Senator Tom Carper - Corporate Man or Smith Comma John?

I began this search as I was watching the automakers, GAO and UAW speaking to congress. Sen. Tom Carper made a comment, rather paid a compliment to, the automakers that set me back in my seat, furrowed my brow and finally elicited a rather loud vocal response directed at the TV screen. "We face the voters, and one of the questions that is sometimes on their minds is 'what have you done for me lately'. 'And I think you are all going through a little bit of that lately too in terms of what have you done for us lately in terms of productivity..., ...bringing down the labor costs, ...what have you done for us in terms of improving quality, ...and in terms of improving fuel efficiency?' I was about to applaud, I reached for my keyboard to look this senator up as I listened intently for reactions from the big three. What I in fact heard next caused my hopes to fall, and instead of reaching to look up the senator, I went in search of his donations. "You've actually, I think any fair minded person would say on every one of those fronts, you've done a lot! You've done a lot!"

Productivity - FAIL - Any gains in this area have happened outside the borders of the US. IE Mexico

Labor costs - FAIL - Each car is sold at a loss, the reason the UAW is at the table with you.

Quality - FAIL*FAIL - Double failing grade here. With the exception of a couple of models produced only for European markets, American made cars continue to trail those from nearly every other country. Not only didn't you pass, you didn't even show up for the test.

Efficiency - FAIL*FAIL*FAIL - All of you spend millions every year to lobby congress in an attempt to stave off increasing CAFE standards. You spend millions more advertising and sponsoring large, inefficient cars, trucks, SUV's, Hummers etc and little to nothing making 'small and efficient' cool.

So naturally, I thought "he must be in the bag for the big three" and went to check donations. Not as easy as it seems. In reviewing the 'automobile manufacturers' political contributions (click here), I've had to do some adding of figures to get to a total of how much any 'one' company has contributed. The list of donors includes the usual suspects - Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Lexus, Mitsubishi and Honda. But along with those obvious are the less obvious, and suspicious. The number 5 contributor is 'Alliance of Automobile Manufactures'. What? Well, that must be for those that didn't contribute in their own name right? Wrong. A quick check of the members list for this 'alliance' finds familiar names, BMW, Mercedes, Mazda, Porsche and Volkswagen. Fine. But in addition to those names, we find (again) Chrysler, Ford, GM, Mitsubishi and Toyota! The total contributions for the Alliance were $21,850. With 10 members, that's $2185 each. Not much. Next comes a contributor called 'General Parts International', hmmm.. That's CarQuest Autoparts.... anyway. Daimlerchrysler is listed twice, once as mentioned and once as daimler chrysler. $6500 and $5650 contributed for a total $12150. Another name not expected is Badenoch LLC. This is a research and development Co with an NAICS of industrial design services. Yeah, that fits in with automobile manufacturers. Can you say creative accounting boys and girls?

I didn't find a lot of direct contributions to this senator from the auto industry, just some. I went back to his bio and it hit me. Mr. Carper is a senator from Delaware. The corporation capital of the country. ( I was going to say world, but that's just not so anymore, is it?)

I don't know a lot about this senator, might he have been calming the waters before dive bombing? His remarks were next directed to Mark Zandi, thanking him for previously providing what he calls a 'bang for the buck' reports, and asks for his opinion on the biggest bang for the buck here. Zandi says the government should provide aid, there is no choice. The cost of ensuring that the automakers don't go into bankruptcy in the next 3-4 years is going to cost more than $34 billion. He gave a range of $75-125 billion. Per Zandi, this is the total number taxpayers will be on the hook for, that includes hart (he was hard to understand here, could be 'our' 'art' or some other acronym) money, sec136 money... Zandi goes on to say that if they (the automakers) stick to the script, they will come out very viable companies. The problem according to Zandi is that sticking to the script outside of bankruptcy is going to be very, very difficult. Mentioning stakeholders, creditors, the UAW, suppliers and dealers all to deal with. So plan on them not sticking to the script. Zandi says allocate $34 billion for them but not all at once. GM wants $10bil to get them through to March 31st. Chrysler needs $7bil. Ford doesn't need anything. Zandi would give them this much of the $34bil to avoid any bankruptcy through Mar31. He agrees with a board for oversight, and especially the idea of a single person in the short term to streamline and expedite the recovery plan. At the Mar31 deadline, benchmarks must have been met to receive the next round of funding. He also suggests the companies use the time between now and then to prepare for bankruptcy. He concludes by insisting everyone stick to the idea that 'this is it'.

Carper follows the comments by Zandi with a single question about how to ensure a reasonable return to the taxpayers in order to take on the risk, which is answered by one witness with no followup questions. Carper then goes on to say that he doesn't think the automakers are getting enough credit for what they have already done! He thinks these 3 companies 'have positioned themselves to make a go it' within a couple of years. ... Ford has been in operation since 1903, General motors since 1908 and Chrysler since 1925. And they've positioned themselves over the past couple of years to 'make a go of it'? Oh really!
The GM balance sheet for the past 3 years stacks up like this: Net tangible assets (assets-liabilities including stock value) '05 $10,258,000 '06 ($6,559,000) '07 ($38,160,000) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM&annual
Ford comes up like this '05 $7,497,000 '06 ($40,236,000) '07 $3,559,000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=f&annual
and Chrysler (Daimler AG, DAI) like this '05 $37,162,919 '06 $41,862,752 and '07 $48,646,941 (keeping in mind a majority of this company's business is outside the US) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=dai&annual

It's fun to note that when I went to the chryslerllc.com website, the splash pages says this (and only this)
"It's not a bailout to keep us from failing. It's a loan to help us succeed. We are investing in the creation of new technologies for more environmentally responsible vehicles, reduced emission vehicles and emission free electric vehicles. As early as 2010 our exciting lineup of vehicles will offer an electric drive system. With a link to read more about their plan for a successful future, to learn more about their ENVI vehicles and a link to watch a video so that you may "See why you should care about the US auto industry". But I digress.

Senator Carper, your remarks today weren't in keeping with reality. Not only have these 3 companies had the time and experience to 'make a go of it' without any help, they haven't held to the 'free market' diatribe and they haven't performed in their own shareholder's best interests, much less the best interests of their employees or their customers. They've asked for and been given - repeatedly - tax breaks, incentives, grants and loans all with the promise of 'new technology', 'more efficient vehicles' and 'world class quality and safety'. These three automakers together make up the number 2 position in the world for sales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaker, while being last in the world for quality, efficiency and safety. What in the world were you thinking with this thinly veiled attempt at questioning that was, in fact, 7 minutes of undeserved compliments and praise?

Obama Costs Nader the Election

By Bob Maschi

Election results are in and they clearly indicate that Democrat Barack Obama has cost Peace and Freedom’s candidate, Ralph Nader, the presidency. Simple math proves that had Obama not run, and had all of his support gone to Nader, that Nader would have easily won the majority of Electoral College votes and, therefore, the presidency.

A similar electoral flaw occurred in the 2000 presidential election when Al Gore cost Ralph Nader the presidency." Courtesy of Peace and Freedom

Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine

While the collapse of this country’s financial system continues to send shock waves around the world, we speak to the bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein says the public should be wary of the Bush administration trying to use the crisis to push through more of the radical pro-corporate policies that helped cause it in the first place." Naomi Klein with Amy Goodman - Democracy Now!

NAOMI KLEIN: "Well, the thesis of my book, what I mean by the “shock doctrine,” is that it is in times of crisis, it is in times when people are panicked, when we've seen again and again the right push through radical pro-corporate policies, what they call “free market reforms,” precisely because it is in a crisis where the space for debate rapidly closes, and you can invoke this state of emergency to say we have no choice.
And I think we’re seeing a very dramatic example of this tactic right now with this really extortionist kind of tactics playing out in Washington. You know, “Sign this blank check, or we’re all going down, or Main Street is going down, or taxpayers—you know, the sky will fall in on them.”
I’m also arguing that this is only stage one of the shock doctrine. They’re getting this—they’re lobbying for this huge bailout, obviously, but this bailout is a kind of a time bomb, because it’s all these bad debts, and they are going to explode on the next administration. I mean, we know that the Bush administration has already left the next administration with huge debt and deficit problems. They’vejust exploded those, expanded them. And what that means is that whoever the next president is is going to be inheriting this economic crisis that is being exacerbated by this bailout. "

"Yeah. I mean, there is pressure being put on Congress from Democrats who—you know, we’ve heard the proposals to cap executive pay and to have a moratorium on foreclosures. It’s coming not from all Democrats, but from some. But there’s something going on on the Republican side, where you have people like Newt Gingrich, and you also have the Republican Study Committee, which is a group of very influential Republican lawmakers who are saying that they’re opposed to the bailout, and they also have their wish list. And I think it is that it’s not that they’re going to oppose a bailout completely; it’s that they want economic changes, right-wing, pro-corporate economic changes, attached to a bailout. So, Newt Gingrich has his list. He’s got eighteen demands. But I think even more important than that is the Republican Study Committee, and I raise this because they’ve just issued their ransom list. It starts with suspending the capital gains tax, privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suspending mark-to-market accounting, which is the rule that requires companies to assess their assets at current market values."

"So, what’s so stunning about this, Amy, is that here you have a crisis that everyone seems to agree is borne of deregulation, and they’re actually calling for more deregulation. We have a situation where the debt is exploding on American taxpayers, and they want to suspend corporate profits—sorry, corporate taxes, which is actually what might defray some of those costs from regular taxpayers. So it’s an incredible display of opportunism. And this is what I mean by stage two of the shock doctrine. The first stage is just the bailout, but the second stage are all of these radical reforms that are going to be invoked in the name of the crisis that the bailout is creating, whether it’s pushed through right now or whether it’s pushed through later. "

AMY GOODMAN: "You see this happen right after 9/11 with the USA PATRIOT Act being pushed through. You saw it with the vote in October of 2002 for the invasion of Iraq. It’s speed and the idea of an imminent threat."

Please click through and read the entire common sense filled article, or listen to the interview.


I'm of the opinion that this is actually stage 2, with stage one having supposed to have been war with Iran. In the face of that failure to launch thanks to cooler heads, stage 1b was the Georgia- Russia debacle. It seems even that non-starter has been doused by more reasonable minds. Perhaps the planmakers underestimated the damage a 7 year war based on lies, thrown at the American people like propaganda against an enemy, would do to the credibility of the people needed to push through the remaining stages of the plan.

"Well, uh.. crap....uh... plan A didn't work. Er uh.. and plan 2 didn't work either... but those money people.. uh.. they're expecting.. I mean, we promised to bail them out at the end.. uh.. what should.. move ahead with stage 2.. well.. what's... OH! yeah.. hehe.. stage 1, stage 1b, yeah. Stage 2, move ahead!"

Impeach the President?

I've thought about it a lot. It sure does seem to me there are far more and better reasons to consider it than were put forward to actually complete the deed with Clinton. Nancy Pelosi insists we need to put forward proof of a crime. Since I'm not an attorney, and in the past things I've felt sure were crimes turned out not to be (wow, is that frustrating), I began looking for other more qualified information.

As I'm sure you can imagine, everyone has an opinion on the matter. Some seemingly qualified sources, some... not so much, but compelling none the less. I've read or listened to or watched opinions ranging from dark cultish ritual based conspiracies to ... well, only slightly less dark conspiracies. I click, read, listen, watch and repeat. Possibly, in the back of my TVgen mind, I think some 'Chuck' like answer will come over me and everything will become clear.
Below is a playlist, a collection of some of the video I've viewed and considered relevant to my search somehow. A few of them may seem off key, but in some strange way it relates to my thoughts and feelings about impeaching the president.

Also, click below to review some of the articles I've reviewed. There are quite a few listed here, so don't hurt yourself. The top listings under 'impeach' are the goal, but feel free to browse the full list.

Mortgage Fraud on the Table But..

Resolving the mortgage fiasco is going impossibly long, and while words like 'fraud' and 'scam' have been floating since the beginning, they are really only now making big news. Unfortunately they still haven't much referenced the collusion between the lenders and appraisers, and in taking it a step further, the local assessor officials. I began blogging at the beginning of this mess, Not Rocket Science and Confessions of a Mortgage Broker, trying to illuminate the 'Big Picture' in my view regarding the chain of events and participants. Appraisers and local property assessors played a bigger role in my situation than has been discussed in any meaningful way, and as events unfold it becomes more and more clear that my situation mirrors the national situation pretty closely. That having been said, I do not suffer from a 'impending doom' adjustable mortgage, and I did manage to buy my properties before the effects of what was happening hit the actual prices.

I will blog more about my own story another day, for now I just want to re-state the chain of events as I see them:

• Interest rates drop to insulate us from the global economic decline of late '80's early '90's.
• Home mortgage rates decline a sufficient amount (8% to 6%) to spur massive refinance loans.
• Increase in refinance opportunities spawns massive increase in new lending company openings.
• Increase in new loans spawns massive increase in new appraisal company openings.
• Rate decrease lowers monthly payments on small 1st time buyer type homes enough to entice marginal buyers.
• Greed Kicks In.
• Inexperienced or questionable lenders target sub-prime market, develop/enhance 'no document' type loans.
• Above spurs 'Sellers Market' in home sales, agents take cue and raise sales prices.
• Lenders 'acquire' friendly appraisers to bump values and justify newly raised prices.
• Lenders/Underwriters accept new valuation methods from appraisers.
• Local assessors looking to boost revenue make record number of rate increases over 10 year period keeping up with market values.
• Lull in action spurs intense ads targeting sub-prime market with adjustable rates.
• Refi's and new purchases slow, huge pool of lenders look to create business, increase 'no document' type loans, rates stay low, prices continue to rise without value.
• After the first few rounds of adjustables become due, large numbers head into default causing loan qualifications to tighten. Borrowers look to refi as instructed but find qualifying tougher, and lower home values no longer match loan amounts.
• Massive defaults of sub-prime adjustable rate loans.
• Lower values make even fixed rate loans virtually un-refinanceable.
• Lenders (also the President and Mr. Mccain) blame irresponsible borrowers.

The rest, as they say, is history. A huge number of other things contributed to our situation, had all of these things happened at any other time it may not have ended with the same result. We need to clearly identify the failings in the system and make adjustments. This is a very good example of how a 'Free Market' approach with no real oversight or regulation doesn't come close to being a good idea. Free market for razor blades and cabinet doors, sure, but lets get together on things that effect our country as a whole like lending, health, transportation, energy and lets not forget military.

How Fraud Fueled the Mortgage Crisis:

"Brokers pushed borrowers to lie, lenders misled and ratings agencies looked the other way.
The debate over what caused the mortgage mess and how best to fix it is now taking a sharp turn, as new problems surrounding liar's loans and payment-option mortgages reveal the pervasive fraud, lying and deceit that permeated the market at its height.
As loans made to borrowers with decent credit begin to fail at a surprisingly rapid rate, it's becoming clear that widespread fraud helped support the entire mortgage system - from borrowers who lied on their loans, to brokers who encouraged it, to lenders who misled some low income borrowers, to the many lenders, investors and ratings agencies that conveniently and deliberately looked the other way as profits rolled in."

"Despite its widespread role, fraud hasn't yet been at the forefront of proposed rescue plans, which center on refinancing people out of loans now resetting to higher rates. That may begin to change as the mortgage market continues a meltdown that seems to have no end. As fraud becomes a focus, the question of who did most of the lying and cheating will be crucial in deciding who deserves help in any housing rescue plan. "

"Others familiar with the mortgage industry contend that pervasive fraud was, indeed, a problem - on the lender's side. At the peak of the housing boom, they say, the nation's mortgage system was set up to promote and encourage outright fraud in order to close a loan - and everyone, from brokers to loan officers to Wall Street, looked the other way. Borrowers also were put into products like payment-option arms that were unsuitable - and lenders knew it. "They were pushed like Vioxx, with very little regard for their dangers," said Kathleen Keest, senior policy counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending, a research group that investigates predatory lending. "

"Patrick Madigan, an Iowa assistant attorney general who has investigated mortgage fraud, said it makes no sense to conclude that lenders are somehow victims. Madigan's office engineered a settlement two years ago with Ameriquest over its subprime practices, including high-pressure "boiler room" sales tactics. Regardless, Madigan said, there is a movement to "blame the borrower."
"There's a perception out there that there's this hapless lender who got duped by middle class and lower income subprime borrowers," Madigan said. "It's ridiculous. Our investigations have shown that most of the fraud happens at the suggestion and direction of the loan originator, who had significant financial incentives to close the loan, no matter what misconduct was required."

"Even if fraud has become a larger part of the mortgage meltdown picture than first realized, it's not simple to figure out who should take most of the blame. Many people point the finger at investors playing the market or homeowners who bought more expensive houses than they could afford - the "irresponsible" borrowers cited by both President George W. Bush and probable Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "
"But the numbers don't exactly tell that story - which proves that much in this crisis taken as fact is poorly understood. That also makes a difference, when it comes to deciding whether it makes sense to bail out the market. At the request of The Washington Independent, the trade industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance in Bethesda, Md., ran some numbers and analyzed the resulting data.
Did most people simply buy big homes they couldn't afford? In 2007, 62 percent of all securitized Alt-A loans involved refinances, and 38 percent were for home purchases. In the subprime market, 64 percent were refinances and 36 percent, home purchases. The percentages were the same in 2006. Those borrowers may have been tapping equity for reasons as varied as fancy vacations to overdue medical bills, but the majority were not buying new homes.
Were they just trying to make a quick buck? Regarding investors versus homeowners, in 2007, about 5 percent of all securitized subprime loans and 14 percent of Alt-A loans were reported as investor loans. That compares to 5 percent of subprime loans and 13 percent of Alt-A loans in 2006. These numbers don't include second homes, so the percentages are probably higher, but not significantly so.
Then there's the question of who really lied on the liar's loans. Madigan, the Iowa assistant attorney general, cites repeated cases where borrowers were encouraged by brokers to suddenly create businesses in their basements, like day care centers, to boost their incomes. If they questioned it, brokers would say that lenders required it, or not to worry. Still, borrowers signed on the bottom line, some knowing the information was false. Consider this borrower's account in the San Francisco Chronicle of a sales conversation with a broker:

" He didn't say anything illegal out loud," she said. "He didn't say 'lie,' he just made a strong suggestion. He said, 'If you made $60,000, we could get you into the lowest interest level of this loan; did you make that much?' I said, 'Um, yes, about that much.' He went clickety clack on his computer and said, 'Are you sure you don't remember any more income, like alimony or consultancies, because if you made $80,000, we could get you into a better loan with a lower interest rate and no prepayment penalty.' It was such a big differential that I felt like I had to lie, I'm lying already so what the heck. I said, 'Come to think of it, you're right, I did have another job that I forgot about.'"

" Countrywide, for example, had a loan program called "Fast and Easy" that required no pay stubs, tax forms or employment verification. The FBI investigation is finding extensive fraud on loans across the board at Countrywide that didn't require full documentation, The Wall Street Journal reported. "

Financial Meltdown Doesn't Hold Water

Dean Baker Financial Meltdown: "But the cover stories don't hold water. We can keep the banks running without bailing out the incredibly rich people who drove them to ruin. England showed us the way earlier this year with its takeover of Northern Rock, a major bank that got itself in trouble with bad mortgage debt.
We can also help homeowners without bailing out the banks. The rescue proposals currently on the table would have the government buy or guarantee mortgages on homes that are still hugely overpriced. These proposals could give hundreds of billions of dollars to the banks, while providing little help to homeowners. Most would still be paying far more on their mortgage, property taxes and insurance than they would to rent a comparable home. Furthermore, the bailout conditions virtually guarantee they will never have a dime in equity."


During the Great Depression, a massive bailout of savings&loans was made. It didn't help. Some are adamant this action actually caused the depression. This was less than 100 years ago, how can we be about to make the same mistake? I get my thoughts on this from vague history class memories, below is a link to someone with a tad richer credentials:

Lessons from Bailout History
Joseph R Mason
Associate Professor of Finance and LeBow Research Fellow, Drexel University
LeBow College of Business, Senior Fellow at the Wharton School, and Financial
Industry Consultant, Criterion Economics, LLC. Contact information:
joseph.r.mason@gmail.com