HeidiAllen.com

The headlines today claim that a bailout for US automakers is imminent. I’ve just sent Speaker Nancy Pelosi the letter below:

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

The amount of bailout money being asked for by the auto industry is far in excess of their current total value on the free market. An outright purchase of these entities by the US government would be a far better deal for taxpayers than simply handing over more cash that we really don’t have.

The major US automakers have owned patents for numerous fuel-saving and fuel-free technologies since the mid-70s. Rather than use these patents, they hid them away, preferring instead to save the money they’d have to spend on retooling their manufacturing facilities. As a consequence, foreign automakers took the lead, leaving US automakers in the predictable situation that they now face.

As the owners of these companies, taxpayers could do something the CEOs won’t… We could pull those patents out of their vaults and move forward aggressively with plugin hybrid, electric and V2G vehicles. In the process, we could radically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and slow global warming.

Lastly, I find it suspicious that when universal health plans are put forward by people like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the American people are told that there’s not enough money to fund it. When something like the Apollo Project is presented as a way to slow or even halt global warming, we’re told that there’s not enough money to fund it. When Social Security needs some shoring up to be solvent into the future, we’re old that there’s not enough money to fund it.

And yet, when Congress decides on a unilateral war, or the wealthiest people in the country say that they need a bailout after seriously mismanaging their businesses, suddenly we have the money. It’s enough to make any taxpayer sick.

If you feel you must move forward on bailouts of any kind, then I ask just one thing: Each and every one of them must have far, far more oversight, preconditions and return on investment to taxpayers than anything that Congress is currently considering.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these suggestions.

Sincerely,
Heidi Allen

The most sane set of requirements that I’ve seen thus far for the pending corporate bailout came to me from Congressman Dennis Kucinich. I realize that the political will for most of these doesn’t exist, but even half of them would be nice.

Let your Senators and Representatives know that this is what you want. (Or edit it to MAKE it what you want.) It’s our money and (more importantly) our debt burden. WE should have a say!

1. Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation

2. Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries

3. Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down:

  a) resignations of management

  b) givebacks of executive compensation packages

  c) limitations on executive compensation

 d) admission by CEO’s of what went wrong and how, prior to any government  bailout

4. Demands for transparency

  a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down

  b) with respect to Treasury’s dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout

5. An equity position for the taxpayers

   a) some form of ownership of assets

6. Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying.

7. A sunset clause on the legislation

8. Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust.

9. A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts

10. A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts

Thanks, Dennis!

Just a quick post regarding the nearly 1 TRILLION dollar bailout package of taxpayer money/debt that’s about to be handed out to companies that have already grossly mismanaged funds…

The affected companies have some of the world’s best financial analysts at their disposal. You can be sure that they saw this coming several years in advance. Everything that’s happening now has been well choreographed. Every word of legislation was written a long time ago.

The bottom line is this: Anytime that there’s a closed meeting intended to scare the pants off of our US senators, someone somewhere is about to score big.

We’re being told by Fox News that the Congress has just ONE DAY to act before our economy goes into total meltdown. Rushed, scared people make mistakes… BIG mistakes. Let’s not forget the Patriot Act.

I don’t doubt that we’re in a financial crisis. However, this crisis was engineered. Corporations manipulated Congress into performing less and less oversight. They then used the opportunity to engage in predatory lending practices, the bundling of junk securities and completely over-the-top speculating. And NOW they want regulation? Don’t believe it for a minute.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, whose members are deeply involved in corporate machinations, massively overspent on a war of choice, making us indebted to the Chinese, who bought our bonds. They got their own companies hired to (mis)manage the needs of our military and contractors, while “losing” billions of dollars in the process. They kept open a loophole that allows foreign subsidiaries of US-owned companies like Halliburton to put off paying taxes for years at a time. And in the midst of all this, they created and fought to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

You don’t need to know anything about economics to have seen that we were heading for a meltdown. We’re being played.

Now it’s coming out that the legislation under consideration (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS) will give Treasury Secretary Paulson nearly limitless power to use the money, without any oversight whatsoever. (In particular, see Section 5.) There’s even a clause which seems to allow for the funds to be used to bail out FOREIGN companies.

Good God, people! Just because Chicken Little says the sky is falling doesn’t mean that our Congress should rubber stamp sweeping legislation without first having a robust debate. Please contact your Senators and Representatives and demand that they look at this thing long and hard before spending YOUR money!!!

Get the phone number and tips for your call here… or just dial (202)224-3121 and ask for your Senator’s office. And thank you very much in advance!

Gas prices are obviously impacting a lot of people and businesses here in the US, but we still have it easy compared to many other countries.

In Costa Rica, gas is currently $4.72 a gallon. In the capital of San Jose, that nation’s most populous city, emergency services will be cutting back from 3 ambulances to 2, because they can’t afford the gas. Emergency calls to EMS will now be prioritized, and ambulances will only be dispatched to the most serious cases.

Taxis are no longer driving around the city looking for customers. Instead, they line up at various locations, waiting for the customers to come to them. When the taxi at the front of the line gets a fare, the rest of the drivers get out and PUSH their cars forward.

All this is going on at a time when Costa Rican president and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias has been caught red-handed with a 2 million dollar slush fund made up of government money. Sigh.

And what are we, the world’s biggest consumers, doing about the gas price issue? Apparently, falling for the bull that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas will bring down prices.

This simply isn’t true. See the actual Department of Energy analysis at the end of this post for the facts.

Meanwhile, when I called a senator’s office recently and asked his aide to tell the senator that I support reigning in oil market speculators, he responded, “Oh, so you want to REGULATE the free market?!!!”

“No,”, I replied. “I want to protect the free market and the American people from what the speculators are doing to them. Wouldn’t that be a less costly and faster way to deal with high gas prices?”

He spouted a bunch of talking points that supposedly “proved” me wrong. I researched them after I hung up and discovered that he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

And that’s where we’re at. Talking points versus facts. Given our recent history, don’t expect facts to win out.

US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
“Official Energy Statistics from the US Government”

May 2008: Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

“With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil¹⁸ prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.”

2007: Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

My last blog post was way back in February. I was a bit… er… angry. I remain incredulous that the undemocratic superdelegate system is still with us. However, some of my hope has been restored now that Barack Obama looks like he’ll be our next president. Send positive thoughts in his direction. (And volunteer or donate if you can afford it.)

In the meantime, I’m adding my voice to those asking superdelegates to refuse to participate in a scheme that has no place or purpose in a democracy.

I finally unsubscribed from the Democratic Party’s mailing list today. Their automated system was kind enough to ask me why, so I composed the letter below. I doubt anyone will read it, so I figured I’d post it here.

First, let me be clear that my intention is NOT to take the wind out of anyone’s sail. If you’re enthusiastlically involved in the upcoming election, maybe it’s best that you don’t read this. But if you feel let down, allow me to commiserate:

It’s bad enough that our nation still uses the undemocratic Electoral College to elect a president. The delegate system knocks underdog candidates out of the race early by arbitrarily assigning a threshold that must be met before delegates are assigned.

Then there’s the staggered primaries, which deplete all but the wealthiest campaigns long before a nominee is announced. And there’s the fact that the public owns the airwaves, but the media hasn’t been required to give candidates equal time or even focus on issues since the Fairness Doctrine was overturned in 1987.

There’s black box voting equipment, which makes every vote tally suspect. There’s endless debates in which the “frontrunners” are chosen by powerful interests well in advance of a single vote being cast, and where substantive, detailed questions on issues of importance are the exception rather than the rule.

In all these things, our Democratic majority in Congress and the DNC itself have failed utterly to affect change. But still, I tried to have hope.

Then I found out that the Texas Democratic Party, my state party, no longer makes resolutions passed at the state convention a part of their platform. Having wasted my time and money being a delegate to two state conventions, I knew that resolutions were the only hope the grassroots had of impacting party policy. Yet, when I asked party chair Boyd Richie a direct question regarding this at a “Town Hall” meeting, he declined to answer and called for the next question.

I resigned my position as precinct chair, and spoke at length to two party operatives about my reasons, but no-one really cared. Still, I tried to have hope.

Then state parties, including Texas, started knocking candidates off their ballots for reasons completely unrelated to fair elections. In doing this, they deprived voters of the right to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice. The DNC said nothing.

The DNC itself stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates to punish them like little children. Clearly, the delegates can’t be restored without new elections, because not all campaigns bothered to spend time and money in these states. My hope was waning, but I tried to hang on.

And then I found out about Superdelegates. How could I not have known about this this direct violation of democracy before? As it stands now, it looks like Hillary will be elected by fiat. And the DNC does nothing about this affront to voters.

I’m forced, once again, to vote AGAINST a candidate rather than FOR one. And even that pitifully miniscule little bit of voting power will be diluted by a system that prefers oligarchy to democracy. It hurts all the more knowing that Howard Dean, whose campaign was destroyed by these very same forces, (Well, ok… by the DLC. Same thing.) has apparently been absorbed into the Party groupmind.

Why should I support the Democratic Party when the party doesn’t support democracy? Sure, I’ll still support individual candidates. (That is, until the system finally manages to extinguish that last tiny ember of my belief that it even matters.) I still haven’t made a final decision as to whether or not I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s crowned. I’m thinking “no”. Maybe, if McCain wins, the Party will get a clue.

But I absolutely, positively can no longer stomach the propaganda that keeps landing in my inbox.

Evidence is now coming out that a former State Department official appointed by President Bush may have been involved in a scheme to sell nuclear weapons secrets to Turkey. While this has been largely ignored in the US press, it’s received quite a bit of attention overseas. In part, this is because Valerie Plame was part of the team investigating the case before it was abruptly shut down. As it turns out, Marc Grossman, the State Department official, is the man who originally circulated the classified document identifying Plame as a covert agent.

The White House has clearly been paying attention. On January 23rd, President Bush issued a press release announcing the proposed Agreement for Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. Despite the new evidence to the contrary, Bush says,

“U.S. agencies received … information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation. … My Administration (is) confident that the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is a sufficient basis (as set forth in the classified annexes, which will be transmitted separately by the Secretary of State) to proceed with congressional review of the Agreement and, if legislation is not enacted to disapprove it, to bring the Agreement into force.”

Unless Congress acts to stop it, this agreement will go into force on April 21st or 22nd. It will provide all the cover needed to sell not only nuclear information and technology to Turkey, but materials as well. Let us not forget that Turkey aided A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist, in selling nuclear hardware and information to Libya, North Korea and Iran.

I urge you to contact your Senators and Representative and ask them to stop the next round of nuclear proliferation before it starts… by killing this agreement. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Here’s an email being sent around by supporters of the Iraq war:

Here’s a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.

That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Let’s assume for a moment that the statistics supplied are correct:

160,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.6

2,112 / 1.6 = 1,320 deaths per 100,000 troops

Versus 80.6 per 100,000 in DC

So, right away, one must wonder how this email continues to be offered by so many as support for their pro-Iraq war position. I mean, really, the conclusions are staggeringly wrong. But let’s see if the statistics themselves are correct:

The email says, “The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.”

Acccording to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, there were 35.4 murders per 100,000 DC residents in 2005 and 29.06 per 100,000 residents in 2006.

The email says, “There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths.”

According to GlobalSecurity.org, (and with a boost to account for the recent troop surge), the average number of troops in Iraq over the last 22 months is actually closer to 155,000.

According to the Iraq Coaltion Casualty Count, between 6/14/05 and 8/14/07, there have been 2,490 “field of operation” deaths among coalition troops. This includes troops who died in hospitals in Germany and the US. Of those, 524 were the result of weapons fire. Most died as the result of IED attacks.

So… There are 2 ways we could figure this:

1. 155,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.55524 soldier gunfire deaths / 1.55 = 338 deaths by gunfire per 100,000 coalition troops.
2. 2,490 total coalition troop deaths / 1.55 = 1,606 deaths per 100,000 coalition troops.

Now, my math isn’t great, but if my numbers are correct, no matter how you slice it, our troops would be much, much safer in DC than in Iraq.

(cross-posted to the Daily Kos)

On February 12th, 1999, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison gave a closed-door statement on her reasons for voting to impeach then-President William Jefferson Clinton. As you might expect, she listed perjury as a primary reason, but she listed many others, including a forceful argument for presidential impeachment without an indictable crime.

Early on she says, “I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed.” I’ll assume that this includes laws dealing with government surveillance of civilians, as well as those applicable to outing an undercover CIA agent.

While describing Clinton’s deposition, she says, “…the Judge and participating counsel for the parties, either knowingly or unknowingly, formulated a definition of the meaning of the words ’sexual relations’ to exclude certain forms of human contact that in their commonly accepted meaning would be included.”

And what of changing the words “covert operative” to exclude their commonly accepted meaning?

She goes on, “It was alleged, among other things, that the President coached, manipulated, and influenced false testimony of witnesses…”.

It is alleged that Vice-President Cheney did all this in preparation for the Scooter Libby trial.

“…engineered the hiding of gifts and evidence that was subject to subpoena…”

As opposed to Rove using the RNC email server so that a subpoena wouldn’t turn up evidence against him?

“While under oath before the Federal grand jury, the President gave perjurious testimony before the grand jury…”

Yet, when discussing the Scooter Libby trial, Senator Hutchison said, “…I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime…”

In her 1999 statement, Hutchison says, “…engaging personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony…”

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten that she engaged in that behavior herself, with the help of Karl Rove.

But then, my friends, Senator Hutchison makes one of the most interesting arguments for Presidential impeachment that I’ve read:

“I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.”

Well said, Kay.

I just got off the phone with someone from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. They were looking for donations, volunteers, or at very least, a signup for their mailing list. I refused to give them any of these things.

A few days ago, my brother tried mightily to get me to admit that Obama would win the presidency in 2008. I refused.

Why am I so obstinate?

First of all, the filing deadlines for running for President of the United States, which vary by state, are generally between September 2007 and January 2008. In other words, we still have at least another 7 months to see who comes forward to run. I’m not picking a candidate until I know who the candidates are. Reasonable?

Second of all, most of the candidates who have already declared are serving in elected positions right now. Rather than criss-crossing the country trying to appeal to black voters or the religious right, they should be doing their jobs. We’re in a critical political period, and we need all hands on deck. I am NOT impressed by people who ignore the public office they currently hold in favor of doing early campaigning for a higher one.

Third of all, pointless news about the presidential candidates is already obliterating coverage of far more important stories, and that’s wrong. We get precious little reporting on real news as it is.

However, since it seems that the candidates are bent on this whole “early lead” concept, (how quickly they forget Howard Dean), I ask just one thing. If you’re going to stump, at least pledge to do something instead of speechifying.

You can’t prove that you care about civil rights by waxing poetic on historical moments of the past. You prove it by telling people how you intend to reduce the unemployment rate among African Americans, or what you plan to do about the still-worrisome Patriot Act.

You don’t convince people that you give a damn about blue-collar workers by endlessly pointing out your parent’s blue-collar roots. You do it by listing the steps you’ll take to keep jobs right here in the US and to create new ones. You do it by pledging to re-negotiate our free trade agreements as fair trade agreements, thus stemming the flow of jobs overseas (and stemming the tide of illegal immigrants over our borders).

Lastly, you can’t ride Al Gore’s coattails on the environment by using phrases like, “Someday, our cars will run on hydrogen.” You convince people that you’re serious by promising to help fund the California hydrogen corridor initiative, making California’s fuel standards apply nationwide and promoting cool roofs.

I have no patience for speechifying. I don’t care how pretty your words are or how many emotional buttons you can push. Until you’re willing to tell me something concrete that you intend to do, leave me alone.