U.S. banks that spent more money on lobbying were more likely to get government bailout money, according to a study released on Monday.
Banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive government bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the study from Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura, professors at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.
Banks with headquarters in the district of a U.S. House of Representatives member who serves on a committee or subcommittee relating to TARP also received more funds.
Political influence was most helpful for poorly performing banks, the study found.
I don't really understand these things, but if the poorly performing banks had kept their funds in reserves instead of spending it on lobbying, wouldn't they have done better... as functioning banks, I mean.
Depends on whether their return on the lobbying investment exceeded the return they would get on keeping the assets inhouse
Your question was a rhetorical one, right TW?
I'm a simple soul, and my lack of understanding of financial matters gives Mr. Wife many troubled moments. No doubt there are subtleties I'm missing.
"Political connections play an important role in a firm's access to capital," Sosyura, a University of Michigan assistant professor of finance, said in a statement.
Banks with an executive who sat on the board of a Federal Reserve Bank were 31 percent more likely to get bailouts through TARP's Capital Purchase Program, the study showed. Banks with ties to a finance committee member were 26 percent more likely to get capital purchase program funds.
As of late September, nearly 700 financial institutions had received bailouts of $205 billion under the capital purchase program, the study said.
The banking industry has long been criticized for using political influence to obtain bailouts.
Scott Talbott, a senior vice president with industry lobbying group The Financial Services Roundtable, said the study was skewed because it did not exclude nine of the largest banks that were "strongly asked" by the government to take bailouts.
Those banks included Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), and Morgan Stanley (MS.N) -- all of which repaid their bailouts in June.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I read a study (no idea where) recently that showed the return on 'investment' of money paid in campaign contributions, lobbyists and other political investment exceeded the rate of return on all other business investment.
WASHINGTON -- Democrats approved the second of three motions to close off debate on their health bill Tuesday and moved closer to passage on Christmas Eve, while Republicans highlighted their contention that the bill's requirement for buying insurance is unconstitutional. All 58 Democrats and two independents supported the motion to limit the debate, which is now in its fourth week, while 39 Republicans were against it.
The final motion to end debate is expected to win approval Wednesday, clearing the way for senators to vote on the bill itself at 8 a.m. Thursday, which is Christmas Eve. Immediately after that, the Senate is also planning to vote on House-passed legislation increasing the government's borrowing authority.
Convening on Christmas Eve would mark the 25th straight day of debate, bringing the Senate just short of the record for most consecutive days in session. That was set in the winter of 1917 in the run-up to U.S. entry into World War I, when the chamber met for 26 consecutive days.
"The finish line is in sight, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a chief architect of the Senate bill. "Now we know with certainty that we have the will to cross it."
To meet a pre-Christmas deadline for action set by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has pushed his colleagues -- even 92-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, the West Virgina Democrat -- through a grueling schedule this week, including votes at 1 a.m. Monday and 7 a.m. Tuesday.
With Senate Democrats showing their determination to move in lockstep, Republicans -- who contend that the sweeping bill would impose unreasonable burdens on taxpayers and businesses -- said they would continue fighting even after the House and Senate begin negotiations on a compromise version in January.
"This debate is not over," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "The American people are still going to have another month to weigh in."
Republicans are forcing the Senate to vote Wednesday on whether the Democrat-backed bill is unconstitutional. Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.) raised a point of order Tuesday against the bill, arguing that the Constitution doesn't give Congress latitude to force Americans to buy health coverage, as both the House and Senate bills do. "What's next?" Mr. Ensign said. "Will we consider legislation in the future requiring every American to buy a car? Will we consider legislation in the future requiring every American to buy a house?"
Mr. Ensign isn't expected to succeed. But the effort dramatizes a criticism raised by Republicans and conservative activists. Under the Senate and House bills, Americans who don't receive health coverage through their employers must buy insurance if they can afford it.
That is to say, if a government bureaucrat determines they ought to be able to afford it. Not at all the same thing.
The "individual mandate" is part of broader legislation designed to expand health-insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans. The bill offers tax subsidies to purchase insurance and widens eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health insurance to the poor.
Conservative critics contend that the provision violates the Constitution's "takings clause," which says "private property [cannot] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Democrats counter that the mandate is necessary to make the planned overhaul of the health-care system work, and ensure that as many people as possible participate in the system. Under the Senate bill, individuals who don't purchase coverage would face a financial penalty up to $750. Democrats say the courts have given Congress wide authority to impose rules under its powers to regulate interstate commerce.
"We feel very sound in our position," Mr. Reid said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
if it's Interstate Commerce then policies should have portability across state lines. The donks didn't put that in. These bastards should receive an earful during their holiday victory lap. I'm making sure mine do
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/23/2009 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This damned turkey is going to be shoved down our throats and we are supposed to like it. And this ruling bunch of elitists in Congress feels good about what they have done. We got rid of the king and royalty some 200+ years ago. Guess we will have to do it again.
Gov.-elect Chris Christie and his transition aides are compiling plans to slash New Jersey state spending and state programs by as much as 25 percent in response to the continuous flow of dim financial news from the New Jersey Treasury Department, according to an internal document obtained by The Star-Ledger.
Even before he takes office next month, his team is looking for programs that can be eliminated entirely and calling on state administrators to find untapped federal funds to cover whatever they possibly can.
"Absent strong action, revenues and expenditures will likely remain out of balance for the foreseeable future," according to a Dec. 18 memo from the state Office of Management and Budget to all cabinet members and agency directors.
The letter was dispatched "at the request of the governor-elect's transition team" and said the deadline for responses is Jan. 6, nearly two weeks before Christie is to be sworn in. Christie, a Republican, defeated Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in last month's election and has been critical of Corzine's spending practices and budget forecasts.
The latest cuts, aimed at closing a budget gap Christie estimates at $9.5 billion, would come on top of cuts ordered by Corzine to close a $1 billion hole in the current $29 billion budget. The governor has yet to reveal those plans but expects to do so before Christmas. Corzine has also frozen "discretionary" state aid to municipalities and arts groups, forcing them to scramble to pay bills.
Unlike the federal government, state law requires Trenton's spending and revenue to be in balance; deficits are not allowed.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Suggestions to make that 25 percent a start and not an end:
1) Eliminate defined benefit public pensions. Switch all to defined contributions plans. All employees without exception get switched to the new plans on Jan 1. That begins to fix your pension plan underfunding. This is one of the biggest drivers of state budgets, so fix it now.
2) Freeze all funds to public education at their current levels. Funding has been going up nationally by what, 8 to 10 percent a year? Are the schools 8 to 10 percent better each year? Didn't think so. Almost all of the increased funding goes into salaries for unionized school employees. I like teachers as much as anyone, but they're doing okay right now. Freeze funds and make the school boards live within their means.
3) Root out every state-level earmark; promise to veto all state legislation that has so much as a single earmark. Time for the legislators to get with it.
4) Freeze Medicaid at current levels. Yup, I'm in health care, but you have to freeze Medicaid at current levels. Most Medicaid money goes to nursing homes, not hospitals and doctors. That system needs cleaning up.
5) Freeze funding to prisons at current levels. Prison cells are a resource: they're expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate. Now's the time to go through the prisons and release the people who don't belong (just about anyone convicted of a non-violent crime). Then you can figure out how many prison cells you need for the violent offenders who really need to be put away forever. The non-violent ones get community service, lots and lots of community service.
6) No funding for any pet projects. Period. You want high-speed rail? Wait another generation. You want a new medical school? Wait another generation. You want to buy up land for a new state park? Wait another generation. Now's the time to hunker down.
7) Privatize as much of state administration as possible. Just because you need to offer a public service doesn't mean you need public servants to run it. Indiana spun off the administration of their DMV to IBM. Costs less, better service, people are happy (except the public employee unions).
That's where I'd go if I were Christie, in addition to any other cost savings he has in mind.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/23/2009 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What percentage of NJ voters are on the receiving end of state spending (direct or indirect)? Can't win elections by cutting or capping spending. Especially when most of the spending is set into contracts. Same story regardless of jurisdiction.
A new report on "Judicial Hellholes" arrives just in time, albeit indirectly, to remind Congress that no health-system changes can qualify as real "reform" if they don't include serious lawsuit reforms as well.
The annual report by the American Tort Reform Foundation, released Dec. 15, shows that President Obama's own Cook County, Ill., is the nation's third-worst place for lawsuit abuse. Maybe that helps explain why Obamacare, especially as translated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, discourages lawsuit reforms rather than promoting them.
For instance, the Pelosi bill punishes states if they implement the most effective tort reform of all, namely a cap (or limit) on the amount of "non-economic damages" such as ever-vague "pain and suffering" awards. It also has a section (257) that encourages even more speculative lawsuits that in turn drive up health insurance premiums.
These issues are important not just for health care, but for the overall economy. As the "Hellholes" report notes in its executive summary, "Not coincidentally, the local or state economies in many of these 'Hellholes' jurisdictions have suffered more than most during the latest recession." Conversely, doctor availability, health care outcomes and economic growth all directly followed constructive lawsuit reforms in places like Texas and Mississippi (although some counties in Mississippi remain lawsuit nightmares).
Even Alabama, long among the worst of the Hellholes and even now on the borderline Hellholes "Watch List," made noticeable economic strides earlier this decade that seemed to coincide exactly with the success of some moderate tort reforms.
In October 2008, the Department of Commerce released a report noting that lawsuit costs as a percentage of gross domestic product are two to three times higher in the United States than in other developed nations. This report cited several major studies that show variations on the theme that "European companies doing business in the United States rank 'fear of legal liability' among their top concerns."
On the other hand, when lawsuit reforms are instituted, the situation almost immediately becomes less damaging. The Manufacturers Alliance and the Manufacturing Institute report that after President George W. Bush signed into law the Class Action Fairness Act in February 2005, annual American business tort costs dropped nearly 8 percent in 2006. These sorts of things make a huge difference in whether American businesses are competitive or not and thus how many people they can hire and how many workers' health care they can subsidize.
All of that leads us back to the "Judicial Hellholes" report for 2009-10: It's well worth a read. It shows that if you live in South Florida, West Virginia, the aforementioned Cook County, Atlantic City, N.J., New Mexico or New York City, your abusive lawsuit system is probably hurting your economy. That's all the more reason for your congressional representatives to refuse to vote for any government health care proposals that, like the House version of Obamacare, make lawsuit abuse even worse.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At least in many jurisdictions, you are not allowed to recover your legal costs as 'damages' if you win your lawsuit - they come out of your 'winnings'. 'Pain & suffering' tends to be the way the system compensates - you get your actual damages plus enough P & S to cover the lawyers' cut. Or most of it.
Two prominent Florida Republicans have withdrawn their endorsements of Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) Senate campaign.
Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart had backed Crist in his Republican primary contest against Marco Rubio, at one point heralding the governor as an "effective senator for Florida."
But the two brothers unexpectedly pulled their endorsement weeks ago for reasons still unclear to voters. The Crist campaign removed their names from the endorsement list only Tuesday, reporters discovered.
In an interview with the Miami Herald, which first noticed the rescinded support, Lincoln Diaz-Balart merely said that Crist "left us no alternative and he knows why." He added that the governor's sagging poll numbers had nothing to do with his decision.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
As previously noted, four veteran Democratic congressmen in districts where Republicans seemed to be launching serious challenges have announced that they are retiring rather than running for reelection. Now comes the news that Congressman Parker Griffith of the 5th district of Alabama is leaving the Democratic Party and becoming a Republican. Griffith has voted against just about every one of the Democrats' high-priority bills this year, and as a physician he has been especially critical of the Democrats' health care legislation. Apparently he has decided that his chances of reelection are better as a Republican than as a Democrat.
The 5th district of Alabama covers the northern part of the state and includes fast-growing Huntsville with its NASA facilities and most of the state's Tennessee River frontage. It has never elected a Republican congressman before; one issue that long benefited Democrats here was support of the Tennessee Valley Authority. But Democrats have had some close calls. Democrat Bud Cramer, a 10-year district attorney in Huntsville's Madison County, was first elected in 1990 when 14-year incumbent Ronnie Flippo ran unsuccessfully for governor. Cramer won the general election that year by 67%-33%, but in the heavily Republican year of 1994 he beat Republican Wayne Parker by only 50.48%-49.47%. Two years later he beat Parker 56%-42% and had no trouble winning relection thereafter from 1998 to 2006. In 2008 he retired to become a Washington lobbyist, and Griffith beat Wayne Parker, once again the Republican nominee, by a 52%-48% margin, even as John McCain was carrying the district 61%-38%.
The 5th district is Jacksonian country, originally secured from Creek Indians by a treaty imposed by Andrew Jackson himself after his 1813 victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Like so much Jacksonian territory, it has become more Republican in this decade: it voted 54%-44% for George W. Bush in 2000 and 60%-39% in 2004. Parker Griffith evidently had no difficulty in reading these numbers, and must have considered that his chances of holding the district against a Republican not named Wayne Parker were not good.
Griffith's party switch reduces the magic number of seats Republicans need to pick up in 2010 to get a majority in the House from 41 to 40. It also raises the question of whether newly elected Democrats in similar seats--Bobby Bright in Alabama 2 and Travis Childers in Mississippi 1--will choose to switch parties. Both could probably win reelection more easily as Republicans than Democrats. I don't expect a switch from Mississippi 4's Gene Taylor, a temperamental maverick who has proved many times that he can win reelection in Republican territory.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If they retire now they do so on the current benefits package. If they wait those might get cut.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.
"Three senators came up to me just now on the (Senate) floor, and said, 'Now we understand what you did. We'll be seeking this funding too'," Nelson said.
But the Democratic senator, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he's considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill.
Though he defended the exemption as a "fair deal," he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.
"This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding," he said.
Nelson has maintained that the only reason he even brought up Medicaid was that Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman put him up to it.
After Nelson sent a letter to the governor offering to kill the Medicaid deal, Heineman acknowledged that he and other governors had "expressed concern" about the state burden for Medicaid patients. But he rejected any suggestion from Nelson that he asked for the kind of deal Reid struck.
"Under no circumstances did I have anything to do with Senator Nelson's compromise," the governor said in a written statement. "The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson."
He urged Nelson to reconsider his support for the overall health care bill and, in response to the Sunday letter, said his state expects "a fair deal, not a special deal."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now we know Ben's Festivus complaints...."Harry was too generous, Guvner Dave won't back me up, and other Senators think I'm sleazy...."
One of the public option's most vocal supporters in the House on Monday stressed she and her colleagues would fight "as hard as we possibly can" to ensure its inclusion in the final healthcare bill.
The government plan is sure to be one of the most difficult debates to resolve once House and Senate lawmakers confer and combine their bills early next year. But Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) made clear last night that other liberal Democrats would not accept the Senate's decision to strip its bill of both the public option and a proposed expansion of Medicare.
"A lot of us will be fighting and encouraging our conferees to hold tight for the public option," she told MSNBC. "We haven't given up on that. That's extremely important to a lot of people -- not just Democrats, but I mean Americans throughout this country.
"If we held to our position, it would certainly die in conference," Waters said, adding she was "hopeful" she could vote for the bill but ultimately had not read its most recent revisions.
The forthcoming conference committee to resolve differences between the House's and Senate's healthcare efforts is already shaping up to be a tough battle.
Some House Democrats still believe the chamber cannot pass a healthcare bill without a public option, while Senate Democrats insist that very provision -- or any changes to their current proposal -- could ultimately doom reform.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I fully expect the some form of public "option" to be in the "compromise" bill. They can probably find 50 votes for it in the Senate and the House has already demonstrated that they'll be no problem.
Don't be surprised if there's a waiver of the budget neutrality provision of the rules covering reconcilliation buried in this monstrosity somewhere. If not I'm sure a hack lefty economist will pop up to claim that socializing medicine will actually be cheaper than not.
#2
Oh they are already claiming its 'Revenue Neutral'. At least in '12 and '13. What they don't mention is that it will be only if they, in effect, rape Medicare and Medicaid of all their funding.
Yeah - right - I don't see that happening. But the promise will get the nose of a 'public option' under the tent and that is all the're need. In '12 and '13 the public would have forgotten the promise (with the help of the MSM) and would be grateful to the Donks for 'saving medicare!'.
#5
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is a POS socialist racist. She needs to be removed from office. Her and her husband are being investigated for fraud. His bank was given special preference and given bailout money(allegedly) illegally. google it.
Posted by: Mike Hunt ||
12/23/2009 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
view this on Ms Waters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Fsndjz9pw
Posted by: Mike Hunt ||
12/23/2009 16:59 Comments ||
Top||
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded Tuesday to widespread criticism that Democrats only garnered the 60 votes needed to defeat Republican stalling tactics on the health reform bill by catering to self-interest, saying Democrats are focusing on the big picture; "trying to cross a demarcation line."
Harkin dismissed deals dubbed vote-buying by GOP senators as "small stuff" that distracted Americans from the primary focus of the overhaul bill. "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line," Harkin told "Early Show" co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez. "On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."
Asked by Rodriguez whether that meant he would still support the bill if all the bonuses for Iowa were stripped out of it, Harkin responded without hesitation: "Absolutely. Without a doubt."
"The principle of this bill overrides everything; that we're going to increase the number of people who are covered by insurance, we're going to increase affordable care, we're going to crack down on abuses by insurance companies."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Harkin spends so little time here in Iowa that I doubt he could even find it on a map. No wonder he is more than happy for us to pay for everyone else's little bits of pork. (Don't worry, though....there's enough stupid people out here that he's a sure bet to return to the Senate the next time he runs.)
#2
Those of us who live near Chicago recognize 'vote buying' as a long-standing tradition in Cook County and is a 'feature' of Chicago politics accepted by the locals as 'small stuff'. Perhaps Sen. Harkin has been living too far 'east' of the Mississippi for a while.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
12/23/2009 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right.
Gotcha. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that health care is a right. And my understanding is that Congress alone cannot amend the Constitution. So the whole thing really is unconstitutional.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).
Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve
Possibly some significance here when you take into account the nearly 95% of African-American voters who were reported to have voted for Barry. If 'voted for' is the same as "strongly approve" then the numbers appear to be down some 37%. My hunch is however, even if 95% strongly DISAPPROVED, they'd still give him a second term.
#3
We may have to call in poll watchers such as Carter or someone from Zimbabwe (sarc) to make sure ACORN or the BP don't keep people from voting or stuffing the ballot boxes.
#4
Rasmussen: Demographic Notes - Barack Obama Approval Index December 14, 2009: Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval.
The President earns approval from 37% of White voters and 98% of African-American voters.
Posted by: ed ||
12/23/2009 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
Former US President Jimmy Carter on Monday asked for the Jewish community's forgiveness for any negative stigma he may have caused Israel over the years.
Carter, who is not a popular character in Israel, enraged the American Jewish community's in the past with various statements made in his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
In the book, Carter blamed Israel for impeding the Middle East peace process via settlement construction, further claiming such a policy will lead to apartheid.
The former president also accused Israel of interfering with US efforts to broker peace in the region.
"We must recognize Israels achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel.
"As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so," he said.
"Al Het" refers to the Yom Kippur prayer asking God forgiveness for sins committed.
Head of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman welcomed Carter's apology, saying it marked the beginning of reconciliation.
#8
What next? Is Halfbright going to NK to apologize for 8 years of GW interrupting the 'reconciliation' she thinks she started?
Apology tour onward. Jimma just wants to get concessions out of Israel so Bama can claim a Triple Crown to justify his NPP: Gave Gitmo prisoners US rights, Gave Taliban um...well, US rights, too...and Gave the Palestinians a State.
I wonder: If Iran ever makes good on its threat, when Israel is wiped out, will Jimma's outrage be at Iran for making Palestine uninhabitable to Palestinians?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
U.S. banks that spent more money on lobbying were more likely to get government bailout money, according to a study released on Monday.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment. 
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded Tuesday to widespread criticism that Democrats only garnered the 60 votes needed to defeat Republican stalling tactics on the health reform bill by catering to self-interest, saying Democrats are focusing on the big picture; "trying to cross a demarcation line." 
