Memo to the traditional media: you want to see the auto industry go down? Fine. But, at least try to give the facts about what workers have undergone in the industry--an assignment that most of the traditional media could not live up in its coverage of yesterday's hearings on the proposed bailout.

   We live in very weird times. Here's an example. So, commodity and energy prices are falling like crazy, as The Wall Street Journal reports:

Raw materials registered another record drop in prices, while energy prices posted the biggest decline in over 22 years.

The report suggests the weakening economy and falling energy prices should continue to drag down inflation in coming months, which should allow the Federal Reserve to keep its focus on spurring growth and containing the financial crisis.

   So, that feels like good news--especially if you are driving a car these days as gas prices come down to their lowest point if four years. Putting aside the very important question that sinking gas prices makes people forget how stupid it is to drive an SUV, lower gas prices leaves more money in the pockets of a whole lot of people.

   So, that makes the Federal Reserve more likely to want to lower rates and spur investment, not worry about inflation:

Late last month, the Fed slashed the fed funds rate by another 0.50 percentage point to 1%, its lowest level in four years. The statement said declines in energy and other commodities, combined with a deteriorating economic outlook suggests inflation will "moderate in coming quarters to levels consistent with price stability."

   Sure. But what is astonishing is how low the fed funds rate is right now (the fed funds rate is the rate that is set by the Fed for banks who borrow money, usually overnight, from each other via the Fed). At ONE PERCENT, there really isn't much more room for the Fed to cut the the rates.

   Which leads to the obvious question: if things get much worse--as I believe they will--will the Fed be plum tuckered out and unable to help much more? I think the answer is yes.

   So much to read this morning. But, Goldman Sachs is all over the place so let's check in on one of our great financial manipulators of recent times. The big news--front page of the Financial Times, big story on the Wall Street Journal's website and front page of the business section in The NY Times:

As public scrutiny of Wall Street pay intensifies, one bank has already decided what it will award in bonuses to its top seven executives this year: nothing.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs sent a request to the company’s directors on Sunday asking that they receive no bonus pay for their work in 2008, and the directors agreed, a company spokesman said.

The decision is likely to put heavy pressure on Goldman Sachs’s competitors, including Morgan Stanley, to take similar action as they decide on year-end bonus figures in the coming weeks.

   Now, before we start nominating these people for sainthood, keep in mind a couple of things:

1. These executives took home tens of millions of dollars in past years. In fact, in 2007:

In the last several years, Goldman Sachs has posted some of the biggest profits and paid out some of the biggest bonuses in Wall Street history. The company’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, received a salary and bonus package last year worth $68.5 million. Goldman Sachs paid its two co-presidents, Gary D. Cohn and Jon Winkelried, around $67.5 million each last year, more than most chief executives. All three will receive no bonuses this year.

2. Really, they should be in jail. Not taking home big bonuses is no substitute for the trillions of dollars in value that went poof in the past year, in large part because these thieves engaged in completely irresponsible behavior so they could report huge profits and haul off piles of cash.

   And maybe we will get our wish because speaking of illegal behavior, the Financial Times has this story:

A senior Republican senator is seeking an investigation into potential conflicts of interest among former Goldman Sachs executives serving at the US Treasury and whether any officials exceeded their authority by implementing a controversial tax change without the approval of Congress.

Chuck Grassley, the most senior Republican on the Senate finance committee, asked Eric Thorson, inspector-general of the Treasury, to investigate the "independence" of several Treasury officials who formerly worked at Goldman Sachs and serve as advisers to Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, the former chief executive of the Wall Street bank.

   What did they do?

   Mr Grassley is specifically concerned with a change in the tax code the Treasury initiated in late September that saved some institutions tens of billions of dollars and paved the way for Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia.

   Ah, yes, so to compound the mess they made, these Goldman Sachs former execs may have also helped drain the Treasury of billions of dollars--money that won't be there for education, health care, fixing our roads and the other things that the other 99 percent of the people need.

   Here is hoping Grassley catches his prey.

   It gets tiring writing every day about all the bad news, though that is sadly the reality (and, certainly will be so at least until spring training starts). But, here is one piece of good news. In the body of a story about the nomination by the president of the person responsible for monitoring how the $700 billion bankers' bailout is spent, we learn this:

And the law further required the Congressional leadership to create a five-member board, called the Congressional Oversight Panel, to provide legislative review for the bailout and recommend regulatory reforms.

Three of those members were announced Friday within hours of Mr. Barofsky’s nomination.

The Democratic leadership’s three appointments are Richard H. Neiman, a former bank executive who is now the New York State superintendent of banks; Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard who specializes in consumer bankruptcy and commercial law; and Damon A. Silvers, an associate general counsel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and a member of several federal regulatory advisory committees.

   I added the emphasis. I've worked with Damon in the past and had him up to New York last year to speak on a panel about pensions. He is an incredibly insightful person and we can feel confident that he is going to be on-the-case here for us. BTW, Elizabeth Warren is a good pick, too--she was one of the most active vocal opponents of the dreaded bankruptcy bill that passed and screwed average people while protecting credit card companies. The Democrats did a good job--I can't believe I'm saying that--in picking these two people.

Yes, to begin, let's posit that a president with the lowest approval rating in the history of polling has no credibility about any subject of importance--and, in fact, most of the country would like, as David Letterman joked, to let Barack Obama start his new job right away. But, the current president's pronouncements that the "free market" isn't at fault for the financial meltdown--a position no doubt held by many in government and business--led me to dig deep, investigate and discover the real culprit: Bozo The Clown.

   I had grand ambitions about posting today an in-depth thing and may still rally to do that but, you know, I'm under the gun on so much stuff that I'm taking the easy way out but not necessarily by not giving up something important. Check this out, from The Wall Street Journal this morning:

Unions Say CVS Pushed Costly Drug to Doctors
By DAVID ARMSTRONG

A group of labor unions is launching a campaign that accuses CVS Caremark Corp. of violating patient privacy and improperly pushing doctors to prescribe a costly prescription drug.

Change to Win, a group of unions that represents about six million workers, said CVS's pharmacy benefits management business has been urging doctors via a letter to add Merck & Co. diabetes drug Januvia to specific patients' treatments. The letter, obtained by the union group, said CVS identified the diabetes patients through a review of prescription-drug claims processed by its Caremark unit.

   And...

Januvia is as much as eight times more expensive than many other diabetes treatments, according to a recent study. Some medical experts say patients may not need the drug and may respond just as well to older, cheaper treatments.

   There is nothing on CTW's website yet about the campaign (and, frankly, I don't find the CTW website very good at pushing campaigns). But, if someone else sees it, by all means, give us a link.

   I do like the idea of this campaign. And it underscores, again, why we need a single-payer health care system. I mean, why is this not an actual crime, as opposed to a moral crime: forcing people to pay EIGHT TIMES more for a drug. These folks are criminals. God, the end of this private insurance industry racket can't come to soon.

   Okay, if I can, I'll get back here later. But, otherwise, have a great weekend.

    Yesterday, I posted a dairy about the right way to bailout the auto industry. I have no issue with those people who disagree with the basic premise that we should bailout the companies. But, in other places where I posted this and generally out there in the ether, there was a shocking level of ignorance, disinformation and disturbing attitudes about the UAW, its members and, generally, about unions. Let me try to set the record straight, though I know that readers here are probably hip to these arguments.

I've been reading the various proposals about how to bailout the auto industry. Some of the ideas are good but one piece floating around in the punditry is foolish and dangerous. This has to be done right--and it has to be done in a way that does not attack the workers of the industry.  

   This is one of those moments when I feel like I live in la-la land. It's possible that I am insane, stark-raving mad and delusional. Either that or there is a staggering moral obscenity underway in our country. We have plenty of money to fund what needs to be done--but our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, seem unwilling to go where the money is: the rich. I know where Republicans stand on this issue. But, where in the hell is the Democratic Party?

   I've written this memo, which I invite you to read--and if you think it's worth circulating, please do so. Rewrite it if you think you've got a better way of laying out this case: we need significantly higher taxes on the rich NOW. We can raise significant amounts of money from the top one percent to help the people of the country. And, yet, we aren't talking about this. Not really.

   It is wrong to focus on what seems like a big-ticket number for a short-term stimulus. We should not exhaust the political capital that seems to be floating around the country to finally reverse years of governing by people who are incompetent and mean-spirited. People are pissed. They know they have been robbed. But, we will lose the long-term battle to reinstill in this country a sense of fairness if we focus attention on short-term action. We have to focus the people on this: the rich should start shouldering a fairer share of the dues we pay to live in a functioning democracy.

   While our country is disintegrating, the rich are hiding. They are hiding behind their lobbyists and the political leaders they helped elect. They are hiding behind a decades-long ideology that paralyzes the political system from being serious about what the rich should pay. A recent op-ed by Robert Rubin (a man who helped create the financial mess we are in) and Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist, said this:

We both agree that individual income tax rates and other taxes for those at the very top could be moved back to the rates of the Clinton era.

   That is entirely absurd. That is letting the rich off the hook. The Clinton-era top rates only seem high relative to the robbery that took place before and after. It is reinforcing such a tiny frame about what the rich owe society. I understand why Rubin, a Wall Street banker, says this. But, if this is what progressives like Bernstein are arguing for, then, they should step aside and let a serious debate take place.

   The rich are killing people.

   Yes, that is an over-the-top statement. But, tell me, what else would you say when:

   People are dying, getting sick or going backrupt--millions of people--because they have no health care. And, yet, the rich aren't paying their fair share to heal our society and help fund a national health care system (though, I would point out that a single-payer system would SAVE the government money).

   We are killing the planet. And, yet, even our president-elect is talking about investing a relatively puny amount of money to save the earth. We could do much more--if the rich paid a fairer share.

   Millions of people are living at poverty level wages: 45 million workers earn $10.21 an 
hour or less; 24.5% of all workers earn poverty level wages ($9.60 or below); 10% of the American workforce, almost 15 million people, earn $6.79 or less; and 33.3% of black workers and 39.3% of Hispanic workers earn poverty level wages. We should have full employment and the government should be the employer of last resort, guaranteeing everyone a job. We could do that--if the rich paid a fairer share.

   States are reeling from big deficits. In my state, New York, we have a "liberal" governor who talks about cutting education and health care. But, if we went back to a more progressive tax system, we could have billions more--and it would only need to come from the richest one percent. Children may not get decent education, teachers may not get a decent salary and people may get sicker and die in New York simply because the rich are not paying their fair share.

   We must win this fight first. If we don't win this fight, all the individual programs and demands we make will be gobbled up and disappear, victims of a cowardly political class and a self-centered elite who seem only to care about how much more money they can grab.

   We need leaders to stand up and say: Enough. Enough of the robbery that has been blessed for so many years by the political system. We cannot afford that anymore.