Rep. Paul Ryan’s Road to Ruin budget plan (which was passed without one Democratic vote by the US House of Representatives recently) would change both Medicare and Medicaid so much that the programs would be unrecognizable.

He proposes to change Medicare to a voucher program– which could lead to increased costs for patients and more medical bankruptcies– and he proposes to change Medicaid into a block grant program and give the states authority to spend the funds as they see fit. Yikes!

Can you imagine what the Arizona Legislature would do with a Medicaid block grant? I can think of a few things…

• Give more corporate tax breaks.
• Privatize Medicaid and allow costs to run rampant (since taxpayers will be footing the bills. This will teach us discipline.)
• Legislate morality by denying women’s reproductive health services.
• Let the free market decide where community health centers and hospitals would be located. (Good-bye, El Rio.)
• Provide services everywhere in Arizona except Pima County. (It could happen. Look at all of the anti-Tucson and anti-Pima County legislation they passed this year.)

Our state Legislature is unscrupulous, and our governor is working beyond her pay grade– way beyond.

If you don’t think giving these wing-nuts more healthcare money to waste is a bad idea, check out this story from today’s Arizona Daily Star…

AHCCCS ready to start cutting services Sunday

They really don’t care what happens to the sick, the poor or the young. After all, that would be socialist.

The Arizona Daily Star was conspicuously absent last week when the TucsonCitizen.com was all afire with news and opinion and the Tucson Weekly included a background article about Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Board President Mark Stegeman’s proposal to reorganize the district’s Ethnic Studies Program– post notably the Mexican American Studies section.

In Monday’s Star, they made up for their absence by publishing a front page story and an editorial. Here are the links.

New ethnic-studies plan causes TUSD board split

Proposal before TUSD board makes good sense

In the current Tucson Weekly, reporter Mari Herreras gives additional details on The Elective Question– referring, of course, to the question of the century: Should the Mexican American Studies (MAS) classes in Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) be core courses or electives.

The article juxtaposes quotes from TUSD School Board members, TUSD Superintendent John Pedicone, members of the Mexican American Studies [Community] Advisory Board (a group of Latino activists, Latino elected officials, and University of Arizona MAS faculty, a group that I didn’t know existed until last week), and an unnamed source or sources speaking for maintaining the MAS status quo. (It’s a very good article, but I thought it curious that all sources were named except for the MAS supporters. What’s up with that?)

In addition to confirming that the board will vote on the MAS reorganization proposal that I posted earlier this week, the story reports that Pedicone will provide details on MAS funding. From the Weekly…

At the same meeting, TUSD Superintendent John Pedicone is expected to present a detailed report on where desegregation funds are spent in the district’s four ethnic studies programs: African-American, Mexican-American, Native American and Pan-Asian studies.

The report was requested by governing board president Mark Stegeman and approved at the Tuesday, April 12, meeting. Stegeman, Michael Hicks and Miguel Cuevas voted yes, while Adelita Grijalva voted no. Judy Burns did not vote.

Just to clarify, the TUSD Board wants full transparency on how all of the district’s $68 million in desegregation funds are being spent– not just Ethnic Studies. Between now and the end of 2011, there will be multiple funding reports; next week is the Ethnic Studies report. Let the sunshine in.

In the few short hours since I posted Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) plan to reorganize the Ethnic Studies Program, I have been personally attacked on the blogs and on facebook, and my post has been misrepresented as an attack on Mexican American Studies (MAS) and a bow to the evil will of TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman. Anyone who has read the post knows that these assertions are not true.

In addition, MAS supporters have told me repeatedly that I have to give my opinion (since I purposefully left it out of that post), and today they also gave me the old George Bush line– “you’re either with us or agin us.”

Well, not really. First of all, my opinion– which I have expressed many times– is irrelevant.

My main difference of opinion with the MAS supporters is not whether or not the courses should be electives or core courses. The difference is more fundamental; we see change differently. (Get ready for the Buddhist/Taoist scientist to emerge.)

The die-hard MAS supporters take a hard-line stance that any change in the current MAS program– staffing, curriculum content, funding, program structure, or core curriculum status– is bad and should be fought at all levels with maximum intensity. They forcefully demand obedience to their cause and condemn all who do not comply 100%.

I believe that change is neither bad nor good; it just is.

Let’s use the MAS reorg as an example of how we differ on the idea of change.

The TUSD document in my post proposes to take away the core curriculum status of the MAS history course (eg, changing it to an elective– a certain number of electives are required for graduation), but it says the MAS staff should come up with a plan to continue implementation of the MAS literature course as core course (ie, a course that students can take for graduation credit)– thus splitting the difference, one goes to elective status, while the other could stay a core course.

The MAS supporters contend that making MAS classes electives is bad because fewer people will take them. The scientists in me says that effect of this change is unknown. If a given class changes from core status to elective, will it be different? Probably. Will it be worse or better? We don’t know. Will the classes be less effective? We don’t know; we actually don’t know how effective they are now because there are conflicting data. Will it reach fewer people? We don’t know that either. Will it reach different groups of students? Maybe. Stegeman proposed in an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star to make the MAS courses available across TUSD. This would give the “precious knowledge” a potentially wider and a potentially different audience. For example, if the MAS history were an elective and more non-Latinos took that class, maybe they would become enlightened by this taste of Mexican-American history and culture. Is that good or bad? I don’t know. What is the definition of good and bad? It could lead to a less bigoted society, but I don’t know.

So, while the supporters say any change is bad and must be fought. I say: How can we know what has not happened? With change, things are often different, but we don’t really know that for certain.

Given my viewpoint on change, here is my opinion on Ethnic Studies (note my homage to the unknown).

I wholeheartedly support the right to teach and learn ethnic studies. I believe the Arizona law targeting ethnic studies is discriminatory, and I hope the teachers win their lawsuit. Regarding all other related issues– such as staff performance or effectiveness of the program– I have seen no data and cannot offer an opinion on these issues. As someone who has worked in research for more than 20 years, I believe that TUSD should evaluate all of its programs and that all funding should be transparent.

Making assumptions about the unknown often leads to disappointment. According to the Buddha, craving and attachment lead to unhappiness and cause humankind to be trapped in the cycle of birth, life, and death, until we realize how unimportant it all is and reach enlightenment.

The minute that just passed is gone forever. The next minute is in the future and is unknown. All we really have is now, and we should make the best of it.

Letting go is true freedom.

Dozens– if not hundreds– of articles about Tucson Unified School District’s Ethnic Studies Program have been posted on the Tucson Citizen website. The vast majority of these posts have been based upon conjecture, hyperbole, and name-calling. This article will be based upon facts.

Ethnic Studies is a group of programs in TUSD. That umbrella name covers Mexican American Studies,  African American Studies, Native American Studies, and Pan Asian Studies. If you follow these links, you will find that each of these programs under Ethnic Studies is organized and staffed differently. Arizona’s discriminatory legislation which targeted TUSD was primarily aimed at the Mexican American Studies Program (MAS)– alternatively dubbed Raza Studies– because former Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne believes MAS instructors are teaching revolution and hatred for the majority population. (Summarizing here.)

You know the history. The bill passed. There were protests. A lawsuit with 11 MAS teachers as defendants was filed. Horne became Arizona attorney general. Immediately upon taking office he found TUSD out of compliance with the law and threatened TUSD with the loss of 10% of its funding if it didn’t shut down MAS. Editorials, blog posts, angry meetings, charges of racism and vendettas followed. John Huppenthal, the current Superintendent of Public Instruction, launched his own evaluation of MAS to see if they are in compliance with the law (which TUSD claims it is); that decision is still pending and may be revealed after the end of the school year.

The latest round of hype is swirling around the TUSD’s last board meeting and the next one on April 26, 2011– next Tuesday.

The latest charges of racism have been leveled because the TUSD board has called for transparency and a review of all desegregation funding– $68 million. This review would include but by no means be limited to a review of MAS funding. At next week’s board meeting the TUSD board will hear and presumably vote on a proposal to reorganize MAS.

Included below– whole cloth– is the resolution to be heard by the TUSD board. I have added some italic type to improve readability, but otherwise there have been no modifications to this document. I provide this to my readers to help you make an informed opinion.

Resolution (draft) concerning the scope and structure of TUSD’s Ethnic Studies programs and maintaining political balance in classrooms.

Whereas:

The traditional high school core curriculum substantially ignores the experience and contributions of many ethnic minorities.

The Mexican-American Studies (MAS) courses are meant to fill at least the part of this gap which pertains to Mexican-Americans, but in any given year fewer than 5% of TUSD’s high school students take any of the MAS classes. The MAS classes typically attract enrollment far below their capacity and are about half the size of theregular core classes.

According to certain measures, among certain sample populations, staff analysis dated 3/11/11 shows that students who take MAS classes out perform those who do not. If this relationship is causal, then, averaging over the past three years, the MAS courseshave helped about 10 more TUSD juniors per year to pass the AIMS reading test (with smaller gains for the writing and math tests) and have similarly helped about 10 more seniors to graduate.

The MAS teachers and curriculum have increased many students’ motivation to succeed, by the students’ own convincing testimony.

The annual cost of the MAS program is slightly over $1 million, several times the costof educating the MAS students in standard core classes. The combined annual cost ofthe other three Ethnic Studies programs is about $1.6 million.

TUSD has not systematically evaluated how the four Ethnic Studies programs affect student achievement. Collectively, those programs have had no apparent success inclosing the achievement gaps.

Students who are Latino but not Mexican-American fall outside the purview of TUSD’s current Ethnic Studies programs.

The state’s requirements for the high school Social Sciences core are long and specificand will be augmented in academic year 2011-12 by a new Economics requirement.There is flexibility in how to cover the required topics but also an inherent limit on how much time can be spent covering particular events and themes. Whether the MAS Social Studies courses have maintained adequate coverage of the core topics is questionable.

The state’s requirements for the high school English core emphasize skills but also include familiarity with American, British, and world literature, classic works of literature, and major literary periods and traditions.

The MAS courses are deliberately founded upon a specific political and educational philosophy. A central component is “a counter-hegemonic curriculum.” Students who rely on these courses to satisfy core requirements may thus hear, like those who rely on traditional core courses, a relatively narrow range of viewpoints.

Many persons have expressed concern that some MAS instructors display and promote a strong political bias while teaching or otherwise representing the district; these concerns include strongly encouraging students in the MAS classes to participate in political activities which have a consistent partisan orientation.

Therefore, the TUSD Governing Board resolves that staff should recommendpolicies and undertake actions to achieve the following goals, in TUSD’s highschools:

The traditional core sequences in Social Sciences and English should be strengthened by adding a significant component which focuses on the contributions and view points of Mexican-Americans and other ethnic minorities, especially in this region, to create a multi-cultural perspective. The staff of the current Ethnic Studies departments should help to develop this component. The new core material cannot come at the expense of adequate treatment of the topics required by the state.

The MAS courses should continue to be offered, in accordance with student demand.

Commencing with the 2011-12 academic year, the MAS courses cannot be used tosatisfy the state’s core Social Science requirements. The courses used to satisfy those requirements should be taught by regular high school faculty and expose all students to a common set of diverse viewpoints. This change shall not affect the Social Science core credit earned by students who took the MAS courses in previous semesters.

Staff should develop a recommendation concerning whether a student should be able to use MAS literature courses to satisfy part of the state’s core English requirement and whether this would require any changes in those courses. The MAS literature courses shall continue to be an option for satisfying the state’s core Englishrequirement, for academic year 2011-12.

The Ethnic Studies departments (however titled) [referring here to all of the Ethnic Studies programs, not just MAS] should adopt academic support for individual students as a primary mission, using proven models. Staff should develop instruments and methods to evaluate these support programs and to determine whetherthey are actually improving students’ academic results and providing satisfactoryreturn on the resources invested.

These support programs should extend their scope to serve students of Latino, African American, Native American, Asian and Pan-Asian background, students who are refugees, and other minority populations.

Total funding for the Ethnic Studies programs should be increased, to reflect these expanded roles, as finances allow. The relative funding of the programs should be adjusted to reduce the disparity between these funding levels and the composition of the district’s student population.

Staff should study ways to reduce administrative overhead in the Ethnic Studies departments, potentially including consolidation of functions.

Staff should consider the appropriate role of the internal and external compliance officers in monitoring the achievement of these goals and, if appropriate, make recommendations to the Board.

Staff, working with the Board’s policy subcommittee, should recommend new policy,regulations, or procedures to reinforce Board policy IMB on teaching sensitive issues, in particular to ensure that classroom treatment of political topics is reasonably balanced. It is impractical to require absolute objectivity, but students should be exposed to and encouraged to express, evaluate, and compare a wide range of viewpoints, without being steered toward one side of current policy debates orcontroversial issues.

Staff should require teachers to keep copies of their course examinations on file for a set number of years, for the purpose of examination and analysis.

Staff should make a progress report to the Board in January 2012.

I usually don’t yell, but this is very important.

A few of State Senator Frank Antenori’s mean-spirited anti-Tucson bills may hit Governor Jan Brewer’s desk as early as Wednesday, April 20.

John C. Scott interviewed Councilman Steve Kozachik on the Jolt 1330 AM on Tuesday. Kozachik detailed the bills that comprise Antenori’s vendetta against Tucson and reminded people about his petition against legislation that subverts local control of government. (You can still sign this by clicking the link.)

…I invite you as an individual to join me in standing up for the independent and unquestionable rights of our local governments to decide what is right for our communities. By clicking this link and signing this petition your affirmation will be automatically forwarded onto the State Legislature and to the Governor’s office. Please take the time to give your opinion a voice.

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-hurting-our-local-government

Soooooo…. my Liberal Readers… the time to act is now.

Go ahead and click on Koz’s petition. (There are 678 right now– almost double from yesterday’s count.)

But also, call or e-mail Brewer separately from the petition. Seriously, we need to flood her office to the point where she can’t ignore us.

Tell Brewer to veto these anti-Tucson bills– mostly proposed by Antenori. The bills that are nearing passage in the Arizona Legislature (which may come tonight, according to Koz) are: SB1345 and 1347 cutting city staff to a percentage of the population (which means 1/2 of the city’s workers would be immediately unemployed) and regulating city employee’s salaries; the SB1322 forcing the city to bid every contract over $75,000 (thus adding a ton of bureaucracy to a shrinking city payroll); SB1201 allowing guns in public buildings; and SCR1025 eliminating Tucson’s clean elections law.

Here is the link to send an e-mail to the Governor.

Here are the mailing address, telephone and FAX numbers.

The Honorable Jan Brewer
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
In State Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)
Fax (602) 542-1381

Don’t let them destroy our City.

Recall Antenori!

Pass this on!

P. S. Where is the rest of our city government? Koz already put his neck on the chopping block for Tucson, what about the other 6 of you? I’d suggest hopping into a city van and going to the Governor’s office on Wednesday.

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Late April in Baja Arizona… ahhh… the weather is gorgeous, the skies are blue, plants are springing back to life, and community events pack the weekends. If Baja Arizona has such an luscious environment and close-knit, eclectic community, why is it that the natives are often weary and depressed this time of year?

Why? Because by late April we have been pummeled by the Arizona Legislature for nearly four months.

With Russell Pearce as president of the Arizona Senate, 2011 has been a particularly rough year: corporate tax cuts, birther bills, guns-for-everyone-everywhere bills, anchor baby bills, everyone-should-be-a-border-patrol-agent bills, and a who-needs-education-or-healthcare-or-parks-when-you-got-prisons budget. Heavy sigh… (Wait a minute… did I miss something? Was there a jobs bill proposed this session?)

Down here in Baja Arizona, we have been repeatedly and unfairly targeted by the Arizona Legislature. I’ve lost track of all of the specifically anti-Tucson or anti-Pima County legislation that is winding its way through the rented halls of the Arizona Legislature. Some of the most egregious bills were sponsored by or promoted by one of our one Baja Arizona Senators– Frank “let’s-shoot-varmints-in-the-night” Antenori.

Now that Governor Jan Brewer has stood up to the Arizona Legislature and actually VETOED two of the crazier bills– guns near campuses and the birther bill– I’m hoping she’ll keep going. Governor, there are many more bills worthy of your veto pen!

Let’s make this easy and not confuse the situation with lots of numbers … Jan, honey, pretty please veto anything in these categories…trust me… you can do it!

1. Anything proposed by Antenori. This includes his bills to give Pima County infrastructure to the town of Marana and his plans to become king of Tucson by regulating how many employees the city can hire and which contracts go out for bid. (Last time I checked, Antenori didn’t hold any elected offices in our city or county government.)
2. Anything that is discriminatory against a group or individual. In addition to all of the anti-children, anti-sick people, and anti-immigrant legislation, this category would include all of the anti-Tucson and anti-Pima County legislation not proposed by our so-called Senator (see #1). It also would include Pearce’s obvious political ploy to give millions of dollars to Maricopa and Pinal Counties for border security but leaves out Pima County (which actually borders Mexico) because he doesn’t like our sheriff.
3. Anything that is none of the Legislature’s business.
   3a. The Legislature has no business sticking its nose into the management of University Medical Center, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, or the newly formed UA Healthcare (HB2067). Would you want Pearce or Antenori deciding who should get medical care and what care should be given? Oops… that’s right. Arizona’s Death Panels have been hard at work destroying healthcare in our state. Don’t let them take over one of out best hospitals! Doctors and professional healthcare administrators should run healthcare institutions– not wacky ideologues.
   3b. The Legislature has no business dictating the types of housing that can be built in Tucson. HB 2005 (AKA the Mini-Dorm Proliferation Act of 2011) states that when a municipality has issued a building permit for construction of a residential structure located within two miles of either a military base or a state-owned educational facility (such as the University of Arizona), then any use of the structure for residential purposes under one lease agreement by members of the U.S. Military or by faculty, employees or students of the educational facility is deemed to be in accordance with zoning regulations (regardless of how the area is really zoned). To make matters worse, the amendment is retroactive to Jan 1, 2010 OR the issuance of the permit, whichever came first. In other words, it would allow MINI-DORMS to be legal in R-1 and R-2 zoned areas! This bill is to be voted on soon by the Senate.
4. Anything that would cut jobs instead of creating jobs. OK… sorry, Jan, I tried to trick you on this one because NONE of the Legislation suggested by the majority party this session creates a single job but several pieces of legislation will actually increase unemployment– particularly the cuts to healthcare and education– or hurt workers.
5. Anything that is the responsibility of another branch of government. The Arizona Legislature has a particularly “all knowing” aura about it this year. Not only are they taking on tasks that belong to the federal government (like immigration and border security), they are taking on tasks that belong to the cities and counties (as mentioned above).

You’re the decider, Jan. Please?

Dear Readers, there are several things you can do to maybe influence the final votes of this legislative session. Here are links to contact information for Senate members and House members. Bug them!

You also can sign Councilman Steve Kozachik’s keep-your-stinkin’-hands-off Tucson petition. Go, Koz, thanks for standing up to your own party to protect the rights of Baja Arizona!

Rep. Paul Ryan’s extreme cost-cutting budget passed the US House of Representatives last Friday on a straight party line vote– all Republicans voting for it, all Democrats against it.

Although there are many parts of Ryan’s plan that I disagree with, the worst part is his scheme to change Medicare into a voucher system for anyone currently under 55 years of age.

We already have a medical bankruptcy problem in the US. (Check out the research or Sicko if you doubt this.) Ryan’s plan could plunge thousands more into bankruptcy. Check out this article from The American Journal of Medicine blog.

Ryan’s Medicare overhaul: Would it increase the rate of medical bankruptcy?

Randy Parraz, primary cheerleader for the Recall Russell Pearce campaign, updated the Progressive Caucus of the Arizona Democratic Party at their recent meeting in Tucson. The recall effort has exceeded the minimum number of signatures needed, but since some signatures are always rejected as invalid, they will use the next 40 or so days to collect as many signatures as possible.

If you would like to donate to the recall effort or volunteer to collect signatures in Mesa, check their website.

UPDATE on the Disappearing Video

Well, if you didn’t watch the attached video during the few short hours it was available on You Tube and the Citizen, you’re not going to watch it now.

Parraz contacted the amateur videographer who shot it and asked her to pull the video of his public speech at a public meeting. (The Arizona Democratic Party’s Statewide Committee Meeting and related caucus meetings are open to the press and any self-proclaimed Democrat. Several political bloggers and a reporter from the Arizona Republic were there.)

Frankly, I don’t understand this suppression of free speech. Wearing my TucsonCitizen.com press pass, I was sitting next to Alison while she openly filmed Parraz and other speakers. Parraz could see that she was taping his presentation. (I also would have been filming– if I hadn’t forgotten to charge my camera batteries. Doh.)

Parraz claimed the speech included sensitive campaign information and should be pulled for that reason, but I don’t remember hearing anything really new in the speech. Yes, we can bring this guy down. We’re working hard, but we need more signatures! You can help! I thought it was a great speech– fiery, not too long– which is why I asked Alison for the link.

What is highly ironic about the disappearance of this video-taped campaign speech shot openly at a public meeting is that the anti-Pearce bloggers practice guerilla journalism against Pearce, Tom Horne, and other people they don’t like. They shove video cameras in the faces of politicians and aggressivley shout questions to provoke a reaction.  Would these bloggers ever pull a video because the subject didn’t like it? I don’t think so.

So, there are lessons learned all around. Alison now knows her rights as a citizen journalist; she had every right to shoot that video of a public speech in a public forum and publish it online.  Randy now knows that every time he makes a public speech in a public meeting he could be quoted or filmed or both. And I know to keep my camera batteries charged!

Here is an awesome commentary on the national debt debate from The Nation…

In the ever-so-smug company of the rich and powerful it is a given that there is never to be any expression of remorse or other acknowledgment of the pain they have inflicted on the lesser mortals they so cavalierly plunder. It’s convenient for them that the media and the politicians, which they happen to own, rarely connect the dots between the scams that made the rich so rich and the alarming rise in the federal debt that is crushing this nation.

The result of this purchased public myopia is that we are left with an absurd debate over how deeply to cut teachers’ pensions and seniors’ medical benefits while preserving tax breaks for the superrich and their large corporations. At a time when 10 million American families will have lost their homes by year’s end, when $5.6 trillion in home equity has been wiped out, when most Americans face steep unemployment rates and stagnant wages, a Democratic president is likely to compromise with Republican ideologues who insist that further cuts in taxes for the rich is the way to bring back jobs.

Let’s deal right off with that canard. There is currently no shortage of corporate profits or excessive executive compensation to explain away the failure of the private sector to create jobs. On the contrary, as the New York Times reports, “In the fourth quarter, profits at American businesses were up an astounding 29.2 percent, the fastest growth in more than 60 years. Collectively, American corporations logged profits at an annual rate of $1.678 trillion.” And to add insult to injury, the top executives, who seem unable or unwilling to create jobs or adequately reward their workers, have increased their own compensation by a whopping 12 percent over the previous year, setting the median pay at $9.6 million per year for those in control of the leading 200 companies. The Times adds that “CEO pay is also on the rise again at companies like Capital One and Goldman Sachs, which survived the economic storm with the help of all of those taxpayer-financed bailouts.”

Lost in this faux debate is the reality that our debt now looms so large because the government had to bail out many of those same corporations, quite a few of which, like General Electric and AIG, pay no taxes and have no problem paying truly obscene amounts to their top executives. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whom President Barack Obama named chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, is making as much as he did before the recession hit, a recession that his GE Capital division did much to cause with its reckless loans. AIG, saved with a government infusion of $170 billion, has just lavishly rewarded its top executives but has providing no relief for the homeowners ripped off by its phony credit default swaps.

The AIG deal was engineered by then-President of the New York Fed Timothy Geithner, who was rewarded for his efforts to save the bankers by being named Obama’s treasury secretary. Geithner, an energetic member of the team of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers that ran Treasury when the Bill Clinton administration cooperated with Congressional Republicans in gutting regulation of the financial community, is proud of saving the banks from the wreckage that they and the Clinton policies caused. Last October he proclaimed the TARP banker bailout program “the most effective government program in recent memory.”

What he is referring to is that in order to escape the federal restrictions on executive compensation, the banks have been eager to pay back the TARP funds. What he and other apologists for the Obama and George W. Bush administrations’ Bankers First program choose to ignore—as Paul Atkins and two other members of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program revealed in a damning Wall Street Journal column titled “TARP Was No Win for the Taxpayers”—is that the banks are not paying back the trillions of dollars in non-TARP governmental assistance that saved them from bankruptcy. “It hides the full story of the government’s financial crisis effort, of which TARP is but a minor part,” the op-ed column said of the maneuvering. The major part is the $1.1 trillion in toxic-mortgage-based securities that the Fed purchased, relieving the banks of their obligations, and the $380 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, organizations that backed those securities, along with “other Fed and FDIC programs [that] added another $2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk to the 19 stress-tested banks alone.”

What Geithner celebrates is a shell game of his own construction in which far more costly federal programs, with no serious restrictions on banker greed, were used by the banks to “repay” the TARP funds. Nothing was obtained in return from those banks in the way of mortgage cramdowns to keep people in their homes or any restrictions on the interest rates that banks charge on credit cards: Clearly usurious rates of more than 25 percent are now the norm for those struggling to keep their families above water. No wonder consumer confidence is down, the housing market is expected to decline an additional 10 percent over the next year, and the job market is predicted by most of the experts to stagnate for years to come. Continued tax breaks for the 1 percent of the population that controls 40 percent of the nation’s wealth will do nothing to restore the confidence of the other 99 percent of consumers who are suffering so.

This at least Obama seems to understand, but count on him to betray his own better instincts by once again following the advice of his treasury secretary and the Wall Street crowd that contributed so lavishly to his first presidential campaign and whose support he seeks once again. [Emphasis added.]

All of the players are counting on the continued myopia of the American public. If we were really paying attention, we wouldn’t stand for this.