A Chicago Blog

I don’t think government should be telling companies how much to pay their CEOs. But if taxpayer dollars are the companies bad asset, then all bets are off. Looking through the Senate Bailout Bill, the provision governing CEO pay was completely inscrutable. I can’t tell if there are any real restrictions or only the authorization for teh Sec. of Treasury to apply such restrictions. But I found the definition of “applicable employer” pretty interesting:

“IN GENERAL.–Except as provided in clause (ii), the term `applicable employer’ means any employer from whom 1 or more troubled assets are acquired under a program established by the Secretary under section 101(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 if the aggregate amount of the assets so acquired for all taxable years exceeds $300,000,000.”

I was watching a Cubs game, so I don’t how different this bill is than the one passed in the House, but here is the roll call for the Senate Bailout Bill:

Grouped By Vote Position:

Last night’s game may have been one of the worst Cubs games I’ve seen all season. They had the leadoff hitter on only once and then couldn’t get him in. The top part of the order–Soriano, Fukudome, Lee and Ramirez–looked lost. The fans weren’t having fun even before the first pitch. The tension was palpable.

I think they are trying to hard to be relaxed and patient and instead just look dead. Soriano took first pitch strikes on almost every at bat. Then he’d swing at two in the dirt. If I were Lou I’d order him to swing a the first pitch of the ball game.

Or maybe Lou is going to have to get thrown out or something to get every body fired up.

To be sure, whoever cut together this video was pushing a perspective on the credit crisis, one Democrats would likely quibble with. Nevertheless, this video show Dems were oblivious to the instability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their defensiveness would indicate that perhaps they were willfully so.

Hat tip: Gateway pundit.

Only about an hour now until game time. I just heard sirens in the streets below the office where I work; is the chaos starting already? I am going to try and live-blog some of the game so check back here.

So this is interesting. The video I posted yesterday, from YouTube, of children singing “Yes We Can” for Obama was removed from the site overnight. Luckily, I was able to find the video on Blip.TV and have reposted it.I was wondering whether or not the Obama campaign itself had requested the video be removed. After all, it is likely that the producers of the video independently decided to remove the video.

But now I’ve stumbled across a post at my.barackobama.com that has apparently been removed from the site and is only available in the Google cache (the original link returns an error). I’ve included the picture here, just in case the people at Google decide to do Obama a favor.

I don’t blame Obama for removing this video and posts linking to it, but it raises questions about whether Obama is committed to a new, open style of politics. Removing material from the internet is usually considered bad form. And if material is removed, then some explanation needs to be given. I have on occaision removed material from this blog, but I have given an explanation first. If not, I deserve to be criticized.

I don’t want to make this into a bigger deal than it really is. No votes should hinge on this video. But we should be honest and equitable in our criticism of politicians.

Update: Since posting this yesterday, the video in question was curiously removed from YouTube. Why we don’t know yet. But lucky the internet is a place where you can find just about anything if you look hard enough.

Wow! That’s all I can say. Wow. And how does this elevate the political discussion? Oh, that’s right it’s all for “for the children.”

I think the Cubs have what it will take to beat the Dodgers. But Manny scares me. Here’s his scouting report, from Chicago Tribune. Notice that he MURDERS fast balls from lefties and changeups from anyone.

From Hot Air:

George Bush made a statement today about the failure of the House to pass the agreement that leaders of both parties hammered out over the weekend.  He acknowledged the difficulty of the vote, but underscored the difficulty of the situation and the need to address it quickly.  The drop in the stock market yesterday represented a less of $1 trillion dollars, and the cost to taxpayers would be much less — and perhaps nothing at all, if the assets can recover their value over time.

The consequences of delay will make this problem worse, and Bush said he will press Congress for action when they return.  “Our economy is depending on decisive action by the government,” Bush warned, and continued inaction will send a very bad message to global markets.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich and others have been doing the rounds on TV News pushing an immediate repeal of Mark-to-Market, which they argue is a big contributor to the crisis. According to Gingrich:

Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market. This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.

“Mark-to-Market” Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as “fair value” accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don’t just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities. As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.

I’m still waiting for the collapse of the American economy in the wake of yesterday’s bailout debacle. I awoke this morning, the stores were still open. They were still selling gas in my neighborhood. Hmm.