Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

Defense of Democracies Offers to Debate Rep. Walz on Terrorist Surveillance « Defense of Democracies

An interesting, and well versed response and a request for dialog. I think thats a good thing. Certainly I doubt that any person reasonably skilled in this arena believes FISA in and of itself is adequate. Many things have changed over the last 30 years, threats and technology are only two of them.

Yet, the author fails to mention the sunset provisions of the Protect American Act.

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, unless someone really dropped the ball, the only gap is the immunity issue… and the last news I heard, is that the phone companies are on board even without immunity as of late last week. Thus, for now, even though the Protect America Act expired, the authorizations remain in force until they expire.

What I find odd though, is that certainly Tim Walz is aware of this, citizenry who follow such arena’s in legislation are aware of this…. and yet the author left it out. Sure, its spin, but to what audience. Certainly not to those who he is likely to dialog with, nor those who have been following such legislation. It likely will serve just to aggravate them, rather than to engage…. And I think wide scale engagement and discussion of the rather complex issues is the key to resolving how best to move forward. Few will sacrifice liberty for safety. Many will be outraged to sacrifice safety for the phone company, or for a 30 year old law. Thus, all parties have very much the same goal in mind, the problem is how to get there. Spin may work forsome, but not very well for the concerned and informed citizen. Tim Walz was right, congress and the executive branch had time to work this out. There is no reason to let things slide. The end goal is too important.

Please bear in mind, I don’t want the phone companies hung out to dry. They appear to have acted in good faith, most certainly last week, and they should not be penalized for it… but more importantly, neither should the general public.

 Defense of Democracy is a new group

And talk about spin city…. but it is free speech.

I appreciated that they included details of their commercial on their website. It actually makes it pretty easy to use as a template to create a counter one. Thus…. here is some proposed audio. If anyone wants to run with it, by all means feel free to use this in any form you like. Kaltura makes for a pretty easy way to put together collaborative video projects.

• (Music ramps up)
• Midnight.
• February 16th.
• The law that lets the phone companies off the hook expires….
• Senate Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly to protect the phone co.
• But the House refuses to vote on H.R.3773 (as amended by the Senate) and instead….
• want to protect the lives of American citizens AND their civil liberties.
• So the phone company looses
• Tell the House of Representatives to do its job and continue to block the Senate’s Terror Surveillance Bill. FISA must be updated based upon todays technology, AND it must also protect the civil liberties of American Citizens.

I’m not anti phone co… well ok, I’m anti alltel, but thats another story entirely. Protecting the phone company from being hung out to dry is a good thing to ensure continued cooperation in grey areas of the law, but it best not be a deciding factor as to whether FISA is updated or not. American lives may be at stake.

I also have even greater respect for Barack Obama, who chose to vote NO when the bill was before the senate. For reference, Hillary did not vote, and John McCain voted for it.

Here is a letter from Barack Obama to one of his constituents. I’ve copied a part of  it here.

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.

And thank you as well to congressman Tim Walz for taking a stand on this.

GovTrack: S. 2433: Text of Legislation

Wow, talk about a ruckus over at FRC. Whats really scary, is I used to contribute to them….

Assuming the figure is $845 billion, and being I have yet to find a GAO analysis, its a big unknown what the real cost will be, I find the outrage more than a bit out of line. If one were to ask a grade school kid, if they would give $1.29 a day to help others in the world who were not so fortunate, the vast majority would probably be for it. Then if you told them that it will help folks who live on under $1/day, even more youngsters would no doubt chime in.

Granted, there are legitimate concerns, there also exists tie-ins to other UN programs, which can raise additional concerns. Yet, the biggest outrage seems to be cost….  It really makes me wonder.

Daily Kos: I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype now a supporter

This is one of the best, least biased reviews of legislative records I’ve read. Significant insight can be gained by the legislative records in and of themselves, much more so, than debates, sound bites, or tv ads. It really shoots holes in the argument that Barack doesn’t have much substance.

However, looking at successful bill passage, as well as co-sponsorship of bills likely doesn’t show the whole story. Certainly, Hillary’s supporters are very vocal of her accomplishments, albeit the public records don’t seem to correlate very well with that pov.

Yet, what if successful legislation is not the desired outcome? Perhaps Hillary’s success potentially lies more along the lines of stopping legislation rather than moving forward. Doing so could be viewed as a successful approach, albeit not the way we normally think of success. Ie, how many roadblocks did she put up, how many really bad bills were killed off or put on hold due to her efforts. Granted, I am an Obama supporter, and in no way am trying to defend her, but there has to be a reason for the level of support she has. Perhaps a negative approach is the key. Of course, trying to ferret out that information makes navigating the Library of Congress legislative info website seem simple. Its a huge unknown, at least to me, as to why her supporters are so positive, when the published track record doesn’t back up such an assertion.

Ultimately though, roadblocks to progress, while a laudable approach, and one I shared years back, no doubt has contributed to much of the mess we find ourselves in today. Ie, in the past, I always liked to see a mixed legislative and executive branch, as such a combination likely decreases the potential for radical legislation on either side. Yet, the lack of forward action, combined with poor decisions and judgment, has resulted in absolute disaster, both in foreign and domestic policy arenas.

—Hello?

–Hi, Mr./Mrs. Doe?

–Yes.

–Hi, my name is ____, I’m calling from the Barack Obama for President campaign….

(First hurdle right here–Repubs, not interesteds, hangups, etc.)

…and I wanted to remind you of the Democratic primary on Tuesday the 19th…

(This sounds dumb, nice and honest, and I’ve found it works. Give them a quick pause for an “uh-huh”)

…we’re calling to say we hope you’ll consider voting for Barack Obama on the 19th. We believe he has the best chance to beat John McCain in the general election in November.

(By now, without asking them any threatening questions like “who you gonna vote for”, you’ve found out everything you’ll need to know. They’ll either hang up early, or they’ll disagree with you on the electability question and say they’re supporting Clinton, or they’ll clearly be undecided and you can say why you are drawn to him, or they’ll chime right in and agree about Obama, etc.)

Dear Friends,

Its pretty funny reading some of the comments on HRC’s phone bank ticker… Ie, at the rate they are going, its likely they will run out of potential voters to call in the near future. Thus, either the numbers are wild estimates, calculated based upon pledged activity time, the result of robocalls, so some combination of the above.

And we all hate robocalls, yet for some odd reason, they must be at least somewhat effective… maybe, or else the robocaller sales guy is one amazing sales dude.

Ultimately, though, what I think makes a difference with the Barack campaign, is the average Joe getting on the phone, and making calls. The website walks you right through the process, although I must admit the script may come across a bit stilted…. but its likely there to get over the initial fear factor of cold calling,  and how to go about doing so.

Granted, when I started, I only knew a few of the issues Barack had talked about, but over the past few days, I’ve been spending a lot of time on the issues and getting up to speed on both sides. For one, it reinforces why I am campaigning for him…I agree much much more than disagree with his views. Secondly, with confidence on the issues, phone banking is loads easier. Ultimately, I know personal phone banking is effective, despite my aversion to the phone, (I prefer text) and its actually not that hard… even on the early days, when I was quite the novice on issues, the scripting process made it pretty easy. A lot of folks rarely ask issues questions, but at least now, I can respond with a level of confidence, rather than saying, well uh, you can go to www.barackobama.com and then click on issues.

The other thing I found incredibly helpful, was this blog entry by marytnurse. It also is helpful to read some of the comments, both by folks who have had success, and others who ran into a difficult character. It is quite the encouragement and help.

Superdelegates get campaign cash - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

On the outset, this may seem a bit odd, and I’m sort of wondering why the news media hasn’t made a field day of it yet. Then again, the amount of funds an individual candidate can receive are limited. However, based upon the huge money going in and out of these, and the rather limited amount going to candidates, its likely the largest expenditures are for staffing and travel.

From wikipedia

A leadership PAC in U.S. politics is a political action committee that can be established by a member of Congress to support other candidates. The funds cannot be spent to directly support the owner of the PAC’s own campaign (such as mail or ads), but may fund travel and make contributions to other campaigns. During the 2006 election cycle, 256 leadership PACs contributed over $37 million to federal candidates.^[1]

Hillary’s HILLPAC 2006

Obama’s HOPE 2006

The 2008 data is there as well, but I’m not so sure how valid it is yet as there are some rather large disparities.

Clinton:

    * Observe a foreclosure moratorium of at least 90 days on subprime, owner-occupied homes. The moratorium will stop foreclosures until lenders and servicers have an opportunity to implement the freeze in mortgage rates. The moratorium will also give state and city organizations as well as community groups the necessary time to provide financial counseling to at-risk homeowners.

* Provide status reports on the number of mortgages being modified. Resolution of the foreclosure crisis will require that large numbers of unworkable mortgages be converted to stable loans. To date, however, despite pressure from Congress and the press, lenders and servicers have modified only about 1% of subprime mortgages. This obviously has to change. We cannot take the industry at its words that it will follow through on an agreement to convert loans expeditiously. Accordingly, the agreement must impose on lenders and servicers an obligation to regularly report their loan modifications.

My analysis:
Investors will loose in a huge way, they were depending upon contracts and a fairly well known, and low risk return. Now, their return will be quite limited, and likely, unless banking becomes nationalized, banks will no longer be favorable investments, and may fail. Thus precipitating a greater spiral, with potential global ramifications.

Homeowners with arms and other marginal mortgages get 5 years, to either sell, or refinance. However, with the banking industry unable to secure investment, will funds even be available to do so…. and if credit is tightened even further, real estate valuation will likely spiral downward. In fact, it could be a much needed correction. Sadly though, should anyone ever need to sell, or depend on their real estates valuation, they will loose big time.

Existing homeowners will see their real estate valuation crash. Not so much an issue if they have a steady income, and were not depending upon their home as a short term investment. Although, having their neighbors paying a much smaller monthly mortgage for an equally valued house will stick in the craw of some.

Real estate investors get bailed out, and this gives them time to re-evaluate their options. However, as real estate declines, so will rental rates, thus their cash flow will drop. At some point, even with low interest rates, they will be forced into foreclosure.

As real estate value declines, so do property taxes in a huge way… thus, local and state govt stand to loose in a huge way and fast.

The winners, banks with cash available, especially those not tied to foreign investors. People with cash available, looking for bargains in real estate. It may well be a reversal in class structure, where the lower end of the middle class are able to procure homes should they have a substantial down payment. Homes they could not even thought of in years past will sell for 20-40 cents on the dollar.

Obama:

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

My analysis:
For those homeowners in a world of hurt, they will receive help. Perhaps with greater allowances in lending practices and help for those subject to fraid, conversion may be a possibility. Real estate will drop in value, although not as much with the Clinton plan. A slow drop in valuation can be a good thing as part of overall market correction.

For those who are speculating, the writing is on the wall. Bogus mortgages and inflated valuation will likely cause these individuals to loose their shirt. Mortgage fraud will be dealt with. Rental prices will drop as these guys go under.

Banks who are cash shy, or mismanaged and dependent upon landfall profits from the subprime are likely to loose money, a lot of money, as will their investors. However, such risk was well known to those in the industry. It is likely the subprime investment pool will dry up, but funding will likely still be available for conventional mortgages.

As property values fall, state and local revenue will decrease, albeit over a longer period of time. Thus there are ways to plan for reductions in spending.

Summary:
Obama’s plan is more sustainable, and has fewer unintended consequences. Either plan will result in the devaluation of real estate in many areas, and a loss to investors. However, the devaluation will likely be a lot less, as will be the investors loss than maintaining the status quo, which likely will result in massive numbers of foreclosures, followed by bank failures sooner or later. The big question, is it enough, and will it happen soon enough.

A quote taken from Barack’s speech yesterday really makes a lot of sense. “We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control.  The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle.  It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced.” reference

I remember watching this, and saying to my wife…. That is the guy, if only he were running for president.

And then, here I am 4 years later, no longer a Republican, but actually calling folks for Barack, and a county delegate. Amazing how things can change. Whats even more interesting, is having walked into the caucus with somewhat neutral feelings, and then a bit of paranoia after being chosen a delegate, now I’m excited about that too. I’m already sign up as a volunteer for Tim Walz, and just signed up for Jack Nelson Pallmeyer’s newsletter too. Quite a change from the days, when I was more aligned with the neocon crowd than the liberals.Yet, I don’t really think I’ve changed a whole lot, but more so, the parties and their ideals have changed, or perhaps my percpetions of what their ideals actually were. I was in state govt many years ago, so I have a sense, albeit a dated one of the internal workings of politics. And somehow or another, so much today is not really what it seems. Ultimately, I think it comes down to vision, more so than a specific ideology. Barack has vision, Coleman used to, Walz does, and I tend to think Nelson Pallmeyer does as well, although it is likely a bit early to make the call on him.Its going to be a bit uncomfortable telling Norm, and my other republican friends, but alas I an on board, and ready to roll for these folks. It will be interesting for sure.