How McCain Let the Election Slip Through His Fingers...Maybe

Okay, this is part 2 to my political rant. You'll pardon me for the non family stuff for a bit.

So Thursday was the first presidential debate; placed smack dab in the middle of the financial meltdown on Wall Street. The president had submits a bill, Henry Paulsen's bill, to congress. The Dems in congress pick up the bill and run with it adding some earmarks along the way. Meanwhile the American electorate is chiming in on the bail out at a clip of 2:1 or 3:1 against. Congressional offices are reporting calls coming at a 200:1 and 300:1 against. Another report I heard was 95% of Americans were against the proposed bail out plan. Those numbers are pretty dramatic. I suspect that the 2 or 3:1 ratios are more accurate. Anyway, it's a slam dunk against the plan.

The day before the debate, Wednesday, McCain suspends his campaign and heads for Washington. Before he arrives the Dems fake a throw to first base by announcing they and the Repubs have agreed on a plan, which comes as news to the Repubs. McCain, Obama and congressional leaders meet with Pres. Bush in the White House and apparently the meeting "blows up", which Democratic leaders immediately blame on McCain, despite the fact that there had never been a deal to "blow up" in the first place. Of course the media, that group of conscientious journalists is only too happy to go along with the ruse. Thursday comes and McCain agrees to attend the debate after all. By this time the Dems are pointing the finger at the Repubs for holding up passage on the bill, because the Dems want a bipartisan bill, aka. Repubs agreeing with Dems. Again the press seems content to report it as such. Leave it to the Repubs to mess everything up.

Now, curiously, no one in the press seems particularly interested in a couple of obvious questions. First: Although I am no constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that passage of a bill in both houses of congress requires only a simple majority, ie. 51%. Someone might want to look into that, maybe its 53% or 61% or 55.3%. Maybe its 59% and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. But I'm pretty sure it's 51%. Also, the last time I checked, the Dems currently hold majorities in both the Senate and the House of Reps. That being the case, my question is, and should be for any respectable journalist: Why haven't the Dems passed the bill despite the Repubs? Nothing could be simpler. Hold a vote, and if all the Dems vote "Yea" than it passes. The bill is sent back to the President where it originated and he signs it. Done!

Question number two: Did Barack Obama support the Dems version of the bail out? Yes or no?

A little political thought brings us to the obvious answers that no Dem wants to explain or Obama for that matter. The fact is the Dems did not want there fingerprints exclusively on this bill, no way, no how. Why? They knew the bill could potentially blow up in America's collective face, and they do not want to hand the Repubs an easy argument. "Excuse me Mr. Voter, we hate to interrupt that fantastic meal of Alpo and gutter water, but we'd like to point out that the bail out bill which has brought you to this point was passed by the Dems without a single Republican vote. Please remember that in November." Obama did not want to be within a mile of that thing. He's got nowhere to go. For him it's a lose-lose proposition. I'm sure he was ecstatic when Bush called him and requested that he meet at the White House. "Uh...ummm...um...u...yes, Mr. President...ummmm....uh....can I...umm...bring my...uh...ummm biohazard suit?" See Obama can't be for it because America hates it. And he can't be against because, as the public face of his party, if he comes out against it, the bill is dead, dead, dead. There is no way the Dems push their bill if B. H. Obama comes out against it. Consequently B. H. just hems and haws about needing to see the final version of the bill before taking a stance. He maybe an empty suit, but he does at least have some people behind him with a sense of the politico.

McCain is in a very different situation: Oppose the President's bill and your a maverick opposing Bush and standing with the American people, who are almost entirely opposed to the boondoggle.

So they show up at the debate and Mr. Lehrer walks up on stage, sets up a baseball tee, puts a ball on it, and hands McCain a Louisville Slugger and asks, Senator do you support the bail out plan?" This is the moment. I'm watching, I'm waiting. With his response he can possibly secure the election and hand his party a big victory, all the while handing Obama and his Demo club a painful defeat. Hit it McCain. Come on John, big swing. So what does he do? He puts down the Louisville Slugger, grabs the bat his son picked up on bat day at the D-backs game (you know, the skinny, little short ones) and tops the ball off the tee, knocking it into the ground about five feet in front of him. His response? "Um sure, I hope to..."

What?! What was he thinking?

Somewhere in an alternative universe a McCain said: "My friends, I, like the rest of America, couldn't be more opposed to the plan as it currently stands. It's terrible. It would place a ridiculously high and unnecessary burden on the American people. The citizenry of this great nation has spoken loud and clear. They do not want this bill and they are right. I stand with them; the hard working men and women of this country who scrimped and scraped whatever they could, not to play funny money games on Wall Street, but to put themselves and their families in a respectable, modest home. I will not support a bill that punishes the people who did things right, and rewards the fat cats on Wall Street who got too greedy, or protects Washington from the scrutiny that it deserves for their part in this crisis.

"My friends, I suspended my campaign so that I could come to Washington and help produce a bill that protects the taxpayers, holds Wall Street accountable and shines the light of truth on all involved in this fleecing of the American public, from Washington to Wall Street. I sat in that meeting with Senator Obama in the White House and, my friends, the bill being put forth by the President and my associates across the aisle is a terrible bill. You may have seen the Democratic leadership try to suggest that they already had a bill in hand before I arrived yesterday. This is true, however it was not a bipartisan bill. The large majority of Republicans were dead set against the President's and the Democrats', make-the-taxpayers-pay, version of a bail out. I said, No! Senator Obama and the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and in the House and if they want this bill; a bill that punishes blue-collar America, than they will have to pass it without my vote, without the American people's support, and without the support of most of the Republican party. I say again, if President Bush, Senator Obama and the Democrats in congress like this bill and are comfortable with it, then let them pass it by themselves. They don't need me or my party's support in order to pass it. They have a majority. Now, I want to reach across the aisle and work with my friends in the Democratic party to bring about a responsible bill. Something has to be done or our economy could suffer even more. Consequently, it is my intention at the close of this debate to return to Washington to continue pushing for a bipartisan bill that puts the American people first. But as far as the one currently supported by Senator Obama, the President and my associates across the aisle, it stinks and the American people know it stinks; so if Senator Obama, President Bush, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi want that bill passed, they will have do it over the objections of me and the American people.

My friends, the question I'd like to ask, that has never been answered is this: Senator Obama, where do you stand on this bill? I presume you are for it as you have never opposed it. Are you for it or against it? Will you stand with me and the American people in opposing this earmark-ridden, pork-barrel-filled, taxpayer-punishing excuse for a bail out plan? The American people want to know. They need your support. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for bipartisanship. Now is the time to stand toe to toe with your own party, if necessary, in defense of the American people. And do not say that you need to see the particulars. You've seen them. You were in the same meeting with me. The President was there, the congressional leaders of your party were there, and they agree on the bill. Do you, Senator Obama, stand with your party or the American people?  We both sat in that meeting and I came away with more than enough information to know that it was a bad bill. Do not tell us that you are not sure? We were there together. Your lack of opposition lends tacit support. What say you, Senator Obama? Are you for or against the existing bail out?

So there you have it. Obama can't support the bill because the people hate it, yet if he defies his party, he kills the existing version and hands control of the situation to the Repubs. It would have been high drama with McCain calling the shots, and he and his party the beneficiaries. I really think that moment could have changed the face of the campaign. Whether or not there was actually a definite Democrat version of the bill beyond basic principles is irrelevant. It was the Democrats who suggested that they had a deal reached and ready to go, and that McCain was not needed in the negotiations. At worst McCain is merely promoting the Democratic version of events, yet with a winning twist.

Now, I'm no big McCain fan. However, for the good of the nation I want him to win. Why? Because at the very least I know that McCain, no matter how much we disagree, will have the best interests of the nation at heart. I don't think anyone doubts that he would put his country first. B. H. Obama, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. So much of his past has been ignored or glossed over that it's apparent that for him no news is good news. Would he put America first? I'm not sure. That alone should cause us all some concern.

Anyhow, that's it. There's my three dollars and twenty-two cents worth. Take it for what it's worth, but if I had been McCain's adviser, that's the counsel I would have given. But alas, it was not be. Whether or not it would have worked will never be known. But it would have been a better response than, "Sure, I hope to support it." Ugh!

A Little Political Rant...Okay, a Big Rant

Like many of you, well, some of you, okay only you very dull people with no jobs and nothing to do but nurse your broken careers and broken ankles, I have been following the recent political/financial goings-on in Washington. And having seen enough to test the fortitude of any man's stomach, I feel the need to stand on my "holier than thou" soap box and let loose. Let me begin by stating that, no surprise to those who know me, I am a conservative; pretty hard-core, right wing conservative. A republican, yes, but only tenuously. Frankly, I'd like to throw out the whole lot of them and start fresh, perhaps with a new conservative party, perhaps the Constitution Party; I don't know...But suffice it to say, I am pretty disgusted with what happened when, for the first time in forever, we had a Republican president with a Republican congress. Apparently Washington D.C. turns everyone into a Democrat. When it came to fiscal issues, apparently the President and the Repubs in congress tried to distance themselves from Clinton by moving to the right of Barney Frank, but to the left of Bill Clinton. Perhaps when they take the oath of office they are injected with some kind of microchip that makes them talk like Ronald Reagan but vote like Tip O'Neal. They must have started doing this when Newt Gingrich was railroaded out of town. Anyway, my point is: I'm a conservative and I only affiliate with the Republican party in hopes that by voting in the primaries I might be able to move the party to the right. If I thought a more constitutional party could get some serious clout more easily than changing the current Repub party, I'd jump in head first. Well, in case I haven't bored you enough, let me continue. If any of your friends (or you, for that matter) suffer with insomnia, please lead them to my blog. It will not only provide them cheap alternative to Ambien, but it will also inflate my ego by falsely legitimizing this blog. And so to continue: Suffice it to say that if you think that this financial snafu is the result of George "The Hurricane Maker", "The Levy Breaker", "The Incoherent", "The War Monger", "The Devil Himself" Bush, the rascally Republicans, greedy CEO's and a greedy Wall Street then you must like your Kool-Aid nice and sweet. (Let me point any possible Bush haters to this New York Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63. Congressional Democrats booted this bill, one of several attempts by the President to take on Fannie and Freddie mismanagement.) Take 10 minutes and read the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you will quickly see some potential problems that unfortunately, yet inevitably, moved from potential to reality. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, government sponsored institutions that are not required to file with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commision - the Wall Street Police), hold about half...HALF... of the $12 trillion worth of mortgages in the US, that is about $6,000,000,000,000. If you think the current crisis is going to only cost $700 billion, read this and weep: "The July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to a total of US$ 10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks." Ouch! If everything goes really bad, we, you are potentially on the hook for $10.7 TRILLION. Now, admittedly, most of the mortgages are and will remain in good standing. But I'm sure that you can see that $700 billion is a drop in the bucket. Essentially Fannie and Freddie exist to buy up bad loans, ie. loans that no respectable bank would want to touch because the loan recipient wouldn't qualify in the free market; too much risk. They (Fannie & Freddie) repackage the questionable loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sell them on Wall Street. Respectable banks at that point are willing to buy the MBS because they have the "implicit" guarantee of the federal govt, aka you. Well, when the unqualified loanees began defaulting on their loans, they began to flood the market with inventory bringing the loaners (and possibly an entire economy) to a halt. We'll just have to wait and see.

You'll pardon a little history...I hope: Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal. FDR pushed it with the intent to enable unqualified people to qualify for loans, in hopes that it would create a need to build more homes, thus more jobs, etc. Undoubtedly, like almost all of the New Deal, it did NOT work. In 1965 LBJ "privatized" Fannie mae to take it off the books as his Great Society was a bit on the costly side and it looked better to have Fannie Mae not showing up on an accounting ledger. Don't worry, I'm sure LBJ was not flimflamming anyone. In 1970, as a result of a 1968 law (still LBJ), Freddie Mac was created to put competition in the market for Fannie Mae. If you believe in the free market you should laugh here. Again don't worry, no shenanigans I'm sure.

In 1995 (can you say Clinton), Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities. This is where our trouble directly begins. Essentially the affordable housing requirements set by HUD (the Dept. of wHoring and Urban De-flowering, I mean Housing and Urban Development) force lending institutions to make a certain amount of bad loans for the good of the community. Again, laughter appropriate here. You see, if Bank "X" must give 10% of it's loans to certain economic groups, or certain ethnic groups, regardless of income qualifications, than under-qualified loanees would be able to buy a house, and homeownership is a good thing. Right?! Well, despite the senselessness of such loans, in order to avoid any perception in congress of wrongdoing, the banks made bad loans. (Keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie make up about half of US mortgages, most of which are questionable from the word go which means they took on an disproportionate amount of risky loans.) Well the percentage of loans that are made to these groups kept going up, due to tax incentives and the ever watchful HUD and CBC (Congressional Black Caucus). Essentially it became a protection racket. The Barney Frank's and the Charlie Rangel's in congress would increase the requirements and the lending institutions would comply. What else were they going to do. If you questioned the system you were labeled a racist or uncaring where the needy are concerned. To prove my point, recently on one of these political talking heads shows a Republican pointed this HUD, CBC stuff and an Obama supporter responded with, "So your blaming this current financial mess on poor people?" Well that was the first and last time I heard the truth about this topic. Political correctness rears its head and silences truth. Gosh we're sensitive and tolerant.

Meanwhile, I wonder why Chris Dodd, D-CT was getting "VIP" loans from Country Wide Home Loans. Oh yeah, he's the Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Oh, and he's received more $$ from Fannie and Freddie in contributions than any other guy in Washington (Barack Obama 2nd, John Kerry 3rd). Hmm. Don't worry. I'm sure Dodd is just looking out for you! That Chris Dodd, always working hard for you! What a guy! Don't get too excited, you Republicans, your the next three on the list headed by my state's very own Robert Bennett. In fact if you'll notice, ALL the people working on this "bail out" are in the top 26 money-takers: Chris Dodd-D, Barney Frank-D, Nancy Pelosi-D, Harry Reid-D, John Boehner-R, Robert Bennett-R, Roy Blunt-R, Chris Bond-R. Frankly, when it's all added up the Dems got about 30% more than the Repubs. So the Repubs were engaging in "financial relations" just a little less than the Dems, who were basically running a financial cat house. Very comforting.

   

So back to 1995: from this point on, sub-prime loans became accepted as meeting "Affordable Housing" requirements. Oooh! Ooh! Can I have one?! Please?! Over time this became a great way to not only get a first house (as opposed to the age old way of getting money from Mom & Dad), but also a great way to speculate in a housing market that was returning well over what people were forking out in sub-prime and interest-only loans. (Thanks, in part, to a complicit Federal Reserve who was constantly manipulating interest rates so as to induce more borrowing). This created incentives to buy homes, which in turn created an incentive to build more homes, which created an incentive to loan more $ for houses, which created reasons to build more houses, which created...Hey, wait a second. Something's going on here. Does anyone see a potential problem here?

So here we are, staring like deer in the headlights of an...aircraft carrier (97,000 tons of floating steel. And as anyone who has ever dropped steel in water knows, it definitely does not float. No matter how small a piece of steel, it will not float. So, then, how does 97,000 tons of steel float???????? Magic.)

But I digress...

So what is the point of all this? Simply that you really need to get a life! You just waisted who knows how much time reading this pitifully boring drivel from and unemployed musician. My plan? to default on any and all loans and apply for a bail out. Unfortunately this probably won't work because I didn't take on enough bad loans. If I had only been smart enough to take out mortgages in the billions of dollars then I'd be sitting pretty. All you tax paying saps would be on the hook for my bad debts.

Now to the real point:

Basically, we are probably in for some difficult times. Only this time when we tie all our goods to the tops of our cars and head West looking for work we'll watch DVD's on our overhead DVD players. That will at least take the sting out of near starvation. At the very least it will keep the children occupied while Mommy and Daddy try and find a barn to sleep in for the night.

If I sound a little peeved and cynical you're right. The idea that the very fools and scalawags who created this mess are actually posturing themselves as capable of fixing this is beyond laughable. Every time I see Barney Frank or Chris Dodd speak about this, or criticize Bush or anyone else, while the so called journalists just soak it up, and spew it right back out with no attempt to point out the hypocrisy of these very people, well..........

Let me leave you with this from the aforementioned 2003 New York Times article regarding Bush's proposal to move regulatory oversight for Fannie and Freddie from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (created in 1992 as part of HUD) to a new agency under the Treasury Dept., which is headed by Presidential appointment:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank D-MA, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Rep. Melvin L. Watt, D-NC, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Mr. Watt said.

Well whoopee-do to you Mr. Frank and Mr. Watt! You guys really helped the little guy this time. No doubt the coming meltdown will only hurt the rich and not at all weaken "the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Barney and Melvin hard at work for the little guy! Always working hard, those guys! I think the article has a typo, I think Barney Frank is not the ranking Democrat, but the rank Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

It's a good thing my TV weighs 97,000 tons, otherwise the next time I saw one of these carnival ride workers passing blame and telling us how they're going to clean up their stinky mess I'd be tempted to rip it off the wall and throw it in my bathtub where it would no doubt float because it's got steel AND plastic in it, and I know for a fact that plastic floats!

A Few Items of Interest to Only a Few

Joseph got his Webelos badge today. We are all very proud of him. Of course there are no photos of the event because his parents are "disabled" as Charlie Rangel would say. So be kind to us. Had a couple of fun conversations with the kids today. I've been slowly copying all our music CD's to iTunes over the past forever, and on my desk was Marie's copy of the Sound of Music soundtrack. (Mind you, my kids have seen this movie MANY times). On the CD cover is, of course, the apparently not so famous Julie Andrews; because Andrea walks into my office and notices the CD and says, somewhat mystified, "Julie Andrews is in the Sound of Music?!" "Uhh...yes, Andrea," I respond. "Where have you been?" "I thought she was just in the Princess Diaries." Hmmm... I then point out to her that Julie Andrews is much better known for The Sound of Music than The Princess Diaries, which in the world of movies is not even worthy of a blip. To which she responds with, "But The Princess Diaries is a way better movie." "Why would you say that," I ask. "Because it has Anne Hathaway in it, and she's a great actor [sic]...Julie Andrews is lucky she got to meet Anne Hathaway!" [The sound of crickets is appropriate here.] No doubt Ronald Reagan was also lucky to walk in front of Grammy Gibb's car. He probably never forgot that moment. If I haven't yet established the high level of cultural literacy in this house, then let me finish with this... So later in the evening Andrea, again, asks Marie if she knows that book by Edward Allen Poe, "The Count of Monte Crisco." Whoops, and whoops again. Marie politely corrects her, ie. laughs at her, as Hannah pipes up with this: "Is that one of the stories in that scary book we've got by Alfred Hitch-hock?" OUCH! Maybe the Obamatrons are right. We are a bunch of tacky, hayseeds here in fly-over country. Well, too bad for them. We vote and we're propagating like rabbits. Hah!