Kevin,

Re: GM's repayment of their TARP loan

Have you seen this press release concerning TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky's testimony to the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday?

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=193944

I'm looking forward to reading Barofsky's testimony, but essentially GM has repaid an interest-generating TARP loan by drawing-down funds from a different TARP account. The net impact is essentially a debt-for-equity swap, and we're even more locked-to-the-hip with GM.

Kevin,

To support your cause, here's a link to campaignmoney.com which details ALL political contributions by Goldman Sachs employees in 2008. (When you reach the link you need to scroll down the screen to get to the list.)

As well, just for interest sake, here's an editorial from Investors Business Daily from Tuesday concerning the proposed Wall Street Reforms. What's of greatest interest to me is not what they think of the proposed legislation or their swipe at the Democrats in the last paragraph, but this gem:

Early in 2009, TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky told Congress that "nearly 20 preliminary and full criminal investigations" were under way (concerning TARP fraud). By June, Barofsky was estimating the total cost of U.S. bailout and stimulus efforts at as much as $23.7 trillion — an astounding sum to pay for regulatory incompetence.

To put that number into prospective, the current debt ceiling for the Federal Government is $12.5 trillion. The annual GDP is $14.6 trillion. We're talking MASSIVELY massive numbers.

I'm going to utter a dangerous statement, and I really shudder even writing it, but here it is in cold type: I do not trust anyone in the current Congress to author a bill to fix this problem.

Wow. I've just crossed the Rubicon on this one.

I'd like President Obama to create an Economic Blue Ribbon Commission. I'd like the best academic brains and policycrafters to take three months, hold hearings in a public process, come back at the end of July with a thorough, detailed, workable approach that can be turned into legislation in the Senate and the House. I'd like those bills presented and passed without amendments or riders. This is the only way we'll get meaningful legislation that isn't bought and paid for by the special interests.

Otherwise, we're just left with friends helping friends, and Wall Street has heavily papered Washington and has many, many friends in places both low and high, and on both sides of the aisle.

I would like Buisness to have responsiblity to the community and not just the bottom line.

But you know, wish in one hand, shit in the other, as they say.

If we ever get to a point where we don't have rabid Republican attack dogs at every step of the way, then I would be ok with us leisurely sitting around playing grab-ass in some panels.

We got to deal with what we got to deal with.

Wait... I didn't just call you my girlfriend or something did I?

My French is super rusty.

But, yes, yes, I don't believe in stink-palming anyone.

Anyone wants to get gay-married, let me know!

Ooooo...I do!  I want to get married to Matt Damon. 

Oh, we have to get married to someone that actually consents?  Damn loopholes. 

Mike O'B,

Hey, I AM gay-married!

When Lynn and I got married back in 1993, I compromised on having the services at her church, the United Church of Canada, which is by-and-large ultra-liberal. I believe they were the first major church in Canada to ordain women and homosexuals. Those decisions split that church along liberal and conservative lines, and there were individual parishes that would not accept women and/or homosexual ministers. I was to learn later that Knox Metropolitan in Edmonton was okay with women in the pulpit, but not with gays.

The reverend that married us -- we'll call him Clark -- was a fine fellow. Lovely young wife, two kids. Lynn adored him, as she had been attending his congregation for years and was part of the choir. After our engagement I adopted Knox as my church home, too, although I must admit as a good Anglican I was never 100 percent comfortable with the United. ("There are no prayer bars in this sanctuary, Lynn. Don't your knees hurt when you pray? You don't kneel when you pray?! You're all pagans!" But I digress...)

After we left Canada in 1996 we kept in touch with the business of Knox for the first little bit, but life gets busy and old ties drift away. Then in 1998 we got the wedding invitation from a University chum that he was getting married. At Knox. By Clark. Lynn was overjoyed! She was really looking forward to seeing her friend, her minister and the old church again.

I was one of the groomsmen, so at the wedding reception I was at the head table while Lynn sat in the crowd. Thankfully, not alone: Clark sat with her, which was delightful and gave them a chance to catch-up on old times. To this day I regret not being there for this part of the conversation:

Clark: "So, are you okay with the news?"

Lynn: "News?"

Clark: "The news. That I'm gay."

On the list of things that Lynn expected might come up at dinner with the Rev, I somehow doubt that was in the top ten.

It appears a few days earlier Clark had come out of the closet to the elders, and he would be officially telling the congregation tomorrow. You see, Knox wasn't about to hire a homosexual minister all those years ago, so Clark had a marriage of convenience to nail the interview, and brought two children into the world along the way to keep up appearances. After 10 years, he'd decided to stop living the lie.

Every now and then I thrill to the thought that I've been living the last 17 years in sin -- Clark got the job under false pretenses, so the marriage he performed doesn't count, right? -- but in the current California political climate, it is so much more delightful to be a beneficiary of "gay marriage".