Tag Archives: Harry Reid

The Luckiest Man in Nevada

09 Wednesday Jun 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I hope Harry Reid made a stop this morning at Caesar’ s Palace or the Golden Nugget and put down a very large wager on his favorite game of chance. In spite of approval ratings hovering in the 30’s, Sen. Reid has to feel like the luckiest man in the state of Nevada after the results of last night’s Republican primary contest to decide his challenger in November. Who woulda thunk that of the 2 leading candidates to go up against Sen. Reid the sane one was the “Chickens for Checkups” lady. Meet the winner, Sharron Angle:

“On her website — full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors — Angle declares: “Like a soldier going to war, I am fighting for my country, the Constitution and a free society.” And as part of this effort, Angle reportedly wants to go to the Senate to fight to privatize Social Security; store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain; eliminate the federal income tax; pull the country out of the United Nations; and allow unlimited campaign contributions.

Angle has voiced support for Prohibition, believes the U.S. Department of Education is “unconstitutional,” and wants to ban nearly all abortions.”

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, a conservative paper, conducted a survey that identified Angle as the Nevada Assembly’s “Worst Member.” Twice.“

Running for Senator from Nevada on a platform of prohibition? Sounds like a winning issue to me. But there’s more, much more. From TPMDC:

“The peculiar ideology of Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, is perhaps no better illustrated than by her embrace of the patriot group Oath Keepers, whose membership of uniformed soldiers and police take an oath to refuse orders they see as unconstitutional — including enforcement of gun laws, violations of states’ sovereignty, and “any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.”

Back in April, Angle told TPMDC she was a member of the Oath Keepers at a press gaggle in Washington. On Monday, we decided to call Angle’s campaign to confirm her relationship to the group. Angle’s husband, Ted, picked up the phone.

“We support what the organization stands for,” he told us. “Sharron does.”

More TPMDC:

“Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle earlier in her career spoke out strongly against fluoride… Angle, the tea party favorite who is taking on Sen. Harry Reid, tends to be skeptical of government programs, and her opposition to fluoridation of municipal water supplies back in the late 1990s is no exception.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in April 1999 that the state assembly, of which Angle was a member, voted 26-16 for a bill that required fluoridation in two counties including the cities of Reno and Las Vegas… While another member of the Assembly suggested opponents of the measure were worried about the financial implications of fluoridation, the Review-Journal reported: “Angle said she simply does not like fluoride.” Angle added she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain “lead, arsenic, [or] mercury.”

Doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo-wacka-doo. (Apologies to Roger Miller).

A Crucial Week for Financial Reform

26 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama, Politics, Republicans, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In what’s shaping up as a crucial week in the quest for financial reform there are some encouraging signs, some not so encouraging, and a demonstration by the executives at “the great vampire squid” (aka Goldman Sachs) give us an example of why meaningful reform is necessary.

First, the reasons to be hopeful. There appear to be some cracks in the Republican wall of solidarity. Sen. Olympia Snowe endorsed Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s tough stance toward derivative trading passed last week by the Agriculture Committee. (Sen. Grassley, another possible defector, was the lone Republican on the committee who voted for Lincoln’s proposal). In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Snowe wrote:

“I believe that strong derivatives regulation goes to the heart of an effective financial reform bill and that Chairman Lincoln’s legislation is a strong step towards realizing this fundamental component to financial reform……I believe that we should err on the side of caution and finally bring full transparency to these markets once and for all and allow regulators to preemptively identify these damaged firms.

“Accordingly, I believe the Senate should start with a comprehensive, strong derivatives reform proposal and defend attempts to weaken it, not the other way around and the legislation produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes the strongest safeguards and most robust transparency provisions on our expansive derivatives market.

I urge the Majority Leader to incorporate these provisions into the regulatory reform bill.”

On Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, “agreed to replace his proposed restrictions on derivatives with those of the Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln.”

On This Week yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker said he intended to propose an amendment containing a “claw back” provision to the legislation “which would take away the personal earnings for the past five years of the corporate officers of failed institutions that fall under the government’s resolution authority.”

Another possible Republican defector might be the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. Will someone who was elected as a sort of “man of the people” want to be painted as a defender of Wall Street? Especially when he faces re-election in 2 years? Maybe not.

Also on the positive side, “President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans…This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion.”

Sen. Dodd has shown signs of weakening the legislation in order to compromise with Republicans leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby, who want to use the same tactics Republicans used on health care reform—stall and delay as long as possible. Hopefully, Dodd will be emboldened by support from President Obama and not dilute reform to try and pacify those whose intentions are to maintain the status quo.

Now to the crooks at Goldman. What were they doing as the housing market was collapsing and threatening to take the entire economy with it? Having a party:

“As the U.S. housing market began its epic fall nearly three years ago, top executives at Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs cheered the large financial gains the firm stood to make on certain bets it had placed, according to newly released documents.

The documents show that the firm’s executives were celebrating earlier investments calculated to benefit if housing prices fell, a Senate investigative committee found. In an e-mail sent in the fall of 2007, for example, Goldman executive Donald Mullen predicted a windfall because credit-rating companies had downgraded mortgage-related investments, which caused losses for investors.

“Sounds like we will make some serious money,” Mullen wrote.”

To somewhat defend Goldman, what they were doing, “selling short,” (betting against certain investments) is something that happens on Wall Street every day. But, betting against instruments that they designed to fail, and which were sold to investors as AAA investments allowing Goldman to profit from on both ends, may not be illegal (although it should be) but it certainly shows that the execs at the “great vampire squid” have no interest in what’s best for the country. They have one party’s interests in mind—-their own.

Whatever It Is, They’re Against It

17 Saturday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), speaking for all 41 Senate Republicans on the prospects for reforming and regulating the financial system:

That was after Susan Collins (R-ME) became the 41st signature on McConnell’s letter to Harry Reid which reads:

“We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee. As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.”

All words straight out of a Frank Luntz memo, telling Republicans how to maintain the status quo while sounding like they are in favor of reform. In other words, just repeat the Luntz-inspired tactics from the health care debate, with “endless taxpayer bailouts” replacing “death panels” as the lie du jour. And a lie is exactly what it is. What will guarantee “endless taxpayer bailouts” is doing nothing. The proposed reform calls for applying the same process to the “too big to fail” institutions that the FDIC uses every day for dealing with banks that become insolvent.

Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, and whose word I’ll take over McConnell’s 8 days a week, said as much in an interview published at American Banker on Thursday:

Would this bill perpetuate bailouts?
SHEILA BAIR: The status quo is bailouts. That’s what we have now. If you don’t do anything, you are going to keep having bailouts.

But does this bill stop them from happening?
BAIR: It makes them impossible and it should. We worked really hard to squeeze bailout language out of this bill. The construct is you can’t bail out an individual institution – you just can’t do it.

If this had been law prior to 2008, would we have seen the bailouts that took place?
BAIR: No. You could not do an AIG, Bear Stearns, or any of that…This bill would only allow system-wide liquidity support which could not be targeted at an individual firm. You can’t do capital investments at all, period. It’s only liquidity support. No more capital investments. That’s banned under all circumstances.

Do you see any way left for the government to bail out a financial institution?
BAIR: No, and that’s the whole idea. It was too easy for institutions to come and ask for help. They aren’t going to do that. This gives us a response: “Fine, we will take all these essential services and put them in a bridge bank. We will keep them running while your shareholders and debtors take all your losses. And oh, by the way, we are getting rid of your board and you, too.”

Here’s all you need to know about the dishonesty of Senate Republicans. One provision of the bill is for a $50 billion fund to dismantle the “too big to fail” banks. The fund is made up entirely of money which comes from the big banks, not one thin dime from the taxpayers. Republicans want this provision removed. But even if it goes, will they support the remainder of the legislation? I think you can guess the answer:

“McConnell suggested it wouldn’t be enough to satisfy Republicans.

“I appreciate the Obama administrations recognition of the need to substantively improve this bill,” McConnell said. “And I hope we can work with them to close the remaining bailout loopholes that put American taxpayers on the hook for financial institutions that become too big to fail.”

Oh by the way, how did the $50 billion get into the legislation to begin with? It was the result of negotiations between Banking Committee members Mark Warner (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN). Needless to say, Corker now opposes the fund he negotiated to include.

Whatever it is, they’re against it.

Senate Again Looks for Cover on Patriot Act Extension

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

First they tried to hide it in the so-called “jobs bill.” Now the gutless wonders in the Senate are going to try and pass an extension of the Patriot Act by unanimous consent, meaning they don’t have to go on the record with a vote:

“Senate Democrats are pushing for a short-term extension of key provisions in the Patriot Act as part of a package of must-pass measures…Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning to ask for unanimous consent to pass an extension for a host of measures set to expire February 28, according to Senate sources.

The third provision allows the government to apply to a court for surveillance orders involving suspected “lone wolf” terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to a larger organization.”

The large package of bills includes a year-long extension of three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known a the Patriot Act, as well as extensions for expiring tax provisions, including unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, the law governing the highway trust fund, the federal flood insurance program and a measure governing satellite television signals.

…The first of the three expiring Patriot Act provisions provides the power to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication. A second allows the government to seek orders from a federal court for “any tangible thing” that is says is related to a terrorism investigation.

More on those expiring provisions:

The first…would allow a secret court to continue to permit “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying who is being targeted, or which specific phone lines or communication devices are to be monitored. What officials must do is assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist.

Under the “lone wolf” statute, the U.S. may target for surveillance non-U.S. persons it believes are engaging in terrorism or are preparing to undertake terrorist activities, whether or not that person can be linked to a foreign power or organization.

Oh, by the way:

“In a September letter to [Senate Judiciary Committee chairman] Pat Leahy assistant attorney general Ronald Weich recommended reauthorization of all three provisions on behalf of the Obama administration.”

Senate Democrats Ready to Act on Jobs Bill……..Almost

05 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Democrats, economy, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Cat-herder-in-Chief Harry Reid is ready to get to work on job creation:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on a jobs package for next week…Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democratic leaders unveiled their jobs agenda Thursday, a plan they say will begin creating work for the nearly 7 million people who have lost employment since the start of the recession.

Reid said he would bring the first of several jobs bills to the Senate floor on Feb. 8 and hopes to pass it through the chamber by Feb. 12, when lawmakers are scheduled to start the Presidents Day recess.”

Just a few loose ends to tie up first:

“But Reid and other leaders declined to discuss key details, such as how much the package would cost, how many jobs it would create and how it would be paid for. Reid had yet to secure a Republican co-sponsor for the package.”

“Key details?” So, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Who’s In Control of the Senate?

20 Wednesday May 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

It’s beginning to look more and more like there was an even swap in the United States Senate, the Democrats got Arlen Specter and the Republicans got Harry Reid. No check that, after seeing Jim Webb on This Week this past Sunday saying there’s no need for a Truth Commission or an investigation into the activities of the Bush administration because “it’s not that big a deal” maybe the trade was 2 for 1.

In a press conference following the vote in the Senate not to fund the closing of Guantanamo, Harry Reid sounded more like an Abbot and Costello routine than a United States Senator.

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

Senator Reid’s words were a reiteration of what his fellow Republican, James Inhofe, said earlier this month:

“There are 245 hard-core terrorists that would be turned loose in the United States…You turn these people loose and they become magnets for terrorism all over the country.”

Senator Reid drew praise from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for his efforts, which should tell Reid something.

“McConnell said Americans “ought to be pleased that our friends on the other side of the aisle are showing some flexibility on this issue and heading in our direction.”

Same old, same old from our politicians. Talk a good game about what a national disgrace Guantanamo is and then do nothing when it comes time to take action on closing it. The search is on for Senator Reid’s spine.

Then there was Senator Webb, who along with his asinine “no big deal” remark, glossed over torture by calling it “inappropriate behavior.” No Senator, the word is illegal.

Senator Webb also agreed with Newt Gingrich on the subject of the Chinese Uighurs, Gingrich saying they’re “not our problem” and Webb saying he doesn’t want them in Virginia. I guess we could always send them back to China where they would be subjected to torture, excuse me “inappropriate behavior” since that’s not a “big deal” any more.

Webb then complete his backflip on closing Gitmo, reversing an earlier statement he made by saying it should be done “at the right time.” I suppose the right time would be when those mean, old Republicans won’t say nasty things about you. Do you know when that will be, Senator? NEVER.