Alan Grayson continues to do the job he was elected to do -- the job many other members of Congress refuse to do:
The text of Grayson's letter:
June 24, 2009
Neil Barofsky Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) Office of the SIGTARP 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1064 Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Inspector General Barofsky,
Thank you for your service as the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We face enormous challenges in restoring stability to the financial sector and repairing the economy, and I firmly believe that we will not succeed until we have a detailed and specific understanding of the terms of the various government bailouts to the financial sector. With that in mind, I write to ask you to conduct an audit of the various guarantees extended to Citigroup through the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Treasury TARP funds under your authority to oversee the use of bailout monies and associated guarantees.
Congress has very little information regarding the asset guarantee arrangements that the Federal government struck with Citigroup in November, 2008. According to what we do know in the Section 129 report filed with the relevant Congressional committees in November, 2008, the Treasury, FDIC, and Federal Reserve entered into a ‘loss-sharing arrangement’ with Citigroup on a designated pool of $306 billion in “primarily mortgage-related assets currently held by Citigroup”. This pool was “comprised of loans and securities backed by residential and commercial real estate, associated hedges, and such additional assets as may be agreed by Citigroup and the agencies.”
While the assets are still held on the books of Citigroup and the cash flow from these assets accrues to Citigroup, the total downside risk to the Federal Reserve alone from this loss-sharing deal is $234.4 billion. I have multiple concerns about the terms of the deal, including the circumstances under which it was struck, benefits to the government, potential losses to the taxpayer, the prevalence of mortgage fraud in the asset pool, and conflicts of interest regarding contractors involved in pricing and managing risk for the Federal Reserve. My questions are as follows.
1) How was this deal negotiated by Citigroup, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury? How does this loss-sharing arrangement benefit taxpayers?
To date, documents and transcripts describing the negotiations that led to this loss-sharing arrangement are not publicly accessible. How was this deal negotiated? Why did representatives of taxpayers extend more than $200 billion of guarantees to Citigroup, and how likely is it that Citigroup will begin to draw upon this guarantee? What were the benefits to the government in settling upon these terms?
2) What are current mark-to-market losses to the Federal Reserve in this loss-sharing arrangement?
The Federal Reserve has claimed that it will incur no losses, per page 4 of the Section 129 report:
In light of the substantial protections against loss provided by Citigroup, the Treasury, and the FDIC that must be exhausted before any financing would be provided under the facility, and the fact that any financing provided under the facility would be fully collateralized, the Federal Reserve does not expect that the Reserve Bank’s facility will result in any losses to the Federal Reserve or the taxpayer.
There are two reasons why I find this assumption questionable. One, the Federal Reserve made this claim about the $30B in non-recourse loans it extended to Maiden Lane LLC when brokering the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan. According to the Fed’s hand-picked pricing firm, and with no outside auditing of these assets, the Fed showed at least a $3B loss on the books as of April, 2009. Claims that this drop in value is temporary and a result of a liquidity problem have not been substantiated. I see no reason why the Federal Reserve’s similar claims about the much larger pool of Citigroup assets should be taken any more seriously. Two, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told the House Financial Services Committee that Citigroup put this loss-sharing arrangement (or ‘insurance’ as he put it) on his company’s balance sheet. Yet, the Federal Reserve has not put this guarantee on its balance sheet, arguing that Citigroup has not drawn upon the arrangement. This discrepancy needs to be reconciled.
3) What is the current cash flow from these assets? Are these assets performing?
While mark-to-market accounting is one approximation to understand possible losses to the taxpayer, the mortgages underlying these assets do represent cash flows from real houses and businesses with real occupants and tenants. There is a substantial difference between the value of a mortgage backing a home in a healthy neighborhood and the value of a mortgage backing a housing tract in Las Vegas that is being reclaimed by the desert. What is this cash flow? If you take a sample of these assets, are they performing? Just how ‘toxic’ are the assets the taxpayer is guaranteeing?
4) Who should be held accountable for the reckless acquisition of a third of a trillion dollars in assets that ended up requiring a government guarantee?
I would like to know how this $306 billion was acquired, and the names of the risk officers and executives in charge of overseeing the concentration of this risk onto Citigroup’s portfolio. It is critical to understand who created this enormous liability for the taxpayer so that we can begin to hold them accountable. When we know who did what, the SEC and other regulatory agencies can begin to examine whether any relevant rules and regulations were broken, and whether these individuals are ‘unfit to serve’ as officers or board members of public companies. It would be truly tragic were this situation recur with these same individuals responsible.
5) Which vendors are pricing these assets, and are there conflicts of interest present in these vending arrangements?
I am concerned about possible conflicts of interest involved in the pricing and management of these assets. Which vendors are pricing and involved in handling these assets on behalf of the US taxpayer? What are the terms of the arrangements for these vendors? What conflicts of interest might this present to taxpayers when disposing of these or similar assets? For the Bank of America deal, whose term sheet is similar, the Federal Reserve is using PIMCO as a pricing agent for government-guaranteed assets. Yet PIMCO has created a vulture fund to buy similar assets, raised the specter of serious conflicts of interest for that deal. What about Citigroup’s government guaranteed asset pool, which is three times the size? Only a clear account of the terms of this entire deal will allow the public and Congress to understand fully the responsibilities we have incurred in allowing the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to sign these long-term arrangements using emergency powers.
6) Is the Federal Reserve guaranteeing assets generated from lender-induced mortgage fraud and predatory lending practices?
It is important to understand the extent to which the mortgages underlying the assets held by Citigroup and guaranteed by taxpayers was the result of criminal mortgage fraud and predatory lending on the part of unscrupulous mortgage originators. Did the Federal Reserve examine the loan tapes prior to guaranteeing these assets? Has it examined the loan tapes underlying these assets? Has Citigroup? If not, how is the Federal government managing the risk in the underlying assets it has guaranteed?
We have a tremendous responsibility to the taxpayer, and I look forward to working with your office to make sure that funds used to guarantee assets on Citigroup’s books are used as wisely as possible and that we find those who need to be held accountable.
Thank you for your work on this matter and I look forward to your response.
This might be the best thing I've yet seen from McCaffrey on any issue. Key points:
It's time for a realistic policy shift on Cuba. In my judgment, Congress and the administration should move to:
• Remove Cuba from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The poverty of ideas and resources forced the Cuban government to end its ineffective support of revolutionary movements long ago.
• Repeal enforcement of the ''Helms-Burton'' legislation. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed provisions allowing for waivers of the outmoded law's provision.
• End the economic embargo on Cuba. Market forces should determine the level of trade between our nations.
• End U.S. restrictions on travel by American citizens to Cuba. There are no similar restrictions to other nondemocratic nations, including North Korea.
• Close the detention facility at Guantanamo and return the base to Cuban sovereignty. The place has become an international embarrassment to us.
• End the ''Wet Foot/Dry Foot immigration policy'' and treat illegal immigrants from Cuba as we do those from Mexico or any other country.
• Formalize coordination on anti-drug trafficking matters with Cuba's law enforcement and security forces.
• Provide significantly increased funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development so that we can support economic development as democratic political transition inevitably occurs in Cuba.
• End U.S. opposition to Cuban participation in the Western Hemisphere multilateral fora (lifting Cuba's suspension from the OAS was a good start) because diplomacy and engagement, not shunning, will open Cuba to liberal political ideals.
Today, Organizing for America released “Denied,” the next in its series of “The Faces of Health Care Reform” web videos. The piece features Lisa Smith of Lake Worth, FL explaining how she lost her insurance when she lost her job and then was denied coverage by private insurers because of a preexisting condition. OFA, a project of the Democratic National Committee, has collected hundreds of thousands of personal health care stories over the last several weeks. OFA plans to release additional web videos that highlight personal health care stories as the debate over reform continues in Congress.
Lisa Smith of Fort Lake, FL has hydrocephalus – or water on the brain – and several other health ailments that require regular monitoring and care. Like millions of Americans, when Lisa lost her job, she also lost her health insurance. Lisa was unable to afford COBRA, but when she called around to inquire about coverage from private insurers she was categorically denied. “As soon as I told them about my situation,” Lisa says, they said “forget it; they absolutely wouldn’t even go any further.”
Without insurance, Lisa can’t afford her monthly prescriptions (which cost about $800) or the regular tests and doctors visits that help keep her healthy and able to function normally. Lisa has a shunt that drains the water from her brain to her abdomen. With regular checkups, it’s easier to control her condition; but without those visits, Lisa is forced to wait until her situation is dire enough to warrant a trip to the emergency room. “Without regular monitoring I run a real risk of something serious happening and that scares me,” Lisa says.
“Like millions of other Americans, Lisa has a serious health condition that can be managed with regular care and medication,” said Mitch Stewart, the Director of Organizing for America. “But without insurance, Lisa can’t afford that regular care, so she’s forced to rely on emergency room visits, which is ultimately less effective and more expensive. Unfortunately, her story is indicative of what’s wrong with our broken system – we must reform our system to lower costs, increase access and protect patient choice.”
Organizing for America has collected hundreds of thousands of personal health care stories. The grassroots effort is building support in communities across the country for a plan that adheres to President Obama’s three principles for reform: lowering costs, preserving patient choice and increasing access to quality care. Tens of thousands of people in all 50 states participated in OFA’s June 6th Health Care Kickoff events, where attendees shared their stories, talked about the President’s principles for reform and started to plan activities in their own communities. This Saturday, June 27th OFA is organizing a national Health Care Day of Service. Earlier this week, OFA launched Health Care Stories for America an innovative online tool where hundreds of thousands of genuine health care stories can be shared, found and read, by city and state, from all across the country.
Watch Lisa Smith’s story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oxScKmfr38
I do. I want your name and my name on TV. And we can both do it by signing up at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's We Want the Public Option web site:
People are outraged that Senate Democrats are lining up against a public health insurance option supported by 76% of Americans -- all while taking $80 million of health and insurance industry money.
So we decided to do something about it. We made a TV ad calling them out. And now we're inviting you (and your friends) to put your name in the ad before we air it in Washington DC!
Click here to see the ad -- and add your name.
This ad will air on CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show, and other places that these senators and their staffers will be sure to notice. We'll continually rotate new names in. Please help this idea grow by passing this email on to anyone you think would like to add their name.
Together, we'll make the Senate listen to the vast majority of Americans who say: "We want the public option!" Thanks for being a bold progressive.
Today, I'm joining with Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now and Open Left in supporting the Stand With Dr. Dean Campaign. The idea is to put pressure on our members of Congress to find out where they stand on health care reform and whether or not they support Dr. Howard Dean's call for a reform that includes a public option. See Dean's statement here:
Chris Bowers has suggested that we use crowdsourcing techniques to find out where everyone in Congress stands, which also helps pressure them to take the right stand. So here's the plan:
1. Contact your member of Congress via e-mail and ask them the following questions:
1--Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform? 2--If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one? 3--Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress? 4--Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
Don't call, do this via e-mail because we want a written response. If they are vague in answering these questions, contact them again and ask for clarification. If they don't answer you, keep contacting them (and have your friends and family contact them) until they do give you the answers.
2. Forward the responses to me at quinnelk@hotmail.com. We're going to publish an official response from as many of our members as possible so we know where everyone is. And we'll keep a track of who isn't responding so we know who to put pressure on. Similarly, once we find out who is on board and who isn't, we know who to put further pressure on down the road.
3. If you have your own blog, post the responses there, too. The more public pressure we can put on Congress, the easier we make it for them to do the right thing.
Here is the public contact info for each of our Florida members of Congress:
Rep Gus Bilirakis R FL-9 http://bilirakis.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=212&Itemid=44
Rep Allen Boyd D FL-2 http://www.house.gov/boyd/zip_authen.html
Rep Corrine Brown D FL-3 http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/IMA/issue.shtml
Rep Virginia Brown-Waite R FL-5 https://forms.house.gov/brown-waite/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
Rep Vern Buchanan R FL-13 http://buchanan.house.gov/contact.shtml
Rep Kathy Castor D FL-11 https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Rep Ander Crenshaw R FL-4 https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Rep Lincoln Diaz-Balart R FL-21 http://diaz-balart.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact
Rep Mario Diaz-Balart R FL-25 http://www.house.gov/formmariodiaz-balart/ic_zip_auth.htm
Rep Alan Grayson D FL-8 https://forms.house.gov/grayson/contact-form.shtml
Rep Alcee Hastings D FL-23 http://www.alceehastings.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=
Rep Ron Klein D FL-22 klein.ron.web@flsenate.gov
Rep Suzanne Kosmas D FL-24 https://forms.house.gov/kosmas/contact-form.shtml
Rep Connie Mack R FL-14 http://mack.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactConnie.ContactForm
Sen Melquiades Martinez R FL http://martinez.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailSenatorMartinez
Rep Kendrick Meek D FL-17 http://kendrickmeek.house.gov/contact1.shtml
Rep John Mica R FL-7 http://www.house.gov/mica/messageform.shtml
Rep Jeff Miller R FL-1 http://jeffmiller.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Sen Bill Nelson D FL http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Rep Bill Posey R FL-15 http://posey.house.gov/Contact/
Rep Adam Putnam R FL-12 http://adamputnam.house.gov/contact.shtml
Rep Tom Rooney R FL-16 https://forms.house.gov/rooney/contact-form.shtml
Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R FL-18 http://www.house.gov/writerep
Rep Clifford Stearns R FL-6 http://www.house.gov/writerep
Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz D FL-20 schultz.debbie.web@flsenate.gov
Rep Robert Wexler D FL-19 http://wexler.house.gov/email.shtml
Rep C. W. Bill Young R FL-10 bill.young@mail.house.gov
We'll also post the results of these at the WatchBlogs dedicated to each Republican member and at the Florida Democratic News blog.
Read more on Florida politics at the Florida Progressive Coalition blog (http://flaprogressives.org) and the Florida Progressive Coalition Wiki (http://quinnell.us/sspb/wiki/).
Good stuff you all should read from bloggers around the country... (Sorry this one is Open Left heavy, I accidentally left out my Open Left RSS feed the last time I did this round-up)
The title of this post today makes reference to an old George Carlin joke. The basic idea is that someone is overreacting, coming up with a response that is out of preportion with the offense presented to them. Today, this is in reference to people's reactions to the early days of the Barack Obama presidency.
Most people reading this are probably familiar with the term Obama Derangement Syndrome, the idea that people are so upset and angry at the election of President Obama and his perceived policies that they go to extreme lengths to express their displeasure through verbal or physical attacks. Think Rush Limbaugh or James Wenneker von Brunn. In direct terms, these people are very dangerous because the type of derangement we're discussing can lead to actual violence like in the latter case or in the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. People like Limbaugh are hugely responsible for these types of activities, because their constant overinflated and factually inaccurate rhetoric leads people to think drastic things and think of even more drastic solutions to those perceived problems. If I thought that Obama was the most evil man in history and he was bent on destroying the U.S. and turning everything over to fascist, communist, Muslims, I might be willing to shoot him, too. Keep in mind, that my hypothetical example her isn't actually hypothetical, these are the actual things that Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and their allies are saying. On the publicly-owned airwaves. Quite a few laws are being broken by these men (and a few women), not the least of which are treason and sedition.
More importantly to the long-term success of the country and the success of the Obama administration, though, are the overreactions coming from the left and from nominal Obama supporters. There are obviously things to criticize with what Obama has done so far and legitimate criticisms should always be brought up. They should, however, be accurate criticisms and they should be brought up in constructive ways. I'll save the legitimate criticisms for another day, and instead I'll focus on several areas of false criticism.
First off is when people criticize Obama for failing to deliver on something he didn't actually promise to do. Take the war in Iraq, for instance. All throughout the campaign, Obama was consistent in stating that he favored ending the war in Iraq, but that he would do it over a year-and-a-half or so and that afterwards, there would still be residiual forces left behind. Now people are saying that he betrayed his supporters or the will of the people by pursuing exactly this plan. In reality, he's doing what he said he would do. If you want to criticize him on this one, do so accurately by pointing out that his plan might not be the best option. Don't go off saying that he's changed, which he hasn't, or that he is betraying anyone, he's not. He told the people this was what he was going to do and they voted for him knowing that. Same things is true with other issues, such as gay marriage. People are upset that he opposes gay marriage. He always said he opposed gay marriage. Nothing has changed. Criticize him for opposing gay marriage, not for going back on his word, which isn't what he did.
People also criticize him a bit much for things he doesn't have the power to do. Keep in mind that our system is one of checks and balances and separation of powers which makes pushing forward with policies quite difficult, particularly if there is opposition from the majority of members of Congress. People complain that he hasn't closed Guantanamo yet. He can't. He issued an executive order to close the prison, but Congress balked at funding that order. Without the money, there's nothing he can do. Sure, he can exert his leadership and do what he can to convince people to follow his policy preferences. But they can say no. And since much of this type of thing is done behind closed doors, who's to say that Obama isn't doing just that. Make sure that when you criticize someone for a policy not being enacted yet, that you criticize those who are actually preventing it from moving forward. And don't skip over Obama and blame "congressional Democrats." Again, many of those people voted the right way or would vote the right way on most issues. Blame the specific Democrats who opposed the policy. Or blame the Republicans who used obstructionist tactics such as the filibuster.
Finally, people are criticizing Obama for things that members of his administration have said or written or done. There is some legitimacy to this, but, in reality, much of what people complain about in these areas are things that Obama was not aware of and that he didn't explicitly approve. Yes, he appointed these people, so he gets some responsibility for that, but with 3000 appointments, it's impossible for there not to be someone who does something that he or we don't like. The key reason to criticize Obama in this area is if he does nothing to fix the situation or allows it to be repeated once he's been alerted to a particular problem.
One last thing I'd like to say is that we really should be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on a lot of this stuff at this point. What gives us the hubris to think we understand more than he does how best to get something done? This is politics and quite frequently policies can't be enacted in obvious and straightforward methods without doing collateral damage. Sometimes policies have to be brought in gradually or they won't be able to be enacted at all. Sometimes you need to build a groundswell of support in order to have the clout to get something passed. And sometimes you need to test the waters first to see where the opposition is going to attack you. Rushing in to a particular policy proposal can often lead to its defeat because we didn't know where the opposition was going to come from. I'm not saying that we shouldn't criticize Obama, we certainly should, but that criticism should be accurate, constructive and strategic. Probably the best thing we can do is not focus so much on criticism, but spend more time building a groundswell of grassroots public support for our ideas and proposals so that when it comes time for Obama to act upon them, the politically expedient thing to do will also be the right thing to do.
I'm Kenneth Quinnell and I approve this message.
Read more on Florida politics at the Florida Progressive Coalition blog (http://flaprogressives.org) and the Florida Progressive Coalition Wiki (http://quinnell.us/sspb/wiki/).
The following post does not constitute an endorsement from FPC and we will post other noteworthy releases from other Democratic or progressive campaigns in this, or any other, race from Florida. I think I speak for everyone at FPC, though, in endorsing the idea of getting on the ballot via the petition method as the more democratic approach.
From the Kendrick Meek campaign:
Dear Friends of Kendrick's Grassroots' Movement:
My name is Kate Nowak, and I am the Petition Director for Kendrick Meek for Florida. Instead of showing up in Tallahassee with a check in hand to qualify for the ballot, Kendrick Meek has chosen the path less travelled. He will be qualifying for the ballot by petition, and to get those petitions signed, he needs your help. Every time someone signs a petition, they own a piece of this campaign. Because Kendrick chose this route you will be the reason why he's on the ballot. You have a voice.
We need all boots on the ground, all hands on deck. This is also a historic movement - Kendrick Meek will be the first statewide candidate in Florida history to qualify for the ballot by petition. We need you to join our campaign and make history. Please sign a petition and have your family members and colleagues sign a petition! Make a Petition Pledge. How many can you collect?
Download the petitions by visiting Kendrickmeek.com or by calling 877-FL-4-MEEK (877-354-6335) and we'll mail you as many petitions as you want.
Once you've signed your petition, and collected petitions on behalf of this campaign, we need some more help. We need you to take the next step, for Kendrick, and for this state. Please join our $20.10 for 2010 Club-I'm a member! Can you commit to just $20.10 per month until the election in November 2010? This is less than a dollar a day, but will build the foundation we need to compete in 2010. Join the club!
But your work doesn't end there. Have you visited KendrickMeek.com and signed up to volunteer? Are you Kendrick's Facebook friend? Are you following his twitter updates?
This campaign will succeed because of you. Own this campaign by filling out a petition. Call our offices at 877-FL-4-MEEK (877-354-6335) and we'll mail you as many petitions as you need to sign up your friends and family. And please join our $20.10 for 2010 club. We need your help.
Join me, join Kendrick, join Floridians and be part of the movement for the next step for change.
I think anyone reading this post is likely to recognize the important role that technology can and is playing in changing the way politics and government work, both in the U.S. and beyond. Whether it be the new methods of disseminating news and current events or online fundraising or the use of Twitter and other technologies in the events going on in Iran right now, we're seeing clear evidence that the new information technology that people are incorporating into their leisure time is also being incorporated into activism and social change to some success.
But there is a long way to go, particularly at the state and local level, before we see the true possibilities of these technologies or before we see the limits they may face over the longterm. We know that we are far from seeing the upper limits of where the technology can go, so we are also far from seeing what impact it can have on people's lives in terms of freedom and democracy.
There is no question that it can have a major impact, though. They key to running a repressive society is control over information. If a population doesn't know that there are alternatives to the repression they face, they are unlikely to revolt. If they don't know how to revolt, they can't do it. And if the people can't communicate with each other on a large scale, a revolution is unlikely to have much success. Totalitarian regimes have always realized that if they undercut these avenues for sharing information, they have a much easier time dominating their population. But they need technology to control and disseminate their propoganda to the masses. The problem, for them at least, is that the same technology that allows them such control, can also be their downfall. As soon as the government figures out how to block information, someone else has already figured out a way to get around those methods of supressing information. Ask the RIAA.
The Republican majority in Florida (and elsewhere), works under very similar premises. They present themselves as moderates who represent the will of the people -- that the masses are with them -- while at the same time pursuing a radical corporatist agenda that, when successful, does harm to the masses, while keeping a few rich people rich. They've been very successful in Florida because of the inherent biases and laziness of the media in modern society and because of the decline in revenue the news industry faces, leading to cuts in coverage and information gathering at the state and local level. This means that the average Floridian lacks in the basic information she or he needs to make key decisions to help themselves and to help the people in general.
Technology can be part of the answer. There are more people with a progressive point of view than a conservative one. There are many people with the inexpensive technology -- cell phones, PCs and Macs, digital cameras, flip video, etc. -- more than enough to gather and disseminate the information through places like blogs, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. All we need is for the people with that technology to realize that they are no longer passive consumers of information, that they are the ones who should be gathering the important information and passing it along to the rest of the population. Once people realize that, democracy stands a really good chance, not only in Florida, but everywhere.
That's not to say that technology alone will solve our problems and move everything forward. Obviously, we need people to use that technology to gather the right information, we need people to run for office that can use information to change things for the better and we need money to pay for it all. But technology means that we don't need nearly as much of any of those as we used to. Time is on our side and progress will come. Technology will be one of the key reasons.
I'm Kenneth Quinnell and I approve this message.
Read more on Florida politics at the Florida Progressive Coalition blog (http://flaprogressives.org) and the Florida Progressive Coalition Wiki (http://quinnell.us/sspb/wiki/). You can check out any of the Florida blogs mentioned in this article by checking out the sidebar on the FPC blog.
U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Miami) was endorsed by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (BCTD) for the 2010 U.S. Senate election in Florida.
“Members of the Building Trades Unions work with their hands and minds everyday to make Florida prosperous again,” said Congressman Kendrick Meek. “They are on the front lines working to rebuild our state and know firsthand the impact that reckless policies can have on our communities. The federal stimulus package passed in Congress and signed into law by President Obama will enable the Building Trades to help put Floridians back to work and revitalize our economy by producing green jobs. The Building Trades family represents the everyday man and woman who I look forward to representing too in the U.S. Senate.”
The BCTD Governing Board of Presidents voted to endorse Meek on Monday.
Upon the conclusion of that vote, President Mark H. Ayers said, "We are excited about the prospect of helping Kendrick Meek become the next U.S. senator from Florida. Throughout his life, both as a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol and most recently as the congressman from Florida's 17th District, Kendrick has held firm in his belief that government should work for all the people, not just the privileged few. We are honored to issue this endorsement and we will do all that we can to educate and mobilize our members on his behalf in 2010."
Mike Williams, President of the Florida Building Trades Council said, “Kendrick Meek’s record on issues that concern the Building Trades Union is a model of perfection. He understands that when our members in Florida are working, the families and communities of the state are benefiting. We serve as the barometer of our state’s economic health, and the Florida Building Trades are thankful that Kendrick supported the much needed economic recovery plan. Our membership spans the state and we will work as hard to rebuild Florida as we will to elect Kendrick Meek to the U.S. Senate.”
The Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO is an alliance of 13 national and international unions which collectively represents 2.5 million skilled craft professionals in the United States and Canada.
The Building Trades includes the following unions: Insulators/Asbestos Workers, Boilermakers, Bricklayers, Cement Masons, Electrical Workers, Elevator Constructors, Iron Workers, Laborers, Painters, Roofers, Sheet Metal Workers, Teamsters, and Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.
Since announcing his candidacy on January 13th, Congressman Meek has received endorsements from SEIU, United Teachers of Dade, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, and AFSCME.
If they've moved so far to the right that they think Charlie Crist is a communist, then they are doomed to longterm irrelevance in the U.S. based on the fact that they are so disconnected from both reality and the American public. I don't mind.
11:00: This session is moderated by David Sirota and includes Digby and Matt Taibbi.
11:04: Sirota: The 2008 election was just the potential beginning of something, not the conclusion. The Democratic Party is still having an identity crisis, a lot of internal battles. In reality, there is the Money Party (most Republicans and many Democrats), and the People Party (a smaller group of Democrats).
11:06: The agenda of the People Party: Fair trade, pro-middle class, pro-financial regulation, for regulation in general.
11:07: People are winning in "conservative" districts by being more socially conservative and more economically populist. This is good on economic issues.
11:08: The People Party folks in Congress (and elsewhere) can stop bad things from happening, but Blue Dogs and New Democrats can stop good things from happening.
11:09: Sirota thinks that Blue Dogs/New Democrats will water down health care when it comes up, just like they have on other issues.
11:11: Blue Dog-ism has changed. They used to be some of the best allies of the progressive movement -- you could rely on them for support on issues that didn't cost money. Now they are much more focused on preventing or cutting down on regulation, not so much on the budget and government spending.
11:13: The best news is, that when you look at polling and campaigning, regulatory issues move the most people. Regulation allows candidates to talk about "cracking down," "getting tough" -- allows them to speak strongly against unpopular groups that are causing problems in society. The key for us, as a progressive movement, is to hold them to their promises and keeping their feet to the fire. We have to pay attention to the details.
11:15: The mantra of the administration is don't publicly criticize a particular plan because small change is better than nothing. Sirota argues we need to ask for more than that, particularly because it'll give us more chance at achieving more.
11:16: Digby: She says that the "Deficit is Evil" crowd is using the shock doctrine to try to scare people into huge cuts to entitlements.
11:24: Be very wary when you hear people speak of "entitlement reform," chances are they are talking about cutting Social Security or other programs.
11:25: Taibbi: He argues that many Democrats were complicit with the law changes that led to the financial collapse, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act (the Financial Services Modernization Act), the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (allowing the credit default swap mess, among other things), the Bankruptcy Bill (which helped accelerate forclosures by about 30k per quarter, another big part of the economic collapse) and others. Most of the economic actors behind these changes are now very wealthy and part of the Obama administration.
11:38: Floor now open for questions. Cenk Uygar gets the first question and asks "what do we do about it?" He says credit default swaps should be banned. Taibbi says the two parties are both in agreement on the core issues here, and it'll take a worse crisis to change things. Sirota says we can put pressure on Chris Dodd, head of the banking committee, who now has to prove his progressive credentials in order to win his primary -- a nervious politician is one that is one we can work with. Dodd's position and troubles improved the credit card bill and others, at least somewhat. You have to make your members of Congress nervous on these issues. We also have to have some discernable, concrete asks that we can present to them, particularly toward people who are on the right committees.
11:43: An audience member notes that we need to connect the dots and make these issues easier to understand for the general public. People will get behind us on these issues if they can understand them.
11:46: Sirota: The people who want bad things to happen in the regulatory area are very organized, those of us who oppose them are not. The time doesn't get better than right now to jump into this issue and have a chance to have an impact.
11:50: Digby: We need to figure out how to use emotion in terms of these issues and communicating them to people. The other side is doing a lot of misdirection -- towards entitlements, for instance. The outrage that people have on these issues is legitimate and not manufactured. If we don't channel it in the right direction, conservatives will channel it in the wrong direction.
11:55: Sirota: The fundamental problem is that some Dems don't feel forced to do the right thing. We need people in their communities to force them to do the right thing by threatening their jobs.
11:56: Taibbi: Politicians aren't really afraid of a few individual donors not giving campaign contributions, they'll still get huge sums from the corps and their donors. Politicians are afraid of losing the big groups of people -- in the thousands.
12:00: Sirota: We need to portray issues like the Employee Free Choice Act as an issue of fairness. That's what gets people to jump on board with an issue.
12:01: Sirota: People aren't in the midstate where they worry about things like "card check." They're worried about keeping their jobs and things like that. Messaging needs to connect with people where they are. Talk in terms of rights.
