Financial Reform at America's Doorstep

FINANCIAL REFORM FINALLY AT AMERICA’S DOORSTEP

Real reform of the Industry that led to the collapse of our Economy is perhaps right around the corner. This week the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations since the Great Depression, in hopes of preventing a similar crisis.

In order for this reform to become reality, the bill would still have to go through the Senate and be signed into law by the President. But this is by far the closest Americans have been to getting real financial reform from the conditions that caused the Recession.
Here are some highlights of the bill that passed the House:

1. Americans no longer would be responsible for bailouts, other large financial firms would. This would be done by breaking up large financial firms if their size poses a major risk to the economy, as well as seizing and dismantling such firms if they’re about to go bankrupt. A new $150-billion fund, paid for by the financial industry, would cover the costs of any government takeovers.

2. The bill also would create a powerful new agency to protect consumers in the financial marketplace. It would outlaw many predatory and abusive mortgage practices and for the first time regulate hedge funds and private pools of capital.

3. Company shareholders would get a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. This would do a lot to prevent CEOs from getting giant bonuses when they actually lose the company money. (Which happened on multiple occasions leading up the Financial Meltdown).

4. The bill would make other major changes to federal oversight of the financial system, including imposing new requirements on credit rating agencies and the trading of complex securities known as derivatives.

5. The Bill would create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The new agency would have the power to write rules for a variety of financial activities involving loans or credit, to monitor large banks for compliance and to ban products and business practices it deemed unfair, deceptive or abusive.The agency would take over from the Federal Reserve the ability to write consumer protection rules and from banking regulators the authority to monitor financial firms for compliance with those rules.It's one of several ways the Fed would lose power under the legislation. Lawmakers have sharply criticized the central bank's performance leading up to the crisis. Under the bill, the Fed's emergency lending authority would be decreased and it would face congressional audits of more of its activities. But the Fed would gain a new role in regulating large firms deemed to be a potential risk to the economy.Consumer and public interest groups support creating the agency, citing the failure of the Fed and other regulators to rein in subprime mortgages.

The President of Consumers Union, Jim Guest, hit the nail on the head: "We need an aggressive watchdog in Washington that looks out for the best interests of consumers. This agency would crack down on lenders and banks that abuse their customers and it would provide information consumers need to make informed financial decisions."

Large financial firms have fought aggressively against creating the agency; which doesn’t come as a surprise since it would no longer allow them to receive taxpayer bailouts. Any bailouts would be on their own dime and the dime of their fellow Giant Financial Firms.
Of course politics will play into whether or not the bill gets signed into law. House Democrats said the new regulations would reverse years of lax oversight under President Bush that let risky Wall Street behavior shatter the economy.

Perhaps the most damning blow to the Republican Party is that not a single Republican Congressman or Congresswoman voted in favor of the financial reform bill. There are also the giant financial lobbying firms that are trying to kill the bill before it can be passed through the Senate. The Senate bill differs in some key areas, and action there lags behind the House, making legislation unlikely to reach the president before early next year. President Obama urged Congress to "act as quickly as possible." In the meantime, the House has sent a clear message that can be summed up nicely by Nancy Pelosi, “We are sending a clear message to Wall Street: The party is over. Never again will reckless behavior on the part of a few threaten fiscal stability of our people."

Mark “Marky Mark” Grimaldi
Executive Producer
The Leslie Marshall Show
“The Only True Democracy In Talk Radio – Of, For and By You The People.”
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

What I am thankful for

Since this is Thanksgiving weekend, rather than talk politics, which will be my next blog, I decided to talk about what I'm thankful for.

Now before you log off and think I'm being sappy, give me a chance here. Throughout most of my life, and I'm not that old yet (!), I have heard people say: "To your health," "At least you've got your health...," "Happy, healthy and wise," ...I think you get the point. Well, this year, I'm really happy for my health. Or, I should say, I appreciate having my health. We all know as we age, the back doesnt bend as quickly, and the aches and pains become more apparent....but then there are more serious issues.

I recently lost my Aunt Marilyn to lung cancer- although she was near 80, that was young considering her brother, my grandfather, and even her parents lived well into their 90's. (Watch our conservatives- Leslie Marshall's got a long life span ahead! haha!) Just two weeks later, on my mother's side of the family, my Uncle Leon died of brain cancer. Just months ago her was fine- and then, while having dinner with friends, dropped to the floor. When the doctor said he had brain cancer, and that an operation could give him a 50-50 chance, surely we all thought he would survive after 3 of them!

When they sent him home with hospice care experts tell you it could be months, what they didnt tell us and didnt know is that it would be a few days. So I have stood by the funerals, burials, memorial services of 2 in my family. And I must admit- which is bizarre- but I think we all do it...who is next? When will it be? Then my mind starts to wander into when will I die? Will I see my children grow up? Marry? Have children? How will I die? Will it be slow? painful? Will I die in my sleep like my Dad did?

Being a pessimist, it is hard to have the Pollyanna view of life- that "live each day like it's your last" however true it may ring for me is harder in my "glass half empty" philosophy of life. Most of us suffer many losses in life- parents, grandparents, pets- and as we get older- friends- and for some of us, like myself, our own children. These past weeks I have been ill. I had the flu, then a cough, a sore throat, lost my voice ( which is pretty bad for a talk host!) and then got walking pneumonia. When I thought I had turned the corner, I got sick again- I wont make you sick with the details. Even as I write this- I'm still not 100%- but all of this is small in comparison with the health issues so many people are afflicted with throughout the world- and of course, this is small in the grand scheme of life- my life- your life- anyone's life- I'm sure on my deathbed I wont be thinking: "wow- I wonder how come my flu lasted so long in 2009?!" And before I close, I have a confession to make: One the 2nd part of a 3 part series on The O'Reilly Factor in which Bill interviewed Sarah Palin, Bill had me on after the interview to discuss my opinion of Ms Palin and her reponses to his questions. Of the hundreds of emails, or should I clarify and say "hate mails," a few, usually from a femal would say something like :"you dont like Sarah Palin because you're jealous!"

Well to be honest, there were years in my life, where a woman who was doing better than me professionally, was more attractive, thinner, etc. would make me jealous- to be honest. BUT.....I can honestly and truly say, (and it feels good!) that I am happy in my life now. I must be honest again- I fear saying that- often when I have expressed to the world "I'm Happy" bad things have happened like : losing a job, my father dying or finding out my son had a terminal illness.......but for the first time in a long time- without sounding sappy again or even conceited- I'm happy being me- being Leslie Marshall.

I dont aspire to be Oprah, Sarah Palin or any other female who makes more money, has a bigger career. I am truly blessed to do what I love, to have a radio show that continues to grow in a bad economy; to be asked to be on television on programs that are so highly rated and respected as "The O'Reilly Factor," to have 2 healthy children, a good marriage to a supportive man whom I love, an incredible team who believes in me and my show, a roof over my head and ....well...my health- physically, emotionally and mentally. So to conclude- here's saying Happy Thanksgiving to all of you- be thankful for what you've got- dont mourn what you've loss too long or you'll miss the living you've got to do- because none of us know for how long that will be.

Healthcare Reform: The Public Option and Single Payer

As a caller on Leslie's show exhibited this week, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Public Option and Single Payer.  Some of this is natural.  Some is intentional.  Lobbying firms for the Giant Health Insurance Companies hope for confusion and misinformation to dominate what should be a conversation on real reform.    The truth is, even if President Obama wanted single payer, it would never be able to happen from the Health Care Bills in the House and Senate now.  Separate bills would have to be introduced into the House and Senate and would have to be voted on.  So some people's boogie man theory on the Public Option somehow transforming into Single Payer is legally impossible.   Anyone who reads, writes or just plain understands bills in the House or Senate can tell you that. The Public Option would compete with Private Health Insurance Plans, not eliminate them.  Imagine if you have three grocery stores in your city, and they all conspire to raise the cost of bread.  Say bread was a dollar a loaf, and the grocery store made a 90 cent profit from that.  Then say all three grocery stores agreed to raise it to three dollars a loaf.  Even though the bread is the same (or getting worse if we're comparing it to health care), you have no choice but to pay more for it.  Then every year the three grocery stores conspire to raise the cost of bread.  $4.00 dollars the next year, $5.00 the year after that, $6.00 the next year (all while the bread is getting worse).   Then all of a sudden, a fourth grocery store comes along who is not conspiring with the others.  They charge $1.00 a loaf, and still make a healthy 90 cent profit.  Eventually word gets out, and Capitalism and competition come into effect.  People start shopping at the fourth grocer to buy the $1.00 bread because they're no longer getting ripped off.  Sure enough, the other grocers (due to competition), have to stop ripping people off.  They now charge between $1.00 and $2.00 dollars per loaf, and still make a profit between 90 cents and $1.90.  So they're forced to make their prices fair, or raise the quality of the product if they're going to keep raising the price. This makes the market fair for the customer again, all while still allowing the businesses to make profits.  But doesn't allow them to conspire to rip people off and take advantage of them.  That, in short, is what the Public Option is. It is not single payer; single payer would be only Government run Health Care.  A Public Option would be just like having another company out there that you could buy insurance from.  So now instead of having say three options like Cigna, Blue Cross and Wellpoint.  You'd have Cigna, Blue Cross, Wellpoint and a Public Option plan. It will help to stop Health Insurance costs from rising every single year, which they have done in this country for decades now.  The prices are going up, even thought the actual care is getting worse.   The quality of health care for millions of Americans insured through commercial or public plans has stopped improving for the first time in more than a decade, according to an industry accreditation group's report issued two weeks ago. Don't take my word for it, check out the physical proof: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/news/economy/healthcare_insurers_reportcard/index.htm?postversion=2009102211 So Americans are paying more for Health Care, even though it is getting worse.  You cannot argue with that, it is a hard fact. Despite us Americans paying by far the most for Health Care anywhere in the world, we have the 37th best care, according to independent non-partisan reports.  Again, here is the hard proof that cannot be argued with: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html The bottom line is, if we do nothing, the Healthcare companies have no reason to stop charging us more and more every year, for care that is actually getting worse.   Mark "Marky Mark" Grimaldi Executive Producer The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy In Talk Radio: Of, For and By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Leno/Limbaugh

As a guest on Jay Leno's new show, Rush Limbaugh stated that the subprime mortgage crisis can be blamed on: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton and.....ACORN!?! As my son would say- wow, wow wubsy! Now I thought it was crazy that former President Bill Clinton was blamed for September 11th. I thought it was nuts that Saddam Hussein was blamed for September 11th. And now, I truly feel Mr Limbaugh better put down his handful of oxycontin and fast! To blame a community action organization for the subprime crisis!?!!? Even conservative listeners to my radio talk show agree that is ridiculous! As I said on my program; the financial crisis, subprime housing included is a world wide problem. It began during the Bush administration; and as much as I like to blame GW, even this isn't his fault. Nor is it Clinton's. or Obama's. How about the lenders? Homebuyers? Underwriters? Credit Approval ratings organizations? The reality is that the economy was at risk of a deep recession after the dot com bubble burst in early 2000. September 11th only made things worse. So how did the world respond? Banks tried to stimulate the economy; and not just here in the U.S., but throughout the world. And that pushed investors and lenders to take greater risks. Like lenders approving subprime mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit or no credit and even some who had no jobs. So it was the consumer's demand that drove the housing bubble to it's all time high in the summer of 2005. And that didn't give a happy ending, that gave us incredibly high foreclosure #'s. So how does ACORN get blamed? How does President Clinton get blamed? For those that say Barney Frank could have regulated these lenders and didn't, let's not forget former President Bush's speech on October 15, 2002 at Georgetown University, when he encouraged those loans being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To paraphrase, he said that lower income people could get good quality homes. And GW Bush was President during the time of this financial fallout. He was the captain of the ship. He cannot have no responsibility, or in this case, blame for this problem. Neither can the top dogs at the Treasury under his command. And back to ACORN.....individuals go to ACORN when they're faced with foreclosure, or after they've lost their home; so how would a ACORN and it's members benefit from a subprime mortgage circus? Wouldn't they basically be screwing themselves to profit from something like this? Most of us never heard of ACORN until about a year ago; before then, ACORNS were little nuts that squirrels munched on!!! Lastly, why cant we ever look in the mirror and blame ourselves? Or in this case our/the borrowers and the lenders greed? Nothing too good to be true is. Too much money too fast isn't a sure thing, it's a bad thing; just ask those that borrowed from Bernie Madoff. Not to be religious here, but the bible doesn't say it's money that is the root of all evil, it is the "love" of money that is. The lenders love their money, so do we, that's how we got here and we didn't it without nuts...I mean acorns.
Leslie Marshall
The Leslie Marshall Show
“The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People”
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Since When Did Americans Stop Rooting For the Little Guy?

Since When Did Americans Stop Rooting For the Little Guy?

That’s what the whole “debate” on Health Care Reform makes me wonder about. It made sense to me that Americans went ape sh%t when CEOs and Executives of companies like AIG got greedy and tried to line their pockets even further with bonuses. Yet when the CEOs of the Giant Health Care Corporations try to do the same thing, we let them cry poor and win?
Something else must be going on here.
When you do a little bit of digging, the answer becomes clear rather quickly. For every lawmaker in Congress, there are about six lobbyists pushing their health care priorities, according to a Bloomberg News investigation released ten days ago. That's about 3,300 registered health care lobbyists working Capitol Hill, outnumbering and constantly swarming 100 senators and 435 congressmen.
Bloomberg also examined new lobbyist registrations since July 1 and found that, on average, three lobbying organizations per day, many headquartered on Washington, D.C.'s K Street corridor, are lining up to lobby Congress on health reform.
After reading that you can see why it looks like Americans might not be rooting for the little guy (themselves in this case). This is because Billions, and maybe eventually Trillions, of dollars will have been spent to scare Americans, and subsequently kill Health Care Reform.
Whether it’s lobbying Congress, running scare Ads on TV, or paying to bus protestors to Town Hall Meetings, Goliath has started to thwart any momentum David seemed to have going.
But all hope is not lost. If you recall, less than 10 months ago many people and Large Corporations said that a Black man with a funny sounding name getting elected to the Highest Office in the Land was impossible. Well, score that one David: 1 Goliath: 0.
Getting Health Care reformed doesn’t have to be all that different than the election. People need to take a little time out of their busy lives to, number one, educate themselves on what Reform actually means.
A poll by the Associated Press last week highlighted what a big problem this actually is:
(Here is a link to the article): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfODLR0wl7aBmaQ38Za6eyzLJ9hQD9A6AE0G2
THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.
THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said such counseling "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation.
But as fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.
___
THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
___
THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.
THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.
That's a long way from a government takeover. But when Obama tells people they can just continue with the plans they have now if they are happy with them, that can't be taken at face value, either. Tax provisions could end up making it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage, nudging some patients into a public plan with different doctors and benefits. Over time, critics fear, the public plan could squeeze private insurers out of business because they would not be able to compete with the federal government.
It's unclear now whether Obama is committed to the public option. He described it recently as "just one sliver" of health reform, suggesting it was expendable if lawmakers could agree on another way to expand affordable coverage. Now the White House is emphasizing his strong support for it.
___
THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
Opponents say the prohibition on federal money for the procedure is merely a bookkeeping trick and what matters is that Washington would allow abortion to be covered under government-subsidized insurance.
Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.
Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.

So as you can see, people taking time to educate themselves and their friends and family on what actual Reform would entail is quite a big deal. If that can be done, a similar strategy to the 2008 Presidential Campaign can be enacted. Getting normal Americans to inform themselves and then use that information to educate others around them. An educated and active Public is a nightmare for the large Health Care Corporations and their lobbyists. So in turn, it is also the best chance for Real Health Care Reform.

Mark "Marky Mark" Grimaldi
Executive Producer
The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy In Talk Radio - Of, For and By The People"
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Former President Clinton and North Korea...

Barack Obama didn't do it. GW Bush didnt do it.  Hilary Rodham Clinton didnt do it, but her husband did. I'm not talking about cigars, a blue dress or a woman named Monica. I am talking about two women. The release of two women. The pardon of two women and those two women are Laura Ling and Euna Lee.  For those Bill Clinton haters, this will be a tough pill to swallow. Without notifying the media, without cameras rolling and completely of his own doing; Former President Bill Clinton met with Kim Jong Il in North Korea this week and after exhaustive talks, a "special pardon" was granted and as simple as one snapping one's fingers, Laura Ling and Euna Lee will be released and will return home to their families, their country and their freedoms.  Now there are those that will always think of Bill Clinton as the impeached President.  There are those that remember the 8 years of his Presidency with fondness due to a thriving economy and for the most part, a time of peace for America.  A time when the world loved us. And a time, whether you loved or hated him, you couldnt move when he spoke because you were captivated by his enthusiasm and charisma as a speaker.  I met former President Clinton in 1992 during a Health Care Summit at the White House. As a nationally syndicated radio talk host who had just taken over for Tom Snyder at Daynet on the ABC Satellite Radio network, I had been invited with others in my line of work.  I remember a very large ( in more than name!) talk host who said "When you meet him, you just can't hate the guy" and although I harbored no hatred toward this President, quite the opposite, the big talk host guy was right. President Clinton has an energy about him that no other President has had during my lifetime.  Honestly, I have never met a person whose hand I have shaken and actually felt the energy coming through. His smile is infectous. His words are powerful.  And he, no matter how polarizing a figure he might be in our politically divided nation, he is still respected and viewed as extremely powerful throughout the world.  Many times during the past 8 years under the Bush Administration, I would hear my conservative counterparts blame Bill Clinton.  The bad economy? Clinton's fault.  9/11? Clinton's fault.  Terrorism? Clinton's fault.  No national healthcare plan? I think you get the point.  It's almost as if right wing conservative Republicans love hating the man.  So it makes me wonder. How will they hate him now? How will the right turn this heroic act into something heinous?  Will they say Hilary is ineffective as Secretary of State because her husband had to do her bidding? Or that President Obama used former President Clinton?  Perhaps that President Clinton needed attention and to be in the limelight? I can hear it now.  And I'll be there to debate that point as a talking head on the t.v. talk shows.  President William Jefferson Clinton might have his faults, he might have been impeached; but he held the position as leader of the free world for eight years. He was loved and highly respected, his words commanded attention and obviously they still do.  President Clinton once said he admired former President Jimmy Carter's work in a humanitarian capacity post presidency and he wanted to follow in his footsteps.  I believe with this one gesture, this one magnificent victory, President Clinton has done that and more. As an American, I am proud of my former President. As a woman I am greatful. Thank you President Clinton, for reminding us of all the good you continue to do for our nation.   Leslie Marshall The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Is President Obama more secular than religious.

On "The O'Reilly Factor" last week, I was asked if the President is more secular than religious. Some examples are his not yet selecting a church to worship on Sundays, covering the religious symbols behind him at Georgetown University when he spoke there and the Pentagon not allowing a military jet fly over at the "God and Country" festival, etc.
I'm amazed that in a country that prides itself on Separation of Church and State that we even have these discussions. Although religion certainly does play a part in politics; just look at GW Bush's win in the state of Ohio over Kerry; that isnt what America elects a President to do. I dont care if, where, when President Obama goes to church or why. Faith is a very personal thing in my opinon.

And to use our hard earned tax dollars in a recessive economy for a fly over at a festival!?!!! I dont care that they've been doing that for 42 years! That is a clear case of pork barrel spending. I want my tax dollars going toward areas of improvement for our country. I want our military fighting terrorists whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or here at home; not part of some dog and pony show at a festival.

The Pentagon clearly stated the festival's website was Christian and although most Americans dont like to admit it, we might have judao christian roots; but as Bob Dylan says, the times, they are a changin'. The U.S. is a melting pot not only of different political ideals, race, various ethnicities and cultures, but various religions.

In addition to Christianity and Judaism, there are worshippers that are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, Parsi's, BaHai, Wicken, Kabbala, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, Hari Krishna.....just to name a few. The President has it right as does the Pentagon. Dont favor one religion over another, keep the practice of seperation of church and state...well...seperate....and dont waste Americans tax dollars on festivals especially when many have lost their jobs and possiblty their homes

Leslie Marshall, Host
The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy In Talk Radio - Of, For And By The People.
"http://www.lesliemarshallshow.com/

The Real Deal With North Korea

Many Americans know the name Kim Jong Il, but not Kim Jong Un. Well they should know the latter soon. At least that’s the way North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Il would like things to go. That’s because Kim Jong Un is his 26 year old son, and chosen successor. Kim Jong Il had at least five children with three women; three sons and two daughters. Kim Jong Un, 26, is the youngest with his older brothers being 38 and 28. This very young age and lack of political experience may explain why the North Korean Dictator is acting crazier than ever lately. His recent stroke and health problems have forced him to reveal his successor earlier than he probably would’ve liked. Now he is trying to leave his son a Nuclear-Armed North Korea. Something he believes would give 26 year old Kim Jong Un instant credibility despite his age.

There is only one known photo of Kim Jong Un outside of North Korea, and it is from when he was 11 years old. Not much is known about the future Dictator. Intelligence reports say that the North Korean successor is very much like his father. “We picture a charismatic young man, authoritarian, politically astute and precocious and ambitious,” said Cheong Seong-chang, a researcher at the Sejong Institute, near Seoul. “We picture Little Kim Jong-Il.”

North Korea’s intentions may be to create nuclear weapons in order to garner respect for their future leader. They may have no intention of actually using them. However, the United States and its Allies in the United Nations cannot take that risk. Not with Kim Jong Il at the helm. Making matters worse, the North Korean Dictator may be planning to launch a missile towards Hawaii in early July, some Intelligence Reports have cited. The missile most likely would not reach Hawaii, but just the act of firing a missile toward the United States is a message in and of itself. It would be extremely difficult for the United States not to react with some measure of its military if that occurred. Even if it was just to shoot the missile down. And who knows what reaction that would conjure up from North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

The good news for the U.S. and South Korea is that both China and Russia are pressuring North Korea to reengage in talks. A statement issued by Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pressed for a peaceful resolution of the Korean standoff and the "swiftest renewal" of the now-frozen six-party talks involving their countries as well as North and South Korea, Japan and the United States. Another good sign is that top U.S. and Chinese military officials will meet next week to discuss North Korea and maritime conflicts with the aim of improving cooperation between Beijing and Washington, the Pentagon said on Friday.

It is in the best interest of all parties involved if North Korea comes back to the table and ceases their crass military actions. In the meantime, President Obama has the right attitude and approach on the situation, and seems to have hit the proverbial ‘nail on the head’ while speaking at the White House with the South Korean President by his side: Obama said that, in recent years, North Korea's provocations have been "rewarded" as Western countries offered fuel, food and loans in exchange for promises of good behavior that are eventually broken.
"We are going to break that pattern," Obama said. North Korea "will not find security or respect through threats and illegal weapons."

Mark "Marky Mark" Grimaldi
Executive Producer
The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy In Talk Radio - Of, For And By The People."
http://www.lesliemarshallshow.com/

Health Care Legislation... "Now or Never??"

The President says we need to have health care legislation passed now, this year or it will never happen. My vote is, (call me Pollyanna!) it will never happen. This is not a negative reflection on the President or my party, the Dems. This is an opinion based on reality.

Reality: there are six health insurance lobbyists per senator.

Reality: if the u.s. government forces the private insurance companies to lower their rates, (which they will if the government expands Medicare or has a seperate plan for lesser cost), then you know what flows down hill and some how, some way, someone will have to pay. That means the doctors. This will reduce the quality of care and ability for doctors to spend the time to give the proper diagnosis. Also malpractice insurance is not addressed in the current reform proposals nor are the pharmaceutical companies who have their lobbyists and their billions as well.

It would take much more than 4 years to fix this problem, and, in my opinion, more than the 6 months we have left in 2009 to draft legislation specific enough to address everyone's needs. Example: If you pay blue cross $1000 a month for health insurance and the goverment's plan costs you $200; but to offset that cost, you have to pay more for your prescriptions, or any dme (durable medical equipment), or xray, or hospital stay, etc. you pay the same or more in the long run. And how does everyone get covered? If you cant pay for the government plan, you're in the same boat.

If the current mortgage/rent prices arent adjusted, how will a small business owner be able to afford to offer this for his/her employees, or even their own families? And if the issues which drive these health care costs through the roof, other than the ceo's at United Health Care, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, etc's greed, arent addressed? What are we left with? We saw what happened with the auto industry when they sacrificed quality for quantity; they failed, miserably.

Those are auto BODIES...what about human BODIES? If the abuse of litigation in our nation against doctors, the cost of pharmaceuticals, the need for extensive tests for a doc to cover their butt against litigation, the ability for docs to actually treat their patients, medical personnel making decisions at insurance companies or for the government as opposed to greedy bureaucrats, our abuse of the emergency room, ambulances, etc., until that is addressed, we're doomed. Just my two cents....uh, I mean $12 for a couple of Tylenol (which i'm sure you'll need after my gloom and doom philosophy of our nation's healthcare!)

Leslie Marshall, Host
The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio - Of, For and By The People."
http://www.lesliemarshallshow.com/

Newt Gingrich better be careful what he wishes for...

Political hack Newt Gingrich had better be careful what he wishes for.  In addition to calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, who dishonors the Congress by her behavior." And saying she's "the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest." Gingrich also said he wants the House to investigate how much Pelosi knew about waterboarding and other controversial practices the CIA used on prisoners.  Despite the fact that I believe Gingrich is just trying to find any kind of distraction right now as only 21% of Americans currently define themselves as 'Republicans,' I think there should be an investigation.  Not only so the real truth can come out, but also because how could the House investigate only Pelosi, and not also investigate what Bush, Cheney and the rest of their administration not only knew and said, but also what they ordered to be done? Think about it.  If you open up an investigation against Pelosi to find out what she knew and when she knew it, how could anyone trying to be fair not investigate Bush, Cheney and the rest of their administration?  Let this next one sink in as well; if Bush, Cheney and Pelosi are all investigated on the subject of waterboarding and torture, who do you think will be in more hot water by the time the investigation is over?  The people who ordered these things done?  Or the person who heard about what was done after it had already taken place?  That's a no-brainer in my book.  So I think this is a great idea, investigate them all.  Leave no rock unturned.  In the end, not only may Newt Gingrich wish that he hadn't opened his mouth, he may have also fired the "starting pistol" that begins the race to investigate Former President Bush and Former Vice President Cheney. Mark 'Marky Mark' Grimaldi The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio - Of, For and By The People." www.lesliemarshallshow.com

John Edwards Cheated!

John Edwards cheated, his wife Elizabeth now knows as does the world. A lot of women are dogging her because she's standing by her man; and I was one of them. That was until I had children.

Look, I was one of the women in America who didnt see a problem with what Lorena Bobbitt did to her husband John. Cut it off and dump him! But now that I have children; and have a family member who survived adultery and have grown up a bit...ok, not much, but a bit....well, I changed my mind! And that a woman has the perrogative to do!

Listen, unless we're in someone's relationship, we dont know what goes on behind closed doors. Elizabeth and John have a history together, children together. She has battled and may continue to battle cancer and even face death. It's easier for a man to find a new mate, and easier for a man to find a new job or career. Elizabeth's job/career has been making John Edwards into the man he is today. He was poor and is now rich. They survived the death of a child together, and having lost my own son 5 years ago, let me tell you, if your marriage can survive that, it can survive anything.

Now dont go thinking "Leslie, you've gone soft on us girl!" Adultery is wrong. And believe me, if my husband cheated, not only would I never trust him again, he would rather I left than the hell I would put him through while staying with him!

But back to Elizabeth Edwards....here is where I think she's wrong...

a) she believes her husband cheated just once and just that one time with that one girl....yes Elizabeth there is a Santa Claus!
b) She says she doesnt know if the baby the woman John Edwards slept with is carrying is his.....has this woman ever heard of DNA!?! She should FORCE her husband to prove his claim that he did not father this child! and
c) I think the saddest thing about all of this is, when Elizabeth and John married, she told him she didnt want a ring, or money, she just wanted one thing from him: for him to be faithful, his fidelity. John Edwards couldnt deliver. He couldnt deliver this to a woman who stood behind him when he was a struggling lawyer, on the campaign trail for the Senate and for the White House as V.P.

Although some of you may feel Elizabeth is the loser here, it is clearly John that's the biggest loser of all, and I'm not talking a t.v. show to lose weight my friend. Sex is sex, but loyalty, well now, that's something you just cant find much of nowadays. And we wonder why 54% of all marriages end in divorce? Marriage isnt the sacred institution it once was....I guess the next question is why....is it our lack of "family values?" (gulp- did I say that?!?) or society's placing a lack of importance on this institution?

One thing I am sure of, it doesnt matter whether it was between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman...betrayal is just that, and since Elizabeth was the victim here, she needs to be the one to decide on how she will punish her perpetrator for his crime. I just hope she realizes that the ball's in her court now and I think it's about time that John Edwards supports Elizabeth for a change.

Leslie Marshall

The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People"http://www.lesliemarshallshow.com/

What does America think of President Obama's first 100 days?

Many Presidential Scholars will tell you that the first 100 days can really set the stage for a Presidency.  So that may help to explain why President Obama has taken on so much at once.  Or you can just look back to late September, when Senator John McCain was ready to pull out of one of the Presidential debates.  Then Senator Obama said, "Presidents need to be able to do more than one thing at a time."  Looks like now President Obama is one person who also 'walks the walk.'   According to one report, a top White House aide says of the 100-day mark: "This isn't Biblical. You don't do 100 days and rest," but acknowledges that President Obama's first 100 days have been the most productive since FDR's.  When it comes to the economy, President Obama has passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus package, protected homeowners with Housing recovery measures, and put laws on the books aiming to prevent another financial collapse like the one that happened under the Bush Administration.  The President has also signed into law a bill that provides 4 million uninsured children with health care, set a fixed timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, and ended the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."   The American people have noticed all of the work the President has done, and according to polls, they think the country is better off for it.  An Associated Press-Gfk poll released yesterday shows that for the first time since January of 2004, more Americans than not say that the country is headed in the right direction.  The "right direction" poll number is up 8 points since February, and a remarkable 31 points since October, the month before President Obama's election.     According to the poll, most Americans say President Obama is changing things at about the right speed. Only about a third say he's trying to change too many things too quickly. Seven in ten Americans say it is reasonable to expect it to take longer than a year to see the results of President Obama's economic policies. Seven in ten Americans also say that President Obama understands the concerns of ordinary Americans. That's a sharp contrast to former President Bush, who won re-election in 2004 despite the fact that 54 percent of voters on that Election Day said he cared more about large corporations.   The thing that stands out the most to me in all of this, is the huge increase in the American people's confidence.  As previously stated, the "right direction" poll number is up 8 points since February, and an astounding 31 points since October, the month before President Obama's election.  And any good Economist will tell you, the Economy will start to get back on track once the American people get their confidence back.  It's only 100 days, but according to you the American people, we're "on the right track."    Mark "Marky Mark" Grimaldi   The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com

CIA Agents that Tortured Terror Suspects will not be prosecuted

I am deeply disappointed today in the President I elected. President Obama is keeping with the old Bush tactics by absolving the CIA of their sins of torture during interrogation.

A "suspect" is just that, suspect.....one we are suspicious of in the course of an action, a crime, even terrorism. One of the wonderful things about America in my opinion is the idea that we're actually innocent until proven guilty; that the burden of proof is on the prosecutorial team. I know that during war, or a suspect of terror for instance, isnt covered under the same rights that you and I are as citizens. But let's talk about a suspect, or a prisoner of war's rights, shall we?

On August 12, 1949, the Geneva Conventions adopted their "Treatment for Prisoners of War." The Geneva Conventions state, and I quote:

the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to prisoners of war:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. And the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

(Which the International Red Cross already stated was not always complied with).

According to the information I have read in the Bush memos, and I havent read them in their entirety as of yet, we, the United States, and members of our Central Intelligence Agency, under the Bush administration violated this convention. The U.S., the CIA and all governing bodies involved, including the former President, Vice President, his administration, etc. are guilty of breaking International law. This makes us no different than North Korea with their nukes or Iran's threat to destroy Israel.

For President Obama to forgive and move on in a matter of speaking is not only unbecoming the conduct of a sitting President, it makes him no different than a Bush Washington insider. It also gives the CIA a green light to torture in the future, threatens our climb back to the level of respect we as a nation once received from the world; and hurts our own military or citizens who might be kidnapped or arrested and held as hostages or prisoners, whether in a time of war, or in a time of peace. (Which the conventions specifically state the above mentioned applies to). I am deeply disappointed and have lost both trust and respect for my President today.

Leslie Marshall, Host
The Leslie Marshall Show"
The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of, For, And By The People"
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Fox Hits a New Low, Again...

There are some things that you just don't do.  Laugh at an old person if they fall.  Make fun of a handicapped person.  Taunt a homeless person.  These are things that we're taught at a very young age.  When we see someone else do them, we are disgusted and appalled by them; and rightfully so.  Yet the Fox Network and Fox News don't share that common sense.  Maybe it's because ruthless media hoarder Rupert Murdoch owns both of them.  Maybe it's because Fox doesn't have a problem profiting off of some of the worst things we face in life.  Either way, they do not seem to have a conscience, and their newest show proves it. If you haven't heard about the show, it's called 'Someone's Gotta Go."  Each Episode will feature a person getting laid off in these tough economic times.  To make matters worse, before the poor sap is laid off, the whole world will know how much money they make.  That's right; Fox will show everyone's salaries on the show before they help give someone the ax.  Also, the employee will not be fired by their boss based on their performance or anything practical like that; Fox will let the employee's co-workers fire them.  So this means if you're a hard worker and a bunch of slackers at your company don't want you making them look bad by actually doing your job, they get to fire you.  Great business model.  In such tough economic times that have resulted in people actually snapping and shooting their entire families to death; does Fox try to help?  No, they offer to go outside of their own company to fire people and actually make the situation worse.  And while all of this is going on, they're profiting from it.  I can't think of many things more disgusting or wrong than that.  The creator of the show, Fox's Mike Darnell, says he isn't concerned about the emotional fallout in a workplace after "Someone's Gotta Go," where an employee might be left to work with a colleague they'd just said on national television should be fired. "Sounds like good reality television," he said. "You just described a good concept for a reality TV show."  Mike, let's just say you'd better hope the two of us never meet in a dark alley; because I'd like to give you more than a piece of my mind.  As if taking tough economic times and then profiting off of making them worse isn't bad enough, there's more.  If we don't rise up and send a message to Fox that we do not want this show to air, then we're saying not only are we okay with this, we're okay with the precedent it sets and what's yet to come.  If we let this show air, what's next?  Fox gathers up a group of Cancer patients and decides which one is denied health care?  Fox gets a room of pregnant women together and they can't leave until they pick which mother's baby should be aborted?  Don't think that's possible?  Well if you don't tell Fox that enough is enough right now, then don't be surprised when they take it to the next level, again.  There are plenty of entertaining shows out there that don't hurt people like this.  We don't need this America. If you are outraged and do not want Fox profiting off of everyday people suffering in these difficult times, you can do something about it.  If you'd like, you can call Fox or write them a letter and tell them you do not want "Someone's Gotta Go" to air.  You can also tell them if the show does air, you will not watch any programming from the Fox Network or Fox News.  The phone number for Fox Broadcasting Company is (310) 369-1000, Fax - (310) 369-1283.  If you'd like to send them a letter their mailing address is: Fox Broadcasting Company 10201 W. Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90035 Mark "Marky Mark" Grimaldi Executive Producer The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of, For, And By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Who is the bad guy? Palestine or Israel...

When you read headlines like : "Palestinian kills 14 year old child with a pick ax..." it is hard to feel any remorse for the Palestinian people. But that is just the problem with America and the American media.

If you travel or live outside the country, as I have, you will see with Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., that the Palestinian's arent always the bad guys. True, Hamas are terrorists and must revoke their charter and recognize the state of Israel. True, the Palestinian people were desperate to elect Hamas in the first place; but that is just it my friend, they ARE desperate. Desperate for peace, desperate to be heard, desperate to send their child to school without strapping a bullet proof vest on them; desperate to feed their aching bellies and to bandage their bleeding wounds.

If you believe everything you read, hear and see in the American media, you would think that the Israeli's are all loving people who want peace and never are the perpetrators in any violent situation; they are simply defending themselves. Although when it comes to dealings with Hamas this might be true; it is not true in dealing with the Palestinian population as a whole. The problem, as one of my callers so eloquently illustrated on my talk program Thursday evening, is that Americans view Palestinians as all supporters of Hamas; ergo they are all terrorists. They are all the bad guys.

We need more "fair and balanced" reporting in our media with regards to the middle east; and I'm not talking the fair balance Fox News Channel gives you. We need the facts from both sides so we can determine the truth and form our opinions based on that truth. In the case of Israel, it is certainly not a "liberal" media. There can never be peace in the middle east if America continues to bankroll Israel. There can never be peace in the middle east if Americans continue their hatred toward Palestinians. There can never be peace in the middle east without truth, plain and simple.

Leslie Marshall

The Leslie Marshall Show"
The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People"
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Drugs Legal in America?

Drugs legal in America.  At first glance, it sounds alarming to some.  But why is that the case when so many drugs are already legal in the U.S.?  Prozac, Valium, Oxycontin, Viagra, and Cialis just to name a few.  Those roll off of the tongue with ease.  But the mention of Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy and Heroin generate a much different reaction from most Americans. Forget why this is, people don't usually examine the reason for their reaction.  Maybe it was growing up with some education programs fighting drug use, like D.A.R.E.  Or maybe it was someone's parents or family that instilled in them that drug use is wrong.  It's tough to credit society these days with steering people away from drugs.  Any good that society does is easily neutralized with one hour of Entertainment News and learning about who's abusing what this week.  We know drugs can be harmful.  That's not the issue at hand.  The real question is, could they be less harmful on society? The growing violence across the U.S.- Mexican border is spilling over into America more and more every day.  And let's face it, many Americans don't start paying attention to something until it's in our backyard.  So while we have the attention of the American people, it's the perfect time to pose this question:  Should the United States of America legalize drug use? If we did, it could help to stop the drug-related violence along our border and around the rest of our country.  The Government could also regulate the production and sale of these drugs which would have a lot of positive effects on the country.  First, the Government could produce the drugs and the FDA could inspect and regulate them.  This would mean a much safer product and clear warnings for people who use them, like cigarettes and alcohol already have listed on their packaging.  Second, the Government could tax these drugs at a high rate like they do on cigarettes and make a great deal of money for the country and its states.  Third, legalizing drugs could give the U.S. a shot in the arm as a travel destination for tourists.  Just like Amsterdam is a destination for people who want to smoke Marijuana legally. Lastly, the Government could use this money for a variety of useful purposes.  They could use it to help balance state budgets (46 of our 50 United States could file bankruptcy this year due to the Recession).  For those concerned about preventing drug use, the Government could use this new found money to fund drug rehab programs that are underfunded, or don't exist yet. Now legalizing drugs isn't all a big positive.  Some people may not currently use drugs because they are afraid of being arrested and thrown in jail.  Those same people may not feel that fear if these drugs are legal and more pure, which could lead to them using.  But then again, why is this prospect okay with some Americans for alcohol and tobacco, but not for drugs? I say make alcohol and tobacco illegal just like other drugs are, or start making Marijuana legal.  I still can't sit here and say I'd be okay with Cocaine, Heroin, and Ecstasy being legal.  Marijuana has some medical benefits, like relieving the pain of terminally ill people and is legal in some parts of the U.S. for that specific use.  At worst, Marijuana kills some brain cells, makes people lazy and gives them the munchies.  If people want to do that to themselves, that is their personal choice.  I'm okay with it in exchange for the benefits I listed above, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  But the harder drugs that I mentioned seem to make people more dangerous when they are on them.  Therefore, I think the negatives far out way the positives for those.  So in my United States, if you can buy cigarettes and alcohol legally, you should be able to do the same for Marijuana.  In the meantime we should at least stop crowding our jails with non-violent drug offenders.  It doesn't help in rehabbing the drug users and it's just another bill for the American tax payers.  Looks like New York Governor David Paterson and I are on the same page.  Just today he agreed to ease drug laws in N.Y.  These drug laws were once among the harshest in the nation and led a movement more than 30 years ago toward mandatory prison terms.  Paterson says that judges will now be able to use techniques like treatment and counseling that have proven more effective than prison for low-level offenders. At the same time, penalties will be toughened for drug kingpins.  New York has taken the lead here America, let's follow. Leslie Marshall and Mark Grimaldi The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com

AIG: 2 Questions should be asked...

There are two questions regarding AIG and these numerous failed corporations:

a) should the government have bailed them out and

b) what to do about those bonuses?

The first is simple. Just as we have separation of church and state, so should we have a separation between the federal government and the private sector. It's astonishing to me that Republicans want less government, but want their corporate buddies bailed out!?! The Government has no business in the private sector. Let AIG, GM, etc. fail. If they cant run their own company; if GM didnt forsee needing to make an environmentally sound vehcile like a hybrid and cared more about quantity than quality; unlike the Germans and the Japanese, then so be it. If they were making great cars, that were affordable and perhaps didnt eat as much gas like a hybrid, we would have bought them. Pure and simple.

As for the second question, question "b"; what to do about those bonuses? That's pure and simple too. If the government owns 80% of AIG, that is enough ownership to disallow the previous contracts which guaranteed those bonuses. Anyone in business knows that contracts are only as good as the paper they're written on. So tax them at 90% ? Absolutely- I say tax them at 100%. Take the 170 Billion back and let them figure out how to pay out the $165 million to the 400 AIG current/former employees. If they/AIG feel the contract on bonuses must be honored; then let them do it, not the American taxpayer. Let the folks at AIG and on Wall Street feel what it's like to be an average American for a change.

Leslie Marshall

The Leslie Marshall Show
"The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People"
www.lesliemarshallshow.com

Man Of Steele?

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is a man torn right down the middle.  His moral compass seems to be pulling him one way (left in some people's opinions), while the rest of the GOP is pulling him in the opposite direction. Less than ten days after having to apologize for speaking his mind about Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele is recanting statements again.  This time it came from an interview he did with the popular Men's Magazine GQ.  The interview was conducted by GQ's Lisa DePaulo on February 24th, and was posted on-line Wednesday night.  Steele called abortion an "individual choice" and opposed a constitutional ban on abortion during the interview.  Here is the exchange: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" GQ's Lisa DePaulo asked in the interview in his office.  "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice," he said, according to GQ's transcript. "You do?" he was asked. "Yeah. Absolutely," he said. Steele does not dispute the transcript.  He did however issue a statement on it yesterday: "I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.  I tried to present why I am pro-life while recognizing that my mother had a 'choice' before deciding to put me up for adoption," he said, explaining his comments. "But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment." Chairman Steele, we already have a wuss in politics that goes whichever way the wind blows, his name is Joe Lieberman.  Show some guts and stick to your guns.  If you believe something, tell us you believe it and why.  Most importantly, stand by what you believe after it comes out of your mouth. There are a couple of disturbing things that have surfaced thanks to this story.  For starters, the fact that what you truly believe doesn't matter in GOP politics.  Put away your moral compass, it will set off the metal detector at the RNC.  This is further evidenced by Tony Perkins' comment on the issue: "[Steele] assured me as chairman his views did not matter and that he would be upholding and promoting the party platform, which is very clear on these issues," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the chairman's pledge." Anyone notice anything wrong with that sentence?  How about the part that reads "[Steele] assured me as chairman his views did not matter..."??? To make matters worse, check out the Republicans solution to this "problem."  The president of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said she expected Steele to win back anti-abortion support by engaging in the public fight on "wedge issues" like Obama's move to end the Mexico City Policy, which barred the use of federal dollars by foreign nonprofits that offered abortion counseling.  "When you have an issue like that, you ought to be using it," she said.  So in a time of Economic Crisis and uncertainty, the GOP wants to focus on wedge issues.  The same thing that got George W. Bush elected in 2004.  AKA, Karl Rove's "God, Guns and Gays." Looks like Chairman Steele would've been best-suited to stick to his guns, because the GOP looks like they'll be conducting business as usual for the foreseeable future. Leslie Marshall and Mark Grimaldi The Leslie Marshall Show "The Only True Democracy in Talk Radio – Of For And By The People" www.lesliemarshallshow.com