Lost amidst billionaires throwing themselves under trains or slitting their wrists with box-cutters is the quieter despair of arts organizations and artists all over the country.

Artists and arts institutions live from hand to mouth most of the time, alas; they are scrappy and resourceful, generally uncomplaining and used to being valued less than bureaucrats, bankers or engineers.

The federal budget is a testament to the place of culture in the national pecking order: long a line-item stepchild, the Arts Endowment is perpetually in funding free-fall. Though many other agencies have hidden mechanisms for art (embassies, for example, buy art, architects are commissioned by the GSA to design courthouses), or are disguised as historic or education initiatives, alt funding for arts organizations on the dole is wildly erratic.

Calls, which reappear almost every election cycle, for a cabinet-level position for the arts as it exists in most other nations in the world, have even recently been heard from stars like Quincy Jones, who himself volunteered to do it on Charlie Rose.

While a cultural czar can be a good thing, it's only a good thing if there is money to back it up. The total budget last year for the National Endowment for the Arts was $144 million -- probably not even enough to buy one wing of a stealth bomber (last reported at $1.5 billion).

Others have called for an arts bailout, figuring if the car guys can go to Washington on their jets and beg , why can't we take that new Vamoose bus service that costs only $25 to sing for our suppers?

For all our failings on the federal level, the state and local scrappiness hasn't entirely been a bad thing. At the New York State Council on the Arts in the seventies, we would sit around the table moaning and groaning about our paltry piece of the state or federal budgets and yet some enormously creative institutions were launched (PS 1/Clocktower, BAM), precursors of more recent recycled spaces -- museums like Dia and Mass Moca.

Of course it hasn't helped when big beneficiaries like the Smithsonian have been embroiled in scandal, but then why should arts administrators be any different from sketchy justice department honchos or crooked financial titans?

Creativity is so often forced to go underground and rely on itself that while it should not have to be the norm, the downturn may not be as frightening for us.

What is new is the fact that the rest of the economy has suddenly found itself in the same soup: car dealers, doctors, and yes, even bankers have their hands out the same way we are usually do. (Wouldn't you love to see Bernie Madoff on guitar and Rick Wagoner on keyboard playing for tips down in the subway?!)

Socrates divvied up art into three categories: "one which uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them." Lewis Hyde, a poet who has written about and studied what art is for has himself focused on the study of gift exchange, the idea that it's the giving and passing on of gifts that creates value. That puts artists, and creative people in category two, the makers, but dependent on category one (most of the rest of us), the receivers. That means we have to be there, and be ready to receive the gifts and careful we don't fall into category three, the impostors -- consumers only worried about how much something is worth in the marketplace.

I've been trying to get a handle on whether our Pres Elect cares as much about the arts as basketball (I don't think so, though you shouldn't have to choose) and I know he has some pretty big fish to fry right off the bat (saving people's houses, health and education) as well as helping the middle east and Africa from imploding.

His campaign put out a statement early on
which, perhaps anticipating the realities of the economic downturn, focused on art in education and cultural exchange and which ducked the core issues that confront artists when they get up each day and need a place to create their work, to show it, and get paid to do it.

Many museums and performing arts organizations know better than to look to Washington as they account for expected shortfalls in commitments from donors and they are calling upon their trustees to again be creative in these hard times, e.g. supporting ticketing discounts, free evenings etc.

Though the Obamas do apparently have a fave musician, Stevie Wonder, a look at the programming for '09 (already in place for some time) at many arts institutions reflects some of the change that the Obamas have inevitably seeded on their path to the White House.

In the coming weeks, the Culture Zohn will take a closer look at creative people and places of all stripes in a new series called Off the C(H)uff, as we remind ourselves that you aren't only what you eat or drive or where you bank but of the gifts that we receive from those amongst us who share their vision.

A whopping 70,000 questions poured into Change.gov over the past week, in response to the Obama transition team's call for citizen queries to the President-Elect. After votes from about 100,000 people, the top ranked question asks Obama whether he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of torture and illegal surveillance by the U.S. government.
I've been working with activist Bob Fertik to organize support for the question, and several progressive bloggers urged readers and Obama supporters to vote for it last week. Digby, who has written extensively about the Bush administration's abuse of the rule of law, recently reported on the progress:

I wrote a post about [an] initiative spearheaded by Ari Melber of The Nation and Democrats.com to ask President-elect Obama if he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes in the Bush administration over at Change.gov. (In a previous round, it was the sixth most asked question...) This time, through their efforts, it's number one. This is particularly important, since the press has only asked Obama about this one time, last April. And a lot has happened since then, most obviously the fact that Vice President is all over television admitting to war crimes as if he's proud of it.

Then The New York Times picked up the news:

[T]he number one submission on the popular "Open for Questions" portion of the site might seem more than a little impolitic to [President Bush]: "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor -- ideally Patrick Fitzgerald -- to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping," wrote Bob Fertik of New York, who runs the Web site, Democrats.com.

Though the Obama team has promised to answer some of the top questions as early as this week, they have not said whether they will respond to Mr. Fertik's, which has received more than 22,000 votes since the second round of the question-and-answer feature began on Dec. 30. The site logged more than 1.5 million votes for 20,000-plus questions... The second highest-ranked submission, which is about oversight of the nation's banking industry, is several thousand of votes behind the query about a special prosecutor. Mr. Fertik's question has been pushed to the top, in part, by a coalition of liberal bloggers...

The national press corps has not raised this issue with Obama since his victory. (When it surfaced in April, Obama said he would order his attorney general to "immediately review" the potential crimes.) And while leading question in the last Change.gov forum was dispatched breezily -- Will you legalize marijuana? No. -- this one is far more challenging, both substantively and politically.

The Times notes that Obama's team has "not said" whether it will even answer Fertik's question, though ignoring the question that came in first out of 74,000 would turn this exercise into a farce. A terse, evasive answer would be similarly unacceptable. After all, there would be little point in this online dialogue if it reiterates things we already know, (Obama is not in N.O.R.M.L.), and refuses to provide new information.

That's why this may be the first big test for Change.gov as a genuinely interactive dialogue.

Thousands of Americans are asking whether President Obama will order an independent investigation to ensure our laws are enforced -- in an era when powerful people in government have engaged in criminal conduct and relentlessly tried to make their behavior off limits for media and political discussion. We expect a "yes," "no" or detailed explanation of how and when Obama and his aides will make this decision. Time is running out, of course, because the question must be answered, for Congress and the public, before Eric Holder's confirmation hearing. He must explain how he will restore independence, professionalism and the rule of law to a Justice Department that politicized U.S. attorneys and covered up torture and warrantless surveillance.

Law professor Jonathan Turley, a nonpartisan legal analyst who testified before Congress in favor of President Clinton's impeachment, recently explained that Holder simply should not be confirmed if he is not prepared to enforce the laws banning torture. "Eric Holder should be asked the same question that Mukasey refused to answer in his confirmation hearing: is waterboarding a crime?" Professor Turley stated. "If he refuses to answer or denies that it is a crime, he should not be confirmed. If he admits that it is a crime, he should order a criminal investigation." According to Change.gov, the crowds agree with the experts on this one.

--
From The Nation.

"The Pentagon has decided that it will not award the Purple Heart, the hallowed medal given to those wounded or killed in action, to war veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder because it is not a physical wound." The New York Times, January 8, 2009.

Lesson One: The mind is a property of the brain.

Lesson Two: The brain is located in the body.

Lesson Three: The hippocampus, a part of the brain responsible for our ability to have a conscious history, is one of the neurological casualties of traumatic experiences. It is damaged to the point of shrinking when saturated with a toxic flood of stress hormones. This not only leads to impaired memory. It also prevents the hippocampus from putting the brakes on the hair-trigger emotional responses of one of the brain's more primitive structures, the amygdala.

Lesson Four: Traumatic stress is often the result when soldiers are required to risk mutilation or death, to inflict it on others, or witness the maiming or annihilation of friends and comrades.

Lesson Five: Trauma sufficient to cause PTSD is no less physical than a bullet to the head.

Homework: Discard Rene Descartes' disembodied mind. Reread Gray's Anatomy.

Extra Credit: Read The Brain and the Inner World by Mark Solms and Oliver Turnbull, and take it seriously enough to ground your policies in science.

Twitter x 365 = Holiday Family Newsletter.

My partner and I just finished sending out our holiday cards...er...New Year's cards, featuring an image of our 4-year-old daughter. But to some people, especially the assorted older women who love her, we sent more photos and artwork. And notes. Handwritten. Personalized for the recipient. In other words, letters!

Letters are the anti-Twitter. And the anti-Holiday Family Newsletter. Instead of putting out to the whole world how I want to be seen, with little regard for the individual (as I'm doing with this blog entry), when I oh-so-rarely sit down to write a letter, I'm thinking about my last interaction with each person and what I think they'd like to know about.

What amazes me is that I used to take the time to write this type of letter regularly. In college, twenty-page tomes to various high school friends were not uncommon. During this last presidential campaign, a minor stir was created when a man Hillary Clinton had corresponded with prodigiously during her college years revealed her letters to the New York Times. He wasn't particularly close to her then or now -- they just both liked to write, so they wrote to each other. I had friends like that. One fellow letter writer was my high school nemesis of sorts; we liked to get into heated political battles and often ended up pissing each other off. He interned for Congressman Barney Frank the year he came out. Now this made for some interesting reading! (Long ago recycled, unfortunately.)

I suppose it's not coincidental that I chose to write these most recent letters to women of a certain age. They grew up in an era when letter writing was even more common. At 40, I am right on the cusp, between old school and new media. No, who am I kidding - I am old school, but trying my best to keep up. I vow to actively use LinkedIn and Facebook this year. Twitter? We'll see.

When my daughter gets a letter from one of these grandmother-types, her immediate impulse is to sit down and draw them a picture. It's a marvelous impulse, hands-on and personalized, a desire I want to nurture in her. Even though I know she'll surpass me digitally in a matter of minutes.

Just as Karl Rove-style tactics didn't work against Barack Obama's campaign, union supporters see promising signs that the spate of negative TV and print ads from corporate front groups attacking the Employee Free Choice Act appear to be failing to sway the public. The main line of attack is that the proposed bill would supposedly take away the right to a secret ballot for workers; in fact, the bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to give workers the choice of whether to have a secret-ballot election or the majority sign-up approach for a union, also dubbed "card check" by some.

The latest good news for backers of the bill came with new polling released Thursday by Hart Research Associates that found 78 percent of the public favors legislation that would make it easier for workers to bargain with their employers. Unlike some skewed polls offered before the election by business critics of the legislation, Hart's research, commissioned by the AFL-CIO, gave a fair description of its three key elements, as outlined in the memo available here, including majority sign-up. A striking 75% of the public favored the provision of the bill that "allows employees to have a union once a majority of employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating they want to form a union."

A spokesperson for a Chamber of Commerce-backed organization, the Coalition for Workplace Democracy, told me, while justifying new misleading ads: "I would argue that because the legislation effectively takes away the secret ballot folks are having second thoughts about it," she says of the bill's progress in Congress, "and the sense of urgency has been pushed back."

But I found in doing reporting for a new In These Times piece precisely the opposite:

In truth, the cratering economy has added a new urgency to pro-labor legislation and the strong public support for the measure shows that the false attacks aren't working , union advocates, pollsters and most independent journalists contend. A New York Times editorial saying passage of the bill is urgently needed now to help raise wages has become the centerpiece of a new SEIU ad campaign. Alison Omens, an AFL-CIO spokesperson, observes, "Leaders in Congress and the public understand that without workers having the freedom to bargain collectively they can't rebuild the middle class. There is broad support and understanding of the need for legislation to allow workers to have a better life," especially since wages have been stagnant for at least a decade. At a briefing on the Hart polling on Thursday, the AFL-CIO's legislative director, Bill Samuel, added that the anti-Free Choice ads "haven't had much effect," while contending that the more people "think about the economy," the more support for the legislation grows.

In fact, Esther Kaplan reinforces the importance of a strong labor movement to an economic and progressive recovery in an important new Nation article, "Can Labor Revive the American Dream?"

But as the leading corporate lobbies recognize, the bill could have far-reaching effects. By reviving unions, it could push up wages, realigning the broken economy so that company profits are spread beyond CEOs. It could help rein in corporate power and, perhaps most threatening to a business community that has enjoyed decades of deregulation, sustain a progressive majority in Washington in the years to come. If progressives aren't doing the math, conservatives are. "Unions don't spend money to elect Republicans," Senator John Ensign told a group of executives this past fall. "They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, this would have devastating consequences."

Despite some ambivalence from the Obama team during the transition about pushing for the bill there are signs that the tide is turning towards strong and early action, if not necessarily in the first month:

Union strategists are confident they'll be able to reach the 60 votes needed to break any GOP filibuster, by holding all Democrats and adding Sen. Arlen Specter, a past supporter of the bill. And now veteran political reporters are finding a new determination among Democratic leaders and the incoming Obama administration to press for the bill. In a tough-minded piece for Porfolio, Matthew Cooper writes, "Transition officials were divided on how aggressively and quickly Obama should move on the bill, but sources close to the campaign tell me he will push ahead."

It's small wonder that union advocates were so cheered by the new polling. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney proclaimed Thursday when the new polling numbers were released: "In today's economic squeeze, workers need the freedom to bargain their way into the middle class more than ever. This new research confirms that the vast majority of Americans support workers' freedom to form unions to improve their lives and support the Employee Free Choice Act, which is key to making our economy work for everyone." It still remains to be seen whether the union movement and its progressive allies can rally enough support to overcome the corporate smear ads and spur Congress to pass the legislation, but so far, with widespread public backing for the bill and the new Congress already taking up fair pay for women legislation this week, the signs are strikingly positive.

*******************
Art Levine co-hosts the "D'Antoni and Levine" show each Thursday at 5:30 p.m., ET.

I ran into a friend at the gym last week. Originally from Switzerland, he has been living in Los Angeles for 20 years. Ten years ago he and his partner purchased a beautiful home, which sits at the end of a cull de sac in the Wes Hollywood Hills, where many enjoy a pristine, quiet life. He lives in a home many people would not even venture into for an open house because they know they couldn't afford it. I would go as far as to say he lives a privileged life. So I was rather struck when during our brief conversation my friend revealed that he was choosing to leave L.A.

He had always been a person who was quite fond of expressing his love and gratitude for living in Los Angeles. So, I asked, "What has made you decide to sell your beautiful home and move?" His reply came as a surprise: "This town has gotten so hectic and chaotic. I used to be able to relax here. I used to find it peaceful. I really don't anymore. I have not really been able to relax in LA for a long time."

His statement gave me reason to pause, and also gave me food for brain fodder. There have been times when I, too, have shared his sentiment about living in Los Angeles. It's easy to get caught up in the notion that one's surroundings can dictate his or her level of life enjoyment. But I've noticed that, more often than not, when I am running around chaotic like the proverbial chicken with its head chopped off, it is on a day when I did not practice my morning ritual of centering and meditating.
Because my friend and I were both in the middle of our workouts, I did not share what was coming to mind for me, so we finished up our chat by talking about the recent holidays. He shared his experience going to church on Christmas Eve, and after he had moved on to a different machine in the gym, I found myself reflecting upon our conversation. I wondered if, during his trip to church, he had been instructed by the pastor to turn to his neighbor and say "Peace be with you." As a non-practicing Jew who's been to Christian services once or twice, I had always enjoyed this part of the service, but now I find myself contemplating the meaning of that phrase.

Although I know it means "I hope that you find peace," I've come to believe that "Peace be with you" is a somewhat misleading saying. And as I typed 'Peace be with you,' I found myself reminded of this when my word processing program suggested an alternative: "Peace is with you." This, to me, is the more truthful and appropriate thing to say to someone, for it suggests that peace lies within each of us and that we all have the capacity to access it if we choose to. Perhaps computers do sometimes know more than people after all.

It is easy to allow ourselves to get caught in the fear and chaos that can come with the state of current global affairs. Our economy is heinous. People are still killing each other in the name of oil and in the name of their chosen gods. Is peace really something we think we can find looking down to the cityscape from the hill we live on in Los Angeles, or from the 30th floor of the building in which we live in Times Square?

When we continue to seek peace as if it is an external experience to be provided sometime in the future by something or someone other than ourselves, it never arrives. The truth is that peace is a reality that lies within you. Just like love, joy, silence, and grace it cannot be created or destroyed. It just is.

The inner experience of peace is a choice we can make. For instance, for me choosing peace can be as simple as disengaging from the inner experience of fear and chaos that can come when I check the balance on my retirement account. Instead of giving in to that fear, I give myself permission to focus on the fact that in this moment my needs are more than met. It can be as simple as choosing to focus on my breath rather than the person who just cut me off in traffic. I chose to see being laid off from my last corporate position at the end of 2007 as a gift from spirit telling me it was time to stop dabbling in my coaching/seminar business part time, as I had been doing for years, and finally commit full time to a coaching career. And, a few years ago, when my brothers and I had to remove my mother from the life support that kept her breathing following a health battle, I chose peace. I left the hospital room to go to the chapel, where I intended to have a few moments of peace and silence. It was in that peace a very clear message came from spirit advising me to go back to her room, because her transition was imminent. I did, and within a very short period of time she made her peaceful transition.

Albert Camus once wrote, "In the depths of winter, I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer." I think this sentiment best describes the idea that we all have the capacity to find within ourselves the peace that we normally seek from outside influences. So as we maneuver through the days of this winter season and the days following, let's all remember to keep celebrating the summer that lives inside of us.

Peace be within you.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Trying to find peace during times of chaos and uncertainty? Send Jason a question @ info@jmannino.com

Learn more about Jason and his coaching technique: A.C.T.ion Centered transformation @ www.jmannino.com

(sung to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies". Twice. Sort of. Whatever.)

Come and listen to a story bout a family named Bush
Got to where it was by kissing Nazi tush
Then while W. was chopping up some blow
Old Poppy came around, told him "Clean up your show!"

Ran a couple of comp'nies straight underground
The only thing those wells produced was a giant sucking sound
So George was born again and annointed from above
With Turd Blossom smearing he won the seat of Gov (o' Texas, that is. Saudi gold. Redistrictin'.)

He cleared a lotta brush and he made a lotta gaffes
He swaggered and he snickered, had the I.Q. of a calf
And when the towers fell Dick and Rummy went to town
Soldier's deaths spiraled up while the econ'my tumbled down

They were arrogant n' smug an' they did just what they please
They didn't care for privacy or decent appointees
They fixed up the elections in '00 and in '04
And turned this once great nation into a giant oil whore (Bankrupted, see? Morally and financially)

Y'all don't come back, now. Y'hear?

The VH-1 Critics Choice Awards were in Los Angeles on Thursday night. In addition to winners like Sean Penn and Ben Stiller (full list here) were nominees Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Diane Lane, Penelope Cruz, Dakota Fanning, Mickey Rourke, Eva Longoria Parker and more.


SLIDESHOW:

Confronted with intense skepticism on Capitol Hill over the $700 billion financial rescue program, Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner and President-elect Barack Obama's economic team are urgently overhauling the embattled initiative and broadening its scope well beyond Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Geithner has been working night and day on the eighth floor of the transition team office in downtown Washington with Lawrence H. Summers and other senior economic advisers to hash out a new approach that would expand the program's aid to municipalities, small businesses, homeowners and other consumers. With lawmakers stewing over how Bush administration officials spent the first $350 billion, Geithner has little chance of winning congressional approval for the second half without retooling the program, the sources added.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Treasury has failed to reveal its strategy for stabilizing the financial system, not answered questions asked by a government watchdog, and has done nothing to help struggling homeowners, a report being released Friday charges.

In the most scathing criticism yet of Treasury's implementation of the $700 billion financial-rescue package, a draft report being issued by the five-member congressional oversight panel said there appear to be "significant gaps" in Treasury's ability to track hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

In the early days, every public official associated with TARP--the $700 billion Targeted Asset Relief Program--promised openness and transparency.

"We need oversight," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared on September 23 to the Senate Banking Committee. "We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it." The next day, at a joint House-Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke backed Paulson up: "Transparency is a big issue." Less than a month later, on October 13, newly appointed Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari told the Institute of International Bankers:

"Treasury is committed to an open and transparent program with appropriate oversight. We look forward to continuing to work with the Oversight Board, the Inspector General, the Comptroller General, and the Congress as we set up and execute this program. Transparency will not only give the American people comfort in our execution, it will give the markets confidence in what form our action will take."

Since then, all fees and hourly rate charges have been blacked out on publicly-available copies of Treasury oversight and financial management contracts with law firms, banks and other consultants; banks receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer money have stonewalled press inquires about what they have done with the cash; key government boards make policy behind closed doors and release minutes that only hint at the problems the massive program has encountered; and at least three news organization - Bloomberg, Fox News and Bailoutsleuth.com -- have filed suit to force disclosure of more key information.

Brookly McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, defended practices at Treasury, saying "there are several reporting requirements and we have met every one of them."

The opaque character of much of TARP is reflected in the proceedings of the five-member Financial Stability Oversight Board (FSOB), which has responsibility for reviewing the program and evaluating its effectiveness "in assisting American families in preserving home ownership, stabilizing financial markets, and protecting taxpayers." FSOP members are Bernanke, chair; Paulson; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair, Christopher Cox; Director of the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA), James B. Lockhart III; and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Steve Preston.

The FSOB held a closed meeting on December 10 to discuss an extraordinary range of key economic and policy issues. Later, tor public consumption, the board released four pages of minutes.

For those curious about what this group of five top policy-makers was up to, there are a grand total of 928 words describing their take on such complex matters as the overall effectiveness of TARP; the massive $55 billion Treasury purchase of Citibank preferred stock, along with "the loss protection and residual financing" on $306 billion in assets provided to Citigroup by Treasury, the FDIC and Federal Reserve; the procedures governing public access to records; the state of the housing and financial markets; the need to establish "metrics" to evaluate TARP; and the development of a strategy for ultimately unloading all assets acquired under TARP

If these issues were dealt with in a substantive manner, you would never know it by reading the minutes.

A total of 117 words are devoted to subsidies for Citigroup, and the reader of the minutes learns only that the FSOB "discussed the package of governmental supports," "discussed the terms and structure," and "discussed the manner in which the investment and guarantee by Treasury would be structured."

Jason A. Gonzalez, FSOB secretary, might qualify for nomination to the bureaucratic hall of fame - he uses the words "discussed" or "discussion" 20 times -- except for one slip-up: toward the end of the document, Gonzalez writes something that actually reveals something, albeit modestly:

"Members also discussed the difficulty of isolating the effects of the TARP given the variety of policy actions taken by the U.S. government to support financial stability and promote economic growth and the short time that has elapsed since the TARP was first implemented, and the difficulties associated with monitoring the use of specific funds by individual institutions."

In other words, even the top guns in federal finance are having difficulty figuring out whether the billions and billions they are handing out are actually doing any good, and they have run head on into "difficulties" when trying to look at how an individual bank makes use of its infusion of cash.

It would appear that the FSOB is getting the same run-around as the Associated Press.

The AP contacted 21 banks that have each received at least $1 billion and all of the banks refused to give specific answers to four questions: "How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?"

"We're choosing not to disclose that," Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, told the news service. The New York Mellon bank not only received $3 billion on October 28, but Treasury has hired the bank to served as an overseer of TARP, "to provide the accounting of record for the portfolio, hold all cash and assets in the portfolio, provide for pricing and asset valuation services and assist with other related services."

It is, however, difficult to figure out how much New York Mellon will get paid for these services. The contract, posted on Treasury's web site, shows the following:

The blackout of compensation details is repeated over and over again in Treasury contracts, as Chris Carney of bailoutsleuth.com points out. A contract with PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP has the following page:

Treasury's McLaughlin contends that this kind of information is blacked out for "business proprietary reasons;" that the disclosure of firm A's fee structure would "hurt its ability to compete" against other companies; and that other companies would know how firm A calculates costs.

In addition to the reluctance of Treasury and the FSOB to be transparent, the Federal Reserve has come under fire for its refusal to identify specific banks that have obtained roughly $2 trillion in emergency loans. Bloomberg.com has filed suit http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide under the Freedom of Information Act seeking this data. Bernanke defended the practice at a Nov. 18, 2008 House Financial Services Committee hearing:

"The Federal Reserve, like all other central banks, has short-term, collateralized lending programs to financial institutions.... Now, some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they're borrowing, what collateral they're posting. We think that's counterproductive because -- for two reasons. First, the success of this depends on banks being willing to come and borrow when they need short-term cash. There's a concern that if the name is put in the newspaper that such and such bank came to the Fed to borrow overnight for a good reason, that other might begin to worry is this bank credit worthy. And that might create a stigma, a problem, and might cause banks to be unwilling to borrow. And that would be counterproductive for the whole -- the whole purpose."

While transparency is almost universally praised, even in the breach, one of the strongest arguments used both for and against full disclosure is that it increases the likelihood that the public will learn how little confidence public officials really have in their own judgment: The minutes of the FSOB cited above -- "Members and officials discussed, among other things, the current financial health of large financial institutions" -- are certain to mask the kind of conflicting opinions, doubts and anxieties that top federal officials are loath to reveal in public.

More importantly, a more detailed record of the decision-making process would reveal the thinking behind some questionable, or bad, decisions. Early on in the financial crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and others made choices to save some private institutions, to devalue others and, in the case of Lehman Brothers, to allow a major Wall Street company to go belly up.

Since then, there has been considerable debate over the consequences of the Lehman decision, and it is doubtful that anyone wants to take full responsibility. On September 15, the day Lehman filed for bankruptcy, the Dow dropped 504.48 points, accelerating the economic collapse and making banks increasingly unwilling to lend and to revive economic activity. There is no way to put a dollar figure on those costs, but they were -- and are -- enormous.

In late December, nearly two and a half months after the collapse of Lehman, the firm overseeing the restructuring of the firm, Alvarez & Marsal, estimated that as much as $75 billion had been destroyed, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "by the unplanned and chaotic form of the firm's bankruptcy filing."

"While I have no position on whether or not the federal government should have provided further assistance to Lehman, once the decision was made not to provide further assistance, an orderly wind-down plan should have been pursued. It was an unconscionable waste of value," Bryan Marsal, Alvarez & Marsal co-CEO, said.

The WSJ story about Lehman's chaotic bankruptcy filing was buried inside the A section on the bottom of the page, but it is very doubtful that the participants in the decision to allow Lehman to fail would want full transparency - a transcript or, better yet, a video - of what they said during the closed meetings and discussions about the future of Lehman.

The reality, however, is that in the world of banking and finance, transparency is an alien concept; that deals, including those involving the federal government, are generally conducted behind closed doors, or at least behind a curtain. In an interesting twist, the Federal Reserve's own "Guide to Meetings of the Board of Governors" carries the headline "Government in the Sunshine," but the most important section of the guide details the governing of closed meetings. It is in private sessions that the Federal Reserve Board takes on the real bread and butter issues of "bank and bank holding company supervisory matters" and "monetary policy and other matters whose premature release could be used in financial speculation."

If the Fed conducts business by these rules, how can private banks be expected to open their deliberations - even those involving taxpayer dollars -- to the public?

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts ran into opposition Thursday from senators in his own party who said they wouldn't do much to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Senators from both parties agreed that Congress should do something to stimulate the economy. But Democratic senators emerging from a private meeting of the Senate Finance Committee criticized business and individual tax cuts in Obama's stimulus plan.

They were especially critical of a proposed $3,000 tax credit for companies that hire or retrain workers.

"If I'm a business person, it's unlikely if you give me a several-thousand-dollar credit that I'm going to hire people if I can't sell the products they're producing," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a member of the committee.

"That to me is just misdirected," Conrad said.

Sen John Kerry, D-Mass., said, "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

The cost of the economic rescue package Obama wants is expected to swell to $800 billion or more. About $300 billion of Obama's package would be for tax cuts or refunds for individuals and businesses.

One tax provision would provide a $500 tax cut for most workers and $1,000 for couples, at a cost of about $140 billion to $150 billion over two years. The individual tax cuts may be awarded through withholding less from worker paychecks, effectively making them about $10 to $20 larger each week.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he doubted that a modest tax cut would change consumers' spending habits.

"In tough times people don't respond all that well to marginal changes, such as a small amount of money added per paycheck," Wyden said.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he hopes to schedule a committee vote on the stimulus package in about two weeks, which would coincide with the week of Obama's inauguration. Many senators still hope to approve a package by mid-February.

There is "general agreement that because of the recession we've got to move, we've got to move quickly, very quickly," Baucus said.

He added that it is too early to pass judgment on any aspect of Obama's plan.

"This is an early part of this whole process. A lot of preliminary questions are going to be asked," Baucus said.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS to Sen. Wyden instead of Rep. Wyden.)

Rarely has a president -- to say nothing of a Democratic president -- been thrown into the arms of the business community on his way in the door as has Barack Obama.

It's a shotgun marriage, to be sure, compelled by the financial-markets crisis, the collapse in housing and the hemorrhaging of auto makers. The question now is whether the two partners can live together productively, or will slide into marital squabbling.

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive officer, has increased the pressure on Yahoo to hand over control of its search business to his software company.

Speaking in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Ballmer set the stage for a new showdown nearly a year after Microsoft's first aborted attempt at a full takeover.

In Monday's post, I mentioned that one of the common traits I've seen among the women entrepreneurs I've met and know is how they seem to ignore gender when it comes to who inspires them, who they look up to, and (most of all) what they believe they can accomplish.

Power Girls know that success can be attained by any gender. In fact, they're motivated by it.

Justine Kenzer of Psychic Girl is inspired by Peter Shankman of HARO and Perez Hilton. Myinspirationlounge.com founder Misty Gibbs cites author and Alltop.com founder Guy Kawasaki as one of her biggest role models in business. Entertainment Consultant and Independent Producer Jen Grisanti looks up to Aaron Spelling and Barack Obama as much as Arianna Huffington and Oprah Winfrey.

Maria Vasilevsky of Stilista in Boston shares that she doesn't think about gender as much as what she needs to be professionally fulfilled. Sunday Cosmetic's founder Beverly Davis pointed to the number of books on business being authored by men and women.

"Original visionaries inspire me. People who are not only great business people, but great people. I really do not look at gender or race as the primary factor," said Budgetfashionista.com founder Kathryn Finney.

Today's successful women don't just set gender aside when it comes to who moves and motivates them. They also turn a blind eye to it in their work and the industries they work in.

Here's how to do it:

Know You Can: If you think you're the first entrepreneur to struggle or fail, regardless of gender, you're wrong. It's just the same for being a woman in business. Millions of women have endured far worse limitations than most do today, and in some cases, still do. Keep foraging ahead. Dozens of examples show that success can happen to anybody, male or female.

See What Is, Not What Isn't: While there are a lot of things women in business still endure due to the sexes today, there are so many more positives, particularly in the United States. Women in many parts of the world don't see these same opportunities that we do - in fact, in many cases it's far less. It moves people forward as much to take advantage of what opportunities exist as it does to combat the limitations.

Focus on You: The best way to run a mile is to keep focused on what's ahead. Try to look around while you're running and you'll more than likely stumble. No matter what competitors, obstacles, difficulties or adversaries you might meet, the most important thing is to keep your pace and path. Anytime you keep an eye on the prize, you're more likely to get it. Today's successful women do the same when it comes to gender.

Focus on Them: Watching good business people in action is one good way to learn and spark new ideas in your own work, so pay attention to everybody that's around you. Include every sex, race, background, history, experience, education, age and type, etc. A pulse on who's who and doing what also has value.

Most of all, know that it's not about what a woman can do or what a man can do, but what people can do.

Power Girls recognize this and live by it.