Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to win final passage by Dec. 24 now that he secured the vote of his party’s last holdout, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.

He finally struck a deal that satisfied his demand to keep U.S. subsidies from being used for abortion and won an agreement for more aid to help Nebraska provide coverage for the uninsured.

Nelson said the language satisfied him, though it drew criticism from antiabortion groups. The Nebraska lawmaker also won another prize, with additional Medicaid costs to his state being absorbed by the federal government.

The agreement came late on Dec. 18 over a handshake.

“It was a pretty powerful moment,” said Reid, a Nevada Democrat. “That’s what this place is built on, handshakes legalized bribery.” (emphasis Inthon)

Upon closer inspection of its “accomplishments”, we discover our government is a transparent kickback machine; something which is manipulated and used to advance one’s career and line one’s pocket.

Governments disintegrate when citizens and lawmakers reject individual, familial and community responsibility and instead believe in the goodness of “free money” (printed up or borrowed, of course) and citizens and lawmakers feel no sense of self-ownership.

What hope remains for the future when there is no incentive to encourage individual responsibility and self-ownership?

Governments stop functioning and cannibalize themselves when politicians shift from representing an informed group of constituents to becoming professional raiders for their financial backers (unions, other politicians or corporate interests).

Takeaway: Have no faith in national politics or national politicians.  Self-reliance and community reliance are more robust and sustainable.

Here are some gems just from the last week alone:

1. Perot Systems FrontRunning – ZeroHedge.
2. Blatant reinflation of housing bubble – Denninger.
3. Corruption at HUD – Karl Denninger.

The SEC was not able to catch a ponzi scheme even after Harry Markopolos delivered it to them on a silver platter. 

Paulson and Bernanke have been incredibly incorrect on their assessment of the health of the US economy.

Choose your sources of information/facts/news very carefully.  Stick with those that are honest enough to state their opinions openly and publish their predictions.

Read what you disagree with before drawing your conclusions.

There is a difference between loyalty and blind loyalty.  Blind loyalty to anything (religion, government, ideology, spouse) is deadly.

Takeaway:  Perpetual reliance on someone else’s seal of approval will rot your brain.  Complacency kills.

Two “answers” which speak volumes of our leaders:

• At 1:12, Jon Stewart asks “Are we broke?”, Goolsbee replies “No”.

Bizarre.  It seems that a country running trillion dollar deficits and unable to function without borrowing money could be classified as “broke”, but not to our leaders.

• At 4:20, Goolsbee says:  “When you’re looking in the face of the next Great Depression that’s not the time to tighten the belt”

Indeed, when has there *ever* been a time when either party thought it would be a good idea to tighten the belt and stop borrowing?  Heaven forbid we curtail spending on military/”the children”/retirees/politically connected segments of the population.

Takeaway:  Leaders will do what it takes (lie, obfuscate, deceive) to accrue political capital.  It is not in their interest to be honest with us, especially when our borrowing/spending based economy relies on confidence that “everything will be ok”.  A system heading over a cliff due to instability cannot be solved with more of the same pathetic ideas (reliance on debt, policy tweaks) that got us here.

For those “economists” who’ve lately been singing his praises on CNBC, all I have to say is this…

It takes a special kind of system (government) to screw up this badly and still be resoundingly supported by its leader.

In his reappointment speech Obama also pledged support for the continued secrecy independence of the Federal Reserve.

How foolish of citizens to inquire where trillions of dollars are being spent… clearly we should trust the former bankers running the Federal Reserve that regulate the banking system. After all, they obviously know what they’re doing.

Instead of perpetuating the broken system financed by politically embedded financial organizations, Obama could have attempted any of the following:

• Raise awareness of the ghastly unaffordable pension schemes which will inevitably crumble
• Strictly enforce FASB mark to market accounting standards instead of allowing companies to use “judgment” to value their toxic assets
• Clamp down on High-Frequency Trading
• Require the FDIC to close and wind down insolvent banks before the government taxpayer-funded safety net has to be used
• Eliminate alphabet soup bailout programs which are forms of corporate welfare
• Demanded transparency for toxic assets which traveled from insolvent banks to taxpayers
• Slash parts of a budget (military, NASA, HUD, etc.) that are so bloated we must borrow billions from foreigners to stay afloat.

Would that severely correct the housing and stock markets? Yes, probably. Can we continue on our current path? No. Will we eventually face unbearable consequences for our decisions? Yes.

Ironically, neither Bernanke nor Obama nor either political party seem to care about the following message:

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve–nor would it be appropriate–to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions. – Ben Bernanke

So, Obama reappointing the guy who didn’t see any of this coming, who bailed out the irresponsible, who continues to provide cover for banks in the hopes that things will return to normal still makes Obama the “man of the people”? Why aren’t those who voted for Obama clamoring that this Bush appointee is more of the same? Why do horrible decisions not matter when *their* party is in charge?

The reappointment of Bernanke does have a silver lining. All the people that bought into the hope proffered in eloquent speeches that government can provide jobs, clean energy, healthcare, education and other goodies will eventually learn a valuable lesson. The love affair Americans have with celebrity, good looks and good speeches and a lack of discourse/intellectual honesty will finally meet its match against a tidal wave of financial reality.

We are witnessing firsthand government selling Hope while funding Grift.

A generation will learn that our government system, like all systems which redistribute power and wealth, is one that is relentlessly gamed and manipulated for the benefit of those in charge.

Takeaway: Strip away the external validation that media/family/friends give to people and institutions and think for yourself.

Andrew Cockburn, a socialist, writes an important piece for Counterpunch detailing the extent to which a few financial firms have the full ear of the White House.  As the US consolidates more power at a national level and with the Executive Branch of government, we see that these conflicts of interest will be more pronounced and dangerous.

Takeaway:  Popular arguments are rarely thought-provoking.  That which assuages us, nurtures our pre-existing worldviews and cannot possibly help us learn and grow.  Read what you disagree with.

Fast forward to five hours, eighteen minutes of this clip.

Do you know what the Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman Bernanke told us that famous meeting or several meetings that we had?

That we’re 24 hours away from total meltdown of the American economy and 72 hours away from total meltdown of the world economy.  That it would take us back several hundred years.

That we did not have even the security to feed America if it happened.  I could go on to other scary things but I’m not about to do it now.

Amazing.  Whenever Bernanke or Paulson was in front of a TV or in front of cameras last Fall they gave the same copacetic assessment about how the economy was stable and everything was fine.  However, to those that have power and influence, he tells a much different story.

The American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system. – Hank Paulson, 9/21/2008

We often discover leaks in the Matrix.  We can all remember seeing our parents do things for the first time that let us know they were human and not perfect.  Likewise, our government is not perfect and instead of romanticizing the political process or “parties”, it is more beneficial to focus on safeguarding ourselves from the inevitable economic problems we will encounter.

I’ll be sitting down this weekend and mentally trying to imagine how I would respond to various different stress scenarios and what the outcomes would be.  It never hurts to check.  Better safe than sorry.

Takeaway: This video clip contains a startling admission.  It demonstrates the contempt that Washington has for its own citizens.  Instead of falling for the celebrity reality-show “Inside the Obama White House”, turn off the TV and do some thinking about what could happen if our “leaders” get it totally wrong.

Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.

I believe that is a great thing to think about when reading this article from Counterpunch on national defense spending.  It is highly unlikely Obama can or will make any type of dent in the military-industrial complex.

National defense spending is one thing, but does the money get spent wisely?  Obviously not.  Sophisticated weapons gets priority over those that, you know, serve.

National defense is the biggest responsibility for a country’s government.  Spending $1 Trillion per year should get us farther than shoddy VA hospitals, over 150,000 homeless veterans and mentally traumatized soldiers.

Takeaway:  It’s important to remember that no matter which party is in charge, money you give the government gets redistributed according to the whims of your elected “leaders”. Ignore the rhetoric, follow the money.

My initial reaction of skepticism was confirmed when many reputable bloggers (with their own capital on the line) expressed similar qualms over the weakness of government’s test.  The two short articles I have quoted are well worth the read.

A former FX trader, “Dude”, suggests that the test is direly lacking real-world stress. He cites much more dire scenarios, which the government has not tested:

1) China didn’t show up at a Treasury Auction and bond rates jumped 3-5%
2) China started dumping US$s on the open market and our exchange rate dropped 10%
3) The Fed, under such conditions, had to raise the Fed Funds rate by 5% quickly
4) An act of war or natural disaster struck one of the big coastal cities, putting it entirely out of commission thus pushing GDP down 6-10% quickly

Admittedly, the Treasury is more interested in a longer view than I was, although given the highly leveraged derivatives positions, they might be well served to also inquire about substantial, discontinuous price changes.

I’m troubled that they don’t test for what the past suggests is possible.

What if Unemployment goes to 30% as it did in the 30s?

What if Inflation falls to -5% or rises to 12%?

What if Fed Funds goes to 17% as it did in the early 80s?

What if we can’t roll-over our foreign held debt, as has happened to most nations which have run up as large an external debt position as ours?

Karl Denninger at Market Ticker mentions:

According to The Fed’s “More Adverse” scenario prime delinquencies will reach 3-4%. Note that the PRESENT serious delinquency rate on Fannie’s credit book for single family homes is at 3.15%.  Nowhere in the “mainstream media” (e.g. CNBC, etc) has this been mentioned but it is literally right in your face while reading the Fannie quarterly report.

If we accept the above as true, we must logically draw one of two conclusions.

1. The government knows that the stress the system could endure could be much worse.  They have decided to deliberately ignore or discount this data to assuage our fears and not report the full truth to us.  In other words, they are knowingly lying to us.  If this is in fact the case and if the government is trying to deceive us, Geithner, Bernanke and Obama should be held responsible for the misdeeds, regardless of political party.
2. The government is ignorant of these facts that other individuals have adroitly discovered.  This would mean they are not the most intelligent or conscientious leaders to be running our financial system.  They are not fit to be in charge and should be removed as soon as possible, regardless of political party.

Takeaway:  There is a simple theme we can learn from the stress test and it comes from Buddha.  He says:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Ben Bernanke has made statements such as:

“It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve – nor would it be appropriate – to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions.”

(Freddie and Fannie) “…will make it through the storm”, “… in no danger of failing.”,”…adequately capitalized”

We’ve had a $700 billion bailout and numerous corporate-welfare financial programs (CPFF, TLGP, PPIP, CPFF, TARP, etc.).  Fannie and Freddie have been nationalized.

Karl Denninger has published his remarkably accurate predictions publicly (2008, 2009) and stood by them.  People might think you’re a fool for believing a blogger, rather than an MIT-educated expert.  Look at the evidence and track-record and decide for yourself. Just because someone is a popular leader (religious, business, political) or has a popular title doesn’t mean they are any more thoughtful, intelligent or honest than someone without popularity.

For more on the crisis, read here.

US Version – Al Qaeda is losing, US is winning.

International Version – Children are dying and citizens oppose US militarism in the region.

In order to get an accurate picture of reality, I have found it helps to take a look at both the US and international versions of events.

Given the media fawning over our new President, there is a great likelihood that the coverage will tend to be viewed through the lens of patriotism.

To read more about media inaccuracy, click here.