Blog Entries Moved

I set up the Dallas Coffee Blog and an @dallascoffee twitter feed to gin up interest in the Dallas Coffee Party, which had a thousand FB members but only six attendees at the last meeting. I believed - and hoped - that if a local person wrote original content and tweeted other content of interest, more people might feel a connection and feel inclined to actively participate. But even though I've cross-posted all the blog entries here and my @dallascoffee tweets to the FB DCP page, it's obvious that what I hoped is not meant to be. I gave it a shot, but nobody was interested. Since I already write a blog that nobody reads, I'm not inclined to write two blogs that nobody reads. As such, I've moved all the blog entries from Dallas Coffee Party to my personal Toe in the Water blog.

If you're one of the very few people who have read this blog, please join me at Toe in the Water, which I guess is going to become quite a bit more political.

Financial Reform...It's Complicated

The national Coffee Party page on Facebook this morning reports on an amendment Senator Christopher Dodd is trying to attach to the Financial Regulation bill that would remove the derivatives spin-off portion requiring that the largest banks spin off their derivatives desks into regulated entities not guaranteed by taxpayers. He proposes to instead have the issue studied by a group of regulators whose members have "serious reservations about such a dramatic measure," and may try to kill it.

According to The Washington Post, it isn't just banks who are against the derivatives spin-off; regulators and officials in the Obama administration believe it "could drive the business into the shadows." Is this spin from Wallmerica or are those in agreement with Dodd's amendment correct in their assertion that the spin-off "would harm U.S. competitiveness or lead to less regulation of the derivatives market, valued at half a quadrillion dollars"?

The Coffee Party has taken a stand against the Dodd amendment and asks that you consider using a letter from Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) that you'll find below as a template for those interested in writing your senators. If instead of a letter or email you wish to call your senator, please consider using the bullet points contained in the following when contacting the U.S. Capital Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Given that we live in a global economy, I thought I'd share what the European Union is doing about derivatives. According to an AP article on Yahoo News, new rules will increase oversight and set fines for manipulating trades. The European market for "largely unregulated" derivatives is worth $600 trillion. Key to the new rules is the registration of "all products and trading" so that regulators can access the derivatives...and the investors behind them because, "These people don't like coming out in the light so we are going to flood them with light," said EU Financial Services Commissioner Michel Barnier.

But back to the American market for the moment, and the AFR letter...

Dear Senator,

The over 250 consumer, employee, investor, community and civil rights groups who are members of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) write to express strong support for Section 716 (“Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities”) and our opposition to the new Amendment #4110 to replace the provision with a study. The study would put the final decision over implementing this important new structural reform in the hands of regulators who have already publicly expressed their opposition to it.

The following are rebuttals to the primary arguments that have been advanced against Sec. 716:

Swaps Desks will Remain within the Bank Holding Company: Sen. Lincoln has clarified that the amendment would only separate derivatives desks from the core bank within the bank holding company – that is, the insured depository institution that has access to the Federal Reserve window. Moving these operations outside of the federally-protected core of the bank will only reduce the risk of future bailouts, still enabling the holding company to benefit from this lucrative business.

716 Will Not Lead to Weaker Regulation or Flight Overseas: Americans for Financial Reform is committed to bringing derivatives out of the shadows; we would not support a provision that weakened oversight of derivatives dealers. Under the derivatives title, any major swap participant will be subject to oversight and safeguards for capital adequacy, transparency, anti-fraud and anti-manipulation. In addition, the claim that the market will migrate overseas ignores the economic turmoil in Europe that was in large part exacerbated by unregulated derivatives activities.

Derivatives Dealing is Not the Usual Course of Banking: Some have argued that derivatives selling should remain within the core depository institutions because it is part of the “usual business of banking”. If that were the case, then why do only 5 out of America’s over 8,000 banks – the Wall Street banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – account for over 90 percent of this market? The “usual” banking businesses in the U.S., represented by the Independent Community Bankers Association of America, support Sec. 716.

Banks Can Still Use Derivatives to Hedge Their Risk Under 716: Separating swap dealing operations from the business of banking does not mean that banks will be unable to hedge their banking risks. They will be customers and trade on open exchanges and clearinghouses.

Purely speculative financial derivatives now represent $78 for every $1 in true hedging by businesses and farmers. By quarantining highly risky swaps trading from banking altogether, federally insured deposits will not be put at risk by toxic swaps transactions. Moreover, banks will be forced to behave like banks, focusing on extending credit in a manner that builds economic strength as opposed to fostering worldwide economic instability.

For these reasons, Americans for Financial Reform urges you to oppose Amendment #4110. Please contact Lisa Lindsley, Director, Capital Strategies, AFSCME, for more information.

Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform

~Laurie G

Stand Up...Or Stand Down

The rallying cry for the Coffee Party is "Wake Up and Stand Up. Yet there is so much negative hateful rhetoric floating around these days that otherwise intelligent people are afraid. Afraid that by standing up, we will incite the fringe folk into doing dangerous things. So afraid, in fact, that they believe we must instead stand down, and further, pull the covers over our heads.

Obviously this is not a view to which I subscribe. Appeasement is never the answer. It failed when the Europeans tried it in the 1930s, and can you imagine what this country would have looked like had Abraham Lincoln appeased the South...or allowed secession rather than standing up for our Constitution?

We live in a polarizing time, with two entrenched sides who often cede control to the fringes rather than creating a larger, more inclusive tent in the middle. And so at times we have left-wing Democrats who are willing to cut their noses off to spite their own faces, refusing to settle for incremental changes while at the same time right-wing Republicans turn obstructionist, resulting in grid-lock that causes them to move ever-farther to the right.

Judging by his actions, Barack Obama is a moderate president. And yet he provokes even more anti-government rhetoric than Bill Clinton - another moderate president - did. Many of Obama's stances were once also taken by Republican presidents Reagan, Nixon, or Bush (take your pick as to I or II).

Whenever I can't use logic to figure something out, I remember something I learned in graduate school: Follow the money. And that's where I think much of the dissension lies. The billions spent by the health care industry to prevent health care reform, the millions the financial industry is spending to prevent reform, and the money just pledged by AT&T to gain a stronger foothold in the fight against Net Neutrality...what do each of these three things have in common? The bottom line is the bottom line. Lots and lots of people and companies became very, very wealthy during the Clinton and Bush II years, and as time went on, most of the money rose to the top and consolidated among fewer and fewer.

Since Barack Obama won the presidential election of 2008 and the birthers started yammering, I began to well and truly believe that among those who have accumulated the greatest wealth are those who would do just about anything to keep it. It is in their interest to distract us, to make and keep us angry. The middle class may indeed be disappearing, but when considering the cause, ask yourself, who has the most to lose? If you have difficulty answering this question, consider that the top 1% own 42% of wealth in the U.S. The next 19% own an additional 50%, leaving the remaining 80% of us owning less than 10%. Even more astonishingly, of all the new financial wealth created since the Reagan presidency, nearly half of it went to the top 1%...nearly 95% went to the top 20%.

If you come to the same conclusion that I have - that money funds anti-reform movements as well as obsfucating the truth from those ignorant enough to search for it themselves - you will undoubtedly conclude that now is the precisely the time for us not to stand down. Now is the time for us to stand up, to make the voice of reason rise above the voices of anger and ignorance.

~Laurie G

What if You Gave a Coffee Party and Nobody Came?

Yes...I'm impatient. And because there are multiple admins on the Join the Coffee Party Movement, Dallas page on Facebook, as well as members posting, it's difficult for members to find some of what I'd like them to find. Namely, this blog and the @dallascoffee twitter feed I set up earlier in the week. Because right now I feel like I'm giving a coffee party by myself.

This morning I decided to get pro-active about it...even more proactive than actually setting up the blog, twitter feed, writing up blog entries and finding articles of interest to forward via the twitter feed. So I searched twitter using @coffeeparty as my search item and clicked the "follow" button for other Coffee Party feeds, and, in addition, some feeds that look like they focus -on the Coffee Party.

Here's problem one: When you follow another feed, all their tweets show up on it, which is why although @laurie_gold follows @dallascoffee, @dallascoffee does not follow @laurie_gold. If, in fact, the feeds I selected focus almost exclusively on Coffee Party matters, everything will be copesetic. If not, though, if there are as many non-topic tweets that exist in my personal feed, I'll need to unfollow, putting me back at square one. Unless, of course, the feeds I've picked up pick me up in return, which has happened...just once...today. Meaning that I am no longer the sole follower of @dallascoffee.

Although I've used twitter for quite a while now, tagging is new to me. My @laurie_gold tweets are meant for family, friends, acquaintances, and those involved with books, publishing, and the like. Today I realized if I find a way to condense my tweets even more so that I can fit in "#coffeeparty" within the allotted 140 characters, my @dallascoffee tweets will get picked up and read by others searching for tweets on the Coffee Party, which is what happened earlier when I tweeted a link to the NYT on financial reform.

Now, back to the Facebook page for a moment...and the multiple admins. As it stands, there is no distinguishing which admin posted to the page - until now. In learning how to handle my new Droid phone, I've gone back and forth between using Facebook's "full site" in non-mobile mode and the mobile app because I'm still learning the ins and outs of copying and pasting on various apps. Today I discovered that when I post to the Dallas Facebook page for the Coffee Party using the full-site method, my icon is the generic cup of coffee. But, when I post using the Droid app, my personal icon is what appears after I hit the "share" button.

That still leaves one issue hanging out there - the ability to change the default on the Dallas Coffee Party Facebook page so that the "Info" page rather than "Wall" is where visitors land. It seems to me that if we want to actually use the twitter feed and this blog to their utmost, we need to direct people here.

For instance, I'd love to properly publicize the showing at the Angelika on the 28th of the documentary film release Captain Jack and the United States of Money, to direct readers to the Facebook RSVP page. I'd love to use this blog not only to publicize events and meetings, but to use it as a forum to talk about issues in a unique way to promote discussion.

I'd like to continue posting articles like the two I wrote earlier in the week. I believe that by making connections others may not necessarily leap to, I can educate and inform without being pedantic or partisan. But if nobody's here to read the content, what, really, is the point? It becomes nothing but mental masturbation.

Facebook is a terrific and easy way to introduce a concept, but as a way to motivate and mobilize, so far I've been unable to tap its potential. If you can help me figure it out, please do, either by commenting here, or through an email up at Facebook. In the interim, for those looking for something substantive and tangible, here is an urgent notice from the national Coffee Party page on Facebook, followed by local Event Listings, their links, and some detail:

Join the Coffee Party Movement
URGENT: We have at least one more day to convince our senators to support the Merkley-Levin Amendment. Lobbying from the Big Banks are at a fever pitch in DC right now because this amendment spells real reform. It would ensure that American tax payers don't guarantee Wall St banks' risky bets and would stop banks from engaging in Goldman-Sachs-style bets against their own clients. Let's put (202) 224-3121 on speed dial and call: Klobuchar-MN, Nelson-NE, Brown-MA, Landrieu-LA, Lugar-IN, Corker-TN, Alexander-TN, Bayh-IN, Lugar-IN, Snowe-ME, Collins-ME, Hagan-NC, Warner-VA, Schumer-NY, Gillibrand-NY #coffeeparty

Captain Jack & the United States of Money A documentary about Jack Abramoff	5321 Mockingbird Ln. Dallas, TX 75206 Friday, May 28th from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm
Leadership Training For those interesting in hosting a Coffee Party event	Fish City on Henderson, Dallas, TX Saturday, May 22nd from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm

Help spread the word about these pertinent events and notices, make plans to participate somehow, and forward the link for this blog entry to other Dallas Coffee Party members.

~Laurie G

What Lies Beneath?

Today I read on the Huffington Post that according to USA TODAY, "Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency." Further, the newspaper reports that while personal income fell 2%, paid taxes dropped 23%, excluding Social Security. While it's true that spending has increased in order to help the country climb out of the recession, it's also true that among those polled by Gallup last month, those who believe taxes are too high are the same taxpayers whose taxes remain "near a 50-year low."

What lies beneath that sort of disconnect? Yesterday a YouTube video posted last September enjoyed a resurgence. The video, which features two candidates for Texas governor who belong to the secessionist movement, seem to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Indeed, what stuck in my mind as I watched it [again] was hearing Debra Medina announce, in response to shouts of "We hate the United States," that, "We are aware that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Hearing Thomas Jefferson's words come out of this woman's mouth sickened me.

It was my daughter who actually alerted me to the video. She very much objected to the video's title at YouTube - Texas Filled With Insane Christian Republican Terrorists - particularly because the link was provided by one of the the other Dallas Coffee Party Movement admins on our Facebook page, and a core value of the Coffee Party Movement is to eliminate the name-calling that passes for political discourse these days.

I agree that the video's title was unnecessarily incendiary; its contents make the case without resorting to name-calling. That said, those heard on the video are actively shouting their hatred of the United States, bastardized the words of the man who wrote our Declaration of Independence, and by doing so advocated the violent overthrow of our government.

When George Bush took office, the projected 10-year budget surplus he inherited became a deficit that ballooned as a result of tax cuts combined with increased spending, as well as two unfunded wars, one of which was supposed to pay for itself. Interestingly, the same individuals now calling for the blood of tyrants and patriots to water the tree of freedom, were not doing so until Barack Obama was elected president.

It seems to me that the vehemence directed against Obama's "socialist" government grew out of proposed health care reform. In March on my personal blog, I wrote that in the rest of the developed world, citizens share health care while in the U.S. it's something we horde. They see it as a basic human right while we see it as a privilege, even though nearly 2/3 of personal bankruptcies, historically, are a result of medical bills. Could it be that all the money the health care industry spent lobbying Congress and with advertising aimed at the public against reform were successful in convincing the same people who believe their taxes are too high that, as reported in Salon, "healthcare reform helped 'other people' and not themselves"?

I can't help but wonder whether "other" is coded language that feeds into the worst impulses of a certain segment of Americans, perhaps those who preach that "others" don't have "small-town values." Is what lies beneath...black?

~Laurie G

Corporate Fascism?

Earlier today a headline caught my eye on Larry Hardy's Facebook page. The summary read: As a nation, we have officially ventured down the rabbit hole of big corporate spending in political campaigns, as a Texas company recently placed the first campaign ad paid for solely by corporate profits. I clicked the link and read the full article at The Wonk Room.

Because blogs often mix opinion with straight reporting, I did a Google search to find additional reporting from newspapers and news magazines. There wasn't any that I could find. The second page of results that included blogs large and small, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, and Newser, among others, I found a link to a transcript from CNN dated April 26th; further investigation into the owner of the Texas company revealed a link to The Houston Chronicle.

Details from both cable network's transcripts and the Houston newspaper match what The Wonk Room blogger wrote about, which is that for the first time, a company's profits were used to pay for political ads - in this case, against incumbent Chuck Hopson, who holds the East Texas 11th seat in the State Legislature. The company, KDR, is a real estate business whose owner, Larry Durrett, also owns a franchise restaurant business. In 2006 Durrett ran, unsuccessfully, against Hopson.

Prior to the Supreme Court's January ruling in the Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission case, which overthrew a 63-year-old precedent, this would not have been allowed under Texas law. After the Court's 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizen's United, the Texas Election Commission sanctioned unlimited political spending by corporations...and unions. A March 27th editorial in the Chronicle indicates that such spending can't be coordinated with candidate campaigns, although "joint efforts would be difficult to prove." Further, the editorial noted that "The content of Durrett's ads are notably similar to campaign pieces by Hopson's opponents."

Although in this instance Hopson defeated Durrett, many legal scholars and political scientists are convinced that corporate influence, most often felt these days through lobbyists (a substantial chunk of the $3.47 billion spent lobbying Congress last year was against health care), will grow even stronger. According to the editorial, "In the brave new world of post-Citizens United, multi-million-dollar corporate media blitzes directed against opponents for either personal or political reasons could become the norm." What the Court decided in January moves us one step closer to what I consider corporate fascism. Mussolini's definition of fascism, FWIW, is a merger of State and corporate power. What do you think?

In response to the January decision, Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen, joined by Republican Mike Castle, introduced a bill that would, among other things, require CEO's to appear in political ads, and to inform company shareholders about political spending. If I've read correctly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes the Congressmen are over-reacting. What say you?

~Laurie G

Twitter Feed

@dallascoffee set up and Twitter widget added to the right column of this page. Please spread the word about the blog and the Twitter feed...feel free to use the "share this" links following each entry and the right column. Look for some substance Tuesday.

~Laurie G