Showing posts with label corptocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corptocracy. Show all posts

Monday, November 24, 2008

Money for Nothing

From the same folks that brought you the 1989 S&L collapse, please welcome the 2008 team!
Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.
[...]
``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''
And that's just the money Congress voted for.

But wait, there's more!
Fed's Role in Crisis Is Giant, if Opaque

[...]
Largely outside public view, however, the Federal Reserve is lending far more than that amount -- $893 billion, roughly the equivalent of the annual economic output of Mexico -- to help a wide range of institutions weather the economic storm.

As of last week, the Fed's loans included $507 billion to banks, $50 billion to investment firms, $70 billion for money market mutual funds, and $266 billion to companies that use a form of short-term debt called commercial paper. It is considering a new program that would make billions more available to prop up consumer lending: auto loans, credit cards and the like.
And if you act now you'll receive:
U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.

“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”
And then there's this:
Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer
Agency Let Lenders Grow Out of Control, Then Fail

When Countrywide Financial felt pressured by federal agencies charged with overseeing it, executives at the giant mortgage lender simply switched regulators in the spring of 2007.

The benefits were clear: Countrywide's new regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, promised more flexible oversight of issues related to the bank's mortgage lending. For OTS, which depends on fees paid by banks it regulates and competes with other regulators to land the largest financial firms, Countrywide was a lucrative catch.

But OTS was not an effective regulator. This year, the government has seized three of the largest institutions regulated by OTS, including IndyMac Bancorp, Washington Mutual -- the largest bank in U.S. history to go bust -- and on Friday evening, Downey Savings and Loan Association. The total assets of the OTS thrifts to fail this year: $355.7 billion. Three others were forced to sell to avoid failure, including Countrywide.
[...]
Senior executives at Countrywide who participated in the meetings said OTS pitched itself as a more natural, less antagonistic regulator than OCC and that Mozilo preferred that. Government officials outside OTS who were familiar with the negotiations provided a similar description.

"The general attitude was they were going to be more lenient," one Countrywide executive said. For example, he said other regulators, specifically OCC and the Federal Reserve, were very demanding that large banks not allow loan officers to participate in the selection of property appraisers. "But the OTS sold themselves on having a more liberal interpretation of it," the executive said.

Winning Countrywide was important for OTS, which is funded by assessments on the roughly 750 banks it regulates, with the largest firms paying much of the freight.
But of course no one could have; predicted/foreseen/anticipated 9/11, New Orleans' levys, Iraq quagmire, financial disaster ... except all the experts in those areas that weren't drinking the Bush koolaid (and us DFHs.)

I know this post has been long, especially if you followed and read the links, so I'll leave you with a joke I saw in comments here:
"A parody on how the bailout works: A man wanted to buy a donkey, so he went to a farmer and asked him to sell him one. The farmer agreed to sell the man a donkey for $100 but told the man he would have to come back tomorrow to pick it up.

The man returned the next day to retrieve his donkey only to be told by the farmer that the donkey had died overnight. OK, said the man, just give me back my $100 and we're good. I can't do that, said the farmer, I spent the money last night.

No problem, said the man, I know how to fix this situation. So the man started a raffle for the donkey, not telling anyone that the donkey was already dead. He sold 500 tickets at $2 each, for a total of $1000.

Confused, the farmer asked the man, 'Didn't anyone complain about the donkey already being dead?' 'Only the guy that won the raffle and I simply gave him his $2 back and he was happy', said the man."




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

But they never let you know, On the TV and the radio

Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh:
Defiant FCC Chief Refuses To Delay Vote

Friday, December 14, 2007

Facing growing criticism of his agenda and tactics, a defiant Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, refused senators’ requests Thursday to delay a vote next week on his plan to loosen restrictions on owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same city.
[...]
Martin wants to lift the so-called cross-ownership ban in the top 20 U.S. markets and allow such combinations in smaller markets if the FCC determines that they would be in the public interest.
[...]
Lawmakers and public interest groups had expected the FCC’s periodic review of its media ownership rules to extend into next year. But Martin accelerated the process in October, rushing to hold the final two public hearings with minimal notice and proposing to vote on a plan Tuesday, just a week after public comments were due at the FCC.
Once again Kommissar Martin is ignoring The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.

The congress, the public hearings and public comments were overwhelmingly against more media consolidation. So what's Martin's reaction? He and his fellow bush appointees changed the freakin' rules anyway!
FCC, on 3-2 vote, OKs media ownership rule

Dec 19, 2007

Federal regulators Tuesday brushed aside the concerns of lawmakers and decided to ease the reins on media companies seeking to own newspaper and broadcast properties in the same market in the nation's 20 biggest markets.
But wait, there's more!
FCC chief defends media ownership rules

Tue Dec 25

The Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is disputing Democratic assertions that a new rule loosening restrictions on media ownership is full of loopholes and will lead to a wave of mergers and fewer choices for consumers.
[...]
The conflicting impressions say a lot about the divisive nature of the media ownership debate. Too much media in the hands of too few companies raises fears of an emerging corporate big brother and fewer news and information sources.
[...]
Since then, questions over what the rule actually means have lingered. The rule itself — despite a commission vote — has yet to be released to the public.
Quick summation; the rethuglican chairman of a public agency ignored Congress, studies and the public to institute a rule that they haven't released to the public ... and defended his illegal and unconstitutional actions on Christmas Day.

Do they know it's Christmas? Yeah, but they don't care. I see a Meddle In Honor in his future.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Communications Breakdown, It's Always the Same

Media Ownership: The Federal Communications Commission, supposedly an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress, but actually appointed by the President, is once again insistent upon letting a smaller number of large corporations consolidate and control a larger number of markets in large areas of our country.

Even though they have been caught lying multiple times and have had their media ownership rulings overturned by Federal Courts, they continue to persist.

The latest attempt is by holding 'public hearings' all around the country, gathering 'public comments' and then doing exactly what their corporate masters wanted them to do in the first place. If you examine, (Science! I sampled 35% of the latest 300 comments going back 2 months, and only left out the responses from law firms. After all, these were public comments, not corporation comments), 100% of the public comments are against further consolidation.

Yet the FCC seems determined to relax the rules. It's so blatant that even Trent Lott(R- KKK) is determined to stop it:
Lawmakers Threaten Veto Of FCC Media Rule Changes

[...]
Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., said they would seek support from their fellow lawmakers for what is known as a resolution of disapproval, in effect a vote to overturn a rule passed by an executive agency like the FCC.

The senators are concerned over a plan circulated by Martin that would see him put forward proposals for reforming the media ownership rules in November and then hold a vote on those proposals only a month later.
[...]
The resolution of disapproval is so rare, it has only been attempted one time previously said the senators, and that was the last time the FCC attempted to overhaul the media ownership rules.
Well, good luck with that. Seriously, I wish them good luck with that.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

There's radiation in my head, Suffer for life

White House May Stop Plan For Anti-Radiation Pills

The White House may scrap a plan that would give anti-radiation pills to millions of people, five years after Congress ordered that the tablets be made available to anyone living within 20 miles of a nuclear reactor.
[...]
Although the White House at the time called potassium iodide pills crucial to preventing thyroid cancer in cases of radiation exposure, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) argues against wider distribution of the drug. According to the NRC, the pills may not be the most effective way to prevent cancer and could undermine confidence in U.S. nuclear plants.
[...]
In July, President Bush stripped the Health and Human Services Department of responsibility for the program and turned it over to the NRC.
[...]
[Patricia Milligan, the NRC’s senior adviser for preparedness] says the NRC is concerned about undermining the reputation of the nuclear industry. “It’s always a concern that if you expand the distribution (of the pills), you don’t have confidence in the plants
Bush is breaking the law again. Bush shouldn't have the power to not enforce laws mandated by Congress. It's the freakin' LAW!

Bush is breaking the law so people 'won't lose confidence' in nuke reactors. (Hmm, where have I heard that before?) Like anyone who lives within 20 miles of reactor wouldn't have moved already if they could afford to.

Bastards.


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Houston, we have a ... uhh, never mind

NASA won't disclose air safety survey

[...]
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.
[...]
The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," [senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke] wrote in a final denial letter to the AP.
[...]
Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry."
Once again, Bushco has perverted prevented a taxpayer funded agency from presenting the truth. Their excuse for denying a Freedom Of Information Act request would have been laughed at in any other era. But it's not a laughing matter, Bushco has quashed several lawsuits and investigations claiming 'state secrets', but to claim an 8.5 million dollar tax payer funded investigation should not be released because it might hurt commercial interests is proof of how far our country has descended into a corptocracy.

Besides, if long lines, delays, deaths in custody, mandatory disrobing, body searches and hijacked planes being flown into buildings haven't stopped people from flying I reeeealy don't think a little airspace incursion uptick will stop us.


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak