How to grill a banker / come controinterrogare un bancario

Court Testimony of a Banker on Bank Loans

This is the Testimony from a Banker on a Foreclosure. The Banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in.

The attorney for the plaintiff-borrower asked the Banker: “What is court exhibit A?”

The Banker responded by saying, “This is a promissory note.”

The attorney then asked, “Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?”

The Banker responded by saying, “Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower.”

The attorney asked, “What do you believe the agreement is?”

The Banker responded, ” We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check.”

The attorney asked, “Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?”

The Banker responded by saying, “Sure it does.”

The attorney asked, `”According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?”

The Banker responded by saying, “The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money.”

The attorney noted that the Banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, “Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?”

The Banker said, “Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money.”

The attorney asked, “Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business.”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?”

The Banker said, “$50,000.”

The attorney asked, “According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?”

The Banker said, “The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house.”

The attorney asked, “Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”

The Banker said, “No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned.”

The attorney asked, “If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?”

The Banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions.”

The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?”

The Banker said, “I do not know the bookkeeping entries.”

The attorney said, “I am asking you if this is the policy.”

The Banker responded, “I do not recall.”

The attorney again asked, “Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?”

The Banker said, ” I am not a lawyer.”

The attorney said, “Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the Banker. He said, “Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”

The Banker said, “No.”

The lawyer asked, “If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?”

The Banker said, “No.”

The attorney asked, “If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000.”

The Banker replied, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?”

The Banker said, “A $50,000 loan.”

The attorney asked, “Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans.”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?” The attorney handed the Banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked “Exhibit C”.

The Banker said, “The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower.”

The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?”

The Banker said, “This is the standard way to do it.”

The attorney said, “Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?”

The Banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The attorney asked, “If the bank’s deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank’s assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is there any exception?”

The Banker said, “Not that I know of.”

The attorney asked, “If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank’s books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?”

The Banker thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?”

The Banker said “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?”

The Banker said, “Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way.”

The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?”

The Banker said, “Nothing.”

The attorney asked, “How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?”

The Banker said, “$50,000.”

The attorney said, “Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction? ”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the Banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?”

The Banker said, “I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan.”

The attorney asked, “Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower’s knowledge or written permission or authorization? ”

The Banker said, “No.”

The attorney asked, “To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The Banker said, “No.”

Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? ”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney said, “If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?”

The Banker said, “No.” He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?”

The Banker answered, “No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable.”

The attorney asked, “If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?”

The Banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?”

“Yes”, the Banker replied.

The attorney said, “You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank’s property?”

“No. No tax is paid.”, said the crying Banker.

The attorney asked, “When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors’ money?”

The Banker said, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors’ money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”

In a shaking voice the Banker cried, saying, “All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this.”

The attorney quickly responded, “Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower’s knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?”

The Banker said, “But the borrower got a check and the house.”

The attorney said, “Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?”

“It is true”, said the Banker.

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank’s property, which they loan out as bank loans?”

The Banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”

The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?”

The Banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

The attorney asked, “Do you believe that it was the borrower’s intent to fund his own bank loan check?”

The Banker answered, “I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower’s mind.”

The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?”

The Banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The Banker answered, “If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged.”

The attorney asked, “Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?”

The Banker said, “The bank returns the funds.”

The attorney asked, “Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?”

The Banker said, “As a loan.”

The attorney asked, “How did the bank get the borrower’s money for free?”

The Banker said, “That is how it works.”. . . and thats the truth!

Nuovo indirizzo blog:

http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.com

Non ho ancora deciso…

Non ho ancora deciso a quale argomento dedicare questo blog… chissà…

Legge n. 53/2000: BANCHE DEI TEMPI

Legge n. 53/2000:

Articolo 27

Banche dei tempi

1. Per favorire lo scambio di servizi di vicinato, per facilitare l’utilizzo dei servizi della città e il rapporto con le pubbliche amministrazioni, per favorire l’estensione della solidarietà nelle comunità locali e per incentivare le iniziative di singoli e gruppi di cittadini, associazioni, organizzazioni ed enti che intendano scambiare parte del proprio tempo per impieghi di reciproca solidarietà e interesse, gli enti locali possono sostenere e promuovere la costituzione di associazioni denominate “banche dei tempi”.
2. Gli enti locali, per favorire e sostenere le banche dei tempi, possono disporre a loro favore l’utilizzo di locali e di servizi e organizzare attività di promozione, formazione e informazione. Possono altresì aderire alle banche dei tempi e stipulare con esse accordi che prevedano scambi di tempo da destinare a prestazioni di mutuo aiuto a favore di singoli cittadini o della comunità locale. Tali prestazioni devono essere compatibili con gli scopi statutari delle banche dei tempi e non devono costituire modalità di esercizio delle attività istituzionali degli enti locali.

Articolo 28 ( nota )

Fondo per l’armonizzazione dei tempi delle città

1. Nell’elaborare le linee guida del piano di cui all’articolo 24, il sindaco prevede misure per l’armonizzazione degli orari che contribuiscano, in linea con le politiche e le misure nazionali, alla riduzione delle emissioni di gas inquinanti nel settore dei trasporti. Dopo l’approvazione da parte del consiglio comunale, i piani sono comunicati alle regioni, che li trasmettono al Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica (CIPE) indicandone, ai soli fini del presente articolo, l’ordine di priorità.
2. Per le finalità del presente articolo è istituito un Fondo per l’armonizzazione dei tempi delle città, nel limite massimo di lire 15 miliardi annue a decorrere dall’anno 2001. Alla ripartizione delle predette risorse provvede il CIPE, sentita la Conferenza unificata di cui all’articolo 8 del decreto legislativo 28 agosto 1997, n. 281.
3. Le regioni iscrivono le somme loro attribuite in un apposito capitolo di bilancio, nel quale confluiscono altresì eventuali risorse proprie, da utilizzare per spese destinate ad agevolare l’attuazione dei progetti inclusi nel piano di cui all’articolo 24 e degli interventi di cui all’articolo 27.
4. I contributi di cui al comma 3 sono concessi prioritariamente per:
   1. associazioni di comuni;
   2. progetti presentati da comuni che abbiano attivato forme di coordinamento e cooperazione con altri enti locali per l’attuazione di specifici piani di armonizzazione degli orari dei servizi con vasti bacini di utenza;
   3. interventi attuativi degli accordi di cui all’articolo 25, comma 2.
5. La Conferenza unificata di cui all’articolo 8 del decreto legislativo 28 agosto 1997, n. 281, è convocata ogni anno, entro il mese di febbraio, per l’esame dei risultati conseguiti attraverso l’impiego delle risorse del Fondo di cui al comma 2 e per la definizione delle linee di intervento futuro. Alle relative riunioni sono invitati i Ministri del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, per la solidarietà sociale, per la funzione pubblica, dei trasporti e della navigazione e dell’ambiente, il presidente della società Ferrovie dello Stato spa, nonché i rappresentanti delle associazioni ambientaliste e del volontariato, delle organizzazioni sindacali e di categoria.
6. Il Governo, entro il mese di luglio di ogni anno e sulla base dei lavori della Conferenza di cui al comma 5, presenta al Parlamento una relazione sui progetti di riorganizzazione dei tempi e degli orari delle città.
7. All’onere derivante dall’istituzione del Fondo di cui al comma 2 si provvede mediante utilizzazione delle risorse di cui all’articolo 8, comma 10, lettera f), della legge 23 dicembre 1998, n. 448.

   La presente legge, munita del sigillo dello Stato, sarà inserita nella Raccolta ufficiale degli atti normativi della Repubblica italiana. E’ fatto obbligo a chiunque spetti di osservarla e di farla osservare come legge dello Stato.

Rethinking Our Centralized Monetary System

Lewis D. Solomon, Rethinking Our Centralized Monetary System, Praeger Press, 1996
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies/Book.pdf

Review
“This extremely interesting and provocative book should be read by all concerned about establishing an effective payment system, and especially by those who believe that the creation of a national currency represents the penultimate development of a monetary system…This brief volume contains ample food for thought about the possibilities for a radical transformation of the payment system in the next century.”–Choice

Product Description
As we approach the 21st century, we must rethink our centralized monetary system as part of a larger reexamination of existing political economy, according to Solomon. In questioning the passive acceptance of a federal monopoly in producing money, the author challenges prevailing notions of “progress” and “economic life.” Advancing the idea of local currencies to promote a political economy based on empowerment, self-reliance, and ecological permanence, the book discusses three viable systems, all of which are possible under federal and state laws: barter, customer discounts, and local scrip not pegged to the U.S. dollar. The business and practical aspects of each of these systems is considered. This original work will be of interest to scholars, students, and policy-makers in political economy, money and banking, public finance, and public policy.

About the Author
LEWIS D. SOLOMON is Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School.

Depression-Era Bear Market Rallies

Chart of the Day

var addthis_pub=”cotd”; addthis_brand = “Chart of the Day”; var addthis_offset_left = -110; addthis_options = ‘favorites, email, google, digg, reddit, buzz, facebook, myspace, linkedin, twitter, stumbleupon, delicious, yahoobkm, live, ask, more’;

Many investors continue to look to the early 1930s for some insight into the current economic/stock market environment. While there are significant differences (global economy, credit default swaps, TARP, FDIC, etc.) between the current environment and that what occurred in the early 1930s, there are also many similarities (bank failures, bankruptcies, severe market declines, etc.). For some perspective on the current stock market rally that began on March 9th, today’s chart illustrates duration (calendar days) and magnitude (percent gain) of all significant Dow rallies that occurred during the 1929-1932 bear market (solid blue dots). For example, the bear market rally that began in November 1929 lasted 155 calendar days and resulted in a gain of 48%. As today’s chart illustrates, the current Dow rally (hollow blue dot labeled you are here) is above average in both duration and magnitude relative to the average 1929-1932 bear market rally (hollow red dot). Compared to the current rally, only one 1929-1932 bear market rally was greater in both magnitude and duration and that was the first 1929-1932 bear market rally that began in November 1929.

California has to try with sovereign money

Calif. Trial Courts May Get $41 Million IOU

Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
June 25, 2009

California’s judicial branch could receive a $41 million IOU from the state next week if lawmakers don’t close a $24 billion budget deficit within days, Controller John Chiang said Wednesday.

“Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression,” Chiang said in a prepared statement.

Without enough cash on hand, the state will start withholding $3.36 billion in payments as soon as next Thursday for student aid, assistance to the poor and disabled, mental health services and trial court operations, Chiang said.

The controller’s office was quick to add that judges and state employees, including those working in California’s courts, will continue to be paid as required by state law. But payments for court operations will be held, Chiang spokeswoman Hallye Jordan confirmed, although neither she nor judicial executives could immediately say what programs or services would be affected.

A likely recipient of IOUs would be court-appointed appellate counsel. These privately employed defense attorneys are all too accustomed to frozen payments from the state, although they’re usually faced with the prospect in late summer when the Legislature is late in adopting a budget.

Any IOUs issued in July would be payable, with interest, in October.

This year, California’s sinking economy and cash-flow troubles have led Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to demand a quick $24 billion in cuts, transfers and other accounting maneuvers to the spending plan adopted in February for the coming fiscal year. Legislative Democratic leaders say the deficit is actually closer to $19.5 billion and that the extra $4.5 billion sought by the governor accounts for reserves.

Either way, Republicans on Wednesday shot down Democrats’ initial proposal for roughly $11 billion in cuts. And the governor has said he will not sign any legislation that doesn’t include a complete $24 billion no-new-taxes “solution.”

The lack of an agreement has delayed judicial leaders’ own plans to implement a statewide, one-day-a-month closure of courthouses. Court executives are waiting for specific closure language from the Legislature, which will only be adopted as part of a budget package that addresses the deficit. Even then, each court must negotiate any possible worker furloughs with local labor groups.

Los Angeles County Superior Court leaders have already announced plans to close most courthouses every third Wednesday of the month starting in July. Other courts may follow suit and decide on closures independently, said Ron Overholt, chief deputy director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. That’s fine, he said, as long as courts keep at least a skeleton crew available to issue temporary restraining orders and necessary arraignments.

The AOC is now looking at launching its once-a-month closure plan in August because the state’s delay in action has led courts to already start scheduling calendars for July, Overholt said.

Lobbyists on a Roll: Gutting Reforms

Lobbyists on a Roll: Gutting Reform on Banking, Energy, and Health Care

Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post, June 25, 2009

Remember all that change Americans voted for in November? Well, there’s been a change in the plans for change.

The detour has come courtesy of a familiar nemesis: DC lobbyists who, this year alone, have watered-down, gutted, or out-and-out killed ambitious plans for reforming Wall Street, energy, and health care.

The media like to pretend that something’s at stake when a big bill is being debated on the House or Senate floor, but the truth is that by then the game is typically already over. The real fight happens long before. And the lobbyists usually win.

They’re used to administrations and newly elected Congresses that come in with big plans for the future. But, as Obama and Congressional reformers are finding out, the future doesn’t have a well-funded lobby. The past, on the other hand, is extremely well represented.

Look at the auto industry. For decades, Detroit and its lobbyists fought tooth and nail against efforts to improve mileage efficiency standards or to close tax loopholes favorable to gas-guzzling SUVs. They were very successful at holding off the future. Until they went bankrupt.

“While I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one,” Obama said in his radio address last weekend, referring to his push for a new consumer finance regulatory agency. Let’s hope he is, because getting a reform bill that still includes actual reforms through both houses of Congress is easier said than done.

The president has already seen what the lobbyists can do. In May, he signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, and celebrated it as an example of doing “what we were actually sent here to do — and that is to stand up to the special interests, and stand up for the American people.”

But, in fact, those special interests had stood up to him and helped eliminate the most important legislative initiative affecting homeowners — the cramdown provision in the bankruptcy bill.

It shows just how powerful the lobbyists are: even those representing the banks that helped bring about the financial meltdown still hold sway over our elected officials.

The same goes for the lobbyists representing the credit rating agencies which, despite having played a key role in causing the economic crisis, escaped with barely a wrist slap in the Treasury’s big new reform plan. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal put it:

If world-class lobbying could win a Stanley Cup, the credit-ratings caucus would be skating a victory lap this week. The Obama plan for financial re-regulation leaves unscathed this favored class of businesses whose fingerprints are all over the credit meltdown.

That’s the thing about lobbyists: they serve no ideological master. It’s not about right vs left or Democrats vs Republicans. It’s only about the bottom line — ie pushing their special interests, no matter how much it undermines the public interest. No wonder they are as likely to incur the wrath of the Wall Street Journal as Mother Jones.

Last year, 15,000 registered lobbyists spent more than $3.25 billion trying to sway Congress. This year has brought even more of the same. Oil and gas companies spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first quarter of 2009 — more than a third of the $129 million they spent in all of 2008, which in itself was a 73 percent increase from two years before. Medical insurers and drug companies are also digging deep: 20 of the biggest health insurance and drug companies spent nearly a combined $35 million in Q1 — a 41 percent increase from the same quarter last year.

All that spending has proven to be money disturbingly well spent.

Take energy policy. President Obama arrived at the White House promising prompt and far-reaching policies on climate change. But the energy bill currently winding its way through Congress, officially called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, is in danger of becoming considerably less, uh, clean. As HuffPost’s Ryan Grim reported last week, the coal lobby may be on the verge of a big victory — essentially gutting the Clean Air Act by taking away the executive branch’s authority, through the EPA, to regulate carbon emissions at the nation’s dirtiest coal plants.

But, wait, you may be thinking, isn’t the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which cut the deal with the coal industry, controlled by Democrats? As I said, lobbying isn’t a Democrat vs Republican issue.

The Dems on the Homeland Security Committee are also killing a key provision in a chemical security bill. Art Levine has the details.

The story is very familiar: new rules are announced proclaiming a better, safer system for the future. But then industry lobbyists howl about “loss of jobs,” and “decreased competitiveness,” so waivers are added. Then some exemptions. Then some loopholes. Then authority to enforce the new rules is limited. By the time the bill hits the floor, it’s still got the word “Reform” or “Clean” or “Safety” in the name, but the finished product is all about maintaining the status quo. And a very stubborn status quo it is. For instance, the reason a new chemical safety bill is needed is because this exact process of gutting reform happened in 2001.

Which brings us to health care and the reform-killing armada currently steaming towards Washington. Their attack is shaping up to be unprecedented. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pledged $100 million to defeat reform — while, of course, calling it reform.

Much of the battle will be focused on the so-called public option, which the American Medical Association has already given a cold shoulder to, telling Congress it “does not believe creating a public health insurance option… is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs.” Indeed, the AMA has been steeling itself for this battle. Since the 2000 election, it has doled out almost $10 million to congressional candidates.

And, again, this fight won’t break down along Democrat vs Republican battle lines. Case in point: Tom Daschle. The former Senate Majority Leader, who came within a few unreported chauffeur-driven rides of being Obama’s health care reform czar, recently hinted that Obama would have to drop the public option. “We’ve come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue,” he told ABC News.

Of course, as Daschle certainly understands, without that “one issue,” there is no real reform. But that’s the reform killer’s M.O.: identify the essential element of any reform bill and remove it — leaving behind a worthless shell.

Daschle later walked back his comment, but anybody who expects him to be on the side of health care reform hasn’t been paying close attention to Daschle’s career. Along with two other former Senate Majority Leaders, Bob Dole and Howard Baker, Daschle is part of something called the Bipartisan Policy Center, which released its own health care plan last week. As HuffPost’s Sam Stein reported, among the funders (and listed as a “substantial contributor”) of BPC is the pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough, a member of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, which seems determined to slay the public option.

Also working at BPC is former Clintonite Chris Jennings, who used his Clinton administration clout to earn millions lobbying for several health and drug companies.

And this isn’t the first time Daschle and Dole have worked together. They’re both currently employed by the lobbying firm Alston + Bird, which has dozens of clients with a vested interest in undermining health care reform. Neither man, incidentally, is a registered lobbyist — Daschle is a “Special Policy Adviser,” and Dole is a “Special Counsel.” But we all know what they’re being paid to do. Especially since, as Paul Blumenthal writes, almost fifty percent of Alston + Bird’s income comes from health care clients.

According to a recent NYT/CBS News poll, a whopping 72 percent of the public favors the public option. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had the number even higher: 76 percent. And yet you can already feel it slipping away. As Matt Yglesias writes, “So just keep in mind that when people talk about political obstacles to a robust public plan, they’re not talking about mass public opinion as an obstacle — they’re talking about the wealth and power of relatively narrow interests.”

In 1993, the Clintons tried to bypass the minefield of having Congress play a part in developing health care legislation; they simply presented their completed plan to Congress. As we know, that approach failed miserably. But, according Robert Reich, who was there, Obama appears to have overlearned the lessons of that fight.

“Right now,” he said on This Week, “the president has got to get involved, twist arms and say if I don’t have A, B, and C I’m not going to sign this bill.”

The response of George Stephanopoulos, who was also there, was illuminating. He noted that when the process began, Clinton had the support of several in the GOP. But, said Stephanopoulos, “the politics changed and it wouldn’t matter what was in the bill at the end, the Republican Party decided they weren’t going to go along with this… This week, you started to see that developing now.”

Of course, the politics didn’t just change by itself in 1993 — those Republican senators had some help in “deciding” not to go along. That same dynamic is at play right now. Check out Nate Silver’s fascinating statistical analysis of the impact insurance industry lobbying is having on the process.

As usual, you have to dig deep and crunch the numbers to see the anti-reform termites gnawing away at foundational change. They prefer to do their dirty work in the dark. But you can see the results when you hear a seasoned politician such as Dianne Feinstein start making statements like the one she offered this weekend on CNN: “I don’t know that he has the votes right now. I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.”

“Concern”-ing a bill to death is an old Washington favorite. And that’s how reform dies. We know those who represent the past are ready, armed — and funded — to stand up and fight. What about those who represent the future?

Michael Jackson Dies

Michael Jackson Dies
NEKESA MUMBI MOODY and DERRIK J. LANG, AP, June 25, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Michael Jackson, the sensationally gifted child star who rose to become the “King of Pop” and the biggest celebrity in the world only to fall from his throne in a freakish series of scandals, died Thursday, a person with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press. He was 50.

The person said Jackson died in a Los Angeles hospital. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

The circumstances of his death were not immediately clear. Jackson was not breathing when Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics responded to a call at his Los Angeles home about 12:30 p.m., Capt. Steve Ruda told the Los Angeles Times. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to UCLA Medical Center, Ruda told the newspaper.

Jackson’s death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music’s premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.

His 1982 album “Thriller” _ which included the blockbuster hits “Beat It,” “Billie Jean” and “Thriller” _ remains the biggest-selling album of all time, with more than 26 million copies.

He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight, military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance.

By some measures, he ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. In fact, he united two of music’s biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley’s daughter, Lisa Marie.

As years went by, he became an increasingly freakish figure _ a middle-aged man-child weirdly out of touch with grownup life. His skin became lighter, his nose narrower, and he spoke in a breathy, girlish voice. He surrounded himself with children at his Neverland ranch, often wore a germ mask while traveling and kept a pet chimpanzee named Bubbles as one of his closest companions.

In 2005, he was cleared of charges he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor at Neverland in 2003. He had been accused of plying the boy with alcohol and groping him. The case took a fearsome toll on his career and image, and he fell into serious financial trouble.

Jackson was preparing for what was to be his greatest comeback: He was scheduled for an unprecedented 50 shows at a London arena, with the first set for July 13. He was in rehearsals in Los Angeles for the concert, an extravaganza that was to capture the classic Jackson magic: showstopping dance moves, elaborate staging and throbbing dance beats.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital as word of his death spread. The emergency entrance at the UCLA Medical Center, which is near Jackson’s rented home, was roped off with police tape.

“Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Jackson has just died,” a woman boarding a Manhattan bus called out, shortly after the news was announced. Immediately many riders reached for their cell phones.

In New York’s Times Square, a low groan went up in the crowd when a screen flashed that Jackson had died, and people began relaying the news to friends by cell phone.

“No joke. King of Pop is no more. Wow,” Michael Harris, 36, of New York City, read from a text message a friend sent to his telephone. “It’s like when Kennedy was assassinated. I will always remember being in Times Square when Michael Jackson died.”

Kissinger, Obama, The FED and Mark Kirk Confess

RR-12 – Kissinger, Obama, The FED and Mark Kirk Confess, featuring Ron Paul and Alex Jones

[VIDEO]

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | This Reality Report is stuffed to the gills with info just for you! We’ve got Kissinger calling to over throw Iran and Obama telling us we’ve done it before! We have the Federal Reserve confessing they misplaced a Trillion or so of your dollars and a few guys who are fighting Congressman Mark Kirk to get some transparency for the US Central Bank through HR 1207.We also have the extended report from Jekyll Island with Katherine Albrecht, Bob Schulz, Adam Kokesh, Clyde Cleveland, Ernest Hancock, G. Edward Griffin, Michael Badnarik and more.To add to the fun Gary Franchi will take you deep inside Alex Jones Studios for an exclusive behind the scenes look while filming for Camp FEMA.And to put the icing on the cake, Ron Paul makes an appearance to share his thoughts on Socialized Health Care.Oh and that squirmy Dictator Kim Jong Il rears his ugly head to shout some threats at the United States.With appearances by: Mark Kirk, Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Katherine Albrecht, Adam Kokesh, Clyde Cleveland, Ernest Hancock, Ernest Guy Cunningham, G. Edward Griffin, Michael Badnarik, Dr. Bob Frady and more!This is one jam packed report that you need to see and share!