Chris Dodd is Retiring

Chris Dodd is retiring. It's about time. And it will only be better if some of his colleagues follow him out the door.

Arrogant. Corrupt. Oblivious. Quite the legacy.

Let's Pray...there is no Dodd

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/20/sen-dodds-political-future-cloudy-aig-bonus-controversy/

Dodd: Is This Full Disclosure?

I'll assume you know that we've waited 8 months or more for the senior Senator from CT to reveal his relationship with Countrywide Mortgage CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Now that he's finally decided to let the public in on his financial records, there are still more questions. The elephant in the room remains: did he or did he not give favorable treatment to Countrywide (and others) as a result of the favorable rates he got on his mortgage.

He might actually believe he got no special deal. And he might even believe that his actions as head of the Senate Banking Committee weren't influenced in any way.

In other times I might say that Sen. Dodd was the poster child for all that's wrong in Washington government. And as the Hartford Courant points out, the central question of whether he took favors from Countrywide mortgage or just negotiated shrewdly has still to be determined.

But, Sen. Dodd looks above reproach next to the other headliners in today's news: former Sen. Daschle (isn't tax evasion a felony, by the way?) who just withdrew his nomination, Hartford mayor Eddie Perez (who pleaded not guilty to bribery in court today and triggered a NYTimes editorial) and Nancy Killefer, who withdrew from being a candidate for the (holy cow) position of Chief Performance Officer.

The (Auto) Bailout is Not in Our Best Interest

Snakeoil salesmen and gullible bumkins still exist.

You can't blame the auto execs for trying to grab a share of the money bleeding out of Washington these days. They see how easy it is to use the media to back Congress into a corner and they probably figured, why not. They may have made a public relations blunder when they hopped on their corporate jets three weeks ago. But believe me, they learned their lesson quickly. They probably figured that their corporate-jet excursion would soon be forgotten if they changed the headline. And they did. The new headline is: we want more money, and we need it quicker.

It seems to be a matter of sharp executives taking advantage of a Congress that does a poor job of showing any sense of discipline. Look at how easily Congress rolled over when President Bush wanted to start a war in Iraq. Every one voted for it. Until this election cycle when they all insisted that they really meant to vote against it. And of course, Congress jumped at the chance to fund the bank bailout. And only now are they figuring out that former Wall Street execs sold them a bill of goods.

I know it would be a shame to see iconic organizations like GM go out of business. But their best days are long behind them and even with a bailout, it's highly unlikely they're going to be a dominant player again any time soon.

And you know what? We've seen this before, right? Railroads have gone under, as have construction companies, universities, banks, insurers, retailers and, yes, automakers.

So would it be so bad if GM went bankrupt? It might actually be a good thing. It's possible to conceive of a US auto industry similar to the aviation industry in which one company seems to be alone building commercial jets (Boeing) but actually partners with lots of manufacturers to get the work done. It would be terrible, however, if we bailed out GM only to be left with the equivalent of Airbus.

Congress has to get out of the lending / bailout business. Government has demonstrated repeatedly that it makes knee-jerk, ill-informed judgements.

What Do Senators Do?

Quadrennially, numerous senators throw their hat into the presidential race. The word quadrennial can mean either every fourth year or lasting for four years. For many senators, the latter definition seems more apt. They run, threaten to run, recover from running or advise someone else who's running (i.e. travel to interesting places). And yet, these are people with current jobs and, I assume, current responsibilities. But they have no qualms traipsing around the country while accepting the full-time guaranteed salary and benefits and pensions they receive as US Senators.

Connecticut voters in particular have to be confused by the presidential-wannabe-with-no-chance meanderings of Sens Dodd and Lieberman the past few years. Each moved out of state for a while. Lieberman to New Hampshire. Dodd to Iowa. Each may or may not have returned. Who knows and how can you tell. The other day for example, Lieberman was seen in Mexico with Senator Obama. Did he call in sick? Did I miss the memo?

All the while, Dodd may have been at lunch in Washington renegotiating the mortgages on his houses. But who'd know? Senators report to no one.

Several times during the Obama - Clinton cross-country lovefest, each was seen back in Washington to participate in a vote or to make a speech. Nice gesture, but hollow. How engaged could they possibly have been in the debate and the topic leading up to the vote? Their fly-ins make a mockery of the debates and discourse that are supposed to be a core element of being a Senator.

Or is it that the job of a US Senator not full-time? Has the wanderlust of Lieberman, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, McCain etc demonstrated the utter lack of necessity for having full-time Senators? Or any Senators? Let's face it, in midst of this historic economic meltdown, the only thing that kept the Senate's attention was Roger Clemens and Spygate.