I like jazz and classical music. I have a college degree. I'm under 35, drink imported beer, drive an economy car, and (obviously) have a blog. I have never made over $250,000 in a year, have never started a business, and bought my house on a subprime program. And I think my health insurance costs too much. If we were punching these data points into a computer, it would certainly calculate me as a prime supporter of Obama.
So why don't I support Barack? I think I've laid out my thinking in numerous ways, but is there a blind spot in my thinking? Am I missing something? It would be terribly arrogant for me to think I have all the answers and don't need another perspective. Fortunately for me (and for the one or two people who actually read this blog), I have been blessed with a few smart and rational liberal friends. Smart and rational - meaning they can articulate a position that is based on something other than rhetoric, talking points, and inflamed passions. Friends - meaning they still speak to me even though we get into it pretty good at times. And, even though we typically agree to disagree, the discourse is valuable as it shapes and strengthens our respective knowledge and positions. And they're all women. Funny how things work out. I always wanted to arouse strong passions in the opposite sex and to have them hanging on my every word. Instead I've got a pack of fired up liberal ladies looking to hang me for every word. Close enough, says I.
We'll start with some words from Dr. A. Dr. A. is a New York liberal who I happened to converse with recently. She's a Barack supporter who gave me permission to reprint her comments here. She started with a round of general criticism over the current administration and really the Republican Party in general. I won't devote a lot of time to these, since they aren't central to her argument. She criticized the Republicans for invading the wrong country (I'd devote an entire series to debunking this, if it weren't so 2004), authorizing torture (irrelevant since McCain has come out in opposition to waterboarding), refusing to grant rights to POWs at Guantanamo (not true, and even less true now that the Supreme Court has given detainees standing to file suit), and for destroying the greatest economy of our generation (an economy that was the result of Reagan's fiscal policies, which were in large part undone by the Clinton Administration, as evidenced by the recession prior to the 2000 election).
Like I said, I won't devote a lot of time to those issues, but there was one criticism she put forth that I can't walk away from. To quote: "[The Republicans] allowed massive corporate deregulation that led to the current financial disaster..." I know I heard that same sentiment on an Obama radio ad, but it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Banks and other lending institutions loan money to people based on their ability to pay it back. Someone who is a low risk would get a lower interest rate, while higher credit risks pay a higher rate or are simply disqualified. In addition to the borrower, the lender has to evaluate the property, the neighborhood, and the likelihood that the investment will retain its value over time. That's a classical model of lending. It is not always equitable, and tradition has it that many minorities and many depressed neighborhoods were left out of this lending equation. To respond to this, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 were signed into law. These made it illegal to discriminate in the sale of a home or the extension of credit for a home based on race or neighborhood. (Sidenote: I have been told the California home in which I grew up had a provision in the deed that said it could only be occupied by persons of the Caucasian race. While it was not legal or enforceable when we lived there, it was a relic from the 1940s when the home was built.)
Eliminating discrimination is a good thing, but by the late '90s, there was mounting pressure from the White House to increase lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers. This would allow the Clinton legacy to include higher rates of home ownership. There was also pressure from banks for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease their lending restrictions. This would allow banks to lend money to less qualified borrowers and then sell the high-risk (subprime) mortgages to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie eased their restrictions, and the Federal Reserve Bank cut interest rates. Benefits overflowed. Banks got to sell more mortgages. Builders and developers got to sell more homes. Demand for homes went up dramatically, which in turn caused home values to soar. Low-income consumers were able to buy homes where they couldn't before. High-income consumers were able to buy investment properties and bank on the market continuing to rise. Profits at Fannie and Freddie shot up as the balloon continued to rise. Financial services companies grew in value, creating a windfall for investors on Wall Street. Everyone wins, right?
Wrong. The gains were based on bad paper, just like the stock market in 1929, the NASDAQ in the late '90, the S&L industry in the late '80s, and so on. As the value of homes stopped rising, consumers could no longer refinance their way out of trouble. Foreclosures began at an alarming rate. The more foreclosures happen, the more the supply-and-demand of the housing market gets out of whack, and home values continued to fall. Lenders were left with assets that couldn't cover their capital outlay, and it was clear the party was over.
To quote Kevin Bacon, "These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed." Democrats are quick to blame Republican deregulation efforts, but it was the Clinton Administration that eased lending rules for Fannie and Freddie. It was Clinton who signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, opening up the market to more home ownership for investment purposes. It was Barney Frank who in 2003 opposed the oversight of Fannie and Freddie by an independent agency, saying the Bush Administration was overstating the potential for trouble. It is Left-wing organizations like ACORN who have mounted campaigns against lenders who do not have a sufficiently diverse mortgage portfolio. ACORN and Fannie Mae have made significant donations to the Obama campaign. And let's not forget that conservatives (I'll stop short of saying Republicans, because the two are not synonymous lately) warned of the potential for problems by easing restrictions. Peter Wallison, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said of the relaxed lending restrictions in 1999, "This is another thrift industry growing up around us. If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
And, of course, it was John McCain - current Republican candidate for President - who co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have tightened up lending policies for Fannie and Freddie. Said McCain, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." However, the Democrat-controlled Congress did not support this bill.
So we have McCain, who spoke out about the coming crisis, even though at the time, it was a vastly unpopular position. And we have Obama, who cashed in the crisis, receiving more contributions from Fannie and Freddie in three years than 98 other Senators have received in the last 19 years. We have McCain, whose connections with people like Mitt Romney and Steve Forbes give him proven and successful free-market thinkers to help with the current crisis. And we have Obama, whose connections to people like Tony Rezco and Bill Ayers give him great options for socialism and corruption.
Who would you rather have overseeing the financial system in this country?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Legend of Barack
Well every story has a hero,
Or at least someone who's main,
But to say that [Barry] was anything less than grotesque
Was bordering on the insane
I don't have the author or the title of that piece I just cannibalized (should be Larry, not Barry), but it's a cowboy poem I first heard when I was a kid. I've always enjoyed old stories, legends, tall tales, and such. I guess it's a reflection of my childhood, growing up hearing great stories told exceptionally well. Sentiments like "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story," or the line from a John Wayne movie, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," seem to live in us all. But as citizens in a free society, there are times when a story must be exposed for the falsehood that it is, no matter how much we may want to believe it.
Senator Barack Obama has made many statements during this political cycle. Some of his words have undoubtedly been true. But how much of his rhetoric is based in fact, and how much is pure legend?
The first claim to examine is that he is a new type of politician, running a new type of campaign. It is true that I can't remember any other candidate who was afforded the opportunities to speak on broad topics as part of his or her campaign. Obama's early speeches about hope and change were admittedly stirring. But how has he conducted himself on the campaign trail? Has he abstained from negative campaigning? Has he transcended race and focused on issues? Has he maintained promises? Here are some facts:
Or at least someone who's main,
But to say that [Barry] was anything less than grotesque
Was bordering on the insane
I don't have the author or the title of that piece I just cannibalized (should be Larry, not Barry), but it's a cowboy poem I first heard when I was a kid. I've always enjoyed old stories, legends, tall tales, and such. I guess it's a reflection of my childhood, growing up hearing great stories told exceptionally well. Sentiments like "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story," or the line from a John Wayne movie, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend," seem to live in us all. But as citizens in a free society, there are times when a story must be exposed for the falsehood that it is, no matter how much we may want to believe it.
Senator Barack Obama has made many statements during this political cycle. Some of his words have undoubtedly been true. But how much of his rhetoric is based in fact, and how much is pure legend?
The first claim to examine is that he is a new type of politician, running a new type of campaign. It is true that I can't remember any other candidate who was afforded the opportunities to speak on broad topics as part of his or her campaign. Obama's early speeches about hope and change were admittedly stirring. But how has he conducted himself on the campaign trail? Has he abstained from negative campaigning? Has he transcended race and focused on issues? Has he maintained promises? Here are some facts:
- Despite the fact that Obama has asserted that McCain has been running a smear campaign (which is in itself a negative attack, if you think about it), Obama has been running negative ads since before the first of the year. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-launches.html
- According to John Geer of the Washington Post, "Recent data from Nielsen suggest that the campaigns have aired roughly the same number of negative ads." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002449.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
- Obama and his surrogates in the media have done far more to bring up race than any of the senator's opponents. Take, for example, the AP story from this week about Sarah Palin's comments regarding Obama and Bill Ayers. The AP characterized Governor Palin's words as having "carried a racially-tinged subtext". I'm not sure how bringing Ayers into the discussion is racist, since he and most of his Weather Underground followers were white.
- Obama is running a privately-financed campaign, despite his commitment over a year ago to fund his bid with public monies. So much for keeping the special interests out of it!
- In his 2003 bid for the US Senate, Obama both wrote and spoke of his commitment to vote against renewing the USA Patriot Act. However, when the vote came up in the Senate in 2005, he voted to renew it with what he considered to be only "modest" changes. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/14/575746.aspx
- Obama supported a proposed ban of handguns and assault rifles in the state of Illinois. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Philly.htm
- Obama has expressed support for the 2nd Amendment to be subordinated to local regulations, as in the unconstitutional Washington D.C. handgun ban. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Politico.htm
- Obama co-sponsored legislation in Illinois to limit handgun purchases to one per month, and he voted against the necessity doctrine. John K. Wilson, 10/30/07
- Obama voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 7/29/05, S-397
- Obama said this spring that guns are what bitter people cling to when they have no hope. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article
- Obama does not support concealed carry rights, saying (despite evidence to the contrary) that they could cause innocent people to be shot more often. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.htm
- The financial crisis is largely a result of the collapse of the subprime lending industry.
- Obama was a community organizer. ACORN, a group of community organizers, has pushed subprime lending as a means of getting low-income people into loans for homes, cars, and consumer goods. This push has come in the form of protests, lawsuits.
- When the housing market began to skyrocket, the subprime mortgage industry was a big profit center in financial institutions and on Wall Street. Thus, its growth was politically expedient.
- Despite assurances from Congressional Democrats that all was well in the mortgage industry, John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have put some controls on the subprime lending industry. Needless to say, the Act did not pass.
- Democratic Congressional leaders - who profited from subprime industry campaign donations - are quick to point the finger but not interested in holding hearings to get the facts on the record. http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081010/OPINION03/810100314
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama's Cabinet
I made the mistake this morning of watching the Today Show. Not a good place for a supporter of conservative principles to spend his time. In any case, I watched as they did an "analysis" of the campaigns. The time dedicated to McCain was mostly to show how out-of-touch he is with the American people, and the time for Obama was to show how he's responding to McCain's out-of-touch campaign. They had the split-screen with a McCain staffer and an Obama staffer. The Obama staffer got time to explain how bad McCain is, and the McCain staffer had to spend her time fielding questions along the lines of "Do you really think this McCain campaign strategy is what the American people want to hear?" Yes, the mainstream media do such a great job of being unbiased.
But I've been thinking about Obama's cabinet, since the media are so assured he's going to win. So who would he have in his employ as President? Here are some ideas:
Secretary of State: John Bon Jovi. John has toured Europe and belted out power chords to screaming fans, which gives him exactly the same foreign policy experience as Obama. Not counting the musical talent.
Secretary of the Treasury: Barney Frank. Congressman Frank has done an excellent job overseeing the likes of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, so don't you think he'd be ideal to keep the Treasury working right? (Honorable mention for this post is the late Richard Pryor, whose experience in Brewster's Millions of blowing a fortune he didn't earn and having nothing to show for it made him a no-brainer for Obama's cabinet.)
Secretary of Defense: John Kerry. Who better to see to the day-to-day operations of our Genghis Khan-inspired military operations?
Attorney General: Edward M. Bernstein. For those who don't know Ed, he's a personal injury attorney, a TV talk show host, and a former Democratic candidate for US Senate here in Nevada. As an attorney, Bernstein has won many settlements, but rarely, if ever, set foot in a courtroom.
Secretary of the Interior: Michael Vick. The former (and possibly future) quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons is an ideal pick for the top range manager in the country. As everyone knows, good range management means effective thinning of the herds.
Secretary of Agriculture: this position will be eliminated, since the Obama Administration will see to it that all farming capacity is used for corn ethanol production, which would fall under Energy.
Secretary of Commerce: this position will also be eliminated, as the free market as we know it is obsolete and out-of-touch with the world economy. It will be replaced with a Secretary of Nationalized Industry, Vladimir Putin.
Secretary of Labor: Gary Coleman. The diminutive child actor will bring about the type of reform needed to ensure that no child actor is left behind in the workforce. His ideas of asking people to donate money so child stars don't have to work were sheer genius.
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Jose Canseco. The retired baseball player and author of Juiced will put an end to the scourge of steroids. Or maybe he'll say it's necessary to stay competitive - I really can't tell what he's preaching. But the unrighteous indignation will fit nicely.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Chris Rock. Rock's description of growing up in a bad neighborhood from Lethal Weapon 4 was compelling. Maybe Danny Glover and Mel Gibson will be part of his staff as well.
Secretary of Transportation: Dean Kamen. The inventor of the Segway revolutionized transportation to the point that in some parts of the country, they don't even walk anymore. Imagine public transportation where a bus full of people needs only to lean forward to get to the next stop.
Secretary of Energy: Al Gore. Gore has been looking for opportunities to talk about global warming, carbon footprint, and the impending disasters untold if too many Americans live the life he currently lives.
Secretary of Education: Britney Spears. School choice may not be on the table, but Britney's new line of school uniforms will revolutionize the educational system in this country. Plus, she'll have the attention of every student as she shares her views on sex, drugs, and reduced lunch tickets.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's relentless support of her late son's memory qualifies her to look after veterans. Her sentiments that "This country is not worth dying for" seem to line up with the Obama platform.
Homeland Security Chief: William Ayers. I can think of no one better to run our domestic war on terror than a confessed domestic terrorist. His sage advice not only has helped to form Barack Obama's views, but also thousands of students who have passed through his classroom.
White House Chief of Staff: Jeremiah Wright. Reverend Wright will set the tone for the Administration. He's very comfortable with the press, he believes the resources of America have been turned against the black man, and he can sidestep any gaffes with a chorus of "God Damn America".
White House Communications Director: Bill Burkett. The man behind the fraudulent reports on George W. Bush's service record in 2004 will be well qualified to produce evidence to back any claim he makes.
Please feel free to write in with suggestions to modify this list. We also need to find someone to run the EPA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Reserve, etc.
But I've been thinking about Obama's cabinet, since the media are so assured he's going to win. So who would he have in his employ as President? Here are some ideas:
Secretary of State: John Bon Jovi. John has toured Europe and belted out power chords to screaming fans, which gives him exactly the same foreign policy experience as Obama. Not counting the musical talent.
Secretary of the Treasury: Barney Frank. Congressman Frank has done an excellent job overseeing the likes of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, so don't you think he'd be ideal to keep the Treasury working right? (Honorable mention for this post is the late Richard Pryor, whose experience in Brewster's Millions of blowing a fortune he didn't earn and having nothing to show for it made him a no-brainer for Obama's cabinet.)
Secretary of Defense: John Kerry. Who better to see to the day-to-day operations of our Genghis Khan-inspired military operations?
Attorney General: Edward M. Bernstein. For those who don't know Ed, he's a personal injury attorney, a TV talk show host, and a former Democratic candidate for US Senate here in Nevada. As an attorney, Bernstein has won many settlements, but rarely, if ever, set foot in a courtroom.
Secretary of the Interior: Michael Vick. The former (and possibly future) quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons is an ideal pick for the top range manager in the country. As everyone knows, good range management means effective thinning of the herds.
Secretary of Agriculture: this position will be eliminated, since the Obama Administration will see to it that all farming capacity is used for corn ethanol production, which would fall under Energy.
Secretary of Commerce: this position will also be eliminated, as the free market as we know it is obsolete and out-of-touch with the world economy. It will be replaced with a Secretary of Nationalized Industry, Vladimir Putin.
Secretary of Labor: Gary Coleman. The diminutive child actor will bring about the type of reform needed to ensure that no child actor is left behind in the workforce. His ideas of asking people to donate money so child stars don't have to work were sheer genius.
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Jose Canseco. The retired baseball player and author of Juiced will put an end to the scourge of steroids. Or maybe he'll say it's necessary to stay competitive - I really can't tell what he's preaching. But the unrighteous indignation will fit nicely.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Chris Rock. Rock's description of growing up in a bad neighborhood from Lethal Weapon 4 was compelling. Maybe Danny Glover and Mel Gibson will be part of his staff as well.
Secretary of Transportation: Dean Kamen. The inventor of the Segway revolutionized transportation to the point that in some parts of the country, they don't even walk anymore. Imagine public transportation where a bus full of people needs only to lean forward to get to the next stop.
Secretary of Energy: Al Gore. Gore has been looking for opportunities to talk about global warming, carbon footprint, and the impending disasters untold if too many Americans live the life he currently lives.
Secretary of Education: Britney Spears. School choice may not be on the table, but Britney's new line of school uniforms will revolutionize the educational system in this country. Plus, she'll have the attention of every student as she shares her views on sex, drugs, and reduced lunch tickets.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's relentless support of her late son's memory qualifies her to look after veterans. Her sentiments that "This country is not worth dying for" seem to line up with the Obama platform.
Homeland Security Chief: William Ayers. I can think of no one better to run our domestic war on terror than a confessed domestic terrorist. His sage advice not only has helped to form Barack Obama's views, but also thousands of students who have passed through his classroom.
White House Chief of Staff: Jeremiah Wright. Reverend Wright will set the tone for the Administration. He's very comfortable with the press, he believes the resources of America have been turned against the black man, and he can sidestep any gaffes with a chorus of "God Damn America".
White House Communications Director: Bill Burkett. The man behind the fraudulent reports on George W. Bush's service record in 2004 will be well qualified to produce evidence to back any claim he makes.
Please feel free to write in with suggestions to modify this list. We also need to find someone to run the EPA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Reserve, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
