Classic Diversions

So far, everything about the Obama administration has involved the President figuratively interrupting himself in mid-sentence to say, "...Hey, look up there!" His defense of the anemic economic situation has been that it "could be worse". Well, it is getting worse.

Now that the 2010 Census is over and those temporary workers find themselves jobless again, the numbers are reflected in the latest jobs report from the government. But they're trying to spin the news yet again, saying that only 131,000 people lost their jobs. Meanwhile, the Obamas are enjoying opulent vacations - separately - in Chicago and Spain. Swell.

As the First Family spends lavishly on leisure, the President continues to spend lavishly on measures that are clearly having a detrimental effect on the country. The national debt continues to climb out of sight, and despite the massive spending of money that does not exist, entities run by the government are losing even more money.

The United States Postal Service just reported a third quarter net loss of 3.5 billion dollars. Social Security will pay out more this year than it takes in for the first time since 1983, when it was overhauled. Fannie Mae is seeking 1.5 billion dollars from the treasury following a 12th straight quarterly loss. Uh, that's three years in a row for those keeping score.

So what does Obama want to do? He wants to pile more debt onto the backs of taxpayers by "forgiving" underwater mortgages or, more accurately, having Fannie Mae do it. Oh sure, the feds are denying it, saying that Obama has no plans at this time for any such program, but how many other things has he lied about in one and a half short years?

No new taxes? That one didn't last long as evidenced by the most punitive new tax of all on the poorest amongst us; smokers. When accused of a new tax in the form of mandated health coverage, the administration vehemently denied that it was a tax, referring to it instead as a "fee". However, when pressed by the states as to the constitutionality of mandated health care, the administration quickly changed its tune to invoke the Commerce Clause.

How about this one? “Under our Plan, No Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscious laws will remain in place," Obama said. Uh-huh. Last month Maryland became the second state - joining Pennsylvania - to offer federally funded abortions, using the 85 million dollars it will receive from the federal government.

There are a plethora of smaller lies, demonstrating that the man is incapable of telling the truth regardless of the magnitude of the situation. Lies such as his claim that the Selma march was responsible for his existence, despite the fact that he was 3 and a half years old when the march took place. Or his claim that he was never a Muslim, which was later adjusted to never a practicing Muslim. Yet he fondly spoke of his years in Indonesia, recalling that the Muslim call to prayer was the "sweetest sound" he'd ever heard.

So to believe that he is planning to throw a lot more money down the drain is easy, no matter how the man doth protest.

Sphere: Related Content

Dems Trying To Have It Both Ways

I decided to write this not to point the finger of blame at any particular person or party, but rather to prevent the current financial crisis from being used as a club in the upcoming presidential election.

With the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the gyrations now under way to fix the problem, Barack Obama is out on the stump trying to blame the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for the mess. His running mate, Joe Biden, is cheering him on and saying that deregulation at the hands of Phil Graham is the root cause of the collapse. Phill Graham did sponsor S.900, which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, true. Democrats at the time, however, showered praise on the accomplishment. Now they want to blame Republican deregulation.

It's bad enough that Obama, Biden, Schumer and others are more concerned with winning back the White House than they are about rescuing the economy, but it's worse that they seem to think none of us have memories. When the Senate passed S.900, also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley and was a bold deregulatory move, here's what Chuck Schumer had to say then:

"I first want to thank Chairman Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach, Representative LaFalce, and all of my colleagues who worked so long and hard on this legislation," Mr. Schumer began, "Mr. President, this is a historic moment. We've been working towards it for 18 years ... the future of America's dominance as the financial center of the world is at stake. This bill is vital for the future of our country."

What is he saying nine years later?

"Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of 'the market can do no wrong,' have led us down a short path to economic recession."

Yet just five years ago, the President sought to impose more regulation on the institutions, something that never came to fruition.

President Clinton, at the time he signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law in November of 1999, had this to say:

"The [Gramm-Leach-Bliley] Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries."

Just in case he wants to jump into the fray at somepoint and explore a bit of revisionist history as well.

Whether the bailout will prove to be wise is debatable and a cause of spirited disagreement among conservatives, to be sure, but I will continue to write on this subject right up until November 4th. I simply will not allow the democrats to rewrite history unfettered.

Sphere: Related Content

Champions Of The Poor

Democrats hold themselves up to be the champions of the poor. It always struck me as odd that a bunch of rich guys and gals, most of whom have never held a real job outside of Congress, can claim to be "one of us", the working people. They do, though, and quite successfully based on the electoral polls.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were tools used by Congress ostensibly to help poor folks own a home. While home ownership is a big part of "The American Dream", it was never intended to be a guarantee. It was historically the culmination of hard work and personal sacrifice. It may be again once more, but not in the foreseeable future.

Helping people who are not financially capable of buying a home buy one anyway is not only a bad idea, it is cruel, as we are now seeing people who had a small sip of the Dream having it wrenched from their grasp. It's almost like stealing a sandwich and handing it to a starving homeless person with the police in pursuit, who then rip it from his hands just as he's about to take a bite. The sandwich-snatcher then blames the police for taking food from the hungry.

The Bush Administration is now the target, bearing the blame for the woes of Freddie and Fannie, when he tried to fix the problem five years ago.


From the above link, Barney Frank had this to say about Bush's proposed plan:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, 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.''

Note the title for Mr. Frank; ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. Maybe it's time for some new leadership in that area. Oh yes, and another financial expert, in the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, is in trouble because he had trouble navigating the tax codes! He then had the unmitigated audacity to blame Republicans for his misdeeds. He paid the back taxes, but "penalties and interest were not included in those payments". Yeah, he's just like you and me, alright.

This brings us to Barack Obama, who is leading the charge against the Administration in an attempt to lay blame, and ultimately win the Presidency. But while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were about to crumble, Obama saw fit to accept over $126,000 from them. That's in just three years as a senator, folks. By contrast, John McCain accepted $21,550, over twenty years.

The bottom line here is this; the democrats were opposed to Bush's oversight plan for these two institutions because they claimed it would make it harder for poor people to get homes. So they staved off the inevitable for a little while and in the meantime some poor folks bought houses, which they are now losing again.

While it may appear to be compassionate, it is certainly not helpful at all to give a homeless person a new refrigerator box.

Sphere: Related Content