The death of osama been laden.

The "mastermind" of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the cave dwelling videographer, the symbol of our enemies in the war on the noun "terror", the bogeymen himself, osama bin laden was shot dead during a Navy SEAL raid of his compound, a walled in "mansion" where he and his family have been living. Located in a suburb of Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, the head "evil doer" was living a third of a mile from a Pakistani military training facility. But this post isn't about what Pakistan knew, or their charges of violating a sovereign nation.

"Getting bin laden" almost ten years after the attacks on New York City's World Trade Center has provoked some differing reactions. Talking heads, heads of state, department officials, past presidents, and New York City Mayors are pleased, but "know the fight is not over". Seeing people flood the streets at Ground Zero, Times Square, and outside the White House, cheering and jubilant, is a nice change from the angry mobs we're used to seeing. But the idea of celebrating a death is a disturbing and saddening one too. He may have orchestrated hideous, abhorrent acts, but cheering his death exposes a dark place. A place where revenge, retaliation, and blood lust dwell. The ten years that have past have lessened the initial urgency to "get bin laden". Ten years of two wars can wear at the thirst for the enemy's blood. Don't misunderstand, seas of that thirst exist, but for some it's simply violence begetting violence. What will be the retaliation to this latest retaliation be? If we had not retaliated with war, would more or less people have died over these past ten years?

Ending "the hunt for bin laden" brings some closure to "9/11". He was the face attached to our "terrorist" enemy in the war on the noun "terror". A bogeyman gone. The death of the head of al qaeda doesn't mean we are safe from al qaeda, but I do believe it deals a major blow to their organization and perhaps some funding as well. US "officials" say that they think the group may splinter into several groups. Breaking up the hierarchy will weaken them as a whole, but these smaller groups may prove dangerous and more intensified. One can only imagine the intel gathered at the bin laden domicile, which by the way wasn't a cave in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The government is said to have photographs of the corpse and is deciding whether or not to show them publicly. "They" say they are brutally graphic, with at least one major head wound. In the current we believe nothing anybody says climate, I think they have to be released. Official DNA evidence will not be enough. When they are released, that dark place will come out stronger than ever. The image will be exciting and disturbing people everywhere, but it will end any doubt that he is dead.

President Obama gave the order that killed bin laden. His statement, which was not as funny as his White House Coorespondent's dinner's, was a proud one. He spoke of unity, purpose, and sacrifice. A week after surprising the press with a slap from his long form birth certificate, Obama seems reminiscent of 2008 Obama. An Obama Seth Meyers recently told the current Obama "he would love'". Dare I say it, President Obama seems to be playing offense... in public again. Next year's election is a long way off, and a lot can happen, but I would venture to guess his poll numbers jump from those who are glad "bin laden's in hell" (except for people like rover and huckabeek) and not drop from those who aren't or who worry what will happen next.

Is it big deal to kill a "symbol", a "bogeyman", the "leader" of our enemy? Yes. Am I happy osama bin laden's gone? I'm going to have to say yes to that too. But it's hard to argue with "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." - Even if Martin Luther King Jr. did not say it.

Squid's note: This post is based on the assumption that what the government has been telling us about osama bin laden, al qaeda, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 is the truth.

As the House turns...

So after some movement by Rep. Clyburn on the Democratic side, and some minor rumblings on the republican side, the "leadership" in both parties, Congressionally speaking, will remain unchanged. Establishment goper and man with the tan, Representative john boehner, will be the next Speaker of the House. Current Speaker Pelosi will retain her top spot within the Democrats in the House. Senator "speak softly and carry a small stick" Reid will remain the Majority Leader in the Senate and Senator mcconnell will stay as minority leader there. House Tea Party Caucus chair, republican, michelle bachman was said to be making some moves for a "leadership role". Rep. bachman recently discussed how the "ear marks" she has been so against aren't bad when they are for things like highways, bridges and roads in her district. The not always truthful congresswoman (see President Obama's trip "to India" and more) said she wouldn't be against "earmarks" if they were "redefined". First off, Rep. bachman, some people call highways, bridges, and roads, infrastructure. You may remember the word from President Obama saying it over and over again, pushing Us to invest in it ("invest" means spend on). In fact, the President has spent on such infrastructure, in bills that you, your caucus, and your party railed against. Before you and other "anti-stimulus" folks started requesting the funds and touting the money spent at resulting ribbon cuttings. Secondly, banning "earmarks" doesn't necessarily cut spending. Congresspeople will still get spending for their districts, maybe your redefining will simply change the word for it. Infrastructure does need to be invested in. It creates jobs, and it upgrades a system in desperate need. There were four water main breaks in my town in the last month. Infrastructure. But I digress. "Earmarks" have been a campaign buzzword for a while. You may remember candidate mccain (r) muttering about them. Lately, it has been the plot for a little drama between some freshman congresspeople and the established in their party. There have been some "flip flops" on the issue. Earmark opposer rAynd paul (r) now refers to his campaign whipping toy as a "bad symbol", assuring us that "he will advocate for Kentucky's interests", as senator. On the other hand, earmark supporter mitch mcconnell (r) recently said he would now support banning them. For some it's the reality of the new job and for others it's the reality of who their party just elected.

One "leadership" role seems to be up in the air. After the "huge" win for the rnc, it looks like funny man michael steele will be out as chair. I guess that's what they mean by "merit pay"? I hope the Democratic Party is thinking about the Chairs of, at least, their "Congressional campaign committees". We'll have to wait and see. What will happen when the new congress takes their seats in a couple months is unsure. Will there be a government shut down? Some republicans say that would be a "mistake". It would certainly be a costly bit of "governing". One thing's for sure, republicans want rich people's taxes to stay the same rate they've been for the past ten years, despite their failure to "trickle down". When Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer offered to extend current tax cuts to every one except millionaires, "the answer was no". There's talk of the "lame duck" Congress taking up a vote for a Middle Class Tax Cut, like the way taxes on small businesses and people making under $250K were cut by the current Congress. The republican response? It's "a terrible idea and a total nonstarter." I do not understand why their was not talk of the Obama Tax cuts past and future. The "bush tax cuts" are to expire on a time line set by the law that created them, a law that was passed through budget reconciliation. As Forbes.com put it "These sunset provisions were placed in the tax laws in some cases to garner enough legislative support to get the bills passed, or to get around rules that existed on cutting revenue without passing an offsetting spending cut." I don't understand why bringing the tax rate for those making $250,000 and up back to President Clinton levels (a 3+% increase) is so horrible given the state of the debt, the deficit (revenue vs. expenses), and all the pain currently being felt by the bottom 95% of Americans. Another example of bad communication and letting one side set the debate. But I digress. We'll talk more on taxes, revenue, and spending some other time.

So we don't know if the man who apologized to bp, for the President of the United States's tone and demands, is going to be the chairman of the energy committee. Will the republican who doesn't believe in climate change because the bible says god won't destroy the world again will be on the energy committee? Are "fiscal conservatives" really running from being appointed to the Appropriations Committee that decide cuts to Federal spending? How many tied to industry, former and future lobbyists, will chair new House committees? We will have to see. We know that one republican "leader" has said that his "number one priority is making President Obama a one term President." Now that's governing over politics. But undermining the President of the United States by Elected members of its Government seems to be fine nowadays, unlike 2001-2008. Future House Majority "leader" cantor just told a foreign leader in a private meeting not to worry, the republicans would be a "check on the president". He couldn't have meant "a check" for a foreign nation, could he? No. I wonder if we'll see those investigations of the President that are so popular when a Democrat is in the office, but Un-American, or "looking backwards", when a republican one is.

So now that the backlash (aside from barbara bush) against TLC tv show host and half term governor, is subsiding. Almost every one of her endorsements lost. The republican "bribe" targets for defection have been identified. And "leaders" are more settled upon, we'll just have to wait and see if the new Congress will accomplish anything together, or separate. I will say this. I have never seen a President talk to the opposing party, who was in a significant minority, as much as President Obama. And he continues to try to. He has held open, public discussions with them, has taken their questions and used their ideas in legislation, including health care. He has compromised, sometimes in opposition to many in his own party. Not that he'll get any credit for it, but we'll talk more about "the news" some other time.

Let's end on the two funniest moments so far. First, did you hear about the anti-government health care freshman congressman who wants his government health care to kick in quicker. How about the one about Fla. tea party candidate, republican, allan west's chief of staff, conservative talk radio host joyce kaufman, having to step down already due to her show's connection to a threat that lead to the closing of 300 schools. Wait is that second one funny or scary?

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. (Warning: Sharing may lead to socialism, the new communism, or is that terrorism? Whatever. Happy Turkey Day!)

david calamoneri

Hoboken, Nj USA

What does it MEAN?

OK. Deep breath. Without repeating the views on the "why?" from my previous post, here's my analysis on the "what happened?" with a small side of, to quote Yosemite Bear, "What does it mean?"

Two quick observations: 1. (Economic) Change has not come fast enough for Our impatient society. The economy, and all the metrics that define it, are what have people angry, desperate, and anti the incumbents who haven't fixed it yet. 2. The tea party is the republican party and cost the republicans the Senate (See Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado).

The Senate "gains" made by republicans (two fewer than predicted) were mostly in open seats. One vacated by the President. Three seats were vacated by retiring Senators bayh, dorgan, and specter (Was he ever a Democrat?). "Centrist"/obstructionist Democrat, Blanche Lincoln lost her seat in Arkansas. And the "worse than losing the House" defeat of the night was the one Progressive Democratic Senator, the only one to stand up to the patriot act, the Progressive Champion, Senator Russ Feingold losing. More on him and his ilk some other time. Needless to say, Senator Sanders (I-VT), you're job in the US Senate just got that much harder.

In the House... 60 seats. That's a whole lot of seats for a party to pick up. To find a larger change in the House of Representatives, you have to go back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's day when, shortly after the Great Depression hit, 71 seats were gained by republicans in response to the slow recovery and social security. The Democrats had such a big lead at that point the House did not switch majorities. Of course, very few of these House races were followed by the media like the crazier Senatorial and Gubenatorial candidates were. So, we may not know the local details of why Americans chose particular candidates. We can certainly think about the National trends and themes these candidates most likely used and tapped into. It all goes back to the economy, and lack of communication and individual pocket book realities, when it comes to what is being done, and has been done, to help it grow. It has been growing, ever so slowly. For a lot of people, it's just not fast enough.

Josh Marshall brought up a great point when he typed "I'm terribly surprised that everyone everywhere on the political spectrum (here and there) is using Tuesday's results as confirmation of the assumptions they've held all along." Some progressives look at the fact that half of the "blue dog" caucus was voted out, and say the Dems would be more enthused to vote for "liberals". It could also mean that the Democratic Party is losing "the center", though any "centrist" that voted for rand paul, or anyone else like him, wasn't voting with the political center. The only thing we know for sure is if the economy, and the number of JOBS (there's a word you're going to hear a lot) grew faster, and confidence in America's economy increased faster (an end to the phrase "in this economy" would help) a lot of this anger toward everyone in Washington (except the ones just sent there) would not have existed.

In other news from Tuesday's election, Iowans (with the help of outside groups, of course) voted out three judges, because of their decisions, based on standing law, pertaining to same-sex marriage. Something does not sit well with me when it comes to having the Judicial system chosen the same way policy makers are. In California, big oil's prop 23, that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came out so firmly against lost Big, as did legalizing pot for recreational use. Zack Galafanakas did try his best though.

So, the republicans won the House of Representatives. The Democrats held on to Senate.Candidates o'donell, paladino, angle, buck, mcmahon, fiorina, and whitman (Governor Jerry Brown!) lost. There's an openly gay Mayor in Lexington, Kentucky. Anti-civil rights act/anti-making bp pay candidate rand paul, florida tea partier marc rubio, and they're decapitating us, they're decapitating us jan brewer won. Half of the blue dog Democrats were voted out. All supporters of net neutrality were voted out. Outside money played a large role in this midterm election. Some of which was vehemently undisclosed, hiding under roberts's Supreme Court's "citizens united" ruling, in PAC's like rover's crossroad gps. Some outside money may have even be foreign (see chamber of commerce funding). We'll leave the talk of plutocracy for another web log. For now we'll just have to see what the new and old republicans accomplish governing in the House over the next two years. I wouldn't want to argue based on speculation. My guess is the debates will be about jobs and taxes.

To Progress,

david calamoneri

Hoboken, NJ USA

Poor Messaging and radical candidates

Did you know that 37% ($288 BILLION) of the "stimulus" recovery act were/are tax cuts? Did you know those tax cuts cut taxes for 95% of working Americans in 2010? 35% of the stimulus went to aid (unemployment, education and training, and State), and 28% ($224 Billion) went to investment, mainly in infrastructure which is something the US was once on the forefront of. How about the fact that health insurance companies can no longer say no to you because of pre-existing conditions, limit the monetary amount of benefits you can receive per year, or drop you from coverage if you get sick? Did you know that, since health care/insurance reform became law, "kids" can be covered by their parent's insurance until they are 26? I know once I was kicked off my parent's insurance, I couldn't afford my own. I just ran without it, and luckily I only had to stick the American tax payer with one emergency room visit. Did you know that credit card companies can no longer raise your annual percentage rates (APR) without reason, charge you more than a $25 late payment fee, and can no longer charge an inactivity fee? Did you know that Consumers will now have financial protections from a bureau, whose architect even Uber-Consumer advocate Ralph Nader approves of? Did you know that the Federal Deficit was $125 billion LESS in 2010 than 2009? Did you know that Health care/insurance reform reduces the deficit? Did you know that the US economy has been growing for 9 months? Or that the private sector has been adding jobs for the last nine months? What? You did not know that? You know why? The Democratically lead Congress and the Obama Administration that enacted these policies, with no help from the most obstructionist minority in my life time, Suck at Messaging!

One of the biggest historic differences between the Democratic party and the republican party is the role of the federal government. I believe the federal government should do more than just defend it's citizenry from foreign foes. It should help the Americans in need, you know, the "least of our brothers and sisters". The government should protect citizens from the greed of most corporations, and not the other way around. The Federal government of the United States should make, at the very least realistic, the ideals that all men are created equal, with the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That We are A People, A Country, and not 50 separate countries whose creed is every man for himself.

The republicans crow for smaller government, except of course when it comes to the biggest increase in federal bureaucracy in decades (the Department of Homeland Security), what medical procedure a woman is allowed to have, who you are allowed to fall in love with, and unless you are on their side (see senator, and prostitution john, david vitter) who you sleep with. You know, smaller government to peek through Our keyholes with. The republicans scream don't tread on Our Constitution when it comes to such "abuses" as the departments of energy and education, and social safety nets, like Social Security and Medicare, only to turn against the hallowed document when it comes to the First, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth amendments. Remember the marriage between a man and a woman amendment failure 43 was going to change the Constitution to include?

The only reasons I can see for the radical candidates of the republican party, the anti-civil rights act guy, the nazi reenactment guy, the I forget where I went to college but remember being into witchcraft lady, the mexicans are decapitating people lady, the latinos look like asians lady, the "I'll take you out"/beastiality email guy, the wall (that reagan asked Gorbachov to "tear down") in east germany was a good thing/hand cuffing and detaining a reporter/lying about employment guy, the i'm against the minimum wage but don't know what it is/pro wrestling lady, and on and on, is 1. once marginalized radicals are now leading a weak party that was slapped back on its heels in 2006 and 2008 or 2. the republican party has no interest in governing, and is using the "tea party" and their anger to "win" political contests and make sure money stays where it belongs, namely giant corporations, the PAC's they fund and run, K Street, and the top 5% of Americans.

Even with the aforementioned accomplishments that took place over the last two years, and any I forgot or have no idea of, some progressives are deeply disappointed. Some thought they were electing a faster and/or more extreme left turn. The President's continuing programs of rendition, his continued use of "State Secrets", and his tepid at best statements when it comes to President Clinton's ill conceived "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy are deeply troubling, as is guantanamo bay's slow closing, and the war in Afghanistan. But to let either House of Congress go to the likes of raynd paul and christine "masterbation is adultry" o'donell, to throw the few actual Progressive voices in Congress (See Representative Alan Grayson and Senator Russ Feingold) to the wolves over change not moving fast enough, or drastically enough, is a big mistake. If you thought the "progressive agenda" moved to slowly or feebly when the republicans were in the minority of both houses, filibustering (well threatening to really) more than ever before in history, what do you think will happen if they reclaim one or both Houses? Do you not remember what happened when the republicans held both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives from 1996-2006, especially while failure 43 held the White House for them from 2000-2006. Did the "bush tax cuts" create jobs or cut the deficit over the past nine years?

There's only a local election for me here in Hoboken. All I can do is spread the word. Full disclosure: I also sent money to Senator Russ Feingold's campaign.

Restore Sanity!
david calamoneri
Hoboken, NJ USA

Squid's note: I refer to president george bush jr. , a.k.a. "failure 43", not to "blame bush", but to hold accountable the man who campaigned on "bringing accountability back to the White House."

“When we promised during the campaign change you can believe in, it wasn’t change you can believe in in 18 months,’’ “It was change you can believe in but we’re going to have to work for it.”
-President Obama on the Daily Show 10/27/2010

"We can do this as a country. It won't be easy. It won't happen overnight. And it'll take more than one election or one president. The change we need will take an entire nation that's ready to work for it, and fight for it, and most of all, believe in it."
-Candidate Obama at North Dakota State Democratic Convention, April 4th, 2008:

September 11, 2010

On September 11, 2001, I was supposed to film a video for a song I wrote called "Pride". It was to be entered in a Tommy Hilfiger contest, of all things, for the best 30 second spot on what Red, White, and Blue meant to you. I bought an American flag the day before and stuck it out from my window sill for the shoot. That morning I got a call from the friend, who was going to make the video, telling me a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers. I went down to the Hudson River to see. I watched from across the river as the Towers fell, turning into a spreading cloud of pulverized debris. I remember. I will never forget. It changed me. It changed Us.

The question that has been plaguing me lately is "How have We changed?" The people who perpetrated these heinous attacks (according to the people who weren't so hot on the intelligence before the attacks or in the subsequent wars from their aftermath. I'm not a "truther". I'm just saying'…) The people behind the attacks committed them to kill Americans and destroy a US Financial Center, but there is another reason that they readily admit, to instill fear in Us. Fear is a very powerful thing. I ducked every time a plane went over head for days, got nervous every time I saw someone running down the street. My backpack is still packed and ready by the door. We're so scared we can't bring toothpaste in Our carry on anymore, which now costs extra to help pay for the added security. We were told the "muslim extremists" committed these atrocities because "they hate Our Freedoms", but what has happened to those freedoms since. Our privacy has been destroyed with cameras at every corner, the feds in our bank accounts, emails, and telephone calls. Our willingness to let this happen comes from of Fear. Fear of what "they" might do. More recently there have been calls to do away with, or at the very least bend, freedoms and rights provided for by the United States Constitution. And I am not talking about the Second Amendment. That seems to be one of the few that are firmly in place.

Fear, especially when coupled with despair (of say prolonged unemployment, foreclosure, etc.), can make the irrational seem plausible. Not All Muslims are responsible for what the 19+ people, and their subsequent networks, did on September 11, 2001. The protests of mosques all over the United States, not just in Lower Manhattan, the burning of a Mosque in Tennessee, the stabbing of a New York City Cabbie because he is Muslim, and most recently the plan to burn copies of the Koran by an extremist "pastor" in Florida on September 11, 2009 to somehow "honor" those who died on that day (some of whom were Muslim, of course), show a movement in these United States of America, a country whose first "settlers" were fleeing religious persecution. The First Amendment of Our Constitution ensures Religious Freedom. General David Petraeus, the most famous General since Patton and General currently in charge of the war in Afghanistan, recently said this to the wall street journal about the September 11th holy book burning "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," Gen. Petraeus said in the interview. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community." He was not alone in his concern or criticism. I guess some people were worried that people will believe, and be made to believe, that the actions of a few are the actions of the many.

My current worry is more about the danger it poses Us as a people, as a Country. Our Freedoms are not always easy to deal with. We should not deny the klan's right to demonstrate, who by the way claim to be a "christian" organization. We should not deny people the right to protest a "mosque" two blocks from the World Trade Center. We should not disallow the burning of the Flag or the Holy Koran, though book burning and Freedom of speech may be at odds. But when actions become violent or incite violence, then I take issue. Where does fanning the flames of hatred based on religion or country of origin or skin color lead, especially when that basis is founded on the actions of such a few. There are around 1.5 Billion people who believe in Islam. By the way, the President is not one of them, and tagging him as one may be getting a bit more dangerous lately.

I understand the anger and the anguish. We still haven't caught or killed "the guy who did this". It's nine years later and they are finally starting to do something with the "hallowed" hole in the ground/transit hub that is the site of the World Trade Center attack. There has been very little closure and a lot of stoking of anger and fear, not to mention profiteering from "9/11". Our Freedoms and Rights are important. It's what we're told Our military fight and die for. We have lost Freedoms since the planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, killing 2,819 people. We've become a different people. But in this ongoing war of "hearts and minds", what philosophy is winning? Have more hearts and minds given in to hate and intolerance like that of those who took down the Towers and the fear they've instilled, or have more given in to American values? What were they again?

peace and progress.

David Calamoneri

Hoboken, NJ USA

"they fill me up with pride

put hope in my eye

wrap 'em around me when I need it warm

they inspire me to exceed the norm

red white and blue

my country, me and you

red white and blue"

"Pride"- Summer of 2001

Power on the Left?

Anti-government stalwart/candidate to be part of the government, "ayn" rand paul said in his speech after winning his republican Senate primary that "The mandate of our victory tonight is huge.", but whose mandate was he talking about? The (pinkies up) tea party did get randy paul his victory over red establishment favored what's his name... In KENTUCKY.

The Democrats managed to hold a seat, that many thought was up for grabs in Pennsylvania. Though John Murtha was a Democratic Congressman for 36 years, his district is quite "conservative", as was he. May he rest in peace. We've been told a red "storm" is coming in Our politics. This was a seat that was to be swallowed up by it, a Congressional district that went for the old man and miss honky dory in 2008. That's right the Democrats held a seat in a district that went mccain. Now, Mark Critz is not my style Dem. To me, he is barely a Dem. This seat, however, must have been on the red list of pick ups, as were the two they have lost so far in upstate New York. That is, if they want to get anywhere near taking control of the House.

Then there was the 30 years winning as a republican then switching parties to be politically viable arlen specter's loss to Joe Sestak in the Democratic Primary. Howard Dean compared Sestak to Jim Webb. We'll have to see how he fares in the general election. It is going to be tight, but picking up this Senate seat through election, and not just the whim of an aging politician, would be sweet. It is nice to see that being a Democrat means more than just playing ball on a couple of votes after 30 years of opposition.

And last but not least the Democratic Senator who loves to fight the Democratic Majority Lead Senate on everything that concerns big business, blanch lincoln, was forced into a run off by liberal net roots backed Bill Halter? In Arkansas? We'll have to wait and see who wins the run-off, but the fact that a Progressive movement backed candidate has forced one against an 12 year, establishment, "centrist" shows a muscle I hadn't counted on. There is Power on the Left. We hear a lot about the tea drinker "movement", but could it be the Country still leans to the Democratic anti-establishment, as it did for the election of President Barack Obama a year and a half ago.

None of these victories are jump and down great. They all have caveats. Some may be temporary. This week's voting shows that you are not going to lose in this "political climate" just because you have a "D" next to your name. It shows that Progressives have power. And it shows that the red tidal wave everyone's been talking about for this November may be over-hyped, and may not be only red.

To Progress,

David Calamoneri

Hoboken, NJ USA

It's the economy.... (with pictures)

The tax bills for 2009 were the lowest since 1950. That's right. Now I was a big opponent of failure 43's tax cut and spend agenda, but President Obama's policy has been a bit different. First, his tax cuts weren't for the top 1% of American earners, they were for the bottom 95-98%. Secondly, Obama wasn't spending on getting us into an unnecessary war,or a prescription drug bill that actually increased their cost. The spending was to put a floor on a rapidly falling economy. Remember when "the DOW was going to crash" and the "Second Great Depression was coming"? How is that economy doing? Well let's see, the DOW has been hovering around 11,000 for months now. Wholesale inventories and sales, consumer spending as well as the GDP continue to rise. April even saw encouraging employment news. 290,000 jobs (44,000 in Manufacturing!!) were added, though unemployment did rise .2%. 66,000 of the new jobs were temporary Census workers. 47% of those unemployed have been for more than 6 months. If you are on unemployment, I hope you added something to your resume (computer training, etc.) while you were working. I have a feeling the extensions Congress keeps approving are going to end soon. The amount of jobs we are in the hole from the past 2-3 years' loses is staggering, but at least we seem to be adding jobs now instead of steadily losing them.

The economy seems to be stabilizing, with the pendulum actually starting to, ever so slightly, swing up, but what about that expensive "bailout" floor We laid down through the transition from failure 43 to First Year President Barack Obama? Well it turns out that the $700 BILLION dollar cost of TARP was way too high of an estimate. According to Pro Publica, of the $536.3 BILLION given out so far through TARP and to save freddie and fannie, et al, $216.8 BILLION has already been returned, and if the economy continues on its present track, the Treasury estimates that it will cost Us about $117 Billion for TARP and $85 Billion for freddie and fannie. That's a bit better than $700 billion plus freddie and fannie, et al. But wait, there may be more.... Those costs are expected to be offset by the $115 Billion that is expected to be gained from the programs. Recently, The Treasury Department announced plans to sell Our Citigroup stock AT A PROFIT. We bought shares to save the bank at $3.25. Those same shares are now worth $4.60. Maybe we bought shares, not so the government could take over the business, but to make money on after the business is saved and begins to recover.

Now if, in fact, the economy has begun to recover, it is time to hold the people/corporations that almost sunk Us accountable, as well as regulate them for the future. A revived Glass-Steagall Act might be a good start. I don't have the idealist, naive, idea that somehow legislation is going to change the fact that the United States of America is run by the rich. There will not be a maximum wage or profit for ceo's or corporations. I doubt We will break up the "big banks". Whatever financial reform law does pass in Congress and is signed by the President, it better give the Government of the People the power to at least keep a handle on these greed mongers. It looks like at least the Federal reserve will get audited. That's a good sign.

To Progress (One Step at a Time.)
David Calamoneri
Hoboken, NJ USA