‘TRILLIONS’ SPENT IN NEW

BAILOUT AGREEMENT
Tamara Powell | March, 2009 | Economy

In a new bipartisan agreement, crafted by Senator Jackie Judge (R-KS) and Senator
Paul Carney (D-MA), the U.S. federal government is poised to spend nearly $2 trillion of
taxpayer money to bailout banks on Wall Street, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as give
billions of dollars to automakers without a single minute of debate. Economic relief measures in
the bill are aimed to cover under half of all American’s.

BANK BAILOUTS WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE

$925 billion is allocated to the purchase of assets of failing banks as well as

nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two flailing lending organizations. This section
of the agreement is where most of the ‘multi trillion’ dollar price tag comes in. Much of the
authority on the allocation of these funds is given to Treasury Secretary Laura Tyson, a figure
most American’s aren’t familiar with. The bill nationalizes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting
them under the authority of the Housing and Urban Development Department.

The bill does not outline any restrictions on this funding going to corporate bonuses, nor does
it require any accountability for heads of these different firms, including the controversial
Chairman of AIG Robert B. Williumstad, who has served in the position since 2006. It seems
the money being allocated for the bailouts will be managed by the very people who are partly
responsible for leading us into the financial crisis. Veritas political analyst Alan Sharpe has
predicted this could receive major backlash from American’s. “It’s being perceived, on the
ground, that Congress is about to hand nearly a trillion dollars to folks who managed us into
this crisis,” Sharpe said, “it’s not something that American’s are going to be comfortable with.”

AUTO BAILOUTS PROVIDE NO AMERICAN GUARANTEES

The bailout of the big two (General Motors, Chrysler) automakers comes out to a
hefty price tag of $39 billion divided between them. Stipulations included in the loan
program claim to include a guarantee that the automakers will keep jobs in America — but no
real guarantee is in place, even now, as GM breaks ground on a new plant in Mexico. In data
gathered by Bally, Chrysler isn’t even in the top five of assembly locations located in the
United States. General Motors is a multinational corporation, with plants all over the world,
ranging from Egypt to Canada. They will still be allowed to expand these plants, maintain these
plants, while being given U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Also under the bailout is no guarantee any executive at either GM or Chrysler will have to
resign, despite many understanding that executives in both companies have led them to
failure, causing many of the problems that have arisen as a result of the financial collapse. As
Veritas economic analyst Samantha McClellan put it, “the result of the crisis at the
automakers come as a direct result from bad agreements between the corporations and
unions representing laborers.” Only 70% of new jobs created by both companies must be
in the U.S., according to the stipulations, meaning taxpayer money will more than likely
fund new jobs overseas. The stipulations do not address retirement benefits, one of the
main issues GM and Chrysler are facing, and one of the main reasons for their financial woes.

SPENDING ON ‘STIMULUS’ DOESN’T COME CLOSE

The main parts of the agreement that include direct ‘stimulus’ to American’s is a one-
time $1,000 rebate check, expecting to cost around $66 billion, or about thirteen times less
than that spent on the bank bailouts. The rebate check is expected to be delivered to under
half of the American people. The main source of stimulus will come from the already-existent
unemployment insurance program, which will receive more funding as well. According to
economic analyst Samantha McClellan, the ‘stimulus’ spending for the American people
doesn’t even touch what is being spent on bailing out automakers, the banking industry, and
mortgage lenders. In fact, McClellan commented that bailout spending “dwarfed” spending on
stimulus for American’s. There is no real ‘tax relief’ included in the bill, besides the one-time
rebate check.

The fact that most American’s won’t even see a rebate check, or won’t qualify for the
mortgage deduction, means that many won’t see any relief at all from this bill, while
banks benefit greatly from a near-trillion dollar bailout.

NO DEBATE ON LEGISLATION AS LAWMAKERS RUSH

Lawmakers are pushing through the largest spending bill in the history of the nation
with no debate in the Senate. When Senator Tip Montbatten (R-ID) attempted to speak on the
Senate floor, in opposition to the bailouts, he was promptly shut down by President Pro-
tempore Christopher Ross (D-AK). The legislation is expected to pass the Senate, with not a
single minute of debate, leaving many in the Senate bewildered. The $1.74 trillion is
unprecedented in itself, but the fact that members of Congress have bee silenced from
speaking their feelings on it — inside Congress itself — is categorically unprecedented and
never seen before.

 The Wall Street Gal

Cindy Anne Vissering Stands Alone as Republican Leaders Defect
Simon Jackson | March, 2009 | Feature Story

In an announcement to her caucus, Senate Minority Leader Cindy Anne Vissering railed
against the ‘staggering amount’ of bailouts desired by President Joseph Murphy, which she
reported caused her to walk out and end negotiations with the White House and Senate
Majority Leader Cynthia Warwick (D-WI). Hours later, she announced her support for legislation
which included various bailouts for Wall Street banks, major automakers, as well as Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage lenders.

 In the past two weeks, Vissering

has become a visceral figure, even
within her own party, as she
negotiated with President Joseph
Murphy to try and come to terms
on a deal that would ‘rescue the
American economy.’ The proposal
she initially proposed caused
immediate backlash, as it leaked
out and members of her own party
privately railed against it.

At one point, Senator Corey

McKnight (R-SC) threatened to
filibuster the original proposal
between Vissering and President
Every member of Republican leadership has voted against
Murphy, as tensions rose about the prospect of
the no-debate bailout proposal besides Vissering.
potentially bailing out Wall Street, U.S. automakers,
and major mortgage lenders with taxpayer dollars,
with no possible way of paying for any of these
ventures in sight.

Several anonymous sources have come forward for this feature article, to talk about the
growing displeasure with Vissering as Minority Leader, as well as the potential backlash for the
Republican Leader to embrace the ‘Wall Street Cindy’ moniker, even as she claims to hold the
high ground in an effort to rescue the economy from sure destruction, with her and her allies in
Congress predicting economic calamity unlike anything ever seen before if Congress were to
not provide big banks and automakers with hundreds of billions of dollars.

“One Senator has called Vissering ‘underwhelming’, saying her decision to support the bill and
side with the White House is
‘unbelievable’ and unforgivable,’”
according to an anonymous source
familiar with a meeting inside the
Senate caucus. Another source claims
Vissering has been ‘frustrating’ rank-
and-file Republicans for her haphazard
strategy, seemingly flying off the cuff
and free-wheeling negotiations without
first consulting the Republican Senate
caucus. “It’s been chaos throughout
the entire process,” remarked a
Republican Senator, on the condition of
anonymity. “It’s been a high-wire act
and it seems like she’s fallen six or
seven times,” they said.

After coming out in support of the

Vissering reportedly did not consult Senate Republicans
about the Judge-Carney proposal beforehand.
Judge-Carney agreement, the backlash
was quick. Ranking Member of the
Senate HELP committee (focusing on the
economy) Ari Goodman (R-NE) saiid he was once
again left out of negotiations.

 It wasn’t until Senate Minority Whip Tom McDowell (R-FL) cast his nay vote that it became
clear just how divided Republicans in the Senate were on the Judge-Carney proposal, laying a
clear foundation for the divide to become more public than private. RNC Chairman Elijah
Michaelson (R-TX) also voted against the agreement, in a clear
display of protest. Despite this, Vissering has managed to put
together enough votes to make it very likely the Judge-Carney
agreement will pass the Senate. The line from Vissering, and
her allies — such as Senator Brian Trueblood (R-PA) and
Senator Mary Anne Brabander (R-AL) — is that the agreement
is a tough pill to swallow, but a necessary one. Not the most
convincing argument for an agreement designed to
supposedly save the entire economy from sure-fire collapse, it
seems it wasn’t enough to convince many prominent
Republicans that they should support it.

While the possible political ramifications for Vissering are

unclear, a Wall Street Journal poll showed that walking out of
the initial negotiations is widely popular. In spite of this,
Vissering herself remains widely unfavorable in regards to the
negotiations, seeming to simultaneously lose faith of the
American people as well as the Republican Senate Caucus,
which she has the duty of leading. The fact that Vissering has
all but doubled-down on her brazen Wall Street bailout plan,
only days after rank-and-file Republicans came out of the
wood works to defend her from walking out of talks DUE to
the Wall Street bailout, has left conservatives reeling.

The deal will likely pass the Senate, moving on to the House
Vissering’s Deputy in the Senate, Tom of Representatives, where reports have come out it will be
McDowell, is opposed to the no-debate quickly rushed to the House Floor. Speaker John Boehner is
proposal. likely to put together enough votes to pass the package with
Democratic help, but it will be rough road. Republican House
members up for reelection in 2010 will have to decide to
stand up for their fiscal conservative values or move forward
with the most expansive and most costly spending bill in American history, including
unprecedented spending for infrastructure — money being handed to states and counties with
little ability from the federal government to understand how it will be spent. The oversight of
this unprecedented spending will be from President Joseph Murphy and his cabinet, a man
who didn’t win a majority of votes in the 2008 election.

“The capitulation has been tough to watch,” a source told Bally, “Vissering agreed to the
bailouts, backtracked, and then agreed to them once more.” The moniker ‘Wall Street Cindy’
isn’t a pretty one, especially as millions of American’s face the possibility of losing their jobs
and homes. Former Republican political operative and Bally contributor Christopher Reed said
it could make Vissering “toxic” during midterm elections, as more conservative members
privately and publicly lambast her leadership during the economic crisis.

Lucky for Senator Vissering, the leadership of President Joseph Murphy has been arguably
even more abysmal. From his bully pulpit, he made a partisan showing out of the Oval Office, a
space reserved for addressing national crises and major disasters — a space where President
Ronald Reagan addressed the space challenger explosion and where President George W.
Bush addressed the possibility of war in Iraq. The speech made by President Murphy was
overwhelmingly unpopular, possibly saving Vissering from even more scathing criticism from
pundits and members of the media alike. Time will tell how ‘Wall Street Cindy’ fares.

 One-on-One with DNC Chairman Carlisle Montague
Carlisle Montague
Senator Carlisle Montague is the
new DNC Chairman.
• Democratic Senator of Rhode
Island, in his third term
• Former Professor at Brown
University, long-time
involvement in academics
• Strong advocate against the
war in Iraq
Senator Montague has remained
a quiet voice in the Senate,
passionately advocating for
issues personal to him.
Montague initially hesitated to
support the Judge-Carney
agreement in the Senate, before
ending up voting for it.
New to the position of Chairman
of the DNC, Carlisle will be
tasked with the unenviable effort
of running organization for
Democrats as they try and
maintain a strong showing in the
upcoming 2010 midterms, a
tough first test for incumbent
President’s and incumbent
parties.
Q: Obviously the most pressing issue in Congress right now is the
economic crisis. You were initially hesitant, according to reports, to
vote for the Judge-Carney bailout agreement. What made you decide
to vote aye? What were your reservations?
A: An excellent question. We are offering an unprecedented amount
of government aid, so I do believe skepticism is healthy in this
instance—particularly with there being evidence to suggest that
banking malpractice may be responsible for this. However, we are
facing an unprecedented challenge through this economic crisis. I
believe it's projected to be perhaps the biggest since the Great
Depression. This bill keeps the auto-industry and small businesses
alive. This bill will create infastructure. jobs for the trying times to
come. It gives families a relief rebate, and covers mortgage payments
so they will not be thrown out on the street. This is the bill Americans
need right now.
Q: A majority of American's believe the federal government has a
responsibility to provide American's with access to affordable, quality
healthcare. You've mentioned you had intentions of moving forward
with a plan of your own. How do you intend to address the issue of
healthcare?
A: This is an issue I've talked very often about with my dear friend, Ted
Kennedy. It's an issue very close to him, and one that his brother John
F. Kennedy spoke on as well. Same with Lyndon Johnson, FDR, Harry
Truman, and Jimmy Carter. All of them have spoken of universal health
coverage. There's a very rich history there.

But how do we do that? Well,

most developed countries
provide public health
insurance for their citizens and
it has proven to be
extraordinarily successful. We
already have a very popular
variant here in the form of
Medicare. If we expanded
eligibility for all citizens, you
would see a tremendous
amount being saved for those
who already have health
insurance, and that is priceless
in an economic crisis. And for
those not already covered, it could be potentially life-saving.

Q: News recently leaked that the President was asking members of his cabinet to come out to
try and pressure Senate Republicans to act on the economy. Some members of the cabinet
felt uncomfortable. Do you believe this was an appropriate action by the President? Would
you have done it differently?

A: I don't like to make a habit of commenting on rumors, Rex. But, I will say that our Cabinet
functions best when they abstain from partisan politics and I believe it should remain as such.

Q: The recently announced Judge-Carney bailout agreement offers loans to automakers, to

banks, and provides for $300 billion in infrastructure spending. Many expect the defi cit to
skyrocket. Will you support raising taxes on American's in order to pay for these proposals?

A: I do not believe that raising taxes on the middle class is the correct course of action at this
juncture. What we're doing is making investments to create jobs and get the economy back
on track. I'm confi dent the long-term benefi ts will make up for any potential shortfalls.

Q: You're a big believer we should investigate Wall Street. You believed we need to
crackdown on fraud. How do you intend to achieve new stringent measures to avoid another
economic collapse like this in the future?

A: This relief bill puts on the right track by putting up new regulations for securities and swap
trading, but I think what this recession has showed us was that the repeal of Glass-Steagall
was a mistake. The widespread fraud we've seen in the fi nancial sector leads me to the
conclusion that there can be no doubt the integration of commercial and investment banking
had some role to play in this crisis. It is pertinent we restore Glass-Steagall as part of our
response, and implement greater protections for consumers.

Of course, there are other factors at play here that we may not fully understand as this crisis
unfolds. I would encourage my colleagues on the HELP committee and in the House to open
up hearings to give the American people the answers we need.

Q: As the economy looms front-and-center, in the background, the U.S. remains involved in
two foreign wars. Do you
believe we should commit
to withdrawal from Iraq in
2011? Are you confi dent
President Murphy is going
to stick to the timetable?

A: I do. Our involvement

in Iraq remains quite
unpopular with the
American people, and I
see no reason why the
President would diverge
from his current timetable,
barring an early
withdrawal. I believe the
President is making the
right move by doing this.
There have been far too
many lives destroyed, and
too much spending that could be better served mitigating our current crisis. It's time to come
home.

Q: Recently Linda Chavez-Thompson doubled down on her belief of total amnesty for illegal
immigrants. Do you also believe in total amnesty? Do you believe she could become a
liability for incumbent Democrats in 2010, as polls show a majority of American's are
staunchly opposed to such an idea?

A: Ms. Chavez-Thompson is being nominated to be Secretary of Labor. I hardly think her

stance on amnesty is relevant, whether I agree with it. The fact of the matter is that Ms.
Chavez-Thompson has been involved unions her entire career. I can't speak for the President,
but if I had to guess, that would be the extent of her professional expertise that he would
consult with.