Quote Of The Week

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

Representative Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, of President-elect Barack Obama on 11/28/08

Limbaugh, Again Confused

I enjoy periodically tuning in to Rush Limbaugh's program with the intent of leaving it on until he says something ridiculous. Today, July 22, 2008, I listened longer than normal, almost two minutes.

Limbaugh was complaining about sponsorship by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Citizenship Education Fund Annual Conference. The event, described here as "Jesse Jackson's main fundraising event of the year," took place June 28 through July 2 in Chicago.

I don't know why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sponsored the annual conference of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. But I do know that Limbaugh, after referring to the two corporations as "federal government private sector (which is impossible) mortgage loan institutions," claimed "they're giving men (sic) to the Reverend Jackson. Yet people want more of this! They want more government; I don't get it."

More government? Although founded as a government agency in 1938, Fannie May was converted into a private corporation in 1968. And its own website describes Freddie Mac as "owned by its shareholders and, like other corporations, is accountable to its shareholders and a board of directors." Like it or not, the federal government is socializing risk by bailing out these two corporations. This is not a failure of government, but of two corporations now coming to the taxpayers for handouts- i.e., welfare. True, the federal government has not covered itself with glory in its handling of the mortgage crisis, but then, the Executive Branch has been in singularly incapable hands for almost eight years due in part to Limbaugh, Scalia, and others who thwarted the popular will in 2000.

What Could McCain Be Thinking?

Alert The Wall Street Journal (and the mainstream media, generally): I am not a knee-jerk free trader, though some people have used a portion of that phrase to describe me. Even if I were, I would wonder whether John McCain is in touch with reality. In a speech delivered on May 20, 2008 in Miami, Florida for Cuban Independence Day, the Arizona senator said

We have made progress toward this vision by expanding the benefits of free commerce, through NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and our free trade agreements with Peru and Chile. But the progress has stalled; our longstanding bipartisan commitment to hemispheric prosperity is crumbling. We see this most vividly in Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. The failure of the Congress to take up and approve this agreement is a reminder why 80 percent of Americans think we are on the wrong track.

Maybe there are other reasons for Americans believing our nation is on the wrong track. Consider:

-the mortgage crisis- according to USA Today, "about 2.3% of prime loans were 60 days' past due in February, the highest level in at least a decade, according to data from FirstAmerican CoreLogic LoanPerformance. That's up from 1.4% a year ago."

-gasoline costs- according to U.S. government statistics, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline on 4/21/08- after prices began to rise- was 350.8 and on 5/26/08, 393.7, a rise of 42.9 cents; the average price of all grades of gasoline over the same period rose from 355.7 to 398.6, a rise also of 42.9 cents. That's an increase of over 8 cents per week.

-Persian Gulf II- There now are over 4,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq with no end to this war in sight.

-Corruption- At least ten (10) officials of the Bush Administration have been indicted and/or found guilty of criminal offenses; another twenty-four (24) have resigned due to investigation or because of pending investigation or allegations of impropriety.

Still, the Repub who will be nominated for president believes that failure of Congress to pass the "U.S.-Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement" (Columbia Free Trade Agreement) is a reason that 79% of Americans believe the U.S.A. is on the wrong track and only 15% that our nation is on the right track. Either John McCain is divorced from reality, or he believes that he can delude us voters. But could he really be that elitist?

Alan Greenspan, Really?

In a recent meeting with the Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Daily News, Hillary Clinton recommended a "high-level emergency group" to address the issue of high-risk mortgages. She suggested that the members might include Robert Rubin (a supporter of hers), Paul Volcker (a supporter of Barack Obama), and Alan Greenspan (a supporter of John McCain). When Greenspan spoke before the Credit Union National Association 2004 Governmental Affairs Conference, Washington, D.C. on February 23, 2004, he stated:

American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home.


He also has been a champion of deregulation. When he gave the Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress (before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate on March 7, 2002), Greenspan declared:

Both deregulation and innovation in the financial sector have been especially important in enhancing overall economic resilience. New financial products—including derivatives, asset-backed securities, collateralized loan obligations, and collateralized mortgage obligations, among others—have enabled risk to be dispersed more effectively to those willing to, and presumably capable of, bearing it.

So Senator Clinton was asked by the Editorial Board about her recommendation of the nation's most important economist, who promoted adjustable rate mortgages and deregulation of the financial industry and failed to recognize the housing bubble. She replied:

Not only that, but the Fed didn't act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street -- don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying -- but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out, and very smartly so, that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem -- but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership...

We've gone through seven years of an Administration which, with the help of the Congressional Medal of Honor, rewards incompetence at every turn. Calling on a guy who helped bring on the mortgage debacle is no way to address the nation's housing crisis.

Contrasting Styles At Democratic Debate

Despite the nature of last night's Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, there were these moments of substance:

Senator Obama, in an obvious swipe at Senator Clinton: "...but what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq is before we went in." After the Illinois Senator commented further, followed by applause, did Anderson Cooper question Mrs. Clinton about the remark? "To the question of, did the troops- Are the troops dying in vain, though. Yes or no?" (Generously, we can call that "conflict-averse"; not so generously, more conspiratorily, that Cooper did not want to press Clinton on Obama's big issue, that he is the one Senator on stage who voted against authorizing the war.)

Former Senator Edwards on gay marriage in a response to Reverend Longcrier: "But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know... my wife Elizabeth... actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it." John, we know you are thoughtful. And conflicted. And respectful of the opinions of others, especially those of your wife. That, in the minds of many voters, is what separates Democrats from Republicans. Republicans seem so self-assured- or arrogant. The "no apologies" party. The "Daddy Party." Try this, given your views. "I support full partnership benefits for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, how they were born, fully assured of God's love. But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and do not support legalizing gay marriage."

But John Edwards had what I believe was the best, most meaningful moment of the debate, contrasting himself to Clinton and Obama: "And the question is, do you believe compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies- they are notgoing to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

And you know I can't get through a blog of this sort without criticizing Hillary Clinton. Rob Porter from Irvine, California asked Mrs. Clinton "would you use this word (liberal) to define yourself?" After taking 194 words to describe herself as "a modern progressive," Clinton was asked by Cooper "So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say progressive?" HRC nodded, to applause.
How about this, Senator? "Yes, I am a liberal. I'm in favor of clean air, clean water, and national parks we all are proud of, despite assaults from special interests. I'm in favor of good wages for all Americans, and distressed at the record high of mortgage foreclosures we've recently seen in our country. I'm in favor of equal opportunity- not necessarily equal outcomes- for everyone, regardless of race, religion, or gender. And I'm in favor of a leader who is strong enough to pursue diplomacy first, to talk with our enemies when necessary so our people are safe and secure, and to resort to war not as a first, but as a last, option. And I'll be that President starting January 21, 2009."
But embracing the word "liberal" requires courage.