PSoTD

The mortgage industry is on the march to Washington to ask for more federal control of their industry...

A booming industry that makes home loans to people with fragile credit is lobbying Congress for nationwide rules that regulators and consumer advocates warn would roll back tougher state protections.

The debate comes as millions of Americans have taken out mortgages with higher fees and interest rates than the mortgages granted to people with solid credit. As these “subprime” loans have proliferated, so have complaints from borrowers who say they’ve been slammed by surprise fees and high-pressure sales tactics.

More than two dozen states, led by North Carolina and in- cluding Arkansas, have moved into a vacuum created by weak federal regulation, imposing their own laws targeting abusive practices.

The industry’s five biggest players are based in California and one, Ameriquest Mortgage Co., is nearing a $ 325 million settlement with 33 states over alleged baitand-switch tactics, inflated appraisals and other issues.

Amid scrutiny of their operations, lenders have rallied behind a bill sponsored by Reps. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., that would impose uniform national rules on the industry that last year issued $ 530 billion in higher-cost mortgages. Supporters say the measure is needed to replace a hodgepodge of state and local lending laws.

Bob Ney's "truth" ain't worth the saliva it takes to pronounce his name, but Paul Kanjorski ought to be answering the tough questions as to why he is sponsoring this bill.

My blogger resolution for 2006 is to make a FOIA request and report what I find out here, both in process and in results. It would be kind of cool if 2006 was the year that bloggers really became skilled at this resource, since in the past year some very interesting real news came out of such blogger requests.

From today's Washington Post:

Although Rove raised concerns about giving critics too much ground, the younger-generation aides prevailed. Bush agreed to try the approach so long as he did not come off sounding too negative. Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion who now works at the White House, helped draft a 35-page public plan for victory in Iraq, a paper principally designed to prove that Bush had one.

Does this mean this is also true - that before the paper was designed, there is no proof of a plan?

Who was President at the end of World War II? Harry S Truman.

1945 was a whirlwind for Harry S Truman. He served only 82 days as Vice President. Prior to that, he was a United States Senator. He became President on April 12, 1945. Shortly thereafter, he was responsible for the final decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Why the short history lesson? Because, if impeachment becomes a more common subject of discussion around the country, one of the things we are likely to hear is that we shouldn't change Presidents during wartime. Well, there's precedent of it. The country has already switched Presidents during wartime, bringing in a relative newcomer to the Executive Branch at a most critical time of our country's second biggest war, and the country not only survived, but won the war and prospered afterwards.

We can change leaders during wartime and succeed. We have before, we should again. Fight through that false argument.

Are we, as a nation, ready to have this guy as President?

Because at some point in all the discussion of impeachment in the next year, Hastert becomes the focus point. And I don't believe it is a good idea to wait until after the 2006 elections to push the impeachment discussion full throttle.

If Bush and Cheney were found guilty of high crimes, impeached and removed from office in the next year, Hastert would be President. At some point, Democrats are going to have to start discussing - positively - that possibility, or drop the talk of impeachment altogether.

One of the things about bloggers - they don't lack for opinions and their use of the opportunity to voice those opinions. The same can't be said for voters, at least the opportunity to voice part of it, since turnout rates of eligible voters of over 70% in this country are rarely seen.

What is the turnout of bloggers as voters? We have no way of knowing at this point, but my guess (and it is a guess) is that it is higher than 70%. Is there something about blogging - about keeping up with news and information about an interest, about feeling a need to inform others of the same - that relates well to voting?

This would be a great subject for a study in 2006. There are blogs and bloggers about everything, and I would think that it would very useful to measure as many of them within a state, for example, and see how many of them vote in that state's 2006 primary. The more states, the more elections, the more interesting to me. In fact, I think it would be more than useful - depending on the results, it might serve as an impetus to use blogs as a "get out the vote" tool - for societies, rather than political parties. If it did turn out that bloggers are much more likely to vote than non-bloggers, then perhaps there is actual policy - for example, tax deduction policy - that a state can create to substantially generate more bloggers, which in turn would improve election turnout.

I know this sounds whimsical. And it is... sorta. But there are two real points to be made here:

There should be considerably more academic study and measurement of the impact of bloggers on events;

There should be considerably more government effort to provide an environment whereby a greater percentage of people choose to vote.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the first leads somehow to the second.

Remember this when writing out your tuition checks...

From The Parthenon Online (WV):

Marshall University may be one of the hundreds of universities required to install wiretaps to make monitoring online communications easier for law enforcement agencies.

The installation of such equipment is due to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. This law requires universities and other organizations to engineer their switching systems by spring 2007 for easier FBI surveillance.

"Even the lowest estimates of compliance costs would, on average, increase annual tuition at most American universities by some $450," Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, said in The New York Times.

This is not the case for Marshall's possible costs, Dr. Arnold Miller, assistant vice president of information technology, said.

"We are more or less exempt from this," he said. "We have an aggregation point, so we should only have to buy one."

Other universities without an aggregation point, a single box where the network meets the public network, would have to install multiple switchers or routers which would pull the data together.

"The piece of equipment would cost $10,000 to $100,000, based on how much traffic goes through," Miller said. "Right now, 50 megabits a second go through. Equipment that looks at things that quickly costs quite a bit of money."

Today we have 8,885 posts in Technorati with the terms of impeach and Bush.

The week before? 8009 posts. The idea continues to germinate.

You might want to bookmark Follow The Money. The nonpartisan Institute on Money in State Politics tracks contributions in all 50 states and makes this data easily searchable online.

When the gift limitations for a postal carrier - you know, the person that slogs in snow and rain and 100 degree heat with humidity all day long with our mail - are tougher than for many, many elected officials:

We asked the U.S. Postal Service what rules govern gifts to carriers.

Mail carriers and postal service employees are allowed to accept gifts valued at up to $20, according to postal service spokeswoman Sue Litterly.

They can't accept cash or cash equivalents such as checks, money orders or stocks. They can, however, accept gift cards to retail stores if the gift card cannot be redeemed for cash, she said.

"Food is good, homemade gifts are good," Litterly says.

Just in case you're planning on giving your carrier a holiday gift...

This is a message for all adult Americans that, even to this point, don't really have strong feelings about the Bush Administration and the direction this country has gone the past five years.

If you don't have strong feelings, then you're not any kind of American I recognize. I don't know what you are. I don't what nation you think you're part of, I don't know what kind of government you believe we should have, and I don't know why you think you should stay. Is it the job? Is it the family?

Because it sure ain't your love of this country.

I'm not talking about conservatives who support President Bush, because even though I don't agree with them on most important issues regarding Bush, at least I know they have a view of America. Somewhat disturbing view, but a view.

I'm not talking about liberals or progressives who oppose Bush's policies. They also have a view of America.

It's not the political moderates. Moderation is a viewpoint.

No, it's the disengaged. We can talk about how politics is a turnoff and how media coverage sucks and more, but individuals have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to be aware enough when your system of government is changing right in front of your eyes. And one of your responsibilities is to think about that change, and decide, for yourself, whether you approve of that change.

I'm not talking about changes of what government does as policy. I'm talking about changes in how government works as structure. George W. Bush, and the domestic spying issue, is an effort to change the structure without structural approval.

Every American citizen owes it to every other American citizen to learn as much as they can about what happened, and what the ramifications are if we let this stand. Every American citizen owes it to every other American citizen to have an opinion about this. We're standing at a historical moment, a litmus test of our citizenship, and history will loudly judge how we reacted when confronted with a challenge to the way we have expected governance for over 200 years.

Citizens that will think about this, and take a stand, pass that test, regardless of their decision, regardless of what happens next.

People who won't learn and think and decide for themselves how they stand on this situation, who says politics is boring and that they don't really care, well, they aren't citizens. And to them, I say... get the F out.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti has pushed through parliament a new 25% tax on all hardcore pornography.

Previous attempts to raise new revenue by taxing pornography have failed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when government gets in the business of making revenue from a practice, it becomes a partner in protecting that practice. There are two very good reasons to be opposed to a special "pornography" tax:

1 - It is a tax based on a morality judgement of a product and its users and not based on any economic policy;

2 - It puts the government in the position to protect the hardcore industry as a "special" revenue source since it is taxed at a special rate.

But this tax has another reason it's particularly silly - the government is going to be put in the position of officially defining "hardcore" for purposes of taxes. I suspect that definition varies from person to person. Good luck with that, Italy.

I think that, John, there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions on the ground in Iraq. For example, I'm fully aware that some have said it was a mistake not to put enough troops there immediately — or more troops.

I bet his handlers wish he had caught himself a few words before. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

We'll start seeing lots of signs and talk like this.

This story hasn't really burbled up to national level, but as you might expect, Louisiana's prison system is still somewhat mixed up in the aftermath of Katrina...

From The Daily Advertiser:

For two months, James Mitchell has been lost in the prison system.

He isn't even supposed to be in jail anymore. His 20-day sentence was set to expire Sept. 1. But on that day, he and thousands of other inmates were fighting fear and floodwaters in Orleans Parish Prison after Hurricane Katrina.

Now, he's in the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. He's there in person, but not on paper, according to the Louisiana Department of Corrections.

Mitchell was released Oct. 3, a corrections lawyer said in court Dec. 6.

But on Dec. 8, there he was, sitting at a table in the tiny arraignment courtroom at Lafayette's parish prison. The mixup was discovered when a Daily Advertiser reporter interviewed him that day and alerted lawyers.

He is convinced another James Mitchell has been released in his stead.

"When we were here about two weeks, a guy came in and he wanted information from the people who came from New Orleans. When he got to my name, my name had a line drawn through it, with 'Released' on there," Mitchell said. "This kind of, like, haunted me."

America's reputation - as a nation of laws and as a republic - is at great risk today. How can nations look at the United States as a model for governance, as examples of democratic institutions, and as a structure where the law treats all as equals, if the President admits to breaking the law and there is no investigation and no punishment to that process?

Short answer: they cannot. We have long felt a national pride that our government was superior, due to the way the founding fathers set it up and the 200-plus years of history our predecessors have spent, sweat and bled to create that government. Our parents, and their parents, and so on and so forth for as long as we can individually track our families back, have built a nation, a nation with a political framework we should take pride in.

But how can we? Is our current national government really any better politically than the government of Mexico in the 1940s or the government of the USSR in the 1970s or the government of Uganda today? Is it any less corrupt? Is it any more democratic? Is it more fair than those governments, is it more responsible to the will of the people than those governments, is it more dedicated to the pre-existing framework of governing than those governments?

How can we answer yes? How can we expect residents of other nations to believe this is true?

There is only one way.

America's Congress has to be responsible to the framework. America's Judiciary has to be responsible. We are not a nation of one political party. We are, or are supposed to be, a nation of three political and governing components. But for several years now, our government has failed to work smoothly this way, and greater and greater power has been deferred to the Executive Branch, primarily because the Executive Branch was also the de facto head of the political party in power.

It is questionable as to whether America's Congress can be responsible at this point in checking the abuses of the Executive Branch. Time and time again it has chosen to look the other way. The Judiciary has been better in checking the abuses, but unfortunately, it usually checks those abuses AFTER they have occurred. The Congress, which makes the laws and provides oversight for those laws, needs to help, and largely has not.

In short, the Executive Branch is rolling the Judiciary and the Congress with the tacit complicity of Congress, due to party control of that institution. That is why the Executive feels it does not need to follow the law. That is why we have so many serious scandals with this Executive Branch. It isn't just because Bush is a simple man who can't figure out how to accomplish his goals legally or ethically. It is because the Congress won't force Bush to do so.

It is wrong to ball up all Republicans as corrupt. But if Republicans refuse to act now, to investigate the Executive Branch for corruption and abuse of law, and to investigate completely, then that is what people are going to continue to think. Americans. Citizens of other lands. Governments of other lands.

It is important that Democrats contact their members of Congress and ask them to investigate the domestic spying policy. But the bottom line is, Republicans rule the Congress and they don't listen as much to Democrats as they do to Independents and particularly Republicans. So, it is much more important that Independents and Republicans contact their members of Congress - and the news media - and demand investigation. Real investigation. And if laws were broken, demand real ramifications. Punishments. Changes. Improvements.

This means that Republicans still rule the day, and our Republic is in their hands. Will they protect the reputation of the government of the United States? Will they protect our reputation as a nation of laws, as a land where even the President is subject to the law of the land? Will they think ahead, and wonder, if the Federal government was run entirely by a party other than the Republicans, would they want the Executive Branch investigating anyone they wanted without following the law? And will they decide that such a scenario when they are out of power is unacceptable? Will the Republican citizens of our nation demand an investigation? Will Republican Citizens demand rule of law?

The test is now. Time will tell how Republican citizens perform.

Note: Blah3 sees it similarly.

December 17, 2005: 8009 Posts in Technorati with the terms Impeach Bush.

I'll run this search every Saturday over the next month. I don't think the holidays are going to kill the Bush domestic spying authorization story. And once we pass the holidays, it could really blow up.

The Defense Department's Terminology Makeover Brigade strikes again. In the good old days we just called it propaganda.

Susie's right.

How many examples must we have that Bush is both incompetent and ignoring the law? America must act...

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Does anyone think it's impossible for Bush to do such a thing without proper and complete and legal preparations? Americans should no longer trust him with "the button".

Seems like a good bumper sticker, a good slogan, a good badge...

Keep your freedoms.
Vote Democrat.

Eighteen days left of updating Political Site of the Day. As of January 1, 2006, the site will be frozen, as I just don't have the interest to highlight a political site each day in such a manner after almost 9 years. As I said before, we're open to interest for the domain - just let us know.

I had forgotten about this... from Larry Kudlow's snoozeblog last year at this time...

Check out the Drudge Report for a shortlist of possible National Intelligence Directors -- including Senator Joseph Lieberman, whom I think would make a good addition to the Bush Cabinet.

It seems to be just a matter of time before they get him, unless his political instincts prevent him from joining the sinking Republican ship.

Which Democrat(s) Do You Not Want To See as the Nominee for President in 2008?

Lieberman is kicking ass. Surprising thing: Hillary and Kerry also have more votes than Al Sharpton.

Obviously, you need some help on editorial content decisions.

I believe there are nine living individuals who have served as U.S. Secretary of Defense:

Donald H. Rumsfeld
William S. Cohen
William J. Perry
Richard B. Cheney
Frank C. Carlucci
Caspar W. Weinberger
Harold Brown
Melvin R. Laird
Robert S. McNamara

Isn't it a worthwhile exercise to interview each one of these people and ask:

What are the most important skills and attributes that a person should bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

And perhaps use that as a starting point for looking at candidates in the future that may be considered for the job? As news media, why not contribute to the body of information on the job requirements, rather than piddle around with the politics of personality?

From WVEC:

When Rep. Joni Bowie, R-Guilford, lost a bid for a ninth term, she spent most of the $25,000 in her campaign coffer on a new sports car and a computer. She invested the rest for her retirement.

Liston Ramsey, a Madison County Democrat and the state's longest-serving House speaker, wrote himself a check for more than $40,000 when he closed his campaign account in 2000.

Lawmakers usually took no more than a few thousand dollars, records show.

"Everybody I know takes what's left over in their account, don't they?" Bowie said.

Not everyone, but some do.

A review by the News & Observer of Raleigh shows that at least a few dozen lawmakers have kept campaign cash after leaving office.

Some government watchdogs say the practice needs to end. They want North Carolina to join the federal government and many states in banning the practice.

What a ridiculously horrible idea, letting candidates KEEP campaign contributions. Where's the volunteer spirit of leadership, and the recognition of where the money should go? Funds should be forfeited to the state to pay for governance, since the point of the contributions was to pay for the campaign to elect the person to participate in the governing of the state.

A country is in trouble when...

Caring about the Country is a tactic.
Caring about Keeping Power is the goal.

Obviously, our country - the United States - is in trouble.

From USDoD's site:

The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council.

As much as I dislike Rumsfeld's results, I will admit that his previous work experience appears to be appropriate for this job. When you look at this:

13th Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, U.S. Congressman and chief executive officer of two Fortune 500 companies.

You'd have to say his job experience is more than reasonably qualified. Now, let's take a look at Lieberman:

Senator Lieberman was born in Stamford, Connecticut, on February 24, 1942, and attended public schools there. He received his bachelor's degree from Yale College in 1964 and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1967. Senator Lieberman was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 1970 and served there for ten years, including the last six as Majority Leader. In 1980, he returned to private legal practice for two years, and from 1983 through 1988, he served as Connecticut's 21st Attorney General. As Attorney General he took on polluters of Connecticut's environment, went after deadbeat dads by strengthening child support enforcement, and earned a strong reputation as a defender of consumers' rights.

Senator Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate in 1988...

What in that job experience qualifies him for Secretary of Defense? The fact that he was on Committees in the Senate that work with Defense? Is that it? The biggest management job that Lieberman has ever had is the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General or the Connecticut State Senate, and neither one of them is anything close to the size and scope of DoD. Combine the employee base of every organization that Joe Lieberman has been in "charge of" and it won't total the number of people at one of the military's smallest bases.

Is the experience to manage a gigantic organization important for a Secretary of Defense? Is this something we as a nation should desire, expect, demand? Or is philosophical belief, the President's confidence, and a personality that can be elected enough in this day and age? What should we want?

It really ought to be the time that the nation debate a case of best governing. Who would be the best person for Bush to select to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Who would be the wisest and most effective person that Bush could put in that spot? What kind of person - and skills - should this nation expect? I realize that the mere fact that Bush is making the selection greatly reduces the possible pool. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a public debate about it, regardless of who makes the selection and how limited the choice may be.

For the life of me, I can't see it as being Lieberman. McCain? Hagel? Are there generals that might fit the bill? What qualities should our nation expect?

All the talk I see in the news media is the speculation that Lieberman will replace Rumsfeld. To me, it's just another case of the news media missing an opportunity. And the Democratic Party. This is an opportunity to have a public discussion - a discussion of what kinds of skills and talents a Secretary of Defense ought to have, and the candidates out there, and their strengths and weaknesses. For God's sake, we have all this preseason babble about possible Supreme Court Justices by schmournalists before someone is nominated, and yet there's nothing - NOTHING - really debated about this life-and-death position.

You can vote for one or all. Who do you NOT want to see as the Democratic Party Nominee for President in 2008?

Democrats 2008
Which Democrat(s) Do You Not Want To See as the Nominee for President in 2008?	Joe Biden Wesley Clark Hillary Clinton John Edwards Al Gore John Kerry Joe Lieberman Bill Richardson Al Sharpton
	Current Results

(I don't expect to see a 9-way tie between Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Bill Richardson, and Al Sharpton, but who knows...)

Stay tuned .

The good news: The Post Office is debt free.

The bad news: 2005 was the first time advertising mail has topped first-class mail in volume.

I should have blogged about this last week.

Support H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. Let's try to build some confidence in the election process. Sign the petition. Contact your member of Congress if they're not a co-sponsor of the bill.

Go read "I Miss the Cold War".

I will run a poll tomorrow with the suggested names. Already on the list: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Joementum... who else should be on the ballot as your least acceptable Democratic Party Nominee for President in 2008?

I sure wish that Barack Obama was winning me over with his words, but I think he's getting more attention than he should as a freshman.

In a wide-ranging discussion as his first year in office draws to a close, Obama said, "there could have been more honesty" as the president argued his case for war. But the senator stopped short of saying that Bush lied to the American people.

"At one town meeting someone said: `Shouldn't the president be impeached for lying?'" Obama recalled. "And I said, `Well, FDR, JFK, LBJ - we have a pretty long list of presidents who maybe were not entirely forthcoming with intelligence information before they went to war, so I'd be cautious against making legal cases against the administration.'"

Okay, this argument sucks AND misses the point. Here's the answer to "Shouldn't the president be impeached for lying?"

It's hard to say without a diligent investigation. And there hasn't been one by the Congress yet.

Caution? There's been too much caution by this Congress about this President, and not enough caution by this Congress about the war effort.

Secondly, the comparison with the three other Presidents is the worst kind of excuse. It is apologist. The question isn't about being "forthcoming". The question is about cherrypicking and perhaps outright deception - not just omission, but commission. Until we know the truth about Bush, there shouldn't be comparisons to other Presidents. And until Congress or the Court System completes a real investigation into the runup before the War, we're not going to know the truth.

So, I wish Obama would shut up about this. He's new to Congress, and frankly, we don't need history lessons from him about Presidential war policies.

You know, if the Republican Party really cares about security in this United States from terrorists, you'd think that former Governor Thomas Kean would be a name floated as a candidate for President in 2008. As a moderate Democrat, I have to say, he's at least worth serious consideration as a candidate on this issue, as opposed to clowns like Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich and George Allen.

The fact that his name never comes up as a possibility just shows how unimportant this issue really is to the Republican Party. Candidates to support the Bush approach to Iraq or to stop abortion or to cut taxes get much higher interest by the Party hierarchy than the guy who helped with the blueprint to make America safer from terrorism.

An interesting idea for candidacy.

I'm all for solving this case. Harry and Harriette Moore deserve it to be solved. But it isn't a source of pride that it has taken over 50 years for it to get even this close to solving. The KKK was behind it? Now that's a shocker.

If I were king, I'd announce today an elimination in federal funding for Secret Service and other related perks for all retired Presidents, effective January 1, 2009, after the first year of leaving office, unless they are on an official mission of the government. That gives Clinton, Bush I, Carter and Ford three years to figure out how to fund any security requirements they have at that point.

I know there are arguments for protecting a President after their term in office. But I also know that ex-Presidents have lots of ways to fund such protection themselves, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have to. There are plenty of important and disliked people in the world that have to arrange for their own security. I see no reason why Presidents deserve such charity.

I wish that some polling company would ask the 30-something percent of the nation that are members of the Bush congregation something along the following:

If there were a Democratic Party candidate for President that stood for EVERYTHING that George W. Bush stands for today - EVERYTHING - would you support that candidate? This person would be the perfect clone of G.W. except that he is a Democrat, instead of a Republican. But on every issue, this person's position would mirror the current President's, and would continue to follow the current President's policies.

Would you support that candidate?

Responses:

Yes
No
I Don't Know

I'm just trying to figure out what that 30-something percent loves about George W. Bush at this point. My suspicion is that it is because he wears the Republican label, and nothing else, but I wish pollsters would try to dig in deeper and find out what's with these people.

I'm jumping off. I can't stand Hillary Clinton. In the "I can't stand Joe Biden" kind of way. I'm not interested in her as a candidate for President. AT ALL. Incredibly unlikely I will vote for her. She's just another corporate politician. She's the last thing we need.