Possibly, House Republicans and the 90+ Democrats who voted against the $700 billion bail out bill today simply recognized that the bill, in its current form, wasn’t what the nation needed (regardless of what Wall Street said “they” needed).
Possibly, they wanted a better, more realistic solution. Possibly they simply voted as 80% or more of their constituents WANTED them to vote.
Possibly, those who voted “nay” either did not believe in the urgency of the crisis (in the free market, banks and businesses fail every day) or in the sudden push toward nationalizing the mortgage industry.
Possibly, they prefer (as I do) a “plan B” which emphasizes — not an arbitrary, unfettered spending spree by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — but a regulated safety net of loans, based on actual market values and administered by the FDIC.
Possibly, the House revolted against Nancy Pelosi’s revelation (yesterday) that the bail out would permit “the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans (errrr… wait a minute —), local governments (WHAT?), and small banks (you mean, all of them???) ….” Here is the prevailing assessment of that statement:
So in addition to rewarding irresponsible lenders and borrowers, we taxpayers are now to be “protected” by buying the toxic debt of states, cities and municipalities. It’s one thing to throw a life-line to the credit industry; local governments, by contrast, have the ability to cut spending drastically or raise taxes if their inhabitants want government services. Elected politicians are then accountable for runaway spending and mismanagement. If Detroit or Chicago is sinking because of big-government policies, that’s what the citizens of those cities asked for by voting for Democrats year in and year out. Why should the rest of us be on the hook for that?
Possibly, some House members revolted against the speech Speaker Pelosi made today — blaming Republicans and President Bush — for the current financial distress.
Possibly, her speech was simply a reflection of her failure as Speaker of the House. Why would she, in a year of legislative failures, have called a vote for a bill she knew did not have sufficient votes to pass?
Something is fishy, though …… Why would Pelosi’s personal appointments and political associates vote AGAINST the bail out? Did she purposefully “set up” a sympathy backlash for a second vote? Did she orchestrate an “out” for democrats facing re-election to vote their constituents’ preference? Did she open the door for the Democrats “October surprise” in which Barack Obama will miraculously rally the votes to “save” Wall Street? HA!
Regardless, it’s back to the political ouija drawing board ….
Before they vote on Wednesday, will the Senate consider that the (arbitrary) $700 billion price tag for “saving” Wall Street may be an unrealistic goal, may not be the unilateral responsibility of the federal government, or may actually be a political smoke screen for pushing Main Street AND Wall Street down that slippery slope toward socialism ???? (Note the video of Congressman Jeb Hensarling’s speech).
But will there be a deal? Yes (even if this includes an “October surprise,” — as promised by democrats). And credit institutions will likely continue to face the same regulations and legislative pressures which brought on this disaster to begin with.
Will Congress be able to finally demonstrate their concern for the American taxpayer? Sorta — but only after protecting their cronies who’ve caused and benefited from this debacle.
Will it be done as an a bipartisan effort? Ummm …. probably not. Pelosi and Frank and Reid will attempt again to take credit for themselves and democrats.
Will the deal punish the perpetrators of this fiasco? Unlikely. It would take an act of God (forget Congress) to convince Congress that their private support base also assume part of the bail out costs. Unless, of course, you’re of the opinion that taxpayers actually are responsible for Wall Street failures.
Meanwhile, corruption and mismanagement on Wall Street will continue; special-interest legislators who have a “vested” interest in promoting said corruption and mismanagement will continue to do so ….
So who is responsible? In reality, all the likely parties on both sides of the aisle and in each arm of government are responsible.
Who owns the problem? If you mean by “own,” who will pay the bill (or part of it), it’s going to be taxpayers. If you mean by “own,” who created this scenario, several names come to mind ….
Let’s look at the foundations beneath the crisis:
1) the corruption behind the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — those federally-funded low income housing authorities — includes a “who’s who” list of former and present legislators, Presidents, CEO’s who operated the system for personal and political gain, rather than low-income opportunities, and Congressional regulations that precipitated the calamity.
2) the role ACORN played — beyond a) it’s push to register the youth, the homeless, the sheltered elderly or the ineligible voter class, b) it’s voter intimidate tactics, and, c) it’s history of voter fraud — in promoting “class warfare” and home ownership for poverty-level citizens (including the undocumented “residents” who recently glutted low-income mortgages and credit card markets).
How does this relate to Barack Obama? Why is he called the most radical politician to ever get close to the White House? Read on.
There are compelling issues addressing why Barack Obama must be defeated on November 4: A) his identity with his father’s dreams to form the “perfect” socialist society, B) his rise through community-based special interest groups and his role as a community organizer and activist-attorney who thrived in the mob-mentality of Chicago, C) his identity with anti-American activists who mentored his youth and formative years and with whom he worked in Chicago, D) his dubious performance as a part-time legislator in the Illinois State Senate, and E) his failure to demonstrate legislative leadership as a U.S. Senator (serving approximately 143 days since 1994).
There are also reasons why Barack Obama supported the government take-over of low income mortgages — one being that he (as did other top Democrat leaders) benefited from a “super super jumbo” low interest loan rate for his Chicago home:
Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a “super super jumbo.” Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Obama’s attempts to hide his ties to ACORN — and subsequently the current Wall Street crisis — are beginning to emerge in mainstream media:
It would be tough to find an “on the ground” community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.
When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.
He returned to Chicago in the early ’90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama’s legal services for a “motor voter” case and partnered with him on his 1992 “Project VOTE” registration drive.
In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN’s up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott’s drive against Chicago’s banks.
More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago’s Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation’s board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers – and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.
That committee’s report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama’s organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott’s ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.
MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN – whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.
Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public’s eye. The Woods Fund’s claim to be “nonideological,” it says, has “enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government ‘establishments’ without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship.”
Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?
The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott’s way – ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.
In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama’s first campaign for state Senate, saying, “We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.” — from Stanley Kurtz via Powerline
Recall that Obama had to revise his campaign financial report to show a payment to ACORN this past year:
Obama understood what ACORN does very, very well. He had started off as a “community organizer” from the same tradition, and he remains committed to that tradition — as his $800,000 campaign payment for ACORN’s services showed.
Obama addressed ACORN in a 2007 speech: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
Obama’s not alone, however. Several Congressmen have been in denial about the problems in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years — in spite of pleas by George Bush and John McCain ….
Michelle Malkin keeps multiple open threads on the Bail Out Boondoggle, noting that 27 subpoenas have now been issued to F-F administrators and other failed lending organizations (you may want to check the campaign contribution records to assess how much these failed organizations supported Obama).
Other bloggers are weighing in —- comparing the Freddie-Fannie fiasco AND the role of it’s key players [including Barack Obama’s current advisors, Raines and Johnson and his finance chair Penny Pritzker] as bad a reflection on Democrats as was the Enron debacle on Republicans.
As I recall Raines was the one who, following the Enron scandals, gave public lectures about corporate responsibility and CEO honesty. And as one begins to read about Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, and Leland Brendsel at Freddie Mac, one begins to understand their modus operandi. Freddie and Fannie were landing pads for former Democratic insiders, who milked the agencies for millions in bonuses as they covered their tracks by donations to Congressional candidates and pseudo-racial-populism of helping minorities buy homes with little down. Their careers are every bit as nauseating as anything at Enron — and yet the press strangely does not go after them in the manner we learned of Ken Lay’s deceit. God help us all.
Let’s look more closely at Obama’s economic plans. I don’t want US taxes being distributed to or administered by the United Nations as a Global Poverty Fund or to a Global Climate Change Fund or some Global Initiative Fund. I don’t want to allow Barack Obama to literally ride the backs of low income Americans to achieve his father’s “dreams” of socialism — including but not limited to tax-funded “incentive” checks, mortgage supplements, infratructure reinvestment funds, and higher taxes on small businesses. I don’t want the economy being “driven” by a large government bureaucracy; I want it driven by a free and competitive market that rewards hard work and innovation — not cronyism and regulations.
Grab your favorite beverage and get comfortable. Read the links above. Learn more about this critical issue and what is at stake for this nation on November 4.
Then pick up the phone; talk with neighbors in the supermarket, at Walmart, after church. Tell them why our nation can neither survive nor progress under the self-serving ambitions of Barack Obama. Ask them to support John McCain’s effort to REFORM the government agencies which have negligently allowed our financial system to fall to its current level.
Because if you don’t — the free market principles by which this nation thrives, the small businesses that provide our jobs and benefits, the local banks that are constantly pressured to make high-risk loans, the obligations we and our government have for fiscal accountability — will be sacrificed to further the graft and collusion associated with the financial crisis we now face. At the heart of these sacrifices will be the freedoms of citizens who support this nation.
At a time when global and national security challenges confront our nation, taxpayers should not be further subjugated by a system already saturated with greed and corruption. At a time when we need proven leadership that puts America first — we don’t need a proponent of the philosophy that usurps democracy — we need a leader who respects and supports it. That leader is John McCain.
Tags: ACORN, Annenberg Challenge, Bail out, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, class warfare, Dreams from my father, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Frank Raines, Freddie Mac, Hensarling, House of Representatives, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, John McCain, Leland Brendsel, Madeline Talbott, Nancy Pelosi, October surprise, Penny Pritzker, slippery slope, slippery slope toward socialism, Stanley Kurtz, Wall Street, Woods Fund