Finally a solution for Harry's "little" problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w8ik7QoQdw

FireDogLake had a YouTube clip up yesterday(?) of Paul Krugman speaking at Google. It was supposed to be part of his book promotion tour but became an impromptu discussion of the current investment crisis.

It prompted me again to wonder how stable our political economy is? For now, many Americans are coasting along. Worried about the economy, assuredly - it's near the top of voter concerns, but largely unremarked by the the Democrat presidential front runners. But, as long as the majority is reasonably reassured that tomorrow will look much like today, I caution myself not to get too optimistic about a voter revolt.

Krugman tried to compare the current crisis to previous crises but acknowledged that there is no good precedent to examine for how we get out of this one. There are two data points that Krugman considered that are worth pondering as we wonder what it will take for many voters to wake up to the threats we face.

*Home values may fall 30% before before the trend in decline reverses itself. It could take 6 - 7 years for that to happen.

*Krugman fears up to 40% of current homeowners may be caught in the current subprime mess which is actually more encompassing than that tag suggests - what Atrios has, perhaps, more accurately labeled the Big Shitpile.

In the meantime, the jingle mail has begun in concert with the season. Jingle mail is where homeowners whose mortgages are bigger than their houses are worth are starting to walk away from their houses, even if they could afford the mortgage payments by mailing the keys back to their creditor.

And, the full effects of the mortgage aspect of the big shitpile won't be fully known until the wave of March interest rate resets. This mess has the potential to wake up a lot of people, but I expect it will fully displace any concerns people have about warrantless wiretaps, rendition, torture, or telecom immunity. Hillary continues to posture with respect to Iran, and Obama has spoken of including Republicans in his cabinet. I sometimes think I must be psychotic to apprehend the reality I think I see. And, the press, fully complicit, performs their stenography with all due diligence on behalf of the current administration.

I think I need a change in meds.

[70 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XhvG_fD0HA]

is not going to happen. If I did the math right - assuming 300,000,000 Americans, and that each person's data mine only counts once over the time since Jan. 21, 2001 (not each day, month, 45 day authorization period, whatever), $10000 penalty per each, 5 years in jail per each = $1.5 Trillion and 1 billion man years in prison. It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

So. Rather than offer immunity/pardon (ya nevah done the wrong, so ya nevah has to sing the song) or amnesty (you did the crime, but you don't have to do the time because all is forgiven and we will never look into past crimes), I think partially commuting the sentence after we find out what exactly went on is the appropriate way to go. Don't commute the sentence to nil, reduce it in proportion to a) helpfulness in in documenting the taps for evidence b) submission to future oversight (we had FISA on the books, they knew it, so they blew the deregulation of the industry), c) this would be a good time for Bushco, since they care so much about the telecoms, to give their own parole on a lot of subjects - no more torture - no more renditions - no more loss of Habeas Corpus - - - you fill in the blank. Of course we would need over sight of all those because - this is Bushco, with written policy regarding violations and acceptable remedies so 'classified actions' do not inherently mean 'they-can-get-away-with-it-because-Congress-can-do-nothing.' Anyway, happy horse trading.

Why are Senators Obama and Clinton, who could have stood side-by-side with Dodd, being given a virtual pass?

What are Obama and Clinton planning to do (not what are they planning to say) when the bill comes up in January? Is Edwards making this issue a cornerstone of his campaign as a prime example of out-of-control corporations and big government?

Have I missed all the questions from the press and even all the references in these letters to Obama (I saw one) and to Clinton and Edwards?

Note this absolutely crucial exchange in Monday's debate [not Tuesday's as I said in my preceding comment - Tuesday was the sickening Iraq Oil Colony "debate" and vote], just after the successful cloture vote negated Dodd's FISA Immunity hold, when Reid proceeded against it contrary to Senate precedent [knowing he had enough Democrats to side with Republicans to mow Dodd down; if Reid is actually on Dodd's side as he tries to claim, and controls his own caucus, that wouldn't have been the case].

The intervention of Kit Bond may have waved enough of a red flag for Dodd to say exactly what he needed to, on a moment's notice, in order to preserve his ability to delay the Senate's business on FISA. In spite of all of the wiles of Harry Reid working hand-in-glove with Republicans and the many unprincipled Democrats, behind Dodd's back (bracketed comments are mine):

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, did I hear the majority leader ask unanimous consent that votes [for amendments to the Rockefeller/Cheney FISA Immunity bill] would have a 60-vote requirement?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I did not ask that. I indicated I thought we should understand that would be the end result.

I ask unanimous consent that all votes in relation to the bill that is now before the Senate--the FISA legislation--require 60 votes, except for final passage [why not for final passage, too, Mr. Reid...???].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is there a rule in the Senate that requires this?

Mr. REID. It is by unanimous consent on this bill. It is a very controversial bill. I think there would not be the votes, for example, on the immunity aspect; I am confident there are people who would require 60 votes. In an effort to cut through a lot of the talk here, we would try to set up a time that we would vote on this as the first amendment out of the box; and on the other amendments, until further notice and agreement among Senators, we would have a 60-vote margin.

Mr. DODD. Let me say this, further reserving the right to object, I will respectfully object at this time, and I will talk with the leader about that necessity. I don't want to set the precedent of insisting on 60 votes on a germane amendment. I will object at this point, and following that, the leader can make the request again.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend has every right to object. It is quite obvious that this is required because Members will simply filibuster. They have told me so. If we are talking about something as sensitive as immunity, retroactive immunity, and prospective immunity, it is going to take 60 votes. The rules don't require that, we know that, but the rules do require 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object to any measure coming up that does not have a 60-vote requirement. We conditioned our approval to bring up these amendments on agreeing to 60 votes; otherwise, we will use the prerogatives of the Senate.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand the 60-vote majority, but I have a germane amendment that strikes a provision in the bill. I understand the rules. When something is nongermane or violative of the rules of the Senate and you want to waive the rule, you have a supermajority requirement, but not on an amendment pertaining directly to the bill that strikes a section of it. I understand there is opposition to it, but having to reach a supermajority on an amendment that strikes something in the bill that is of significant disagreement seems to be excessive at this point.

This is an important piece of legislation, and the Judiciary Committee voted differently than the Intelligence Committee on this matter. We feel strongly about this. If I were offering something that is violative of the Senate rules, I would accept a supermajority. But to establish the precedent here that any amendment to be offered to this bill will be subjected to a supermajority vote I think is too excessive. That is my concern. Tell me I am wrong about that, that I am violating the rules of the Senate, and I will accept that. But if we are establishing that simply on any amendment that is different, I think that is a direction in which we should not go.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, on the immunity issue--we have a lot of matters here. We have had 60-vote margins all year, including on the war in Iraq. The Senator is right that there is no requirement that there be 60 votes. But there is a requirement that if somebody talks and keeps talking, there won't be a vote. So the Senator can offer his amendment, but, as we have heard from people on both sides of the aisle, there won't be a vote taking place on his amendment--50 votes or 55 votes or 60 votes.

I thought it would be in the interest of the body to cut to the chase [and get the Rockefeller FISA bill passed...] and say on this and other matters--this is a very controversial issue. We don't have time to have a lot of cloture votes on different amendments. So it seems to me that it is in the best interest of everybody that that is the agreement. The [Kit Bond] suggestion made [for 60 votes without any filibusters or delays to 'ripen' cloture motions and run the 30-hour post-cloture clock] is a good one.

Despite agreeing with the Senator from Connecticut as to this issue [but not enough to support him or follow Senate precedent to block the Rockefeller bill...], it doesn't mean he and I are right. Certainly, by the unanimous consent request, there is no precedent set in the Senate. It is on a case-by-case basis.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S15727&position=all