of any weapons you own, and college fund accounts and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.



Please Respond Immediately Forthwith In Confidence.



Yours Faithfully and Sincerely,

Minister of Treasury Paulson

h/t Melina and Richard.



Now, let's get real.


Here's Ian Welsh.

Firedoglake

Chris Dodd Stares Down Paulson

So there was "Goldman" Hank, holding a gun on the economy and staring Congress down. "Give me the 700 billion, or the economy gets it!" he threatened. For two days it looked like he was going to get away with it, 700 billion dollars to spend on the Wall Street gang, the boys who'd already shot the economy up so bad it was in danger of bleeding to death.

Then Marshal Dodd came swinging through doors, shotgun in hand, and said "not so fast Hank. Put the gun down, and back away from the economy. We're going to do this my way."

For a moment calm reigned, then from off one side came a high pitched squeak, "you just put down that gun Dodd," said Bush as he leveled his blunderbuss "the Veto" at Dodd, "and you let my good friend Hank walk away with the money or I'll use this gun." He swivelled and instead of aiming it at Dodd, put its muzzle right against the economy's head. "I'll do it. Don't think I won't! I've killed an economy before!"

Hand still on the trigger, Dodd glanced over at Reid. The old man's fighting days, some said, were long gone. Dodd hoped Reid had one big fight left in him. If he didn't, the economy was done, and Paulson would get away, scot-free.

So yeah, the Dodd plan. Good plan. Buying up mortgages for 15% less than the current market value of the house, then reissuing a clean mortgage to homeowners helps the banks while still giving them a slight haircut (but only slight, odds are home prices will drop more than 15% before the slide is over.) It helps homeowners stay in their houses. It sets a market price so that banks know what mortgages are worth and thus what the derivatives based on houses are worth. And giving the mortgages bought to the FDIC, one of the few agencies that Bush didn't cripple, is genius.

Giving the government stock equal to the value of any bailout for the company is also only fair. If they get bailed out, taxpayers should have a chance to get their money back. If they don't like that, well, beggars, and they are beggars, shouldn't be choosers.

There's more...

If that wasn't enough, Ian kicks it again.

Firedoglake

What the Dodd Bill Needs To Be Complete

As much as I think the Dodd bill is a significant improvement over the Paulson power grab, and I do, it is missing a number of important things.

First, as Kay Hagan points out, the review portion seems to be missing teeth. If the review board doesn't like what the Secretary is doing, what can it do about it? Also, she's right that it needs to meet once a week, not once a month. This crisis is moving too fast for once a month.

Second, there doesn't seem to be any provision for paying for this beyond praying it'll eventually pay for itself. I don't see any good reason not to add in Bernie Sanders suggestion of a 10% surcharge tax on the Americans who earn over a million a year. They're the ones who benefited from the last 8 years, who benefited from the policies which caused this disaster, they're the ones who should pay to clean up the mess.

Next, the bill (Section 10) allows for insurance of money market funds but doesn't appear to require that if they fail anyway, they be taken over by the FDIC. This needs to be a bedrock principle, if you blow up your business, the government gets it, you don't get to keep it when in a free market you'd be bankrupt.

I also don't see any real re-regulation of the industry in this bill. That needs to occur, and it needs to be in the bill, because once Wall Street has their bailout they will fight against being properly regulated tooth and nail. This needs to include very strict rules not allowing the use of default insurance any more, getting rid of most different types of swaps, regulations limiting the use of securitization and limits on how debt in general can be sold. (In particular, debt should probably not be able to be sold more than once, and originators should be forced to keep at least half on their books to avoid them selling stuff they know is crap.)

Dodd needs to add an organization which has the right to regulate banks. This needs to be in badly.

There's more...

Call your Senator. They flat out ignore emails and there isn't time to write. CALL. Call today.

Look, I know we ask you sometimes to write or call about this or that. THIS IS THE NEXT 20 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE, FOLKS.

FUCK the Presidential elections. Fuck the Supreme Court.
DIS DA REVOLUTION, MAN.

Right fracking now.

Thirty, forty years, some of us have waited. Here it is. Today. RIGHT NOW.
We screw this up, we are slave fucking labor working for the MAN.
I mean the words I'm using.

Get on the phone.
Call your friends.
Call your family.
Call everyone you know.

Tell them to tell their Senators and Congressman...

HOLD THE LINE. Do not give an inch to the Republicans.
No one fucking inch.

• Support Dodd's plan.
  
• They broke it. They lose control of what happens now.
• No unelected official in charge.
  
• The government owns what it pays for.
• Middle-class people get their mortgages relieved also.
• Bankruptcy Judges can grant mortgage relief.
  
• People over $1 million can pay a 10% surcharge -- they've been making millions on our labor, fair is fair.
• Congress has oversight ongoingly. End of discussion.
• Screw up, go to jail. This is not "get out of jail free" boys. It's save the country, not you.
  
• And no fucking golden parachutes for CEOs, no way, no how.
• Make them pay.

HOLD THE LINE...
Or your grandchildren will still be paying these Republican crooks.
Pick up the phone -- make the call.

There's more...

Chris. Dodd. Rocks.

Wave yer lighters and give the Senator some...


I'm not one to look to our so-called “august” bodies—the House and Senate for much in the way of principled leadership. Could be I'm jaded. Could be I'm a simple fist-in-the-face realist who's absorbed a bit of Amiri Baraka's idea of the Dems and GOP too often being “two wings of the same dying bird”.

But every once in a while, an elected representative elevates himself above “teh stoopid” and cravenness that makes our eyes glaze over, and really fights the good fight in a way that leads his waffling brethren to do the right damn thing. A right damn thing that they were fecklessly willing to let slide along with a sizable chunk of the constitution down Bush's chute of totalitarianism.

As Jesse notes below, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd performed one such major elevation above the masses through his leadership in blocking Bush's prized Telecom Immunity in the FISA bill.

He led on this from jump, months ago—promising the filibuster when it seemed his so-called “progressive” co-horts were going to leave him high and dry. Made this promise when he was still running for President, too. And forcefully re-stated his intentions and re-doubled his efforts when it appeared that the Senate Dem leadership had abandoned him. But fight he did—beginning last week, and in one of the very few cases where the battle between right and wrong ended up with right triumphing in recent legislative sessions, he led forcefully and brought enough of his colleagues around (a.k.a. shamed them to where they couldn't slink away like wet rats) to defeat the Telecom Immunity.

He even managed to get Clinton and Obama to get back to D.C. in time to do some actual legislative work.

And anyone who can leave the turtle-faced Mitch McConnell spluttering, make the Haband suited Kit Bond look worse than he usually does, or so pisses off Orrin Hatch that his pointy, white hat won't keep its starch from the heat pouring off his head, is going to get serious kudos from me.

He should from you, too.

Give the REAL Senator from the Nutmeg State's office a call, or drop him an e-mail thanking him for his leadership and protection of your rights as an American.

Tel: (202) 224-2823 or e-mail him here

And remember...for every positive message sent to Senator Dodd, an evil pixie floating around Lindsey Graham's head evaporates.

There's more...

Chris Dodd (D-CT): Man of the Constitution

Chris Dodd and daughter at Labor Day Parade, Milford, NH. Sep 4, 2007.
photo marcn. Click for LARGE photo.

What a Mensch

If not for Senator Chris Dodd, Bush would have already pulled it off.

It ain't over yet.

What stones the man has.

“I will continue to fight retroactive immunity with all the strength any one Senator can muster.”

Damn.

Why can't someone who is, like, actually running for President, demonstrate leadership like this? Instead of using the Presidential Voice? Or telling us about their preparation?

How about some honest-t0-God LEADERSHIP on something before the United States Senate?

Perhaps demonstrating that the Constitution matters? Without having to have damn near every progressive group in America and every liberal blog call your ass out?

Without Chris Dodd, this fight would have been lost last month.

Dodd is a stand-up guy.

Chris Dodd, United States Senator for Connecticut

January 28, 2008

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today rose again to speak on the Senate floor in opposition to a vote to end debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform legislation that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the Bush Administration’s secret wiretapping program. The full text of his remarks as prepared appears below:

VIDEO OF FLOOR SPEECH


Mr. President:

We find ourselves this afternoon in the midst of a parliamentary nightmare.

So much hinges on the bill before us; so many of my colleagues have come to this floor to tell us just how vitally important it is. It will set America’s terrorist surveillance policy well into the next presidential term, and beyond. Depending on the outcome, it has the power to bring that surveillance under the rule of law—or to confirm the president’s urge to be a law of his own. It has the power to bring the facts of warrantless spying to light and to public scrutiny—or to lock down those facts as the property of the powerful. It has the power to declare that the same law applies to all of us, rich or poor, well-connected or not—or to set the precedent that some corporations are too rich to be sued, that immunity can effectively be bought.

Wherever you come down on those choices, you cannot be neutral. None of us can be neutral. This is one of the most contentious pieces of legislation we will debate in this session, or in any session.

And yet—the Senate is frozen today. I’ve objected passionately to retroactive immunity—but I did not shut out debate. Republicans have frozen the Senate since debate began last week. And they unwittingly created a perfect microcosm of retroactive immunity right here in this body. Because both flow from the same impulse: shutting down the organs of government—the courts, or the Senate—when you are afraid you won’t get your way. That’s why President Bush wants his favored corporations saved from lawsuits. And that is why the Republican Party wants this bill saved from any and all amendments—saved from serious and thoughtful discussion.

As a committee chairman myself, I wish I had that privilege! I sometimes wish the bills we passed could be swept through without a single amendment. But that’s not how this body works—that’s not how its Founders intended it to work.

Now, amendments are not entitled to pass. But they are entitled to a fair hearing, a fair debate, and a fair vote. The minority can object as strenuously as it wants—but it must do so fairly. I accept that principle, even when it does not go my way; even on immunity itself, I understand that a minority cannot stand forever. Is it too much for Republicans to extend us the same courtesy?

On a bill as important as this one, it would be ridiculous to curtail debate, shut out new ideas, and rush to a conclusion—without even extending the Protect America Act for a month, to give us the time we need. Because whether you agree with them or not—and some I disagree with, myself—the amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues are serious proposals from serious members.

Shouldn’t we debate whether this new surveillance regime ought to stay inflexible through the next presidential term, and into the one after that?

Shouldn’t we debate whether we’re going to categorically outlaw unconstitutional reverse targeting, or indiscriminate, vacuum cleaner bulk collection?

Shouldn’t we debate whether Congress even gets to see the secret rulings of the FISA Court?

Those are just a few of the well-intentioned proposals we need to consider before we vote on this bill in good conscience. But across the board, the Republican answer to those questions is: No, no, and no.

I disagree, Mr. President. I will vote against cloture, because we haven’t done our job yet.

I will also vote against cloture because I cannot support the bill as it now stands. First, it still contains the egregious provision for corporate immunity. I’ve already made my objections to immunity many times: It puts the president’s chosen few above the law; it endorses possibly illegal spying on Americans; and it strikes a harsh blow against the rule of law. I will continue to fight retroactive immunity with all the strength any one senator can muster.

But I also strongly object to many of the intelligence-gathering portions of this bill. This bill reduces court oversight of spying nearly to the point of symbolism. It could allow the targeting of Americans on false pretenses. It opens us up to new, twisted rationales for warrantless wiretapping, which is exactly what it ought to prevent. It could allow bulk collection of the communications of millions of Americans, as soon as an administration has the wherewithal to build such an enormous dragnet. And it sets all of these deeply flawed provisions in stone for six years, depriving us of the flexibility we need to fight terrorism.

For those reasons, as well, I will vote against cloture.

Tonight, President Bush will come to Congress to speak to us, and to the American people, about the state of the Union. I hope he will use that opportunity to realize that the Senate needs more time to do its constitutional duty to debate and consider this important legislation.

However, I am concerned he will instead continue to threaten to veto this legislation unless it includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies.

The President has said that this bill is essential to ‘protecting the American people from enemies who attacked our country.’ So why is he trying to stop it? Why did he promise to veto it? Why would he throw it all away to protect a few corporations from lawsuits?

I fear that if we give the President what he wants, we risk weakening the rule of law and placing the rights of some of the President’s favored corporations over the rights of ordinary American citizens.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing cloture today on the substitute amendment and allow the Senate the time it needs to debate and improve the FISA Amendments Act. This issue is too important to our security and our civil liberties to do otherwise.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

-30-

There's more...

Senator Dodd on CSPAN2 next

Few things are more detrimental to this country than the erosion of and attack on the civil liberties we enjoy. This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; this is an American issue. If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law. More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you.

He is on CSPAN2 next. Fighting for Americans.

There's more...

Telecom Immunity Squashed

Some good news for a change

From OpenLeft, we hear:

Senator Chris Dodd's Presidential campaign died with a whimper in Iowa. But he still seems to be dictating national security policy to fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill, and unless the Bush Administration is willing to fight, perhaps to the next President too.

We're told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is saying privately he now won't attempt to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Which contained immunity for the Telecommunication companies which performed wiretaps and handed over customer information before and after 9/11 to the government. Which is against the law.

Good for Chris Dodd, good for the blogosphere who made it clear Reid was in for a fight on this.

There's more...