Crying wolf

Now that George W. Bush has gone on television with the drastic consequences should we not bail out imploding investment houses to the tune of $700 billion dollars, one question I have is … why should we or our elected representatives believe a word this man is saying?

The last time Mr. Bush used fear in order to push his agenda, while the country was in the midst of shock and mourning, we heard of ticking time bombs, smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds, and the complicity of Iraq in the horrendous crime perpetrated on 9/11. Mr. Bush lied us into a disastrous war. Then, as the proof of our treatment of prisoners held by the military, the CIA, and the rendition program filtered out, Mr. Bush insisted that we do not torture, that we were witnessing the behavior of a few “bad apples”. Meanwhile, they were discussing torture techniques in the White House and ditching any lawyer who suggested that the techniques under consideration were criminal.

Now, with the country reeling over plummeting housing values and steep increases in everything from gasoline to groceries, Mr Bush appears on national television with his dire predictions, and his Treasury Secretary asks for a blank check to administer the bailout program. Naomi Klein has much to say about using shock to push through economic policies that benefit the few, but at least this time Congress is fighting back, and insisting on some oversight and some consequences for executive mismanagement. Still, it appears that only the most conservative Republicans in Congress are willing to seriously question the legitimacy of asking taxpayers to purchase bad debt in order to forestall the disaster described by a dishonest President Bush.

Perhaps an impartial economist, one not tied to a disgraced administration or a failing Wall Street investment firm could clue the public in on what is really happening with our so-called free-market economy.

The bailout hypocrisy

Now that the Bush administration is requesting a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street investment moguls and their companies, a little perspective is in order. It was almost one year ago that Mr. Bush vetoed an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, much to the dismay of members of his own party. The Congressional attempt to cover an additional 3.5 million low- to middle-income children was viewed by the Bush administration as a “federalization” of health insurance. The grand total of funds requested for this endeavor – $60 billion over five years.

Most experts now agree that some form of federal bailout is necessary to keep the American economy afloat – and that the Wall Sreet firms now in trouble are “too big to fail”. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself a former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, will oversee the federal bailout, and has already suggested that a “clean bill” (one without the encumbrances of the democratic process) clear the House and Senate without delay. Ordinary Americans may be chastised for the decisions that lead to their bad debt, but Secretary Paulson insists that the Wall Street bailout remain free of punitive actions.  And while taxpayers are being asked to foot the enormous bill brought about by questionable if not criminal lending practices in support of Mr Bush’s “ownership society”, the administration is balking at such sensible terms as limiting the amount of participating CEO remuneration and giving bankruptcy judges the ability to change the terms of primary mortgages and help homeowners avoid foreclosure. In a display of unmitigated gall, those same industries that are now dependent on government help are lobbying against any aid for struggling homeowners.

To be fair, both parties are responsible for the meltdown we are currently witnessing, as Democrats as well as Republicans are beholden to the financiers now in so much trouble. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Financial Service Modernization Act (also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) in 1999 effectively repealing the Depression era Glass-Steagall Act and removing the wall between commercial and investment banking. That would be the “nation of whiners” Gramm, who until recently was a John McCain economic advisor. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, yet another former CEO of Goldman-Sachs and now an Obama economic advisor championed the repeal. And when Congress passed the bankruptcy reform bill of 2005, handing a huge victory to the credit card industry, 18 Democrats (including the current vice-presidential nominee) voted for passage of the egregious legislation.

The Republican nominee has rid himself, at least publicly, of his troublesome economic advisor. Senator Obama should do the same, and seek economic advice from individuals who are not tainted by their actions in support of the current crisis.

A tale of two media

While journalists at the Republican National Convention continue their dutiful reporting of the proceedings – commenting on the speeches, looking for the typical delegate, opining about whether the choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice-President will reel in disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters – a veritable police state has sprung up in the streets of St. Paul. But you won’t hear much about this in the mainstream press. After all, out in the streets, those who dare to document the activities of law enforcement are roughed up, slammed to the ground, detained or arrested and charged with a felony.

Additionally, as happened when Amy Goodman and two producers of Democracy Now! were arrested, their press credentials and credentials for the convention were confiscated by Secret Service officers and not returned. When Goodman later questioned the St. Paul police chief on how journalists covering street demonstrations could avoid arrest, he said they should “embed” with the police department. Access, of course, is everything to the mainstream media, where hobnobbing with replaces speaking truth to power. The need for access clearly informed the “embedded” coverage of the Iraq war and the Bush administration in general.

Meanwhile the surveillance state inaugurated after the 9-11 attacks is alive, well, and unscrutinized by the embedded media organizations, as groups opposed to current US policies were infiltrated and raided prior to the Republican Convention. These organizations include I Witness Video, which films police tactics during demonstrations and whose film footage was instrumental in charges being dropped against many of the demonstrators at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Law enforcement personnel raided the home where members of this organization were staying, searched their belongings, and detained them for three hours before releasing them without charges. Among the many tactics used by police and the FBI were the recruitment of moles to infiltrate groups of RNC protesters at such dangerous places as “vegan potlucks”.

The major media organizations are once again ignoring governmental overreach conducted in the name of national security. It appears that cowed by the specter of vegan terrorists, and just a week before the painful anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, the corporate media would prefer to ignore civil rights violations rather than face accusations of being “with the enemy” and losing access to power.