Ben Bernanke - Reappointed Without Enthusiasm

As predicted in these pages last week, Fed Chairman
Ben Bernanke was reappointed. The Senate, however
grudgingly and unethusiastically, did its duty and
re-appointed him by a vote of 70-30.

The much-anticipated filibuster on the nomination
failed to materialize, and the motion for cloture on
debate passed easily. From there, the re-appointment
was easy.

Helicopter Ben has another four-year lease on the
Huey.

But, the re-nomination did not come without
warnings. Both Senate majority leader Harry Reid
and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell re-iterated
that we will be "keeping the Fed under close scrutiny"
as they voted for the re-nomination.

And, senator after senator stated their lack of enthusiasm
for the nomination during the vote. In fact, if you had
listened to the comments and nothing else, you would
have thought the nomination was headed for defeat.

But the reasons the nomination eventually sailed
through were fairly obvious.

First of all, there was no serious outside contender for
the job. "Boomlets" for Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman
and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker failed to materialize.
Which meant, of course, that had the nomination failed,
the Fed would have been left in caretaker hands at a critical
moment in the nation's economic struggle, and the Senate
would have been held responsible.

Even more important, the people were not about to be
fooled. For as much as they might blame the Fed, the
Treasury Department, and Wall Street for the nation's
economic woes, they blame the Congress even more.

On issue after issue, The Congress has ducked, bobbed,
weaved, and otherwise completely abdicated its responsibilities.

On the bailouts for Wall Street and the
automakers, after the photo opportunities had faded,
Congress folded and gave these failed monstrosities
whatever they wanted.

On the "stimulus" package, The Congress so loaded
it up with pork and special favors that it surprised
exactly no one that it failed to accomplish its goals.
Saving the bloated paychecks and benefits of
overpaid state and local government employees
is not "saving or creating jobs" - neither is writing
in special favors and contracts for favored campaign
contributors.

And on the Administration's signature Health Care
initiative, creating a package that does absolutely
nothing for expanding coverage or reducing costs
hasn't exactly thrilled the public either.

And voting down the Bernanke nomination wasn't
going to change matters any. No matter how you
spin it, no matter how much we voters detest
Wall Street, The Heath Care cartel, or the cynically
disloyal transnational corporations, we detest
you critters in the Congress even more.

And we're going to turn out in great numbers this
November to let you know that.

Don't say we didn't warn you.

The State of the Union Speech - Something For Everyone

It was the moment we've all been waiting for.

After what can only be described as a tumultuous first year,
President Obama delivered his first State Of The Union
Address, to what I am led to believe was a rapt national
audience.

Unfortunately, I missed the great occasion due to a prior
engagement (evening classes), and had to catch the repeat
on CNN later that evening. But by this time of course, both
the main stream media and the blogosphere were full of

commentary, running along the usual lines.

The Huffington Post, of course, was full of where The
Great One fell short addressing liberal causes du jour,
most especially health care and employment. Not to
be outdone of course, Human Events and the Fox
Network were also hitting the "too much big
government" and "not enough free market"
themes.

And I tend to agree with both sides. Not only
was there not enough emphasis on "traditional"
Democratic solutions, but there was almost no
mention of "free markets" or "free enterprise"
in the entire speech. And I found that somewhat
strange - every recent President, from Carter
through Reagan to both Bushes and Clinton has
paid ritual homage in the State Of The Union
address to the free market and free enterprise
miracle wrought by the American people.

But that's not what we heard from Barack Obama.
Rather, what we heard was what Arianna Huffington
called a "speech written by a focus group".

In other words, a little bit of Something for Everyone.

For those worried about jobs, there will be continuing
aid for those out of work, including assistance with
the COBRA program. Left out, of course, was any mention
of what would really help the unemployed - a national
jobs program coupled with real incentives to employers
to add to payrolls. Instead, there will be some money taken
out of the TARP program and re-directed to small business,
and some modest tax incentives for payroll increases - a
total of $30 billion.

Left out of the speech, of course, was that this is about
one-fifth the amount paid out by Wall Street in bonuses
this year.

For the "National Security" crowd, we will be out of Iraq
this year and we will pursue the Afghan effort until the
Afghans can be "responsible for their own security".
Nothing new there. And for the "Deficit Hawks" there
will be a three-year "budget freeze" on most discretionary
spending, beginning of course next year, "because that's
how budgeting is done".

On that one I'm underwhelmed. Defense, Medicare, Social
Security and Veteran's benefits are exempt, which means
that unless there's an economic miracle, everything that
the Administration will be relying on to "stimulate" the
economy will be frozen.

But, I'm willing to give the President credit for trying.
Austerity is about the only thing we haven't tried to
restart the stalled economy. However, I'm not optimistic.
It sounds to me as if the President is channeling Herbert
Hoover in 1931, or FDR in 1937.

That's the last time austerity was tried in the middle of a
recession or depression - and we all know how that turned
out.

But in the main, the speech was a mainstream,
middle-of-the-road statement. No earthshaking
developments - no great new headlines, no
great new initiatives.

It sounded more like the speech a cool, modern,
technocratic CEO might have delivered to an
analyst's conference call, acknowledging a
decline in earnings but cautiously optimistic
about the upcoming year. And that characterization
admittedly fits in with Barack Obama's style.

But, from the President of The United States, I'm
expecting a little more. I expect great themes and
great initiatives. They weren't there.

Maybe next time. After all, you've got three more years.

Ben Bernanke: Reappointed By Default?

Things are getting dicey for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

His re-appointment as Fed Chairman, once assured, now
may be in jeopardy largely through no fault of his own.

"Helicopter Ben", as he is widely referred to in the financial
press, has been the object of much criticism and derision
lately, mostly by scapegoat-seeking politicians on Capitol
Hill now suddenly worried about their re-election prospects.

While his unflattering sobriquet is rightly attributed to
his off-the-record comment that if his detractors didn't
like what he was doing he could just as well scatter dollars
from a helicopter, much of the recent criticism of Fed policy
should not be laid at his feet.

Rather, the blame should be laid at the feet of the politicians
who did so much to create our economic mess.

Remember, Ben didn't create the hated TARP - the Troubled
Asset Relief Program for the Banksters - the politicians did.

Neither did he create the moral-hazard enabling TLGP -
the Temporary Liquidity Guaranty Program. The politicians
did.

For those of you who aren't economists, that's the "interest-free
discount window" program that has let the Banksters
recover to health at the expense of the taxpayer and the
Main Street economy.

And Dr. Bernanke didn't create the troubled asset
purchase program that allowed the TBTF banks to off load
their toxic mortgage waste onto the Fed's books and thus by
extension onto the taxpayer. The politicians- especially
Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, are responsible for
that one as well.

In fact, every time you see a "Fed" problem, you'll find a
special-interest-beholden politician up to his neck in it.

Which to me makes the "outrage" against Dr. Bernanke on
Capitol Hill more than just a little hypocritical. In fact, if Dr.
Bernanke can be faulted for anything, it's for not standing up
to these Solons of Special Interest more frequently and forcefully.

And the Carter-like silence of President Obama on the matter
(until very recently) hasn't helped the situation any.

But, be that as it may, the Hand of both the Senate and the
Administration on Bernanke's re-appointment may
soon be forced.

It appears that no one else really wants the job.

In a recent editorial opposing Bernanke's re-appointment,
The New York Times proposed its own economic columnist
Paul Krugman for the position.

However, Krugman, an eminently qualified Nobel Laureate,
was quick to fire back the next day that while he was appreciative
of the compliment, he didn't want the job.

Like many others, Paul Krugman would rather be a critic
than a participant.

Another name that has been floated is former Fed Chairman
Paul Volcker - appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979 and
re-appointed (though not without a struggle), by
Ronald Reagan in 1983.

But Mr. Volcker has one problem - at 83, he's well past
retirement age, and while still vigorous and active, he's
already come out of retirement to take a very necessary job;
that of Chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery
Advisory Board.

As far as Team Obama is concerned, he needs to stay in place -
he's the only adult in the room on the President's economic team.

So, when all is said and done, it looks as if the job is Ben's - that
is, if he doesn't decide to say "F**k It" and chuck it altogether.

If he does, there are a couple of names I would put in nomination
for the position.

The first is Dr. Simon Johnson - a distinguished Professor of
Financial Economics and Entrepreneurship at MIT, and the
former Chief Economist of the IMF. Equally important, he
has been a longstanding and vociferous critic of the Banksters
and their control over the elected government.

Johnson's entertaining and informative blog, The Baseline
Scenario, can be read right here at the Thinking Nationalist.

Another possibility would be Dr. J. Bradford Delong,
distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of
Political Economy at the University of California Berkeley.

Dr. Delong has been a lifelong student of the interplay
of politics and economics, and is an authority on
"Crony Capitalism" as it has manifested itself in advanced
economies.

Although Dr. Delong is closely identified with Larry Summers
(the enfant terrible of Obama's economic team) in the
academic literature, and is in my opinion on the wrong
side of the issues of free trade, globalization, and outsourcing,
he would be a voice of moderation and maturity at the Fed,
who would also be well-known to the President's economic
team.

His twice-weekly blog, Grasping Reality With Both Hands,
can also be read here at The Thinking Nationalist.

But, if no one else steps up and applies for the job, it's time
for the Senate to stand up, be counted, and do its duty.

Give Helicopter Ben another four-year lease on the Huey.

The Supreme Court and Free Speech: Constitutional Common Sense.

As if the Massachusetts political earthquake wasn't enough,
another temblor struck Washington earlier this week.

In an historic 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down
the most odious provisions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign
Finance Act, which restricted the rights of corporations
and unions to endorse or oppose candidates for political office.

Even better, the Supreme Court decision effectively invalidated
the "corporate speech" laws of twenty-four states, many of which
were even more onerous and restrictive than the Federal law.

In the opinion of The Thinking Nationalist, this is a
long-overdue blow for Strict Constructionism, Free Speech,
and Constitutional Common Sense.

And in case any of you are wondering about the relevant
Constitutional provision, let me quote it for you:

Bill Of Rights, Article 1, better known as The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law restricting either Freedom of Speech
or of The Press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble
for the redress of grievances shall not be infringed"

And in a string of court decisions going back almost two
hundred years, the Supreme Court and the courts of the
several states have found this right to be applicable to
the states and their subordinate political subdivisions as well.

In short, it's about as close to an Absolute Right as exists
in this country.

And in my opinion, McCain-Feingold, with its myriad
exceptions, provisions, and exclusions, is about as close
to a censor's dream as could possibly have been put forth
in America. And with its exclusions and exceptions
for "the media", it has in fact and deed functioned as a
bar to all independent political speech except that which
may be permitted by, say, The New York Times or
The Washington Post.

And that's what liberals are loudly complaining about. With
"corporations" free to donate directly and publicly to
candidates, they are worried that "other voices will
be silenced" and "the people won't be heard".

But the reality is, as David Broder said in today's
New York Times, that liberals and Democrats
fear this will lead to a tidal wave of direct corporate
contributions to the Republican party in particular
and conservatives in general.

Sorry Liberals. Your biases are showing. To you, it's
all about "Free Speech for Me ... but not for Thee".

You know only too well that a big part of hard-ball
politics is making sure your voice gets heard and the
opposition gets silenced, all in the name of "fairness",
"good government", and "reform". And if you can use the
legal system to do this for you, so much the better.
After all, liberals have been in the forefront of using
the campaign-finance laws to silence those with whom
they disagree, to their everlasting discredit.
That's not right - and they know it - but restricting
the speech rights of those with whom they disagree
has been a liberal strategy for decades.

To me, Goldie Hawn and Goldman Sachs should
have the same right to directly donate as much as
they wish to the party, candidate, or cause of their
choice.

And if this historic decision leads to the fading away
of PAC's, "501(c)3 Organizations" and other so-called
"citizen groups" (which are no more than lobbyist-created
fronts for special interests), so much the better.

It's called Democracy, folks.

So, let's get everything out in the open. If, for example, a
candidate for the House or Senate in my state is funded
directly and entirely by Goldman Sachs, The Teamsters,
and the public employee unions, that's probably a pretty
strong signal that I need to consider voting for the other guy.

And for Presidential elections, a open tabulation of which
special interests support whom will be hugely helpful.
That way, if we elect another shameless corporate shill who
bails out Wall Street, cuts taxes for the rich, and helps
Corporate America outsource our jobs, we'll have no one
to blame but ourselves, and vice versa.

Bottom line - this decision will be less of a boost to special
interests than you might imagine and more of a cure for
corruption than you might hope.

When it comes to corruption and special interest influence,
Sunlight and Exposure are the best, indeed the only sure cures.

Scott Brown: The Massachusetts Wake-Up Call

On Tuesday, the "Mother of All Political Earthquakes" hit
Massachusetts.

It what can only be described as an 8.0 Richter scale
political event, Democratic Senate candidate Martha
Coakley went down to defeat at the hands of Republican
insurgent Senate candidate Scott Brown.

And, unlike other unforeseen upsets, this one wasn't
a squeaker. Rather, it was a convincing 53% to 47%
win, with Brown carrying not only conservative
rural districts but liberal precincts such as
Andover, Brookline and Cambridge as well.

And the world's press is having a field day with the story.
London's Daily Telegraph hinted at "The end of the Obama
era", saying that "there will be many more Scott Browns"
before the year is out. Agence France-Presse blamed the
"inept and incompetent" campaign run by Coakley. And
the New York Times, in a slew of front-page articles and
multiple Op-Eds, stated that Obama needs to "radically
change course to the Center", to avoid a repeat of the
"disaster of 1994". That, of course, was the wholesale
repudiation of the Democratic Party engineered by
Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America".

But in reading through the stories, four items
stand out. First, Tip O'Neill's dictum that "All
Politics is Local". Second, for an establishment-selected
candidate, Martha Coakley ran an incredibly inept and
tone-deaf campaign, an ineptitude reflected by the Democratic
National Committee in its lack of attention to the race.
Third, Scott Brown successfully positioned himself as a
fresh-faced, independent-minded outsider, downplaying
the fact that in real life he is a prominent attorney,
a former three-term State Assemblyman and an
incumbent third-term State Senator. And finally, Brown's
election may be read as the Triumph of the Independent Voter ,
whose numbers in Massachusetts exceed those of registered
Democrats and Republicans combined.

On "All Politics is Local" , Scott Brown did all the right things
the right way. He went door-to-door in neighborhoods with yard
signs in hand, worked the local diners and taverns, and famously
criss-crossed the state in his pickup truck, asking ordinary folks
for their support at every opportunity. As he later put it, he did
nothing other than what he had done previously in his runs for
the State House and Senate.

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, was almost invisible
to the voting public - unless it was at an assembly of
high-ranking insiders with assured media coverage.
Incredibly, when asked about this by a TV reporter,
she retorted, "What do you expect me to do? Stand
outside Fenway Park in the cold and shake hands?".

That TV snippet was replayed endlessly by the Brown
campaign, and the very next day Scott Brown was standing
outside Fenway Park shaking hands, with Boston sports icons
Curt Schilling and Doug Flutie in tow.

This incredible tone-deafness by Coakley the candidate was
matched by the ineptness of Coakley the campaigner. While
her pollster and chief adviser Celia Lake was pleading with
the DNC for more support and attention to the campaign,
warning that Brown was a far more formidable opponent
than anyone realized, Coakley took a two-week Caribbean
vacation to "escape the cold weather".

This studious lack of campaign effort did not go unnoticed,
either in the White House or elsewhere in Washington.

And, on the campaign stump, Coakley looked and sounded
every bit the frumpy, shopworn Democratic Party
Apparatchik that Brown made her out to be. Her
standard stump speech was one of " Preserving a
Democratic Senate Seat", combined with a recitation
of the long list of parasitic special interests and public
employee unions that supported her.

Brown, on the other hand, reminded her that the
seat belonged not to the Democratic Party but to
the people of Massachusetts, and invited his audiences
to compare their well-being with those of the special
interests (particularly the unions) in the Coakley
camp.

In desperation, Coakley responded by committing gaffe
after misstep after gaffe. Calling Brown supporter and
Red Sox icon Curt Schilling a "closet Yankee fan" alienated
male voters, who regardless of social or economic status
take their Boston sports teams seriously. Her retort that
Massachusetts voters should be "grateful" for the
"sacrifices" of its unionized public sector fell on deaf ears.
Trumpeting Massachusetts' mandated health care
plan as a model for the nation was a particular laugher,
as the plan is famous for its high costs, coverage gaps and
exclusions, and lack of support by both doctors and the
public. And telling Massachusetts Catholics that if they
could not support abortion on demand they shouldn't
be working in health care was a gratuitous insult to many
Irish Catholic Democratic voters, many of whom promptly
abandoned her.

The end result of all this soon became apparent to
Democratic Party professionals. On December 1st of
last year, Coakley had a 21-point lead over Brown. By
the first week of January, that lead had shrunk to four.
By the middle of January, Brown had taken a four-point
lead. And the weekend before the election, Rahm Emanuel
and David Axelrod were telling President Obama that,
absent a miracle, Coakley was a confirmed loser.

But it took more than just Coakley gaffes and Brown's
right moves to make a victory. From the start, Brown
courted Independents - a plurality among Massachusetts
voters and a growing force nationwide. And Independents
increasingly believe the following:

1) Incumbents of both parties, particularly the Democrats,
are happy, even eager, to do the bidding of moneyed
special interests against the interests of the people;

2) The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Health Care plan is dead
in the water and should be either completely overhauled
or scrapped;

3) On jobs and the economy, "free trade" and "globalization",
long supported by incumbents of both parties, have saddled
us with permanently high unemployment and a permanent
trade deficit;

4) Spending and the Deficit are totally out of control
and need to be reined in before disaster strikes;

5) On terrorism and National Defense, no "civil rights" for
terrorists, and no more permanent no-win wars.

On all these issues and more, Brown sounded the right notes,
while Coakley remained silent. But, Coakley's loss is not the
end of the world, just a wake-up call. There's still time for
Team Obama and the Democrats to get it right.

But, if the call isn't heeded, Obama and the Democrats are
going to be dealing with many more losing Martha Coakleys
and winning Scott Browns.

The Banksters: Clueless and In Denial

This has been a very interesting week for news.

Flipping back and forth from CNN to C-SPAN, I
am watching America deal with the fallout from
two of the greatest disasters of our time.

Of course, I am referring to the Haitian earthquake
and the Great Recession. Two 7.0 magnitude disasters -
one natural, the other man-made.

With the earthquake, I and many other people are
gratified to see the United States re-assume its traditional
role as "World's First Responder" when a natural disaster
strikes. Slow though it may seem, aid is getting through,
more is on the way, and it appears that it will be there for
the long haul.

In my mind, the contrast between our response to this
disaster and the second-most destructive disaster in
Western Hemisphere history - Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -
couldn't be starker. Obviously, there have been lessons
learned since then.

Which brings me to the hearings on the Great Man-Made
7.0 Disaster of our time - the Great Meltdown of 2008 and the
ensuing recession/depression.

It appears no lessons have been learned.

To be sure, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission chairman
Phil Angelides is not playing a good hand. His commission
has limited subpoena authority, a limited budget and staff,
and the scope and nature of his questioning has been similarly
limited, by quiet private agreement beforehand.

In other words, the fix is already in. And the Banksters know this.

How else to explain the answers of the "witnesses" - I mean "The
Guilty Parties" in front of the commission?

On bonuses, Chief Squid Lloyd Blankfein said: "We earned 'em.
We made money. And, we have to hold on to our talent, otherwise
they'll go elsewhere."

Uh, excuse me, Lloyd. Talent? What sort of "talent" deliberately
drives an entire world economy over the cliff in pursuit of
private profit? That's not talent - that's not even smart crime.

And Jamie Dimon and John Mack (JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley
respectively) on the housing debacle:

"We didn't see it coming. No one did. There was no reason to not
believe it couldn't go on forever."

And on risk management? "Our risks were insured and covered.
We saw no problems with what we did."

Incredibly, Brian Moynihan and Jamie Dimon also said that,
yes, while the crisis did negatively affect Main Street, "these
sorts of things happen every five to seven years or so. It's
NO BIG DEAL." (Jamie Dimons' actual words).

Really? No Big Deal? You're not just clueless - I'll bet you
also think Denial is just a river in Egypt.

But, I know where you're coming from. Hey, "s**t happens.
We just have to work through it."

Right - uh-huh, sure. Those of us without jobs, homes or
savings can take real comfort in that.

But you can take some comfort too, that despite the
gravest provocations, we still believe in The Presumption
Of Innocence until Proven Guilty.

In that regard, let me spell out for you just what would have
happened to you if you had pulled your caper somewhere else.

If you had pulled this off in the UK for example, you'd be on
your first anniversary of "Investigative Detention", with your
banks in receivership or administration while armies of
investigators pored over the records.

Pretty much the same would have happened elsewhere in
Europe, where the rule is "Presumed Guilty until Proven
Innocent." In the EU, investigating magistrates can hold
you indefinitely on mere suspicion of crimes of this magnitude.

And Her Majesty's Newgate Prison is no cushy "Club Fed".

And Russia? You tank the world economy from over there,
and after a delightful stay in Lefortovo or Lubyanka,
you'll find that the Gulag under Vladimir Putin is very
much alive and well. And in China? After a public show
trial, a very public execution by gunfire.

So guys, you've got it good over here - for now.

But I wouldn't be so sure about that if the people have their
way.

The next time you appear before an investigating committee,
you won't be wearing matching blue suits, white shirts, and
muted blue ties (a nice collective sartorial touch, BTW).

Rather, you'll all be wearing Orange Jumpsuits with "Federal
Detention Center" stamped all over them, with perfectly
accessorized waistchains and handcuffs.

Given the scope of what we are talking about,
I think that's just so much nicer and appropriate for the
situation.

And I think most Americans would agree with me on that.

Disaster In Haiti - and an urgent appeal

On Tuesday ,January 12, one of the worst natural disasters
in modern history struck one of the world's poorest nations.

At 8:23 am, a 7.0 Magnitude earthquake struck the Haitian
Capital of Port-Au-Prince and the nearby city of Petionville.

Just in a quick overview, the numbers are staggering.
The most recent figures are fifty thousand confirmed
dead, over two hundred thousand missing, seven hundred
fifty thousand injured, and over two and a half million
homeless.

And if precedent for natural disasters in the
third world is any guide, all of these numbers will go up.
If that happens, the loss of life could exceed that of the
2004 Asian tsunami, until now the worst natural
disaster in modern history.

The images coming in over CNN are staggering. Only
10% of all buildings in the capital are still standing.
The legislature and Presidential palace are just rubble.
So is Port-Au-Prince's cathedral. And worst of all, all
of the hospitals and relief facilities are down as well.

In a nation so wretchedly poor it makes Afghanistan
and Somalia look "developed" by comparison, the
need is overwhelming.

But, in an inspiring example of what the world can
do when it decides to work together, aid is already
on the ground and much more is coming.

The United States has already advanced $100 million
to help. The 82nd Airborne, freshly returned from
Iraq, is there now. The carrier USS Carl Vinson, with
over 2,000 additional aid personnel embarked, arrived
yesterday. The hospital ship USNS Comfort will arrive
today. And five thousand Marines, trained for the
civil reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, are en route,
with the expectation that they will be there for quite some
time. And yet more from the U.S. is on the way.

The rest of the world is pitching in too. Already contingents
from some forty nations are on the ground, with personnel
from many more expected. Over one hundred nations have
either pledged or advanced official aid. Even the poorer
nations of the Western hemisphere - Cuba, El Salvador,
and Haiti's neighbor the Dominican Republic, are there
with money, supplies and volunteers. Even bad boy
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is pledging medicine and fuel.

Yesterday on CNN I saw U.S. troops unloading supplies
from a Venezuelan C-130. And, we also saw a team from
the New York City Fire Department - the "heroes of 9/11"
working alongside Cuban and Salvadoran volunteers
to pull people from the rubble, who were then taken
to a Nicaraguan Army field hospital, to be treated
by Dutch and Swedish doctors.

But much more needs to be done - both now, and in
the coming weeks and months. And, as you might
expect, the American people are stepping up.

As of this morning, $ 37 million has been raised
for Haitian relief by the American Red Cross, almost
all in small donations. Another $17 million has been
pledged by American business. And President Obama
has enlisted former Presidents Bill Clinton and
George W. Bush to help raise money. And that's
where you come in. Haiti needs your help.

It's easy to donate. Use your cell phone and
text the word "Haiti" to 90999. Ten dollars will
automatically be donated to Haitian relief and
added to your cell phone bill. Or go to
www.american.redcross.org/haiti to donate.
Or just pick up the phone and call the Red Cross
or United Way in your community.

Be assured, operators in communities both large
and small all across America are waiting for your call.

The need is large - and there isn't a lot of time left
for many of these poor folks.

So please help - I've donated by cell phone - won't you?