Misery Index

An internal review prepared for President-elect Barack Obama says his incoming chief of staff had multiple conversations with Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich’s office, but no one close to Obama suspected that the governor might be trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat as prosecutors allege.

The report was released Tuesday as an Obama transition official confirmed that Obama and two of his top aides, Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarret, have been interviewed in connection with the federal investigation into Blagojevich.

Incoming White House attorney Greg Craig, who conducted the internal review at Obama’s request, found that the president-elect had no contact with Blagojevich or any of his staff about the Senate seat he vacated to take over the presidency.

Looking at the report that was released by the Obama Team, the review of contracts with Rod Blago will show that Rahm Emanuel had only “one or two” phone conversations with Blago.  The Chicago Sun-Times reported that the FBI captured 21 tape-recorded conversations between Blago’s office and Emanuel.  However, the report does say that one Obama “friend” who is not employed in the transition effort DID HAVE a brief conversation about the subject with a member of Blago’s staff.  Isn’t that just convenient?

This contact, described as a “pro-forma” courtesy call, was allegedly when Emanuel reportedly gave Blago a “heads up” that he was accepting Obama’s offer of the chief of staff job, and as a result, would be resigning his congressional seat.  As of this date, Emanuel has still not resigned his seat although he is working full time on the Obama Team, thus still receiving taxpayers money for doing absolutely nothing.

And why would anyone need to call the Governor of Illinois when you are a US Representative?  Why do you need to tell a state governor such information? 

Additionally, the report stated that Emanuel had “about four telephone conversations with John Harris, Chief of Staff to the Governor, on the subject of the senate seat.  In these conversations, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Harris discussed the merits of potential candidates and the strategic benefit that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat.”  So just thoughts to ponder, is the merits of a potential candidate based upon how much is in their bank account, and how much they have to offer from said bank account?

And what the main stream media isn’t reporting, is that Obama, Emanuel and Valerie Jarret were interviewed last week by federal prosecutors probing the Blago’ seat bid.

Additional thoughts to ponder are if there were no conversations between Obama or his team and Balgo’s office, then why was Blago so mad?  Based on taped conversations cited by prosecutors, suggested Obama wouldn’t be helpful to him and called him a “vulgar term.”  Told by two other advisers Blago had to “suck it up” for two years, the FBI says it heard Blago complain “he has to give his motherf***er, his Senator.  F*** him.  For nothing?  F*** him!” 

As for the Feds investigation, one member described in Fitzgerald’s complaint hinted that Blago was frustraited by contacts with Obama and his staff.  “Blago said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat, the complaint states, referring to an individual many believe to be Jarret.  And even if the governor were to appoint a candidate favored by the Obama team, Blago said, “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation.”

If Obama or anyone on the Obama Team did not have a conversation about the senate seat, then why does Blago have the attitude he does towards Obama?  The memo does not address the issue if anyone on Obama’s Team did know that Blago was trying to sell the seat, and if they did know, why did they not contact the authorities.

The Washington Post states:

The report helps explain the first part of the statement [about Obama wanting Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat"]  In his early conversations with the governor, Emanuel touted Jarrett as the best candidate, according to the Obama memo, before learning from Obama that he wanted to remain neutral on the subject.

“The President-Elect believed it appropriate to provide the names of multiple candidates to be considered, along with others, who were qualified to hold the seat and able to retain in a future election, Craig wrote.

But the report does not make clear why Blagojevich stated that he thought the Obama staff was “not willing to give me anything.”  It states that none of Obama’s staff ever suspected that the governor was seeking anything improper in exchange for the Seante Seat. […]

Emanuel offered six names as possible candidates after Jarrett withdrew hers to accept a job in the White House:  Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Jesse L. Jackson Jr.; Illinois Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes; Illinois Veterans Affairs Secretary Tammy Duckworth, a veteran of the Iraq war: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan; and Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson.

I would be very curious as to see what an outside attorney would find on the matter, especially considering that The New York Times reported last week that “Emanuel Had Contact With Governor’s Office on Senate Seat”.  And The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that “Emanuel, Blagojevich Aides Discussed Senate Seat.”

And according to the Chicago Tribune, another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4th election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris.  The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the position of Chief of Staff in Obama’s administration if Obama should win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said.  On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said.

Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.

Blagojevich and Harris, who resigned his state post Friday, are charged with plotting to sell the selection of Obama’s replacement in exchange for lucrative jobs or campaign cash for the governor.

In the meantime, let’s all go back to pretending that Obama is “The One” and has nothing to do with the corrupt Chicago politicians that all know each other, all have worked with each other at one time or another, and all that got him where he is today.

Meanwhile Rahm Emanuel still remains a congressman from the 5th District of Illinois, while working full time on the Obama Team, receiving income for doing nothing with his congressional seat, and has skipped a vote, yet he’s still a lawmaker.  On Emanuel’s personal office website, the last press release was two weeks before the election on Oct. 14.  Meanwhile, Obama has resigned his position effective Nov. 16th, as U.S. Senator, leaving the position open.  Illinois Governor Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell Obama’s seat in Congress, and many wanted him impeached however, the court ruled against a trial.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE UAW

The Senate failed to pass the $14 billion bailout and the head of the UAW,  Ron Gettelfinger, blamed the Senate Republicans stating, “This was just simply subterfuge on the part of the minority in the Republican Party who wanted to tear down any agreement that we came up with, the auto industry around the world is in peril.”

“The current weakened state of the economy is such that it could not withstand a body blow like a disorderly bankruptcy in the auto industry,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said today.

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said, “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry.”

Obama said he was disappointed that the Senate failed to act.  “My hope is that the administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term-restructuring that is absolutely required,” he said in a statement.  Yet on this Sunday’s past “Meet the Press” Obama stated, “We don’t want government to run companies.  Generally, government historically hasn’t done that very well.”  Is this “change” your mind, or another instance of “double speak”?

According to Congress, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which created the $700 billion fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, could be used for the $14 billion bridge loan to the Big 3.

In recent weeks however, Paulson has resisted the idea of using TARP funds for the Big 3 since it was created to provide liquidity to the financial sector, not the auto industry.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would never support an auto bailout that used money originally set aside to help the Big 3 develop fuel-efficient vehicles.  Then Pelosi “changed” her mind and clamed she wouldn’t support a bailout bill unless the Big 3 promised to drop their lawsuit against California’s emissions requirements.  Then Pelosi “changed” her mind again, this time saying she is willing to support the bailout without the Big 3 dropping the lawsuit, but only if Republican lawmakers support the bill. 

SORRY, ITS ILLEGAL

About $15 billion from the first half of the $700 billion remains uncommitted since about $335 billion has already been used for banks and insurance companies.  To begin tapping the second half of the bailout, the administration would first have to notify Congress, which could block it or put new conditions on how the money is used.

The Treasury lacks the statutory authority to direct TARP dollars to the automakers.  While the statue, passed by Congress in October, grants the secretary extremely broad discretion to decide how to employ the funds, it clearly limits the recipients to “financial institutions.”  And the definition of that term is quite clear:

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION – The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, saving association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Island, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.

Now one could say that GMAC qualifies under this, well it doesn’t.  GMAC is not a bank.  Providing customer financing is a function that many non-financial institutions, from department stores to bars, engage in regularly.  In other words, they self finance without being a bank.  If GMAC would offer loans to anyone for any purchase, then that would be a different matter.

Even The Heritage Foundation says that bailing out the Big 3 is a bad idea and illegal:

“Even if the Administration were inclined to do so, it simply lacks the power under the statute passed by Congress to tap TARP funds to prop up auto manufacturers.  This makes sense:  why else would have Congress spent the past month taking testimony from auto executives and then crafting politically contentious bailout legislation if the whole thing was unnecessary, because it had already passed the bailout back in October?

The Administration must reject calls for it to trample the law, and accomplish an end-run around our represented democracy, by moving forward with a bailout.  Giving in would be both unprincipled and, ultimately, illegal.

Worst of all, it would be counterproductive.  Reorganization in bankruptcy continues to represent the best chance for General Motors and Chrysler to survive and prosper.

THE CONSTITUTION

The Wall Street Journal reports that banks and bankruptcy experts were all in a huff over a line in the Monday draft of the bill providing that the government gets its money “senior and prior to all obligations, liabilities, and debts of any such holding company or company that controls a majority stake in the eligible automobile manufacturer.”

This might be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees just compensation for taking private property, bankruptcy and constitutional law experts told the Journal:

“It really sounds like a clear violation of the taking cause in the Constitution, to put the government ahead of all the other lenders.  To go this route is a treacherous path riddled with all sorts of constitutional issues,” said Don Workman, head of the restructuring practice at the law firm of Baker Hostetler.

On the other hand, Congress might argue that the bailout is actually keeping the car companies out of bankruptcy, and if the taxpayers are ponying up, then they should get some guarantees.

OBAMA’S OPINION

Obama has also said in the past that even if Congress does not bailout the Big 3, he will push for federal help once he is sworn in.

RANT ON AGAIN

Why do we even have Congress, a President and such if no one listens?  And ultimately, if what the highest in power wants, that person gets?  That is Democracy?

Part One

Maybe just maybe Mr. Gettelfinger the reason the GOP Senate said no was because they don’t want to pile debt on top of debt.  And maybe just maybe the reason they said no was because they don’t agree that a certain part of our population in the United States should get “special” treatment.  I am referring to not the pay the workers receive, but their benefits, which include health care for retirees.  Why should one industry be given special treatment when so many others have nothing right now, not even a job.  The UAW should be willing to make temporary sacrifices, such as cutting health care benefits to a minimum, in order for reduce costs until the Big 3 can get on their feet again.  But as usual, the UAW thinks they should have their cake and eat it too while the rest of the nation eats dirt.

And where is all the money going to come from to buy these cars?  Currently all U.S. automakers are seeing the worst sales slump in 26 years.  GM today announced, after the fact of learning they weren’t going to get a bailout, that they were going to temporarily close 20 production plants.  But don’t worry, those who are laid off will get their unemployment benefits, and additional money from the Big 3 to compensate to make sure they get 95% of their weekly income.  Oh, and they still have insurance benefits this whole time.  So basically GM is saying okay, let unemployment support them, yes we still have to pay then according to our UAW contract to make sure they make 95% of their normal income, but hey, it’s less money for us to pay! So, that’s a nice Christmas present for all the UAW workers impacted by the temporary close…….  Did you get a paid month off of work for Christmas?

No one has the money to make a new purchase of a new vehicle.  So millions of new cars are going to be sitting in lots doing nothing but gathering dust all because you think your workers deserve special treatment.  So tell me, where’s the profit in this bailout for me?  Remember, the new mentality is about “sharing the wealth”, so where’s my share in all of this?  Will I get a car at cost?  Will I get a full warranty on everything on that new car for the next 10 years?  Because I as a tax payer will be paying for YOUR bailout, especially if you can’t pay it back, for the next 20 years!  High risk with no high payback is bad business.  Isn’t that how Wall Street collapsed?  Isn’t that how the real estate industry collapsed?  By giving high risk loans to those who they knew couldn’t afford it.

And since no one is buying new cars, where are the Big 3 going to get the funds to pay back this loan?  And what about them coming back asking for more money?  The Big 3 are going to end up being just like AIG, asking for more and more and more money, turning into a super black hole sucking the life out of our taxpayer funded accounts.

And why are the big wigs being bailed out?  Banks, investment firms, insurance companies and now possibly the Big 3.  And I’m going to take a Socialist attitude here since that seems to be the “new way”.  When is it time to help those who pay for all this?  Where’s my bailout?  How about not having to pay federal taxes for an entire year?  If the government has all this money to spread around, then why can’t we get a break? 

Why doesn’t the Big 3 have to go through what everyone else is?  Filing for bankruptcy reorganization and start over again.  In bankruptcy court, the process allows the auto industry to negotiate with creditors, stakeholders and unions.  The auto industry spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress in the first nine months of this year while unions spent hundreds of millions to put Democrats in Washington.

And maybe, if maybe twenty years ago, there had been a national healthcare system put in place, like every other major country of the world, then the UAW and the Big 3 wouldn’t have this contract for health care benefits.  This is the ONLY point so far that I agree with that Obama should do.

Ultimately, the Big 3 bailout is nothing more than dividing the classes further and a continuation of destroying our economy. 

Part Two

So obviously another law is going to be broken on a bill that the taxpayers never wanted to pass.  But this seems to be the new rage among many these days.  Now you might think, well this is nothing new, all politicians are crooks.  Well, being a crook is one thing, breaking Federal law and ignoring the Constitution is another matter. 

• Bush wants TARP funds to bailout the Big 3, which is illegal.
• Hillary Clinton has been appointed Secretary of State in Obama’s new Administration, although according to the Constitution she can not take the position legally. [Here also.]
• Obama wants a mandatory “America Serves” program, a violation of the 13th Amendment.
• We are two states away from rewriting the Constitution.
• Oh and lets not forget that the Democrats in Congress want to seize your 401K which could be considered a violation of the 5th Amendment of eminent domain.

Oh, and one other small newline.  Obama is planning on raising taxes and sending the money to Kuwait.

And I could always bring up the Obama birth certificate issue……..

ADDITIONAL SOURCES:

• “White House may tap Wall Street funds for autos”, MSNBC, 12DEC08
• “United Auto Workers Lash Out at GOP Senators Over Bailout Collapse”, FOX News, 12DEC08