Sam Alito

You Can't Feel Blue About the Economy If You Want To. There Are No Blue Chips Anymore

dlindorff — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:46:16 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

AIG, the quintessential blue-chip, one of the 30 companies that
compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a company that in 2000
boasted a market capitalization of $217 billion, making it the largest
financial institution in the world, is teetering on the brink of
collapse. Worth just $7 billion today, the future of what was until
recently the world’s largest insurance company is hanging by a
thread—that thread being the willingness of Wall Street institutions
like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, themselves facing credit issues,
to come up with $75 billion in rescue loans.

It used to be that investors who were worried about financial
markets, or who didn’t like to take big risks, would put their money in
what were called “blue chips”—companies that were deemed conservative,
safe investments that could weather any storm. They had names like
AT&T, General Motors, Ford, Boeing…and AIG.

Well, AT&T is a shadow of its former self, GM and Ford are both
being talked of as dead men walking by analysts, Boeing is on
life-support, or, since it is being propped up by its military
contracts, more appropriately death support, and AIG, well, it’s
already got one foot in the grave.

There really are no blue chips any more. The largest companies in
the world, as Enron showed, can vanish overnight in a puff of smoke.
Look at Lehman Brothers. Here today, then, poof, gone tomorrow.

In AIG’s case, if the insurance giant goes under, it may take a lot with it.

An article today in the Australian daily The Australian (Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp flagship and hardly a Marxian rag) put it this way:

Should the US Treasury and Federal Reserve fail in last-ditch
efforts to secure breathing space for AIG, then sub-prime's cascading
woes will have slowly smashed financial markets into worse shape than
the legendary market meltdown of 1987.

And, from there, governments and banking regulators alike will have
to ponder the previously unthinkable: are we on the way to a place
comparable with 1929?

So what are anxious investors to do? Clearly there are no safe
harbors in the stock market, which could as easily drop 40 percent or
70 percent tomorrow as rise 3 percent. Bonds don’t look much better.
They may be more stable than equities, but not if the company that
issues them goes bust. Then they are worthless scraps of paper, no
better than the share certificates for Fannie Mae that are now being
used to line cat litter boxes. The ratings agencies, like
Standard&Poors, Fitch and Moody’s, while exercising their usual
timidity about downgrading a major corporate entity, have belatedly
knocked AIG’s credit rating down two notches today, which is their way
of hinting that if you are an AIG bondholder, you have a significantly
greater chance of losing your shirt.

Nor is it just investors who have to fear. Individuals who have
tried to protect their families by purchasing life insurance policies,
or who have sought to establish a secure retirement income by buying
annuities from AIG, need to worry about whether the company will be
around to make the payments when they or their beneficiaries need them.
Sure, the states, which are responsible in the US for regulating the
insurance industries, for the most part have established reserve funds
to backstop insurance carriers, but like the FDIC which insures bank
deposits up to only $100,000, these funds generally only back the first
$100,000 of insurance or annuity coverage as a “cash surrender” value,
or $300,000 as a benefit payout. But those state guaranty funds were
designed to protect people from failures of fly-by-night insurance
operations. They are woefully underfunded for companies on the scale of
AIG.

AIG is such a giant in the insurance business that as one corporate treasurer told The Australian:

“If AIG collapses, then the world doesn’t have insurance.”

The New York Times, commenting on fears among ordinary people that their insurance or their annuities may not be there when needed, quoted one insurance adviser,
Glenn Daily, who said a client who was an AIG policy holder was
borrowing the maximum against his life policy, planning to park that
money somewhere to see if the AIG crisis blows over. But he added
darkly, “If everyone does this, the company could be driven out of
business.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. As Michael Lewitt, a Florida-based money manager, wrote today in an opinion article in today’s New York Times,
AIG is a key player in the $60 trillion (yes that’s trillion with a
“T”!) credit swap default market, a huge, international and wholly
unregulated field in which hedge funds play, and whose collapse would
make the 1929 Great Crash look like a minor fender-bender.

So that’s what it’s coming down to. There are no Blue Chip refuges
from the rolling disaster that is the US economy today. And there are
no easy rescues—indeed according to one theory Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson let Lehman Brothers go bust because he knew he needed what
funds the Treasury has left to try to keep AIG alive. It’s all a
fragile, interconnected house of cards, propped up by a residual faith
among ordinary investors who, at least so far, still think it has some
kind of inherent structure to it. As card after card gets pulled out of
that rickety stack—first Bear Stearns, then IndyMac Bank, then Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, then Lehman Brothers, now perhaps AIG and
Washington Mutual, a large savings institution that is on a death
watch—at some point those investors and now insurance clients, too, may
all decide to take their money and go home, and the whole thing will
come crashing down.

The good news is that, if the US economy collapses, the Pashtun
farmer in northeastern Pakistan, the Iraqi shopkeeper in Fallujah, the
Iranian worker in Tehran, and the peasant in Venezuela, will no longer
have to worry about being bombed or having their children mowed down by
a US helicopter gunship. The US would no longer have the funds to pay
for such foreign wars. And because a collapse of the US consumer
economy would also drag the rest of the world into a prolonged global
slump, perhaps reminiscent of the 1930s, we might actually see a
significant enough drop in carbon emissions from idled cars, factories
and power plants that the global warming catastrophe that is
threatening us all will be significantly delayed, giving humanity time
to come up with a serious long-term response.
________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36044';
digg_title = "You Can\'t Feel Blue About the Economy If You Want To. There Are No Blue Chips Anymore";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n AIG, the quintessential blue-chip, one of the 30 companies that compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a company that in 2000 boasted a market capitalization of $217 billion, making it the largest financial institution in the world, is teetering on the brink of collapse. Worth just $7 billion today, the future of what was until recently the world’s largest insurance company is hanging by a thread—that thread being the willingness of Wall Street institutions like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, themselves facing credit issues, to come up with $75 billion in rescue loans.\r\n\r\n It used to be that investors who were worried about financial markets, or who didn’t like to take big risks, would put their money in what were called “blue chips”—companies that were deemed conservative, safe investments that could weather any storm. They had names like AT\x26T, General Motors, Ford, Boeing…and AIG.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Nationalize oil refineries

sj9890@gmail.com — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:24:58 -0400

I have been muttering under my breath for a couple years that the oil companies have demonstrated once again that unregulated capitalism will result in greedy decisions that steal the public blind. They just can't help it. I just heard on Ed Schultz's show that somebody is floating the idea that the oil refineries in this country should be owned by us and be government regulated so as to best control the prices for the American public. Oh, yea! My idea was to nationalize all things energy, but this is a good start.

Bush Court to Women: Drop Dead

Bob Fertik — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:17:03 -0400

NOW's outstanding President Kim Gandy speaks for me:

Today the Supreme Court upheld this nation's first abortion procedure ban—a ban enacted by George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress. Five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito—both installed by Bush and a Republican-majority Senate—ruled that the law does not violate a woman's constitutional right to abortion.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution.

The law is so vaguely written that it may ban the most common abortion procedure used after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and there is no exception to allow its use if the woman's health is in serious danger. The joint ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood is a major step in the campaign to outlaw all abortions, first by chipping away at and then by fully overturning Roe v. Wade.

Bush used his allies' control in Congress to push through anti-abortion legislation, and he used their power to confirm anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court—justices who have now upheld that same legislation.

The National Organization for Women and other advocates predicted as much, and fought tooth and nail against the confirmation of Roberts, and even more passionately against Alito, who replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Now we see that apparently, everything Roberts and Alito said at their confirmation hearings about respecting precedent was a pack of lies.

When the time came for women's rights supporters in the Senate to prevent confirmation of Sam Alito, the "fifth vote" against abortion rights, only 25 senators stood up for women. And indeed he was the fifth vote for the majority in today's decision. The senators who voted to end the Democratic filibuster, thus allowing Alito to join the court, must be reminded that their failure led to this day. We must stop the stacking of the federal courts and work toward a congressional majority that supports women's rights.

Tellingly, seven years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical ban enacted in Nebraska. The clear precedent set by Stenberg in 2000 was the reason three U.S. Courts of Appeal declared the federal ban unconstitutional. But last year the Bush administration pressed on with appeals to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So why did Gonzales forge ahead when a clear precedent had been set only six years earlier? And why did the court uphold this ban, effectively undoing that precedent? In the dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains it quite clearly:

"Though today's opinion does not go so far as to disregard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed that it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of the 'rule of law' and the 'principles of stare decisis.'"

In other words: The Supreme Court changed, stupid!

This is a clarion call for feminists, progressives and everyone who cares about justice, equality and democracy. We must link arms and say "No more."

We must elect a Congress that will repeal this ban and a president who will sign the repeal.

November 2008 can't come soon enough.

Granny Bee – Abortion for Men

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:40:10 -0500

Listen to your granny!

Granny Bee

2/24/06 - Abortion for Men (1:02) Real .mp3

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Granny is now regularly featured on The Paul Berenson Show (Scroll down for archived shows)

South Dakota passes abortion ban

Wikipedia: Ectopic Pregnancy
A case in England in August 2005 in which a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy was successfully carried to term and delivered by Caesarean section is an example of a very rare medical event, possible only when the site of implantation is outside the Fallopian tube - in this instance, the abdomen. The woman and the medical staff were unaware of her condition until she delivered. There are only a dozen or so known cases of this in the world.

Message from Ron C:
If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at 7-11 with your hot dog and Big Gulp.

Four Groups Award Kerry "Spine" Certificate for Leading Alito Filibuster Effort

Mike Hersh — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:23:38 -0500

In recognition of his leadership of the filibuster against the Alito nomination, the Backbone Campaign, Progressive Democrats of America, the Democracy Cell Project and Democrats.com awarded Sen. John Kerry a "Spine" Certificate. Unfortunately, the filibuster failed.

Karen Bradley, Marjorie Gersten, and Mike Hersh of PDA and DCP met with Sen. Kerry in his Russell Building office on Capitol Hill and presented the award on behalf of the four grassroots progressive organizations. The certificate praised Sen. Kerry for his courage in undertaking the principled fight to protect the Supreme Court and the nation against Alito's extremism.

The Senator was warm and gracious, saying he'd display the certificate among his other awards and photographs. We hope and expect more Democrats in the Senate will step up and lead, giving us more opportunities to recognize their courage and strength in the weeks and months ahead.

More information:
http://www.pdamerica.org/
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/
http://www.backbonecampaign.org/
http://www.democracycellproject.net/
http://www.democrats.com/kerry-filibuster

Granny Bee – What a Week!

Sat, 04 Feb 2006 07:28:56 -0500

Listen to your granny!

Granny Bee

2/3/06 - What a Week! (1:04) Real .mp3

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Granny is now regularly featured on The Paul Berenson Show (Scroll down for archived shows)

Vote to end debate clears path for Alito

Senate Confirms Alito as Supreme Court Justice

Think Progress: State of the Union

Bush aides clarify statements about oil

Boehner elected new House GOP majority leader

David Gergen: Boehner passed out Big Tobacco checks

Alito: Lessons Learned #1

Bob Fertik — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:47:57 -0500

Chris Bowers wants "Edjamacation" - why did the blogosphere ignore his liveblogging about Alito from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, and then suddenly spring into action to stop Alito on January 25? Here's why:

Everyone knew the Senate hearings would be a complete waste of time because Alito would lie through his teeth. That has been the case with every Congressional hearing since Bush stole the White House, most recently with John Roberts and Alberto Gonzales. There was no point going to Washington for the hearings, watching them on C-SPAN, or even reading about them in the blogs.
Unbeknownst to the circle-jerk blogs, there was a tremendous amount of non-blog grassroots organizing going on led by email-focused groups like People for the American Way, NOW, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, Democrats.com, Working Assets, USAlone.net, etc. These email lists generated hundreds of thousands of petitions, emails, faxes, and phone calls, and they operated phone banks in major cities to do even more.
The only thing that mattered - ever - was whether 41 Democrats would filibuster. And we had no idea until January 25, when I reported Harry Reid told progressive lobbyists that 8 of the 44 (+1) Democrats would not support a filibuster - but refused to identify them by name. I sounded the alarm that we need to identify the "Alito-8" and emailed progressive bloggers and activists, who responded with energy and determination.
A few hours later, I broke the news that John Kerry would lead a filibuster, regardless of whether he had 41 votes. Suddenly we went from the possibility of a filibuster to the reality, and the level of netroots activism increased 100-fold.
Meanwhile, the biggest progressive blogs were mostly asleep, because they believed the media spin that Democrats couldn't possibly stop Alito. So I chided them until they got on board.
I learned a crucial lesson from Josh Marshall about the value of assigning Senators to make-believe "caucuses," which is a great way to embarrass Senators who are doing the wrong thing.
The collective efforts of the netroots began to pay off immediately, as Dianne Feinstein switched from anti-filibuster to pro-filibuster. We knew we were on a roll, and we were energized.
All throughout the crucial weekend, I gathered every bit of useful information and put it at the very top of Democrats.com where everyone could find it. Naturally the most useful information came from the netroots, who spoke directly with Senate aides and reported on their conversations.
As the debate began on Monday, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry spoke passionately about the need to stop Alito. They were joined by undecided Senators like Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez. Victory seemed possible.
When the voting began, we quickly realized we had been betrayed. But we knew it was not for lack of effort on our part, but rather because 19 Democratic Senators simply do not care what we think, no matter how passionate and numerous we are.

Hats Off to Senators Kerry and Kennedy

Bob Geiger — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:18:48 -0500

As disappointing as it is to lose the fight on the Alito Supreme Court nomination, it’s also getting old listening to people on our own side running down the efforts of someone like John Kerry, who tried to do the right thing by leading on the filibuster. I’ve read too much commentary lately saying that Kerry acted as an opportunist, proposing the eleventh-hour filibuster only because he knew it would not be sustained – with the theory being that he would get “credit” for being willing to block Alito but, because it would never come to fruition, would not have to pay a long term political price for the action.

While, I believe the filibuster fight should have been initiated weeks ago, what criticism would have gone to Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy if they had done nothing? They would have been ripped for that too.

While the battle was joined too late, they at least put up a fight and got the objections many of us have to Alito more strongly on the record.

I’m not sure where we go from here with the 19 spineless weasels in the Democratic party who helped assure Alito’s confirmation by voting against the filibuster, but I am sure we should at least extend some degree of credit where it is due.

So I say thank you to Senators Kerry and Kennedy for fighting back on our behalf.

Snapshots of Democratic Hypocrites on Alito

Bob Geiger — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:10:05 -0500

A total of 19 Democrats voted yesterday to kill a filibuster attempt by Senator John Kerry on the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. By doing so, these Democrats have ensured that the ultraconservative Alito will be confirmed.

While most of them are saying they will vote against his confirmation today, have a look at some of the strong statements they have made about why a Supreme Court Justice Alito would be bad for America – despite voting yesterday in a way that guarantees that will happen.

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI): "I am not confident that Judge Alito will be able to fairly apply the principles embodied in the United States Constitution… Important questions on privacy, the environment, presidential power and women's reproductive rights will all come before the Court to be resolved. With Judge Alito sitting on the Supreme Court, I am very concerned about the direction the Court will take our great nation.”

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): “At a time when the president has asserted expansive powers with regard to imprisoning U.S. citizens without charges, with regard to wiretapping without warrants, with regard to using interrogation techniques that amount to torture, it's essential that we have justices on the Supreme Court that are willing to provide a check on the authority of the executive branch. Judge Alito's record indicates that he may not be the right person to provide this check. I believe that Judge Alito's confirmation will sway the existing balance on the Court in a manner that will jeopardize many of the protections afforded to the American public, many of which were the result of many years of struggle.”

Maria Cantwell (D-WA): “I am very concerned with Judge Alito’s record regarding an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either.”

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “One of the key questions for me about a new Justice for the Supreme Court is ‘will this person interpret the Constitution in a manner that expands personal freedom and liberty, or will this person interpret it in a way that restricts personal freedom and liberty?’ I believe Judge Alito’s record is one that leans in the direction of restricting the freedom and liberty of individual citizens.”

Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “Based on his personal statements during the 1980s when he was a government attorney, and particularly on his 15 years of judicial opinions, I am left with profound concerns that Judge Alito would diminish the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty in our country. This is not about a single issue but about an accumulation of his opinions that leads me to a preponderance of doubts.”

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): “After thoroughly reviewing Judge Alito’s record during his time on the federal bench, I am left with grave and serious concerns about his views on the power and scope of Executive Branch authority, discrimination against parents in the workplace, his general disposition toward cases involving civil rights, and his views on the scope of voter rights.”

John Rockefeller (D-WV): “I have concluded that Judge Alito’s judicial record, his writings and his statements portray a man who will not do enough to stand up against power when the rights of average Americans are on the line and who will not do enough to stand up against the President when the checks and balances in our Constitution are on the line. At the end of the day, I am left with the fear that Judge Alito brings to the court a longstanding bias in favor of an all-powerful presidency…”

Ken Salazar (D-CO): “I am convinced, based upon a very careful review of his record, that Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court outside the mainstream of American law. Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy will expand Executive power too far, hurt the checks and balances built into our Constitution to protect us all, and roll back important civil rights protections that were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many.”

They keep doing it right, and we keep doing it wrong

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:51:16 -0500

The Republicans identified a confirmation team, with a single individual in charge, as soon as the decision was made that Alito would be the candidate. That team was able to commandeer whatever resources it needed, bully whoever needed to be bullied, offer whatever carrots needed to be offered, and use a PR engine to help create an aura of inevitability, keep the truth about his radical views well hidden, think up theatrics to create sentiment in his favor, and belittle any efforts to stop the nomination.

Meanwhile, on our side, some people came forward and took a stand, way too late, while others waffled, couldn't be bothered, or took the opportunity to stab some of their own in the back.

Sometimes I despair. Unless we put together some kind of ready response team with teeth, meaning well funded, with the power to bring waverers into line, we'll keep losing and losing and losing.

And, of course, we also need a media infrastructure dedicated to truth. I've tried my damnedest to convince the powers that be that we need this infrastructure, but they're content to depend on a few think tanks and GOTV efforts--worthy endeavors, to be sure, but just not enough. Just not enough.

When the Democrats think "we can do better" is a war cry, we're in serious, serious trouble.

To let the Democrats who voted for cloture know what you think, use The Cloture 19 Database.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com