Tag Archives: George Bush

The Housing Market’s Double Bubble: The Big One Still Has Yet To Pop

Look what the Republicans have done to our economy by following their core “trickle down” economic ideology, which really means borrow and spend.  They have run up a massive debt which combined with no oversight, a near total removal of regulations on corporate conduct, and watched and let Neil Bush run a savings and loan (oh, sorry, that was that other Bush presidency — when S&L owners and Republican campaign contributors robbed us blind and bribed Senators like John McCain and then got a massive government bailout.)

We have all been hearing a lot about housing prices falling, and about the effect housing prices have on the economy.  The impact to date, while real, is actually overstated. Why? Well, housing markets and their impact are the turtle of economics, they happen very very slowly. Prices have to fall and people have to sell, when they sell they, if they get less than they expected, may not spend as much as they would have if they had reaped a huge profit.

Of course, the lack of higher equity is hurting those home equity lines people were tapping like McCain at an open bar.  But ask yourself, honestly, how many people do you actually know who have either been forced to sell or have sold and not made a profit? Not that many — yet.  People are still holding out.

Unquestionably the economy is slowing. Consumer debt is massive, companies are cutting jobs, inflation is rising, unemployment is a full percentage point ABOVE where it was a year ago, and with a work force of 200 million plus, that’s 2,000,000 newly unemployed Americans.

Just this morning, we saw that planned July Job Cuts skyrocketed to over 100,000 meaning that unemployment will continue to climb, the economic impact of those layoffs won’t be felt till mid-fall at the earliest when severance packages run out and the reality becomes apparent, new jobs are hard to come by.

But now the time is arriving when we will start to see and feel the real impact of the slowing economy — layoffs will pick up over the next year and the forecast is for increasing and increasing unemployment, it almost surely will be another point or more higher next year than it is now.

Slowing economies manifest themselves in many ways. But the most prominent is in the corresponding fall in housing prices.  In every modern recession, the fall in housing prices follows the economy slowing down. What we have yet to see is the falling economy’s effect on housing prices.  So if you think prices have already dropped, and might even be reaching a bottom, we think it’s the other way around:  prices are about to start dropping.  

Even Alan Greenspan agrees with us.  Greenspan Says Housing Prices Not Yet Near Bottom

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said falling U.S. home prices are “nowhere near the bottom” and the resulting market turmoil isn’t showing signs of abating.

How can this be?

How can prices that have fallen 25% in Los Angeles year over year be about to start falling? Well, because unlike every other real estate boom of the past century, this past boom was, in fact, a boom and a bubble. This numbers below, from the Case-Schiller Housing Index showcase that and how the first bubble may have popped, the excess speculation bubble, but the underlying bubble remains, and now will begin to deflate.

Prices in San Francisco were set to an index of 100.00 in January of 2000.

By January 2004 prices had jumped to 155.93, a massive jump by historical standards. This alone is a real estate bubble.

By January 2007, they had already softened a bit but still were at 211.78. This is the second bubble.

Now the index stands at 162.70. Still up 60% since January 2000.

The prices have lost some of the home equity / no money down madness bubble, but have let to be impacted by the slowing economy. And they will be

How far will they go down? Well, economics is ruled by larger trends and post bubble, prices eventually revert to the historical mean.  

For example in the ten years from January 1987 to January 1997, prices increased 22%. And, fyi, that’s after inflation, meaning a house purchased for $400,000 in January 1987 was actually worth less, in real dollar terms, in 1997, ten years later.

That’s not a rant, that’s a fact, all of these prices don’t include inflation.

In real dollar terms, house prices really don’t escalate much. Some studies of ONE HUNDRED YEAR time frames of the US Market show, in real dollar terms, that house prices remain flat.

How can that possibly be?

Well, we’ve been inundated with ten years of powerful powerful advertising messages that tell us, “housing prices always go up.”

We borrowed money and spent it like good Republicans, because housing prices always go up.

We just know we can buy more and more because housing prices always go up.

But they don’t.

So how can you estimate what the actual value of a house in San Francisco really is? How far can they fall? Another 40% to historical norms of growth? More?  Well, Dave recently calculated how far prices in the San Francisco Bay Area could fall using three different methods.

The first was the rent to price ratio.  With this method you take the average rent and calculate the amount of money you need to put into a decent investment to make the same amount.  For example, if you are clearing about $833.33 per month ($10K oer year) from a rental property unit (remember to account for maintenance and property taxes and something for your time…) then the price of the property would be around $100,000 for a 10% return ($10K is 10% of $100K) and $200,000 for a 5% return (sufficiently higher than a CD pays right now).  

So if houses in your area are renting for about $1400-1500 per month this is a rough way to tell that similar houses might be worth around $150K at best.  If you double that and they rent for $2800-3000 then house prices would be $300K.  And those prices assume that rental prices are not dropping.

James lives in a rental house in Boston which at market peak might have sold for $800,000 or $900,000 but now rents for $2,400. What does the landlord clear? Not $28,000 because he pays the taxes so more like $20,000. If you had $400,000 in the bank would you be happy with 5% return? Perhaps. But that’s the highest amount you can estimate the house is worth in the market. And guess what? 10 years ago, the house was worth about $350,000. So it actually is about the right value.

The next method involved the average person in the area’s income affording an average priced property.  Look around at prices in your area, and average wages.  At what price can the average person (or husband-wife) (or husband-husband/wife-wife in Dave’s California and James’ Massachusetts) buy a house?  Right: uh-oh.

The third method is to look at the historic mean plus inflation.  When prices triple in a few years, then when they correct they have to fall to 1/3 of the peak (plus inflation).  It’s just the way it is.

When Dave calculated these for the Bay Area all three methods came out the same and showed that prices can still fall as much as 30-40%.   We say “can” but an economist might say “should.”  

If it falls 30% from that index where it is now, it only drops to 112. Can’t happen? Well, remember that 1987 – 1997 DECADE, it was up 22%. Now, after 8 years, it would be up 12% on that index. That’s pretty normal growth to be honest.

And what is cumulative inflation of the past 8 years?  Let’s make it easy on ourselves, and we’ll say an average of 3%. The 100 Index goes from 100 to 126 with the combined effect of eight years of Inflation at 3%.

You see, housing is not the perfect “always goes up” investment. And it is clear that the housing prices in San Francisco and many more places could have 30% – 40% to go down from where they are today.

But, you guessed it, the news is actually worse than this.  First, there is a huge amount of excess housing inventory on the market.  So this needs to be factored into your thinking about where prices can go.  On top of the need for prices to revert to the mean, these extra houses have to find buyers before prices can stabilize. This is supply and demand, nothing more, nothing less.

Next is the effect of gas prices.  Many, many housing developments have gone up in areas that are far from city centers and far from non-automobile transportation like light rail or even buses, and buyers are going to be factoring the price of gas now.  Along with this, the price to heat and cool the monster homes that developers tended to build will become a consideration and will reduce demand for these houses.  

Another factor is that the “boomers” are starting to retire, and will be selling the larger homes in which they raised their families or ended their careers, looking for apartments, condos and even senior facilities.  This will also reduce demand.

And, just as the price of energy was not considered when these houses were designed and built but has lately become a factor, one day the implications of global warming will start to sink in.  In particular, is the house sufficiently above sea level?  Is it located near an area that is experiencing increased fire danger?  LOTS of Californians are starting to think about these issues.

But if you think we’re wrong, and the above factors are non factors. Consider the recent decline in the stock market, General Motors and their 15.5 billion dollar quarterly loss, that’s the recession that’s here.  

This is the big one:  A falling economy always forces housing prices to fall.  Even when housing prices are not in a bubble to start with a recession forces prices down.  And this hasn’t even started acting on housing prices yet — the falling prices we have seen are not because the economy is slowing, they are causing the economy to slow.  The slowing economy will make this worse as people are laid off around the country.  The foreclosures we are seeing today are not the result of people losing their jobs, but they are causing people to lose their jobs.  THEN the foreclosures that come FROM people losing their jobs will start.

There are no, none, nada, zilch factors that we see driving any hope for a “bottom” in housing prices any time soon.  

Thanks Republicans for ignoring the country’s problems for so long, refusing to regulate the financial companies, refusing to address the need to find alternative energy sources, refusing to fund mass transit alternatives and refusing to provide oversight and enforcement of our laws.  Thanks for bringing us to where we are today.  

They borrowed and spent. We borrowed and spent and drove the housing prices up through a double bubble. One bubble may have popped. The next one will soon.

Post-Script: We worked on this post last week and over the weekend. This morning, The New York Times has this article: Housing Lenders Fear Bigger Wave Of Defaults. It echoes many of our arguments in this piece.

Indicting Bush in Venice

Where else but Venice, California, would you go to hear an outraged crank argue for indicting the sitting president of the United States for murder in a gymnasium packed to the gills with wild-eyed radicals cheering his every charge?

Which is exactly what we did this past Wednesday, except the crank was no crank, but rather the world-famous former district attorney and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi, and more than a few radicals in the audience looked to have day jobs and mortgages to pay.

As Linda Milazzo reported recently, Bugliosi-the noted Manson Family prosecutor-was in town to promote his latest book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder-what he calls a “practical, nuts and bolts blueprint” that he hopes some state or local district attorney will follow to make George Bush pay for his crimes. Bugliosi is sending letters and copies of his book to prosecutors around the country, offering his own pro bono services as anything from bookkeeper to lead prosecutor.

Organized by the Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles and hosted by PDA-LA president Marcy Winograd, the extended book signing drew over 200 to the Venice Center for Peace & Justice in the Arts. A few audience members looked to be straight out of the sixties-albeit a good deal grayer upstairs and broader in the midrift-but many could pass for the teachers, budget analysts, and regular Janes and Joes they mostly were.

Bugliosi’s basic point is that if George Bush took America to war under false pretenses, “he is criminally culpable for the deaths of the 4,000 American servicemen who have been killed in Iraq as well the 100,000 or more Iraqi men, women, and children who have died as result of that war.”

It isn’t enough that Bush and his cohorts blundered us into invading Iraq on intelligence reports they had misread. No, they had to know that they were lying to the American people about their reasons for launching the invasion.

To support his contention that the Bush Administration did knowingly take us into war under false pretenses, Bugliosi cited a CIA assessment of the threat Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq posed to America’s safety and the Manning Memo, a report of a meeting between George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their top aides during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Bugliosi points out that the CIA assessment clearly stated that Hussein posed no threat to our country unless he was attacked. “But just days after receiving that report,” Bugliosi said, “Bush told the nation the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him.” The public version of that report was scrubbed of this observation when it was later released, a further indication that Bush and his advisors knew precisely what they were doing.

Not as well known as the similar but weaker Downing Street Memo, the Manning Memo reports that “Bush was so worried about UN inspectors not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that he started talking about ways to provoke Hussein into a war, including by flying U2 spy missions over Iraq,” according to Bugliosi. At that point, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was reporting that his inspectors were able to perform professional, no-notice inspections anyplace in Iraq. “Hussein’s government was being proactively helpful, according to Blix,” Bugliosi related.

Based on his years of successful prosecutions-105 successful prosecutions without a loss-Bugliosi charged that no innocent person would look for those kinds of excuses in those circumstances. “There is no answer to the Manning Memo but guilt,” he said.

Bugliosi contends that his effort is a nonpartisan one and that he would equally call for the indictment of a Democratic president under the same circumstances.

Asked why he would risk his reputation on such a quixotic venture-he claims to be virtually blacklisted by nearly every mainstream television talk show, which were so happy to see him on previous book tours (including the purportedly left-leaning ones)-he says he has been in a state of rage set in motion especially by Bush’s cavalier attitude about the destruction he has wrought.

As one egregious example, Bugliosi cited Bush’s infamous “perfect day” quote when the carnage in Iraq was at a fever pitch:

“I’m gonna have lunch with Secretary of State Rice, take a little nap, I’m reading an Elmore Leonard book right now – knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon – go fishing with my man Barney [his dog], have a light dinner, then head for the ball game. So it’s a perfect day.”

As to how Bush might defend himself-along with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, and any others who were in on the lies-against this murder charge, Bugliosi offered only the defense suggested by the late 20th Century philosopher Richard Pryor on the occasion of being caught by his wife in bed with another woman:

“Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”

By Dick Price & Sharon Kyle

Editor and Publisher, LA Progressive

www.laprogressive.com

Recent articles by Dick & Sharon

Indicting Bush in Venice

http://www.laprogressive.com/2…

Barack’s Sister Brings the Heat to El Sereno

http://www.laprogressive.com/2…

Have We Forgotten About Iraq?

http://www.laprogressive.com/2…

The Love of a Gay Man

http://www.laprogressive.com/2…

SD Mayor – Steve Francis Runs Against George Bush

So today, I received the latest volley of Steve Francis mailers (it’s been an average of two a day for the last two weeks).  Today, there was the regular Francis stuff, but also another one that would seem to be clearly targeted at people who think (for a change).  This one only mentions Steve Francis in the return address.

It has a big picture of Mayor Jerry Sanders standing next to George H.W. Bush, with the caption “Why has the Republican Party endorsed Jerry Sanders for Mayor?”  It goe on to answer with statements such as “Because Sanders has no plan to protect the environment . . . Because Sanders gives favors to fat cat developers . . .” and so on.

This is really funny to me, because as I understand it, Francis is a Republican too (we do have a rather pathetic set of options this time – but I can’t blame anyone for not wanting the job anyway).  You really would think the Democratic Party, or a labor union made up this mailer.

At this point, I am inclined to think that Steve Francis really does not have any ambition beyond Mayor, because I can’t think that clowns like Ron Nehring will ever forgive him for something like this.

In any case, it is the first time I’ve actually seen proof of a Republican (and yes, I know that it’s a nonpartisan office – LOL) actively running against GWB in this way.  I frankly have been skeptical that any Republican would actually violate St. Ronnie’s commandment about speaking ill of another GOPer, but there it is.

Is it really a trend?  Has anyone else seen something like this?  This really is a remarkable election year.

Bush, McCain, Bono Baxely Mack 100 Years War and Occupation: Devastating U.S. Troops’ Mental Health

So-called Pres. George W. Bush initiated a war of aggression and limitless occupation against the sovereign nation of Iraq in order to exact revenge on Sadaam Hussein over Hussein’s assassination attempt on former Pres. George H.W. Bush and to secure Iraqi oil for Bush’s Texas oil cronies.  Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mary Bono Baxely Mack, absentee Congresswoman, have supported every Bush war policy without reservation.  In fact, McCain is prepared for the U.S. to continue the occupation of Iraq ‘for 100 years.’

The U.S. Army recently released a study on the impact of the Bush war of aggression on the mental health of U.S. troops (The Associated Press, by Pauline Jelinek, dated March 7, 2008).  The findings of the report are devastating to the Bush occupation efforts and reveal the harmful impact on a significant percentage of U.S. troops.

More below the flip…

More than 27% of U.S. troops on their third or fourth combat tour suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems.  More than 12% of U.S. troops on their first tour suffered similar mental health problems

Suicide rates “remained elevated” in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.  Four suicides occurred last year in Afghanistan and 34 either confirmed or suspected suicides in Iraq.  If all suicides are confirmed, this would be the highest suicide rate since the Bush war of aggression began

The percentage of soldiers reporting depression in Afghanistan was higher than that in Iraq, and mental health problems in general were higher than they had previously been in Afghanistan.  The adjusted rate in 2007 for depression in Afghanistan was 11.4% compared with 7.6% in Iraq

83% of U.S. troops in Afghanistan reported exposure to traumatic combat events, a key risk factor for poor mental health among the troops

Spreading U.S. troops out in Afghanistan tended to isolate troops and made it more difficult for them to obtain mental health services in Afghanistan

About 29% of U.S. troops in combat outposts in Iraq reported that it was difficult to obtain mental health services in Iraq.  About 13% of U.S. troops not at outposts reported similar difficulty

U.S. troops receiving “Battlemind” training reported fewer mental health problems than those who did not.  The training teaches U.S. troops and families what to expect before troops depart for the Bush occupation of Iraq and what common problems to look out for when troops readjust to Stateside life following deployment

29% of U.S. troops feared seeking mental health services would harm their careers, down from 34% in 2006.  Fears of seeking mental health services would prevent many from getting help for anxiety, depression, and post-combat stress and would exacerbate the symptoms

89% of U.S. troops reported that their unit’s morale was neither high nor very high, down from 93% in 2006.  79.4% reported neither high nor very high individual morale, down from 81.7% in 2006.

In Iraq, 72% of soldiers reported knowing someone seriously injured or killed

U.S. troops reported an average of only 5.6 hours of sleep nightly in Iraq, significantly less than that needed to maintain optimal level of performance.  This puts U.S. troops at greater risk for harm.  Officers appear to significantly underestimate the impact of sleep deprivation.

Almost 33% of U.S. troops in Afghanistan were highly concerned that they were not getting sufficient sleep, and about 25% reported falling asleep during convoys last year thereby increasing their risk for harm.  16% of U.S. troops reported taking psychiatric medications during 2007 (there was no figure for the percentage of troops who were prescribed psychiatric medications and who were not taking them), and about half of those were sleep medications

State of FISA

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

Update: Everything failed cloture.  McConnell’s bad amendment failed and so did Reid’s good-ish 30-day extension.  Which means that nothing has changed and we’re back to where everything was last week. Except that now President Bush has some nice fodder for his speech.  Updated update: Senators Boxer and Feinstein voted against cloture on McConnell’s and for cloture on Reid’s extension.  Good votes all.

All sorts of interesting developments on the FISA debate over the weekend as we swing into the next phase of the showdown.  First, the New York Times blasted leading Senate Democrats in an editorial for even considering an extension of Bush’s protections.  It also went ahead to say what so many of us know already: the notion that amnesty for telecom companies is anything but an attempt to cover up what this administration has been up to is…well…crazy.  The President contends that amnesty is necessary to get cooperation in the future, but it just doesn’t pass the smell test.  If the law is followed, it’s not a problem.  And if there’s any question about legality, the time to sort it all out isn’t well after the fact.  That’s the whole point of having a FISA court in the first place.

Senator Feinstein holds one of the votes that could be vacillating this week as FISA winds through vote after vote.  Call her and speak your mind about the ugly notion of providing amnesty to the telecoms.  She has many phone numbers:

202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)

310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)

415-393-0707 (San Francisco)

619-231-9712 (San Diego)

559-485-7430 (Fresno)

Either way, here we find ourselves.  Tim Tagaris noted over at OpenLeft that President Bush will veto any temporary extension of FISA.  Which means a lot of things, but the major one is that we can expect some theatrics.  There’s a State of the Union address coming soon, and as a result there’s a full chamber of Senators in town.  Including the ones with names like Clinton, McCain, and Obama.  Senators like that bring cameras, and Senators like cameras.

So here are the benchmarks to be watching for.  Senators Clinton and Obama will be joining with most (hopefully all) Democrats against cloture on Mitch McConnell’s odious offering on FISA.  That’s at 4:30pm eastern and is a good start.  Reid will be looking to pass a 30-day extension (the one Bush would apparently veto).  For now, this is the big one.

Rubber hits the road AFTER the State of the Union when there’s no fodder for the speech to be had.  The President is likely to establish the framework for the rest of the week during his speech, and it’s later in the week that Dodd’s filibuster will likely come to a head.  As a result, it will be when we get the real test of who stands where and who is willing to lead on this issue.

And yes, I’ll be keeping at least one eye on Senator Feinstein there.  She’s been pretty willing to buy the line of crap about telecom amnesty being important, which quite frankly it isn’t.  When it really comes down to it, where will she be? We’re gonna find out.

The Courage Campaign is one of many organizations fighting to make sure our Democratic Senators hang tough and beat Bush on this issue.  Help out with a call to Senator Feinstein and remind her we’re paying attention.

Blackwater Rejection Vote Analysis

When Courage Campaign flew me down to Potrero a few months ago, a couple of things struck me about the area targeted by Blackwater for their California mercenary base. It was very rural. It was so close to the border that it is south of a major Border Patrol checkpoint. Bush had won by more than 25 points. There appeared to be a significant economic gap with starter-castles the next home down the highway from double-wide trailers as we crept along the winding, narrow highway. And it was sparsely populated, last night’s vote had only 509 registered voters eligible for the entirely VBM special election. Yet the people who did live there had no interest in a mercenary camp creating logjams at the checkpoint and increasing the fire danger and guzzling valuable water while filling the air with the sounds of the types of cutting edge weapons are real soldiers wish they had.

When I was in Potrero, it was before the fires but after far more than enough signatures had been gathered to place a recall of the those who sold out the town on the ballot for a special election. And you know something, this small town that had voted for Bush by 25 % pts. rallied against his administration’s entire approach by an even larger margin in what at this point is more than a 50% pts swing. In other words, every other voter in a rural, Mexico-border, conservative town went from supporting Bush to opposing Bush’s cronies at Blackwater.

Clearly, stopping the US mercenary business is an electoral winner for anyone who would rather support our troops than create a blood-money sector for big businesses.

Jane Harman: Making Iran the new Iraq

Rep. Jane Harman teamed up today with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) to editorialize in the Wall Street Journal on why Bush isn’t so bad The Limits of Intelligence.  Leaving aside the hilarious range of jokes afforded by the title, it’s a nearly letter-perfect exculpation for the Bush Administration.  To hear Reps. Harman and Hoekstra tell it, the information produced from the Intelligence community is inherently flawed and suspect.  As a result, any conclusion could be right or wrong at any given point and assigning a value judgment is just silly:

Still, intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science. The complete reversal from the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program to the latest NIE serves as its own caution in this regard. The information we receive from the intelligence community is but one piece of the puzzle in a rapidly changing world. It is not a substitute for policy, and the challenge for policy makers is to use good intelligence wisely to fashion good policy.

Or in other words, sure it looks like Harman, Hoekstra and the President totally dropped the ball on this over the course of three full years of Iran-focused hawkish rhetoric that apparently had no basis in reality, but that’s just how it works.  And now that it’s been completely disproven, rather than admit an error, we’re simply going to blame the evidence.  It’s been said that a good craftsman never blames his tools, and this may be the best demonstration in quite some time.  Caught with their pants down the first time, it turns out that the assessment has always been correct no matter what the actual research or evidence might say, and we’re all best served just ignoring the inconvenient evidence and running with the stuff that we like.  I liked this outlook best when it was justifying the invasion of Iraq, but I guess the classics never really die.

After her primary challenge last year, I was hopeful that Harman’s hawkish tendencies would soften.  And in many ways, we’ve gotten that.  Despite protestations that “Jane Harman hasn’t changed” since declaring herself “The Best Republican in the Democratic Party,” her votes on the war have gotten better- in fits and starts- over the past year.  But lately she’s been trying to play thought police and now trying to justify a belligerent stance on Iran by legitimizing the same insanity that got us into Iraq.  In 2002, the selective application of intelligence and deliberate misinformation to support a pre-established policy goal went on behind closed doors and, eventually, really pissed people off.  Oh, and it also needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, bankrupted the country, further destabilized the Middle East and destroyed the nation’s international credibility.  But this time we’re going to tell you to your face that we’re feeding a predetermined policy and tell you that it’s the only reasonable way to decide anything.  Only the crazy irrational fringe would be swayed by actual evidence.

Perhaps the saddest part is that this whole article goes beyond political outrage and comes off as Rep. Harman’s “I drive a Dodge Stratus!” moment.  She got passed over to Chair the House Intelligence Committee after Democrats retook the House, getting the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence instead.  This sure does come off as a half-bitter, half-desperate attempt to reclaim relevance by grabbing a headline.  Maybe her tendency to undermine the party in support of hawking an antagonistic foreign policy is why Rep. Silvestre Reyes is chairing the Intelligence Committee today.  I’m just speculating there of course, but it’s tough to come up with a positive reading of this editorial, particularly when it finally boils down to “The government is telling you Iran is dangerous even though the government has established that Iran is not dangerous”:

Though the new NIE may be taken as positive news, Iran clearly remains dangerous. The combination of international pressure, economic sanctions and the presence of U.S. troops on Iran’s borders may have indeed convinced Tehran to abandon its nuclear-weapons program, as the NIE states with “high confidence.” Nevertheless, Congress must engage in vigorous oversight — to challenge those who do intelligence work, and to make site visits to see for ourselves.

This line of crap flew in 2002 and 2003 because Democrats like Jane Harman pushed it and there wasn’t a clear and recent debacle to prove how wrong-headed it was to its core.  There’s no excuse now.

Cross posted to DailyKos

Dear Mr. So-Called President: No More Words and No More Promises on AIDS

December 1, 2007, World AIDS Day

In The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, the so-called President Bush stated:

“Our nation pledged $15 billion over five years for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in many of the poorest nations on Earth…This investment has yielded the best possible return – saved lives.”

Please, let me stop laughing.  The so-called President has oftentimes promised much and then provided little to nothing for AIDS, Education, Ethnic Minorities, the poor, the disenfranchised, etc.  Now, he ‘pledges.’  Pledges.  Berlin said it best:

“No more words

You’re telling me you love me while you’re looking away

No more words, no more words

And no more promises of love

Please Mr. So-Called President, no more promises, show us the money!

Whom in Congress does Lameduck Bush think are friendly?

Friends, things are going to get interesting. Since 9/11 changed everything, the Bush Administration’s approach to congress has been the steamroller/cement mixer/napalm bomb approach. But since last fall’s elections, the Republican Administration has focused on trying to ensure that they are not held accountable for everything they’ve screwed up. Case in point, the retroactive immunity law to give amnesty to the big phone companies who sold all of us out without a warrant. Think about that next time you pay your phone bill.

During the GOP domination years, they would have sold this by calling up their Joe Klein friends and scaring Democrats into support with threats from the “so-called left” voices and yelling that Rush Limbaugh was spot on. But that stunt was cut short when America realized that Social Security is not in crisis (disclosure, I ran the www.ThereIsNoCrisis.com campaign) and Democrats finally realized that solidarity for honesty could make our Party invincible.

Today, a judge says that our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation get to see how the Republican Administration moved to push amnesty for the big telecoms.

While the Nixon “Enemies List” was a badge of honor, I think the Democrats whom are named early on this time-frame will be wearing a different patch.

This will be an amazing insight into the thoughts of the Bush team’s post lame duck status. The early names will be the names of the Democrats the Bush Administration thinks will throw themselves on the sword for big business despite the little detail we call the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And we get to know it all in a couple of weeks.

Predictions on who was the first call out of the California delegation?