Kevin Earl Dayhoff Art One-half Banana Stems

Kevin Earl Dayhoff Art One-half Banana Stems - www.kevindayhoff.com Address: PO Box 124, Westminster MD 21158 410-259-6403 kevindayhoff@gmail.com Runner, writer, artist, fire & police chaplain Mindless ramblings of a runner, journalist & artist: Travel, art, artists, authors, books, newspapers, media, writers and writing, journalists and journalism, reporters and reporting, technology, music, culture, opera... National & International politics www.kevindayhoff.net For community: www.kevindayhoff.org For art, technology, writing, & travel: www.kevindayhoff.com

Showing posts with label Politics Civility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics Civility. Show all posts

Monday, April 24, 2017

I am so tired of hearing about politics. Make it stop


I am so tired of hearing about politics. Make it stop. Make it stop.

http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/2017/04/i-am-so-tired-of-hearing-about-politics.html
++++++++++++
Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoff.com/
New Bedford Herald: http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/


Scribd Kevin Dayhoff: http://www.scribd.com/kdayhoff
Kevin Dayhoff's YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/kevindayhoff

Kevin Dayhoff Banana Stems: http://kevindayhoff.tumblr.com/ 

Google profile: https://profiles.google.com/kevindayhoff/ 


Kevin Earl Dayhoff Art www.kevindayhoff.com: Travel, art, artists, authors, books, newspapers, media, writers and writing, journalists and journalism, reporters and reporting, music, culture, opera... Ad maiorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem. “Deadline U.S.A.” 1952. Ed Hutcheson: “That's the press, baby. The press! And there's nothing you can do about it. Nothing!” - See more at: http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/#sthash.4HNLwtfd.dpuf

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s Floor Statement on the partisan Financial Rescue Legislation moments before it was voted down


Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s Floor Statement on the partisan Financial Rescue Legislation moments before it was voted down

September 29, 2008


Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It’s a staggering figure. And many questions have arisen from that request. And we have been hearing, I think, a very informed debate on all sides — of — of this issue here today. I’m proud of the debate.

$700 billion. A staggering number. But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton’s surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies, within two years, he had turned that around.

And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free market advocates, when it’s really an anything goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the taxpayer will bail you out.

Those days are over. The party is over in that respect. Democrats believe in a free market. We know that it can create jobs, it can create wealth, it can create many good things in our economy. But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos.

And it is that chaos that the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Fed came to see us just about a week and a half ago — seems like an eternity, doesn’t it, so much has happened, the news was so bad. They described a very, very dismal situation. A dismal situation describing the state of our economy, the fragility of our financial institutions and the instability of our markets, our equity markets, our credit markets, our bond market.

And here we were listening to people who knew of what they spoke. Secretary of the Treasury brings long credentials and knowledge of the markets. More fearful, though, to me, more scary, was the statement — were the statements of Chairman Bernanke [Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve], because Chairman Bernanke is probably one of the foremost authorities in America on the subject of the Great Depression. I don’t know what was so great about the Depression, but that’s the name they give it. And we heard the secretary and the chairman tell us that this was a once in a hundred year phenomenon, this fiscal crisis was so drastic. Certainly once in 50 years, probably once in a hundred years.

And how did it sneak up on us? So silently, almost on little cat feet. That they would come in on that day — and they didn’t actually ask for the money, that much money that night. It took two days until we saw the legislation that they were proposing to help calm the markets. And it was on that day that we learned of a $700 billion request.

But it wasn’t just the money that was alarming. It was the nature of the legislation. It gave the secretary of the Treasury czar-like powers, unlimited powers, latitude to do all kinds of things and specifically prohibited judicial review or review of any other federal administrative agency to review their actions.

Another aspect of it that was alarming is it gave the secretary the power to use any money that came back from these infusions of cash to be used at the discretion of the secretary. Not to reduce the deficit, not to go into the general funds so that we could afford other priorities. To be used at the discretion of the secretary. It was shocking. Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to make major improvements on that proposal, even though its fundamental basis was almost arrogant and insulting.

The American people responded almost immediately. Overwhelmingly, they said they know that something needs to be done. Say 78 percent of the American people said Congress must act. Fifty-eight-some percent said, but not to accept the Bush proposal. And so here we are today, a week later and a couple of days later, coming to the floor with a product — not a bill that I would have written, one that has major disappointments with me, beginning with the fact that it does not have bankruptcy in this bill — and we will continue to persist and work to achieve that.

It’s interesting, though, to me that when they describe this, the magnitude of the challenge and the precipice that we were on and how we had to act quickly and we had to act boldly and we had to act now, that it never occurred to them that the consequences of this market were being felt well in advance by the American people. And unemployment is up, and therefore we need unemployment insurance. That jobs are lacking, and therefore we need a stimulus package. So how can on the one hand could this be so urgent at the moment, and yet so unnecessary for us to address the effects of this poor economy in the households of America across our country?

We’ll come back to that in a moment. Working together, we put together some standards — and I am really proud of what Barney Frank did in this regard. The first night, that night, that Thursday night, when we got the very, very dismal news, he immediately said, if we’re going to do this — and Spencer Bachus was a part of this as well — in terms of if we’re going to do this, we must have equity for the American people. We’re putting up $700 billion, we want the American people to get some of the upside. So equity, fairness for the American people.

Secondly, if they were describing the root of the problem as the mortgage-backed securities, Barney insisted that we would have forbearance on foreclosure. If we’re now going to own that paper, that we would then have forbearance to help responsible homeowners stay in their home.

In addition to that, we have to have strong, strong oversight. We didn’t even have to see the $700 billion or the full extent of their bill to know that we needed equity and upside for the taxpayer, forbearance for the homeowner, oversight of the government on what they were doing, and something that the American people understand full well, an end to the golden parachutes and the — a — review and reform of the compensation for C.E.O.’s.

Let’s get this straight. We have a situation where on Wall Street people are flying high, they are making unconscionable amounts of money. They make a lot of money, they privatize the gain, the minute things go tough, they nationalize the risk. They get a golden parachute as they drive their firm into the ground, and the American people have to pick up the tab. Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

So just on first blush, that Thursday night, we made it clear, meeting much resistance on the part of the administration, that those four things, equity, forbearance, oversight, and reform of compensation. Overriding all of this is a protection of the taxpayer. We need to stabilize the markets. In doing so, we need to protect the taxpayers.

And that’s why I’m so glad that this bill contains a suggestion made by Mr. Tanner [Representative John Tanner, Democrat of Tennessee] that if at the end of the day, say in five years, when we can take a review of the success or whatever of this initiative, that if there is a shortfall and we don’t get our whole $700 billion back that we have invested, that there will be an initiative to have the financial institutions that benefited from this program to make up that shortfall.

But not one penny of this should be carried by the American people. People asked, and Mr. Spratt [Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina] spoke with great knowledge and eloquence on the budget and aspects of the budget. $700 billion, what is the impact, what is the opportunity cost for our country of the investments that we would want to make?

O.K., now we have it in place where the taxpayer is going to be made whole and that was very important for us. But why on the drop of a hat can they ask us for $700 billion, and we couldn’t get any support from the administration on a stimulus package that would also help grow the economy?

People tell me all over the world that the biggest emerging market, economic market in the world, is rebuilding the infrastructure of America. Roads, bridges, waterways, water systems in addition to waterways. The grid, broadband, schools, housing, certain schools. We are trillions of dollars in deficit there.

We know what we need to do to do it in a fiscally sound way, in a fiscally sound way that creates good-paying jobs in America immediately. Brings money into the treasury by doing so, and again does all of this in an all-American way. Good-paying jobs here in America.

We can’t get the time of day for 25, $35 billion for that, which we know guarantees jobs, et cetera, but $700 billion. So make no mistake, when this Congress adjourns today to observe Rosh Hashanah and have members go home for a bit, we are doing so at the call of the chair. Because this subject is not over, this discussion about how we save our economy.

And we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street. And as Congresswoman Waters [Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California] said, Martin Luther King Drive, in my district Martin Luther King Drive, and Cedar Chavez Road and all of the manifestations of community and small businesses in our community. We must insulate them from that. And so we have difficult choices, and so many of the things that were said on both sides of this issue in terms of its criticisms of the bill we have and the bill that we had at first, and the very size of this, I share. You want to go home, so I’m not going to list all of my concerns that I have with it.

But it just comes down to one simple thing. They have described a precipice. We are on the brink of doing something that might pull us back from that precipice. I think we have a responsibility. We have worked in a bipartisan way. I want to acknowledge Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, the work that we have done together, trying to find as much common ground as possible on this.

But we insisted the taxpayer be covered. We all insisted that we have a party-is-over message to Wall Street. And we insisted that, that taxpayers at risk must recover — that any risk must be recovered. I told you that already. So, my colleagues, let’s recognize that this Congressional — this legislation is not the end of the line.

Mr. Waxman [Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California] will be having vigorous oversight this week, hearings this week on regulatory reform and other aspects of it. I hope you will pursue fraud and mismanagement and the rest. Mr. Frank and his committee will continue to pursue other avenues that we can stabilize the markets and protect the taxpayer. For too long, this government, in eight years, has followed a right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation.

Again, all of us are believers in free markets, but we have to do it right. Now, let me again acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Mr. Frank. He has been an exceptional leader in the Congress, but never has his knowledge and his experience and his judgment been more needed than now. And I thank you, Mr. Frank, for your exceptional leadership, Mr. Chairman.

I also — so many people worked on this, but I also want to acknowledge the distinguished chair of our caucus, Mr. Emanuel. His knowledge of the markets, the respect he commands on those subjects, and his boundless energy on the subjects served us well in these negotiations. But this, this is a bipartisan initiative that we are bringing to the floor. We have to have a bipartisan vote on this. That is the only message that will send a message of confidence to the markets.

So I hope that — I know that we will be able to live up to our side of the bargain. I hope the Republicans will, too.

But my colleagues, as you go home and see your families and observe the holiday and the rest, don’t get settled in too far, because as long as the American — this challenge is there for the American people, the threat of losing their jobs, the credit, their credit, their jobs, their savings, their retirement, the opportunity for them to send their children to college.

As long as in the households of America, this crisis is being felt very immediately and being addressed at a different level, we must come back, and we will come back as soon and as often as it is necessary to make the change that is necessary. And before long we will have a new Congress, a new president of the United States, and we will be able to take our country in a new direction.


####
20080929 Pelosi Fl St on Bipartisan Fin Rescue Leg

20080929 Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s Floor Statement on the partisan Financial Rescue Legislation moments before it was voted down

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

20080318 In Carroll County - I’d rather watch it all happen on TV

In Carroll County - I’d rather watch it all happen on TV

March 18, 2008

Recently there has been a push to televise all local government meetings in Carroll County.

And then - last week the story broke that (now former) New York governor Eliot “Mr. Clean” Spitzer, otherwise known as “love client no. 9,” had violated his marriage vows and broken a number of laws by taking “acting lessons” with an “aspiring-singer.”

There is a relationship between the two events and issues. Bear with me and I’ll attempt to make my point…

Governor Spitzer mercifully resigned on March 12 and ended a sensational 48 hours of salacious melodrama of position, power, greed, and human failings.

The ironies abound in this tragedy.

In his previous job as attorney general of New York, he had gained a reputation as a ruthless boar in his relentless crusade against wrongdoing on the part of Wall Street.

To further his own political ambitions, he made it great sport to ruin the reputations of Wall Street executives.

He often used the very same laws that in the end brought about his own demise.

However, anecdotal accounts indicate his unpleasant approaches were not centered on bad folks. He was, by many accounts, an equal opportunity misanthrope, often treating foes and colleagues with equal disdain.

Once he took over the governor’s office he quickly proceeded in going back on as many of his campaign promises as possible and fought with everyone – on both sides of the political aisle.

He raised taxes, added to the state’s payroll, and increased spending by 7 percent. In the paradox of contemporary taxation policy, the more New York raised taxes, the larger the state deficit grew. New York residents and businesses fled the state in astronomical numbers - and as he leaves office, he leaves behind a huge budget deficit and $2 billion in tax proposals.

One of the many golden rules of life is always treat people well when you’re on your way up because you never know when you’re coming down.

In the end, as Governor Spitzer faced a life-altering crisis, he was completely alone with no friends.

I often wonder about this “human” aspect of community leadership when I attend – or watch public hearings on the local Carroll County public access Channel 24 and witness the incivility and hypocrisy.

Locally a leadership void continues to persist. And one wonders why.

Many folks feel disenfranchised and alienated because there are too many “Spitzers” in office, locally, in Annapolis, and nationally, who aren’t doing their job and aren’t honest with us.

Then again, in today’s political environment, why would anyone want to leave the comfort of their families – their jobs, to take on leadership positions in the community where personal attacks and character assassination is a blood sport for those who may disagree with certain decisions?

And astonishingly those who are the most unpleasant are the ones who want others to respect their point of view and have an opportunity to be heard.

Recently there has been a push to televise all local government meetings in Carroll County.

A position I whole-heartedly support because personally attending these meetings is so incredibly unpleasant; why would anyone want to go?

They’re hard enough to watch on television, but at least when we watch them on TV, we can change the channel – or leave the room.

In recent memory I have had a number of folks tell me that they never gave much thought to this or that pressing issue of the day. But after having seen and heard the folks who are against it - - they’re for it.

A case in point is the fella who asked for my position on the airport… I shared with him that both sides have good points – that ought to be heard…

That in the end, the commissioners need to decide what is going to be best the greatest majority of Carroll Countians… That the commissioners are obviously not going to make everyone happy with this issue. There is no silver bullet or win-win.

He told me that he never thought much about expanding the airport until he saw the folks who are against it in action and now he wholeheartedly supports expanding the airport. Hmmm.

And recently in Carroll County; in an interesting twist, some of the folks who have been privately (and publicly) the most unpleasant are now publically claiming they are being bullied and pleading for civility.

I’d rather watch it all happen on TV.

####

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

www.kevindayhoff.net http://www.youtube.com/kevindayhoff http://www.livejournal.com/

E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr.org or kevindayhoff AT gmail.com

His columns and articles appear in The Tentacle - www.thetentacle.com; Westminster Eagle Opinion; www.thewestminstereagle.com, Winchester Report and The Sunday Carroll Eagle – in the Sunday Carroll County section of the Baltimore Sun. Get Westminster Eagle RSS Feed

“When I stop working the rest of the day is posthumous. I'm only really alive when I'm writing.” Tennessee Williams

NBH

20080318 In Carroll County - I’d rather watch it all happen on TV

Monday, June 11, 2007

20070606 “Haughty and nice” by Kelly McCormack “The Hill”

Haughty and nice

By Kelly McCormack The Hill

Posted January 11th, 2007

I have found myself reading and re-reading this piece from The Hill – from last week. I just found it to be an interesting glimpse into the day-to-day interpersonal relationships of Capitol Hill.

As any of us who have served in elected office are aware – staff can make or break ya. And I have been on both ends of that paradigm.

The rule is that you accumulate enemies by just “being,” so don’t make any.

It also gave a glimpse at some aspects of intergenerational studies…

Always – ALWAYS be good to staff…

Haughty and nice

By Kelly McCormack

June 06, 2007

Though most interns are young, work for free and have grand ambitions to learn the ins and outs of Congress, they tend to be the most bothersome to service-sector employees on and around Capitol Hill.

They don’t tip well, ask annoying questions and tend to be the rudest people in the nation’s capital, many employees say.

[…]

The employee, who has worked on the Hill for more than 20 years, said she has “plenty” of favorite lawmakers. “They treat us just like their staff,” she remarked.

The cashier said interns were the worst-behaved in the cafeteria. “They don’t really know” how to act, she said.

[…]

“Members are not rude at all. I’ve never met a rude member,” the employee, who has been working on the Hill for 17 years, said. Specifically, she said, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) is very friendly: “That’s my girl.”

Interns are typically the rudest, not regular staff, the employee concurred.

She said her pet peeve is when interns point at food items and rudely inquire about them, though she noted that she has an old-fashioned standard for politeness that some young people do not abide by.

[…]

He said he regularly deals with staff members, many of whom are very friendly. Clyburn and Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) are exceptionally nice, he said.

Read the entire article here: Haughty and nice

####

Friday, June 16, 2006

20060615 KDDC The secret life of secret meetings

The secret life of the secretive nature of closed and open meetings

March 16th, 2006 / June 15, 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

I first began writing this several months ago when issues over “secret meetings” arose in Mt. Airy. It is my view that suggestions that “secret” meetings were taking place were really all about folks disagreeing with the decisions of other community leaders. To charge an elected official with making decisions “secretly” is an attention grabber as this has become a “cause de jour.”

The issue is being brought up again, as some of the very same folks who recklessly engaged in character assassination and accusations that previous elected officials held “secret” meetings are now conducting themselves in a similar manner.

The issue as to whether or not “secret” meetings took place is one matter.

But more importantly, is the matter of why is it that such meetings and methodologies of approach were unacceptable before and now they are. There’s the rub.

When charges of “secret” meetings are bantered about frivolously, it trivializes what is otherwise a very serious issue and does a disservice to citizens.

Making decisions with the utmost of transparency in today’s government is a must. No longer is the paradigm of “Madisonian” representative government, where elected officials are chosen to make decisions for the folks they serve, appropriate.

In today’s’ world of 365/24/7 news and information dissemination, citizens often know as much about the complex issues as the elected officials and constituents these days, often as not, want a say in the decisions and have “hired” elected officials to implement those collective decisions.

It is called “Jeffersonian participatory government” and this columnist happens to feel that it is a better form of government.

Ultimately, as I will touch upon further down in this piece, the hypocrisy of the folks making the claims of “secret” meetings is rancid. The very folks repeating the accusation as often as possible, in an attempt to “make” the charges appear to be true, are smart enough to file a complaint with the “Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.”

Nevertheless, all of this has a deleterious affect on the quality of government.

The manner in which public officials are treated in today’s slash-and-burn, win at any costs public dialogue continues to fathom new depths.

Why would anyone want to do the job? How many, otherwise capable and competent community leaders, have said to friends, family and colleagues – “you have to be nuts to be an elected official these days.”

If, we as a collective society continue to treat well meaning folks, who leave the comfortable cocoon of their private lives, to take the office of a locally elected official at, perhaps, 75 cents per hour, and all the abuse you can stand; then we are only going to have nuts seek the positions.

Instead of a conversation about what is in the best interests of the greater number of citizens and what can bring us together, the discourse has deteriorated into a series of reactionary conversations and ugly character assassinations; often involving unpleasant public hearings, uninformed, if not childish conspiracy theories, political spinelessness and personal attacks.

One of the latest in a series of personal attacks is where otherwise honorable citizens have been tried and convicted by innuendo in various local publications, for holding “secret” meetings or not bargaining with their constituencies in good faith. Simply because they may have a different approach to what they feel is the best path to the future for Carroll County.

This may work for the uninformed masses, however, the approach is being used by folks who otherwise, should know the law better and should set a better standard for public conversations.

Point of order: in the State of Maryland, a meeting is either “open” or “closed.” The terms “open meeting” or “closed meeting” are legislated terms, governed by state law.

Just as there is no such thing as being partially pregnant, there is no such thing as deliberations being held by decision-making elected or appointed officials in a “secretive nature.” Unless, that is, the term “secretive nature” is being used in an attempt to recklessly accuse persons of wrong doing, by manipulating public opinion.

In actuality, that level of conversation is really much more appropriate for an idle and often uninformed chatter in a local bar and not quite the standard of what we would like to expect from community leaders in a position to mold and shape public policy.

If indeed, the decisions were made in a “secretive nature,” the proper term for that is “illegal nature.”

If there is any question as to whether or not meetings were held inconsistent with Maryland State law, the issue can be brought before the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board. The final arbiter of such matters is the compliance board, not a columnist, politician with an axe to grind or an editorial board with an agenda. In situations where individuals disagree with a decision of the compliance board, the matter can be determined in court.

For additional information, the Web site for the Maryland Office of the Attorney general has excellent information available under “Open Government.” The web address is: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/index.htm.

Instead of suggesting that a public body has violated the law and manipulating a trial in the court of public opinion, take the matter to the Open Meetings Compliance Board Complaint and get a formal determination or otherwise, forever hold your peace.

The procedures for asking the compliance board to make a determination if there has, indeed, been a violation of the law, can be found at: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/complaint.htm.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

####