Krugman Asks: Has the bailout already failed?

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 16:32



Krugman puts the question out.

OK, I know that's premature. And I place no weight at all on the fact that the Dow plunged after the vote.

But it is interesting that short-term Treasury yields are down - only 0.13% on one-month - suggesting that the flight to safety continues unabated. Against this, John Jansen reports some signs that money markets are unfreezing, slightly.

We'll learn more next week. But I have a prediction: well before January 20, Congress will be asked to vote on bailout 2.0.

I don't think this plan was ever meant to fix the credit crisis, otherwise it would have been packaged with tools to help homeowners.  And the Democrats asked for 'concessions', which were openly mocked as irrelevant by Treasury officials in private.  But at the end of the day, home values and an unregulated shadow banking system are at the core of this toxic mess.

So now the question is as follows - what does a progressive rescue package look like?  Remember, it has to be piled on top of the authority the Treasury Secretary now has.
Matt Stoller :: Krugman Asks: Has the bailout already failed?
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Krugman Asks: Has the bailout already failed? | 48 comments
Well (0.00 / 0)
If Paulson's purchasing of paper doesn't work, the Congress could actually repeal the legislation and end the TARP. Now, that might take until January 21, 2009, but it's possible.

The next step should be a full on nationalization of the banks a la Sweden, with concomitant heavy regulation of derivatives trading and leverage limits, and a rewrite of the bankruptcy law for individuals. A new version of the HOLC may also become necessary.

The ideas are out there. Can they be organized around?

I do expect unfortunately this $700 billion to be a boondoggle.

But, the horse is now out of the barn -- if it's permissible to spend $700 billion to save the obscenely wealth financier class, why isn't it permissible to spend a fifth of that for universal health care or converting a green energy economy?

In the long run this is a victory for a populist progressivism, wherein the government invests in initiatives where the benefits accrue to the people, generally. But it won't be easy.

Not really $700 billion (0.00 / 0)
The assets will be resold for non-zero price.  Plus:

(d) CONDITIONS ON PURCHASE AUTHORITY FOR WARRANTS AND DEBT INSTRUMENTS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may not purchase, or make any commitment to purchase, any troubled asset under the authority of this Act, unless the Secretary receives from the financial institution from which such assets are to be purchased-
(A) in the case of a financial institution, the securities of which are traded on a national securities exchange, a warrant giving the right to the Secretary to receive nonvoting common stock or preferred stock in such financial institution, or voting stock with respect to which, the Secretary agrees not to exercise voting power, as the Secretary determines appropriate;
or
(B) in the case of any financial institution other than one described in subparagraph (A), a warrant for common or preferred stock, or a senior debt instrument from such financial institution, as described in paragraph (2)(C).

[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 1)
but the text doesn't specify dollar for dollar warrants for purchase of "assets". I don't trust Paulson, hence I don't like this deal.

The executive compensation limit language is also a joke -- our money is going to pay for multimillion dollar salaries for executives at these companies, period. That pisses me off to no end.

These MBS could very well sell for only pennies on the dollar we pay for them, and the corporations could fail in the process -- leaving us holding, if not $700 billion, a vast majority of the $700 billion bag.

[ Parent ]
The exec compensation part (0.00 / 0)
could be a good thing in the longer run. If it had been as rough as I wanted it to be, it might have become an excuse to ignore the really basic tax reforms that have to be accomplished. Either the next regime will take advantage of the most populist mood this country has seen in generations or it will behave like Democrats. Either way, this particular hasty bailout bandage is only a distraction from the real work ahead. Let's focus on much bigger reform.
[ Parent ]
compensation (4.00 / 1)
The compensation portion, besides being a joke, only effects companies who participate in the plan.  And even then, only for a little while.

But I admit it might be a good starting point to have this passed for all companies.  I'm not completely sure that direct intervention is best in this kind of situation; changing the culture would be better, if possible.  But perhaps this kind of measure could go part of the way of changing the culture.

[ Parent ]
I agree in part (0.00 / 0)
but I think the banks participating, as long as the government owned something like 90% of the initial "assets" bought, should have been forced to accept compensation on the GS-scale that all federal employees are paid. Money is fungible, so if the credit crunch is so severe that the government has to be the buyer of last resort, then these executives and employees of these firms should not be making millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars off of our dimes in the process.

And the whole thing should have been paid for with Bernie Sanders' income surtax on the very wealthy.

But I do agree about more fundamental reforms being what we should focus on going forward.

Still, I want to know what our tax dimes are paying for.

[ Parent ]
that clause is the biggest joke in the whole darn thing (4.00 / 2)
there is no specified terms for how much value the warrants should cover. this has been the rub the entire time, that Dodd Schumer and Pelosi made the accountability provisions toothless. Paulson can just walk all over that. not to mention he can just get nonvoting common stock - utter crap. Buffet never would go for such a deal personally, as we've seen.

it could be ten years before Treasury starts to recoup value from the toxic debts. we just really have no idea what the opportunity loss is going to be on using $700 Billion, and it could be a lot. look at Japan. their still recovering after more than 10 years.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Biggest mistakes (4.00 / 1)
But Paulson's biggest mistakes have been from his willingness to screw companies over, primarily letting Lehman go under.  That is why I expect him to drive hard bargains and use all the tools given him.  He's an evil, egotistical Wall Street megalomaniac, but that is currently to our advantage.  (He's our evil bastard!)  At least, that's how I read it.
[ Parent ]
$20 Billion of evil (4.00 / 1)
gifted to Goldman via AIG.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
79.9% (0.00 / 0)
We know have 79.9% equity stake in AIG.  No one made Paulson do that.  Seems like he made AIG pay through the a$$ for the bailout loan.  As a taxpayer I have a hard time arguing with that.

The $20 billion is what Goldman would have lost if AIG went under.  Unless you know something I do not, Goldman didn't make any money off of this.  The conspiracy I potentially see is the difference between Lehman and AIG was the Goldman angle.  But everyone agrees letting Lehman fail was a mistake, so clearly the same could not be allowed again with AIG, so it is hard to take that angle too seriously.

If you know something different than this, please link.  I honestly hadn't picked up on anything worse.

[ Parent ]
It depends .. (0.00 / 0)
So now the question is as follows - what does a progressive rescue package look like?  Remember, it has to be piled on top of the authority the Treasury Secretary now has.

On who Obama's Treasury Secretary is ... Paulson is already on record as saying he's outta there .. come January 20th .. is Krugman going to be Treasury head(I know ... just using him as an example)? .. Bob Rubin? .. knowing who the major players are .. is the first step in solving the problem

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

Stiglitz? (0.00 / 0)
Some liberal egghead from EPI?

Who are the possibilities? Who would be good? Can we throw some names around and plant a seed for a grassroots/netroots campaign to push a real progressive?

I say an emphatic "no" to Rubin. Anyone have suggestions?

Chomsky Fever!
John McCain sucks.

[ Parent ]
The next step (0.00 / 0)
OK, I was willing to accept the collected wisdom that the just-passed bailout was necessary to stop the bleeding, even while assuming that further action would be necessary down the road.  Whether that point has come or not, I see no reason not to pressure Obama and the rest of the leadership on the next step.

In other words, while I didn't agree with the criticism of Obama for supporting this bill, I have no problem with loudly demanding that he indicate what he thinks should be done next, and with pushing him on specific proposals.  I hope that this will be a big topic in Tuesday's debate.

strategery (0.00 / 0)
I hope progressives in Congress are already planning a bailout 2.0. When Paulson comes back demanding more, Dems need to have a progressive comprehensive plan ready to go - one that can pass without ruining it by having to round up Repub votes.

Chomsky Fever!
John McCain sucks.

[ Parent ]
Step One: Accountability for those causing the mess (4.00 / 1)
Paulson and Cox should be on the street. Period, end of story.

Then we can talk nationalizing banks.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Okay (0.00 / 0)
Your comments sound like a much angrier version of me, and I'm pretty angry, so I'll just let you comment on this from here on out! :)

(Oh, and I agree with your comment.)

[ Parent ]
Don't know (4.00 / 1)
I posted a quick hit the other day that looked good to me, allowing any home owner to refinance at %5.25 percent.  But today Krugman said the plan stunk because it can't really stabilize home prices.

In the debate last night Biden mentioned something similar but in relationship to bankruptcy:

we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

I made an armchair-quarterback proposal to allow the government to purchase homes in foreclosure by the wish of either the owner or bank (in that order).  The government would set an easily calculated cost based on purchase price and local home value changes.  The current owner would be given the option to lease the home at a cost less than payments.  By assigning a calculatable minimum price, my hope is all the toxic assets would become easier to sell and trade.

Nothing I've seen out of Krugman or others appear obviously progressive in the sense of starting with the home owner.  However, the whole suite of progressive economics (minimum wage, unemployment insurance, etc.) will help in the long run.

Tools to help homeowners would fix the credit crisis? (4.00 / 1)
But this is only true if the "tool" would consist of the government paying the premiums for those owners, right? A kind of trickle up strategy. Hmm, but bailing out greedy real estate flippers to save the banks doesn't really sound like a more popular plan. Not much of a difference, really, the Fed would still end up with owning those houses, and the banks would get the money. Or do you suppose paying the mortgages with the mortgage debtors still being the owners? Now, that would be somewhat unfair to all those who financed their home responisibly and who struggled hard to pay their dues, wouldn't it?

Well, sry, helping houseowners sure is a popular idea, but there are lots of problems in the details. The most dire being that there are a lot of real fraudsters in this group.

No way, no how, no McCain!

Did the passed plan contain homeowner provisions, in the end? (0.00 / 0)
If so, what kind of provisions?
[ Parent ]
I only found this in the news: (4.00 / 1)
"One new government provision may help some homeowners who are at risk of defaulting, through a program that allows certain homeowners to renegotiate their loans with the bank."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fl...

And this makes me wondering how a reduction of premiums, or of the moneys still owed, would help improve the liquidity of the banks (which is the core of the crisis, after all). Quite to the contrary, imho. Don't know about which tools Matt is speaking, but this one in the bill only helps homeowners facing foreclosure and doesn't help against the real crisis at all.

No way, no how, no McCain!

[ Parent ]
Buy homes (4.00 / 2)
That is why I suggested the government buy and lease back foreclosed homes.  It is still a huge penalty to the home owner, but it keeps them in their house.  But it is definitely a heavy-handed solution, though not much more than we saw today.
[ Parent ]
This way, at least some good would come out of this (4.00 / 1)
However, in the medium run, the Paulson/Dodd plan will come down to this, too. Government buys mortgage papers, many of those mortgages go bust, and through the foreclosures the US end up owning many houses (if they don't dump them on the market, which would be horrible, because it would bring the prices even further down). Something has to be done with those estates then, simply leaving them boarded up isn't a good solution. So, renting them out, preferrably to the former owners, sounds like a good idea. Would be idiotic if the US would have a surplus of houses and increasing homelessness at the same time!

No way, no how, no McCain!
[ Parent ]
Could you clarify? (0.00 / 0)
As far as I understood the government won't be buying "mortgages" but rather "mortgage-backed securities" and these are somehow different. If the government buys the "mortgage-backed security" corresponding to a house and the house forecloses, who owns the house? The owner of the "mortgage"? Or the owner of the "mortgage-backed security"?
[ Parent ]
mortgage backed securities = bundles of mortgages (0.00 / 0)
Of course, this is a bit simplistic, but reasonably close to reality.

But for the details, and to get this into better perspective, especially how these CDOs led to the bubble, pls read this story:
http://www.irvinehousingblog.c...
IrvineRenter is a specialist in this field. I couldn't explain this as good as he does, not even remotely. Not surprisingly, his first book will be out soon.  

No way, no how, no McCain!

[ Parent ]
Oops, sry, the details of mortgage backed CDOs are here: (0.00 / 0)
http://www.irvinehousingblog.c...

No way, no how, no McCain!
[ Parent ]
Yeah, trickle up (4.00 / 2)
Obama uses that phrase, and I think it's correct.

Millions of homes will be lost in the next couple of years, threatening the entire homeowning sector--that'd hurt Wall Street, of course. The simplest thing to do would be to give bankruptcy judges the power to alter the terms of mortgages. David Cay Johnston, among others, says that could make a huge difference. Almost all Dems support it.

I see no reason why they shouldn't introduce this bill on its own tomorrow. It'd be a huge political battle, with powerful corporate opposition and Republicans blasting "unaccountable judges" but the Dems would win, if they cared to try.


[ Parent ]
Moreover (0.00 / 0)
I don't think it's politically difficult to sell a package to help homeowners, even though some acted irresponsibly. It would only require Congress to be half as responsive to the people as it'd been to Wall Street.

In any case, we have no choice but to try to contain the foreclosure epidemic.

[ Parent ]
It's never politically difficult to finance a popular cause... (4.00 / 1)
...but that doesn't mean that this is the most effective use for that money. The credit crunch is the much more urgent problem now, and it affects everybody, not only people who bought a new house at the peak of the bubble. That's what the lawmakers should concentrate on now.

No way, no how, no McCain!
[ Parent ]
Well, but this isn't what the curreent crisis is about! (0.00 / 0)
It's about missing liquidity in the financial sector, which results in credits becoming incresingly expensive, which reduces the level of investment in economy, which leads to jobs being lost. The problems in the housing sector is a different issue and relatively minor in importance. Helping the houseowners may be a popular idea, but reducing their premiums would hurt the banks even more. The feds would have to make up the difference. Regarding the fact that there are lot of problems in the details (fraudsters, flippers, irresponsible gamblers, unfairness to those who financed responsibly and who didn't buy too big), do you think that bailing out homeowners should have a high priority at a time when 159000 jobs have been lost in one month???

No way, no how, no McCain!
[ Parent ]
That's where you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Or, I suppose it depends on how broadly you want to define "crisis."

Virtually everyone who doesn't work for the financial services industry--including Paulson and Bernake--says the market will stabilize only when there's cure to the foreclosure epidemic that is driving down the prices of homes and the value of financial assets.

The argument that the financial services industry is using against bankruptcy reform--that it would make loans more expensive and cause instability in the marketplace--is pretty absurd, given the current cost of loans and the current instability in the marketplace.

[ Parent ]
Afaik Roubini wrote that this has already spread (0.00 / 0)
and is beyond the foreclosure issue, a general lack of trust in banks and in the creditworthyness of businesses instead.

And I would like you to consider that the traditional, or lets say natural price of real estate is closely coupled to the income of the buyer (read irvinehousingblog.com for details). So, the decline will likely stop only when this level is reached, because only at these prices there are enough buyers able to buy a house at all. Especially since the bursting of the bubble resulted in the subprime market dying, and 20% downpayment becoming the norm again.

And of course, as long as stable prices haven't been reached, there will still be foreclosures, since distressed homeowners are unable to find buyers. Of course, the governement could step in, force banks to reduce premiums to a level close to rents, but then the banks would have to be reimbursed for that or else they will go underwater. And this would then be a pure giveaway, without the Feds being able to offset this with later profits. Instead, the houseowners could reap those profits in say, six years or so. And then there will be many among those who don't really deserve this. Doesn't sound like a much better plan to me, but your mileage may vary.  

No way, no how, no McCain!

[ Parent ]
the best thing to do would be to have the government prioritize buying the mortgages of homeowners (0.00 / 0)
or underwrite their collateral in some other way.  This would magically change the bad assets into good ones while keeping people in their houses, which would help everyone.

It's good to reform bankruptcy, but why should people be forced into bankruptcy in the first place?  Moreover, when large numbers are, that damages not just their ability to function economically, but that of the economy as a whole.

"Hey Obama, If the Banks Get Billions, The People Want Some Change Too"

[ Parent ]
My Hope Is That (4.00 / 1)
the line of questioning from Chuck Schumer that had Paulson answer he will only use about $50 billion/month is correct.  If that is the case, they will likely have used less than $200 billion by the time Obama takes office giving him the chance to re-work the whole thing.

In the meantime, I keep my fingers crossed that this thing is enough of a bandage that the credit markets open up enough so that credit worthy customers like the state of CA can sell their short term bonds, businesses can access their credit lines and people with high credit ratings can get car loans, etc.

I alternate b/w being angry with Wall Street, the mortgage industry, etc and being very scared that our economy is on the verge of a major collapse.  I was in high school during the early 80s recession and it was really awful.  I hope we are not headed down that road again but I fear we are.

No contradiction there (4.00 / 4)
I'm pissed as hell at the financial class, and also getting very scared about the economy. Yesterday I walked to the corner fruit/vegetable store a couple blocks away. The small contractor up the block was pacing around with his cell phone looking shellshocked. I asked him how's it going? He's generally the kind who avoids talking business and money stuff. But he said it's going to hell. He just lost a couple remodeling jobs because the customers couldn't come up with the money anymore, and his own credit line with the regional bank was getting cut by around 75%, so he didn't know if he could finance the materials to finish his current jobs.

When I got to the fruit store I asked one of the owners how's business. He said terrible, his suppliers were demanding cash on delivery and he didn't know how he'd get the stock he needs next week.

I've never known business people talk about stuff like this to a casual acquaintance like me. They seemed too distraught to be able to do the smalltalk routine.

So yeah, I'm mad as hell and scared too. It's one thing to talk about the national crisis, but a whole different experience to witness it in your own neighborhood.

[ Parent ]
The state of California may not be the best example... (0.00 / 0)
of a credit customer in distress. I mean, come on, Arnold NOW, at a time of urgent national problems, asks the Feds for bailing him out with 7 billions? Damn, California's tax revenue stands at about 100 billions, and Schwarzenegger himself terminated a car tax that added another 6 billions. And now he asks for a bailout??? Hell, he should simply accept reality, raise taxes by 7%, and shut tf up!!!

No way, no how, no McCain!
[ Parent ]
CA Is Not the Only State (0.00 / 0)
having this problem.  There was a front page NY Times article about states having problems floating bonds including NYC School Construction Authority, Maine and Mass.  See the link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...


[ Parent ]
I don't know how progressive this is (4.00 / 6)
But here are the next steps I would take

1.  Start de-leveraging the derivatives market.

Effectively what has been happening is a small group of traders have been building up enourmous leverage: with increadible risk to the real economy.  Limits have to be set for the amount of leverage, which should decline over the nest 4 years.

Unless the issue of leverage is dealt with, we have not prevented a small group of people from putting the entire American Economy at risk.

2.  Set up a national program to allow  mortgages to be unwound.  A fundemental problem right now is that people are paying mortgages that are substantially higher than the value of the underlying house.  Biden's idea about giving Bankrupcy Judges the power to do some of this is a good idea, but does not go far enough.

3.  Get out of Iraq, and cut Defense Spending.  This has to be at the top of the agenda, because without cuts these cuts there is not enough money for number 4

4.  Invest, Invest, Invest.
The Government needs to take the lead in investing in alternative energy, improvements to education and investments in our country's infrastructure.  In economic terms these investments all have postive NPV's - and they should be undertaken IRREGARDLESS OF THE BUDGET situation.  Nonethelss, other investments (health care) and tax cuts (which make sense in a recession) need to paid for: hence the necessity to get out of Iraq and cut defense spending.

raise taxes on the rich (4.00 / 2)
this is the BEST opportunity to restore some sense of fairness to the tax system by reversing the bush tax cuts.  There's absolutely no excuse for not passing the Sanders amendment or reversing the Bush tax cuts when the country's debt is going to be between 60% and 85% of GDP (from what I've read) - before any additional spending.

"Hey Obama, If the Banks Get Billions, The People Want Some Change Too"
[ Parent ]
Not enough. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think the Sanders amendment goes nearly far enough. We need major redirection at the very root of economic assumptions. Nothing less than Eisenhower-era tax brackets topping off at 80-90 percent, this time without the loopholes. We have a once-in-generations opportunity right now to reverse the Reaganism that snatched disaster from the jaws of prosperity.
[ Parent ]
50% (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I like 50% as a natural ceiling.  Seems fair and clearly doesn't bump into the Laffer Curve.  It is such an obvious rate that it might even be possible to get it fixed into the public imagination, making it harder to lower in the future.

In fact, from a pure aesthetic point of view I kind of like a 50/50 flat tax.  This would be all income up to the 50th percentile is untaxed.  All income after that is taxed at 50%.

[ Parent ]
i thought the laffer curve was bs (0.00 / 0)
not sure though - maybe just a rumor.  anyway, here's wiki.

also what is "natural" or "fair" about an arbitrary number? :)  i udnerstand the argument that it might seem either of those things, but not that it is those things. (i like epistemology :)

i think the system needs to be more graded than 50/50 - not on the bottom end as much as the top end though you'd have to look at the lifestyles of people.  and flat taxes would eliminate the tax system as a policymaking instrument (which you might support - i think i do- it would make class politics far more explicit)

"Hey Obama, If the Banks Get Billions, The People Want Some Change Too"

[ Parent ]
Laffer curve is real (0.00 / 0)
The Laffer curve is definitely real.  For example, set the tax rate to 100% and no one would have a great motivation to work.
Back when Regan was president of the actors union the highest marginal tax rate was 90%, I believe.  The highest paying actors would make a movie or two and then take the rest of year off; why make another movie if you only get to take home 10%?

The question is what shape does it have?  Where does the curve peak and at what point does the reverse effect Republicans talk about actually take place?  Listen to Republicans and you get the impression the curve maxes out somewhere around 0.5%.

50/50 actually is a fairly gradual curve; remember this is a marginal rate.  If the median is $40,000 than someone making $40,000 pays no taxes.  Someone making $40,001 pays 50 cents,  $80,000 pays $20,000 and so on.

[ Parent ]
that's not the laffer curve (0.00 / 0)
that's just an argument on the basis of financial incentives for labor, which makes a lot of sense at the extremes.  I tend to buy this:

A harsher critique of the Laffer Curve can be seen with Martin Gardner's satirical construct, the so-called neo-Laffer Curve. The neo-Laffer curve matches the original curve near the two extremes of 0% and 100%, but rapidly collapses into an incomprehensible snarl of chaos at the middle. Gardner based his curve on actual US economic data collected in a fifty year period by statistician Persi Diaconis.

While at the same time understanding that those incentives in terms of opportunity costs and rewards for labour and whatnot are things I've experienced and thought.  On the other hand, domestic labour and childrearing is frequently not paid for and yet people spend enormous amounts of time and energy on it...out of love? :)  Or ideology?

So there can be different motivations for work.

"Hey Obama, If the Banks Get Billions, The People Want Some Change Too"

[ Parent ]
Obama's existing tax proposal (0.00 / 0)
does just that.  
[ Parent ]
do you happen to know how much? (0.00 / 0)
i only know the soundbite about how it won't raise taxes for the bottom 95%.


"Hey Obama, If the Banks Get Billions, The People Want Some Change Too"
[ Parent ]
Krugman is one of the enablers (0.00 / 0)
not one of the wise men.

Krugman is the type of person who would write an article that "tentatively" (as he always does) asks: has the fire hose that spewed forth gasoline rather than water "already failed?"

Thank you PK!

You've been a real pal!

What kind of economist can call this a liquidity crisis? We are awash in liquidity! What we have hear is a MALINVESTMENT problem, which is to say we spent a decade building houses and bombs rather than space infrastructure, robotics, AI, genetic medicine, etc.

Houses are not productive capital. They are capital sinks.

Can we please bring back seppuku?

ha (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Restoring Confidence (0.00 / 0)
is something that will take a little time, and frankly, I don't want to see it restored immediately.  The crisis at white heat guarantees McCain's defeat, and I think a few more bank failures will be in a good cause.

I am out $9000 on my AIG common stock investment, and to the extent that its failure has helped guarantee Obama's victory, it is the best $9000 I have ever spent.

Krugman Asks: Has the bailout already failed? | 48 comments
Donate to Open Left
ELECTION 2008 Presidential Forecast
Senate Forecast
House Forecast
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS



MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.
OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
Tips
McCain
John McCain
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More OpenLeft video...

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
BUSH DOGS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by SoapBlox