To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, Americas dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

Signed,

(For signers after 10:00am CT on Sept 24, 2008 click here.)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J.(UCLA)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago – Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago – Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)

In 2009, more than in 2005, we can hope to see major changes across a wide swath of government websites.  It is very important to let Americans see those changes and understand the differences that can come about with a change in leadership in this nation.   Luckily, a few other organizations are stepping in to do the job.

Consortium—Minus NARA—Archiving Bush Administration Websites
by Barbara Quint
Posted On August 28, 2008

---

Regardless of who wins this November’s presidential election, the business of government still chugs along. Or does it? With so much of the daily activity of the federal government now conducted on the web, the effect of a change of administration becomes a matter of curiosity or even anxiety. In 2001 and 2004, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA; www.archives.gov) created a “snapshot” crawl of federal agency websites (109th Congress and 2004 presidential term available at www.webharvest.gov). However, in March, NARA announced it would not conduct the same kind of snapshot for 2008/2009. Responding to the possible loss of an historically important record, five agencies and organizations– the Library of Congress (LC; www.loc.gov), Internet Archive (www.archive.org), California Digital Library (www.cdlib.org), University of North Texas Libraries (www.library.unt.edu), and the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO; www.gpo.gov) –have partnered to take on the task.

Each of the participants will concentrate on specific approaches to gathering and curating the collection of content from federal agency websites under LC’s leadership. The bulk of the collecting will come from a sequence of crawls by the Internet Archive. LC will contribute congressional content based on its regular monthly crawls, which it has conducted since 2003. The California Digital Library (CDL) and the University of North Texas (UNT) are already participants in the LC-funded Web-at-Risk project. They will tap their own considerable experience to identify key agency content. The UNT Libraries, already a model organization for digital archiving of government sites with its CyberCemetery
(http://govinfo.library.unt.edu) begun in 1997, have developed a specific program designed to handle input from expert government document librarians around the country for identifying and suggesting key “not to be missed” sites. Assisting in this curation side of the effort, GPO will promote the program within the Federal Depository Library Program.

Read the rest at Consortium—Minus NARA—Archiving Bush Administration Websites

There was was a surprising amount of self-congratulatory bullshit considering how very little there is for him to take pride in at this point.  Even his claim of success for educational reforms he championed early in his tenure failed to acknowledge many realities. 

Bush noted that African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time high scores. What he did not say is that the "achievement gap" between whites and minorities remains very large. For Hispanics in particular, that gap has not decreased during the period covered by No Child Left Behind initiatives. 

I’m not surprised that he failed to mention the many state and regional education programs that are working around the NCLB system.

The part of his speech that realy made me go digging for a transcipt while picking my chin up off the floor was the section on "earmarks". 

President Bush said:

"Next, there’s the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour, when not even C-SPAN is watching.

In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of the earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and the Senate; they’re dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk.

You didn’t vote them into law. I didn’t sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law.

The time has come to end this practice.

So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."

Ok,  this all sounds good in theory but it does a huge disservice to the work already being done by the Democratic leadership, particularly the House leadership.  Bush is correct that earmarks have gotten out of hand, but asking the Democratic controlled Congress to do what they are already doing is a bit disingenuous and is aimed to make Bush specifically look good if they succeed and Republicans in general look good if they fail.

Lets look at another quote: 

"The status quo has permitted some members of Congress, with no transparency and accountability, to provide favors to special friends through earmarked special projects — putting special interests ahead of the public interest. The American people deserve to know who is sponsoring earmarks to begin to stop the cases of flagrant abuse of earmarks."   (Source: Democratic party materials used by press to cover the early reforms enacted when the Democratic majority took the reins in January 2007 as reported by Fox News)

In the early days of the current Congress, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi helped to push through reforms to:

• Cut earmarks in half,
• Force representatives to put their names on earmarks
• Force representatives to defend the purpose of the earmark
• Force the representative to declare that they and their spouses have no financial stake project receiving the earmark. 

These reforms were not pulled out of thin air.  They specifically chosen to address abuses that became rampant under the twelve years of Republican party Congressional leadership.  Keep in mind that it was earmarks like these that landed both Abramoff and California Congressman Randy Cunningham in jail. Jack Abramoff, indicted super-lobbyist and close associate with former House Whip Tom Delay, called  the Appropriations Committee under Republican Chair Lewis a "favor factory."  He was not joking.  Earmarks really took off under Republican Chair Lewis.  

This was true of  Congress as a whole under Republican rule. By 2004 earmarks had climbed to 14,211, worth $52.69 billion dollars after ten years of Republicans in charge. 

The Washington Post produced this graphic to make it perfectly clear:

Two years after the "Contract With America" hoopla all memory of Republican fiscal responsibility went out the window.  From that 1996 low, special earmarks increased in both number and value under the Republican led Congress under both Clinton and G.W. Bush.  The "Bridge to Nowhere" and more recently the "Railroad to Nowhere" are just the most famous of these Republican abuses of the system.  This system of corruption and money for special projects, often projects favored by campaign donors, was so much a part of the way Republicans ran Congress that it became a non-issue for the House Republican leadership. 

Contempt for the minority party and for the American people is best summed up by Rep. Don Young’s (R-Alaska) response to a reporter who approached him near the House Floor to ask him about an earmark giving money that would help a  Florida real estate investor and a Young campaign contributor. 

Mr. Young answered the reporter with an obscene gesture.

Two organization allow citizens to track earmarks and hold their representives accountable.  Taxpayers for Common Sense is a congressional watchdog group that creates a database for all earmarks as soon as bill is introduced. The group then analyzes the information, paying particular attention to signs of earmark abuse.  

Sunlight Foundation has a website with some nifty interactive graphs that help visitors zero in on earmarks and track them back to their source.

Ms. Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense issued a statement yesterday saying (emphasis is mine):

“By not including this year’s spending bills, the President is passing the buck on reigning in earmarks. As a lame duck, it’s unlikely that the President will even see any of the spending bills that he wants to fix before he leaves the Oval Office. So, the promise to veto FY09 spending bills that don’t cut earmarks in half from FY08 levels becomes little more than an empty threat because Congress can just run out the clock on him. More importantly, by not including the 2008 spending bills, the Executive Order gives Congress months to finagle their way around these changes.”

“The fact is we have made progress on reforming earmarks. Projects are down and the system is more transparent that it has ever been. Rather than leave the decision to future administrations, the President needs to tell taxpayers the next concrete steps this administration will take to build on the changes made this year and further restrict earmarks this year and in the future.”

I hope Bush gets what he asked for in terms of spending reforms but I also hope he admits to himself, deep down inside, that his State of the Union address, at least in part, is as honest as a downloaded term paper.

The Bush administration continues to limit our basic freedoms, conceal its own worst behavior, and insist that it does all this in order to make us more free. In that spirit, it seemed an opportune moment to commemorate the administration’s worst legal justifications and arguments of the year. And so I humbly offer this new year’s roundup: The Bush Administration’s Top 10 Stupidest Legal Arguments of 2007.

{en:Dahlia Lithwick|Dahlia Lithwick’s} article provides a nice round up of some of the most bizarre ‘legal’ justifications for its behavior in 2007.

• The NSA’s eavesdropping was limited in scope
• Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted because it was excessive
• The vice president’s office is not a part of the executive branch
• The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history
• Water-boarding may not be torture
• Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege
• Nine U.S. attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason
• Alberto Gonzales (Yes, he gets his own spot on the list for multiple reasons)
• State secrets
• The United States does not torture

The full story at over at Slate is well worth reading.

This woman has lost almost everything because she tried to help the US after the invastion.  She worked to help the families of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition troops to receive compensation.  She currently lives in Damascus, Syria, but has applied to emigrate to the United States. 

Despite what she did for us, her application is on hold.

I know that General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker testifying to the House and the Senate this week is big news.  I just really HATE the timing.  Bush and Co. used 9/11 to drum up support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Instead of focusing on the internal issues in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated, they decided to invade one of the most secular nations in the middle east. 

I wish, on this one day each year, the news media would focus on what happened on 9/11, on who was involved in planning and executing the attacks, and on WHY the attackers were wling to die to harm the United States.  President Bush says it’s because they hate our freedoms.  He may be half right.  I don’t think it has anything to do with our freedoms (the ones that  were curtailed in the name of the War on Terror).  If they hate our freedoms, it is our belief that we are free to do whatever we want outside our borders.  Propping up a corrupt royal family in Saudi Arabia is not the way to win the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world.

Bin Laden makes a fairly valid point.  He is smart not to include threats against the US homeland like he has in earlier videos.  Sadly, but understandably, people still will react viscerally to the fact that it is him speaking and probably won’t take the time to actually look at that he is saying.

The point he makes that I, grudgingly,  have to agree with is that the USA has not been a shining example of democracy in action.  We really need to get our house in order before we try exporting democracy to any more countries.

Matthew Fredmonsky 6 hours ago

A Littering charge filed against a Kent resident for posting a sign reading "Impeach Bush" on public property was dismissed this morning in Portage County Municipal Court.

Kevin Egler, whose case has gained international attention, intends now to approach members of Kent City Council in an attempt to change the city ordinance used to cite him for littering.

A Kent police officer ticketed Egler July 25 for advertising on public property by posting the sign on a small patch of grass near Haymaker Parkway, Willow and East Main streets. The advertising charge was dropped in mid August and the new littering charge was filed late last month.

Egler and his attorney, Columbus free-speech advocate Bob Fitrakis, reached and signed an agreement Thursday morning with Kent Law Director Jim Silver, who was prosecuting the case. In exchange for dropping the charges, Egler agreed to recognize he can be cited or arrested for littering if he places any type of sign on property without obtaining permission from the property owner first.

This week, President George W. Bush stood up before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and unspooled a whole lot of odd analogies to make the case that we need to stay in Iraq for… well, forever, I guess. I’ve not been in Iraq for more than a year but it’s still a central focus of my reporting here in the Middle East. So, this week, let’s step away from Lebanon — which is depressing anyway — and focus on Bush and his fantasies about Mesopotamia.

Because some days he makes it just too easy.