Archive for the ‘South Carolina’ Category

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford: “Don’t Bail Out My State”

November 22, 2008

mark-sanfordThe following in South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s (R) editorial that was posted in the Wall Street Journal, with my thoughts and analysis spread throughout:

I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.

You’re better than my governor, Governor Jennifer Granholm, one of the people leading the charge for the auto bailout right now.

But I suspect I’m not entirely alone, as there are a lot of taxpayers who aren’t pleased with Christmas coming early for politicians. And I hope these taxpayers make their voices heard before Democrats load up the next bailout train for states with budget deficits.

Several questions led me to oppose bailing out the states. They are worth asking, even if you supported bailing out Wall Street.

Who bails out the “bail-outor”?

Washington is short on cash these days and will borrow every dime of the $150 billion to $300 billion for the “stimulus” bill now being worked on. Federal appetites may know no bounds. But the federal government’s ability to borrow is not limitless. Already, our nation’s unfunded liabilities total $52 trillion — about $450,000 per household. There’s something very strange about issuing debt to solve a problem caused by too much debt.

A very good question.  The answer, in my opinion, is eventually the taxpayers.  If we keep this set of bailouts going, we’ll ultimately just crumble the economy and economic infrastructure.  Heck, there may not even be a United States to bail out any more if we keep this up.  We’re entering dangerous territory economically, and if we aren’t careful, it may cost us permanently.

Do you now have to be a financial “bad boy” to win?

Community bankers tell me that they are now at a competitive disadvantage for being careful about who to lend to, because others that were less disciplined will get a federal bailout. This is also true for states. Those that have been fiscally responsible will pay for or lose out to the big spenders. California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

But this has been the whole mindset since the beginning.  “I’ll take the risk, and if I suffer, they’ll HAVE to bail me out.”  I’ve been warning about this from the beginning!  But economically/fiscally dumb and irresponsible lawmakers in Washington have given in and now think, “If __________ fails, the whole economy will suffer, and we can’t let the economy suffer.”  Let companies go bankrupt.  Let people lose their homes.  It’s called a free market.  Companies and people never should’ve bought more than they could afford or taken risks that they couldn’t handle.

Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won’t?

Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That’s unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.

Isn’t government intervention supposed to be the last resort and come only when it can make a difference?

EXACTLY!  And even then, in my opinion, the government probably shouldn’t intervene.  But it’s visible in the proposed auto bailout: Some in Congress are saying that the auto companies shouldn’t try bankruptcy first (even Represesntative Joe Knollenberg [R-MI9] said this!).

In 2008 bailouts became the first resort. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate “stimulus” checks of last February) to “improve” the economy. I don’t see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We’ve already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.

That’s a really good analogy.

However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security’s REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.

Based on what I saw in Washington, the bailout train is being loaded up. Taxpayers will have to speak up now to change its freight, tab or departure.

I feel that it may already be too late.  While Congress won’t give in to everybody who asks for a bailout, I think they’re going to give in to a lot of them, and who knows how detrimentally that will affect our economy.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

So, there you have it.  Governor Sanford’s op/ed.  I couldn’t agree more with what the Governor said.  We need more people like him (although I don’t agree with all of his stances, I think he’s absolutely right when it comes to this issue).

If we continue these reckless bailouts, we’re all going to suffer.  And we may not be able to recover.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Analysis of the House Voting Down Yesterday’s Bailout Bill

September 30, 2008

I had hoped to do a post on this yesterday, but I wanted to actually see the bill before I did anything on it.  It took them a while to get the bill language up, and I found out that it was about 110 pages long (it is available here if you’re interested).  Also, here’s the bill that the Senate didn’t vote to pass (it needed 60% to pass).

As I’m sure all of you know, the House voted down yesterday’s bill, H.R. 3997, the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″ 205 (140D/65R) – 228 (95D/133R), with 1 not voting (R).

The following is the summary of the act, courtesy of the Financial Services Committee of the House:

SUMMARY OF THE “EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008″

I. Stabilizing the Economy

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.

Alright, this basically explains the principle that the Representatives who were for the bill were advocating: This is an investment, not a bailout (similar to the Chrysler government loan guarantees of the 1970s and 1980s, where we co-signed on a $1.5 billion loan).  They argue that we will make our money back, and even possibly make a profit (like we did with Chrysler).  Here’s the problem with that thinking: many American people who are in crisis right now are NOT helping the situation.  I gave an example of a woman who simply left her old home and mortgage in the middle of the night and bought a house in the Carolinas (I don’t remember which off the top of my head) the next day, before the credit caught up to her.  There have been stories of people tearing apart houses right before the bank repossesses them, “because the bank is the bad guy” when in actuality, it’s both the bank’s fault for giving a loan to somebody who never should have been able to get one as well as the homeowner’s fault for trying to buy a house that he/she simply couldn’t afford.  It’s a lack of basic family budgeting and spending principles that helped get us into this situation.  Then mortgage companies gave out Adjustable Rate Mortgages to people who NEVER should’ve been able to get one, and people looking to buy homes ignored the first basic principle of fiscal responsibility: don’t buy something you can’t afford!  So, we’re going to buy these mortgages, but that’s not going to stop people from not being able to pay the mortgages.  Instead of banks losing money, it’ll be the government.

Now, on the other hand, it IS unfair for responsible buyers who happened to get a mortgage from the wrong company to have to suffer, and it is THESE instances that I am more willing to accept government intervention, but how the government is to analyze and weed out the good from the bad is quite a problem, considering the massiveness of banks and mortgage companies that have failed or are looking like they will fail.

II. Homeownership Preservation

EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans – many the result of predatory lending practices – wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.

Now, that last sentence is where the government could lose a lot of money.  When you expand eligibility and increase tools for helping people stay in their homes, you’re saying that these people are getting help to stay in homes that they can’t afford, which means that the government is footing the bill, and that’s money that the government will not see back in its hands a good chunk of the time.

III. Taxpayer Protection

Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program from financial institutions.

This is again, where the “investment” principle comes into the bill.  And this could be good for the government, like the bailout of Chrysler was profitable to the government in the 1980s and 1990s.  The part that confuses me is that last sentence – why the President is the one to draft legislation to cover taxpayer losses seems to confuse me, unless that’s their way of knowing that the President will approve of the measure, since he himself drafted it.  I’ll have to look into that a little more to understand what all that would do.

IV. No Windfalls for Executives

Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits “golden parachutes” and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.

If these executives cared about their companies, most of them just would stop taking pay.  I guarantee you that if I were the CEO of AIG, and if I were set for life, I wouldn’t take another pay check until the company was back on track.

V. Strong Oversight

Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse [sic]

Good.  Frankly, I don’t trust the Treasury Department after they advocated the Fannie and Freddie bailouts.  I want to know where this money is going, and I want Congressional approval of it (even though I don’t support the Democrats in Congress, the more people that have to approve where the money goes, the better).

So, that’s the summary, and here’s the section-by-section analysis of the bill, basically the summary with details, also courtesy of the Financial Services Committee:

 SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short Title.

“Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

Section 2. Purposes.

Provides authority to the Treasury Secretary to restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial system and to ensure the economic well-being of Americans.

Section 3. Definitions.

Contains various definitions used under this Act.

Title I. Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Section 101. Purchases of Troubled Assets.

Authorizes the Secretary to establish a Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. Establishes an Office of Financial Stability within the Treasury Department to implement the TARP in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Requires the Treasury Secretary to establish guidelines and policies to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Includes provisions to prevent unjust enrichment by participants of the program.

Like I said above.  The government has to be careful that this really is an investment, because if more companies say, “We can take risks, because we’re too big, so the government will HAVE to bail us out,” then it becomes purely a bailout and a terrible investment that will cost taxpayers billions (if not ultimately trillions, since this bill alone would authorize up to $700 billion).  Personally, I really don’t think the government should be doing this at all, but since some bailout bill will eventually pass, I’d want it filled with as many fiscal conservative principles as possible.

Section 102. Insurance of Troubled Assets.

If the Secretary establishes the TARP program, the Secretary is required to establish a program to guarantee troubled assets of financial institutions.

The Secretary is required to establish risk-based premiums for such guarantees sufficient to cover anticipated claims. The Secretary must report to Congress on the establishment of the guarantee program.

Again – I like the whole reporting to Congress idea.

Section 103. Considerations.

In using authority under this Act, the Treasury Secretary is required to take a number of considerations into account, including the interests of taxpayers, minimizing the impact on the national debt, providing stability to the financial markets, preserving homeownership, the needs of all financial institutions regardless of size or other characteristics, and the needs of local communities. Requires the Secretary to examine the long-term viability of an institution in determining whether to directly purchase assets under the TARP.

Section 104. Financial Stability Oversight Board.

This section establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Board to review and make recommendations regarding the exercise of authority under this Act. In addition, the Board must ensure that the policies implemented by the Secretary protect taxpayers, are in the economic interests of the United States, and are in accordance with this Act.

The Board is comprised of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Section 105. Reports.

Monthly Reports: Within 60 days of the first exercise of authority under this Act and every month thereafter, the Secretary is required to report to Congress its activities under TARP, including detailed financial statements.

Tranche Reports: For every $50 billion in assets purchased, the Secretary is required to report to Congress a detailed description of all transactions, a description of the pricing mechanisms used, and justifications for the financial terms of such transactions.

Regulatory Modernization Report: Prior to April 30, 2009, the Secretary is required to submit a report to Congress on the current state of the financial markets, the effectiveness of the financial regulatory system, and to provide any recommendations.

Section 106. Rights; Management; Sale of Troubled Assets; Revenues and Sale Proceeds.

Establishes the right of the Secretary to exercise authorities under this Act at any time. Provides the Secretary with the authority to manage troubled assets, including the ability to determine the terms and conditions associated with the disposition of troubled assets. Requires profits from the sale of troubled assets to be used to pay down the national debt.

Section 107. Contracting Procedures.

Allows the Secretary to waive provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where compelling circumstances make compliance contrary to the public interest. Such waivers must be reported to Congress within 7 days. If provisions related to minority contracting are waived, the Secretary must develop alternate procedures to ensure the inclusion of minority contractors.

Allows the FDIC to be selected as an asset manager for residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities.

Section 108. Conflicts of Interest.

The Secretary is required to issue regulations or guidelines to manage or prohibit conflicts of interest in the administration of the program.

Section 109. Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.

For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs. Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

This is the section that is most helpful directly to taxpayers, but will also award people for bad fiscal principles.  If you can’t afford a loan that you took out, it’s not the government’s job to use loan guarantees (essentially co-sign on the loan).  If you lose your house, that’s your own fault.  It’s harsh, but it’s fair.

Section 110. Assistance to Homeowners.

Requires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.

Again, the government will lose a lot of money here, and so will banks.  If they’re letting people stay in houses when they can’t afford them, somebody is going to lose money, and it will be both banks and other lending agencies as well as the government.

Section 111. Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance.

Provides that Treasury will promulgate executive compensation rules governing financial institutions that sell it troubled assets. Where Treasury buys assets directly, the institution must observe standards limiting incentives, allowing clawback and prohibiting golden parachutes. When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000.

Section 112. Coordination With Foreign Authorities and Central Banks.

Requires the Secretary to coordinate with foreign authorities and central banks to establish programs similar to TARP.

Section 113. Minimization of Long-Term Costs and Maximization of Benefits for Taxpayers.

In order to cover losses and administrative costs, as well as to allow taxpayers to share in equity appreciation, requires that the Treasury receive non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions.

Section 114. Market Transparency.

48-hour Reporting Requirement: The Secretary is required, within 2 business days of exercising authority under this Act, to publicly disclose the details of any transaction.

Good, if we’re going to screw our economy up more, I at least want to understand exactly how it happened.

Section 115. Graduated Authorization to Purchase.

Authorizes the full $700 billion as requested by the Treasury Secretary for implementation of TARP. Allows the Secretary to immediately use up to $250 billion in authority under this Act. Upon a Presidential certification of need, the Secretary may access an additional $100 billion. The final $350 billion may be accessed if the President transmits a written report to Congress requesting such authority. The Secretary may use this additional authority unless within 15 days Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval which may be considered on an expedited basis.

Again, good – it at least gives us the hope that we won’t use all $700 billion, at least on this bailout.

Section 116. Oversight and Audits.

Requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of TARP, and to report every 60 days to Congress. The Comptroller General is required to conduct an annual audit of TARP. In addition, TARP is required to establish and maintain an effective system of internal controls.

Section 117. Study and Report on Margin Authority.

Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study and report back to Congress on the role in which leverage and sudden deleveraging of financial institutions was a factor behind the current financial crisis.

Section 118. Funding.

Provides for the authorization and appropriation of funds consistent with Section 115.

Section 119. Judicial Review and Related Matters.

Provides standards for judicial review, including injunctive and other relief, to ensure that the actions of the Secretary are not arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.

Section 120. Termination of Authority.

Provides that the authorities to purchase and guarantee assets terminate on December 31, 2009. The Secretary may extend the authority for an additional year upon certification of need to Congress.

Section 121. Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Establishes the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the actions undertaken by the Secretary under this Act. The Special Inspector General is required to submit a quarterly report to Congress summarizing its activities and the activities of the Secretary under this Act.

Section 122. Increase in the Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Raises the debt ceiling from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.

Section 123. Credit Reform.

Details the manner in which the legislation will be treated for budgetary purposes under the Federal Credit Reform Act.

Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.

Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures.

I’ve already voiced my opinions on this – this is gonna hurt us.

Section 125. Congressional Oversight Panel.

Establishes a Congressional Oversight Panel to review the state of the financial markets, the regulatory system, and the use of authority under TARP. The panel is required to report to Congress every 30 days and to submit a special report on regulatory reform

prior to January 20, 2009. The panel will consist of 5 outside experts appointed by the House and Senate Minority and Majority leadership.

Section 126. FDIC Enforcement Enhancement.

Prohibits the misuse of the FDIC logo and name to falsely represent that deposits are insured. Strengthens enforcement by appropriate federal banking agencies, and allows the FDIC to take enforcement action against any person or institution where the banking agency has not acted.

This wasn’t prohibited before?  I feel like that should’ve been outlawed back when the FDIC was FORMED!

Section 127. Cooperation With the FBI.

Requires any federal financial regulatory agency to cooperate with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies investigating fraud, misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, advertising, and sale of financial products.

Again, this needed to be in a bill?

Section 128. Acceleration of Effective Date.

Provides the Federal Reserve with the ability to pay interest on reserves.

Section 129. Disclosures on Exercise of Loan Authority.

Requires the Federal Reserve to provide a detailed report to Congress, in an expedited manner, upon the use of its emergency lending authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.

Again, if we’re going to kill our economy, at least we know how we did it so we don’t do it again.

Section 130. Technical Corrections.

Makes technical corrections to the Truth in Lending Act.

Section 131. Exchange Stabilization Fund Reimbursement.

Protects the Exchange Stabilization Fund from incurring any losses due to the temporary money market mutual fund guarantee by requiring the program created in this Act to reimburse the Fund. Prohibits any future use of the Fund for any guarantee program for the money market mutual fund industry.

Section 132. Authority to Suspend Mark-to-Market Accounting.

Restates the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to suspend the application of Statement Number 157 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board if the SEC determines that it is in the public interest and protects investors.

Section 133. Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting.

Requires the SEC, in consultation with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, to conduct a study on mark-to-market accounting standards as provided in FAS 157, including its effects on balance sheets, impact on the quality of financial information, and other matters, and to report to Congress within 90 days on its findings.

Section 134. Recoupment.

Requires that in 5 years, the President submit to the Congress a proposal that recoups from the financial industry any projected losses to the taxpayer.

Again, why is the President writing this proposal?  And how do they honestly plan on recouping losses?  How do you get back billions of dollars from the financial industry?  I feel sorry for whoever has to write that proposal.

Section 135. Preservation of Authority.

Clarifies that nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of the Secretary or the Federal Reserve under any other provision of law.

Title II-Budget-Related Provisions

Section 201. Information for Congressional Support Agencies.

Requires that information used by the Treasury Secretary in connection with activities under this Act be made available to CBO and JCT.

Section 202. Reports by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Requires CBO and OMB to report cost estimates and related information to Congress and the President regarding the authorities that the Secretary of the Treasury has exercised under the Act.

Section 203. Analysis in President’s Budget.

Requires that the President include in his annual budget submission to the Congress certain analyses and estimates relating to costs incurred as a result of the Act; and

Section 204. Emergency Treatment.

Specifies scoring of the Act for purposes of budget enforcement.

Title III-Tax Provisions

Section 301. Gain or Loss From Sale or Exchange of Certain Preferred Stock.

Details certain changes in the tax treatment of losses on the preferred stock of certain GSEs for financial institutions.

Section 302. Special Rules for Tax Treatment of Executive Compensation of Employers Participating in the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Applies limits on executive compensation and golden parachutes for certain executives of employers who participate in the auction program.

That I agree with.  If we’re bailing out these companies, lets at least waste the money solely on the companies.

Section 303. Extension of Exclusion of Income From Discharge of Qualified Principal Residence Indebtedness.

Extends current law tax forgiveness on the cancellation of mortgage debt.

Alright, so that was the full summary of the bill that FAILED the House yesterday.

I want give you a quote from Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), given during yesterday’s House session:

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is only going to make the problem that much worse. The problem came about because we spent too much; we borrowed too much, and we printed too much money; we inflated too much, and we overregulated. This is all that this bill is about is more of the same.

So you can’t solve the problem. We are looking at a symptom. We are looking at the collapsing of a market that was unstable. It was unstable because of the way it came about. It came about because of a monopoly control of money and credit by the Federal Reserve System, and that is a natural consequence of what happens when a Federal Reserve System creates too much credit.

Now, there have been a fair number of free market economists around who have predicted this would happen. Yet do we look to them for advice? No. We totally exclude them. We don’t listen to them. We don’t look at them. We look to the people who created the problem, and then we perpetuate the problem.

The most serious mistake that could be made here today is to blame free market capitalism for this problem. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism. This has to do with a managed economy, with an inflationary system, with corporatism, and with a special interest system. It has nothing to do with the failure of free markets and capitalism. Yet we’re resorting now, once again, to promoting more and more government.

Long term, this is disastrous because of everything we’re doing here and because of everything we’ve done for 6 months. We’ve already pumped in $700 billion. Here is another $700 billion. This is going to destroy the dollar. That’s what you should be concerned about. Yes, Wall Street is in trouble. There are a lot of problems, and if we don’t vote for this, there are going to be problems. Believe me: If you destroy the dollar, you’re going to destroy a worldwide economy, and that’s what we’re
on the verge of doing, and it is inevitable, if we continue this, that that’s what’s going to happen. It’s [Page: H10370]
going to be a lot more serious than what we’re dealing with today.

We need to get our house in order. We need more oversight–that is a certainty–but we need oversight of the Federal Reserve System, of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. Find out what they’re doing. How much have they been meddling in the market?

What we’re doing today is going to make things much worse.

Pure economic genius from Dr. Paul.

And here’s a quote from Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO):

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the strong opposition to the initial administration proposal has helped to force some very important changes such as the bipartisan oversight board, which is an online database that will allow greater oversight of the Secretary’s actions, but this is still a bailout for Wall Street that will cost the average Colorado household thousands.

I simply cannot stomach transferring that kind of money from the middle class families to a bunch of Wall Street bankers whose avarice and greed put us in this situation in the first place. It’s interesting that, when working families were being crushed by soaring energy prices this summer, Congress went on vacation. Yet, when Wall Street faced the consequences of its actions, we worked around the clock to help them. We should place the same priority on helping Main Street that we place on helping
Wall Street.

And there she expresses what most Americans are expressing: “Why use my money to bail out people and companies who acted irresponsibly?”

A full record of everything said at yesterday’s House session is available on C-Span’s website here (it’s actually pretty cool – I never knew they had that!).

So, again, I am glad that the House voted down this bill.  Hopefully I’ll be able to see the next bill BEFORE there’s a vote on it – I was very disappointed that there was no record of this until today, and even then, so many people were trying to access it that they were killing GovTrack.us and the House websites.

On a side note, here’s a copy of the roll call vote, and I’d like to note that I’m terribly disappointed in Representative Tancredo (R-CO) for voting Aye on this.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Ron Paul on Bailouts: “We Are Headed for a Rough Ride”

September 24, 2008

The following is Representative Ron Paul’s (R-TX) statements regarding government bailouts of financial institutions, with my analysis sprinkled throughout his comments:

Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government’s preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

And here’s the sad part – it’s been people like Paul, and his followers and others who believe like him that have predicted things like this would happen.  I’ve always been against government intervention into stuff like this, although, due to my age, haven’t had the opportunity to voice this as much as Dr. Paul.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Blame a lot of it on FDR – he’s the one who started all this crap TRYING to get us out of the Great Depression.  Emphasis on “trying.”  None of FDR’s plans really worked–what got us out was going to war.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Well, they were, after all, created by the federal government – the first mistake that was made here.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

And even the Economic Stimulus Package did this.  It INCREASED loan limits for people using adjustable rate mortgages, and increased the amount of people getting loans–people who NEVER should’ve been able to get loans with their credit.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

And this is evident in my home state of Michigan.  Where I live, there are some housing areas just recently built that are largely still up for sale.  Either that, or people will buy the new houses before selling their own houses, and then the original houses are left up for sale.  But not all of this is the government’s fault.  My mother was telling me other day that the sister of her friend was going to have the bank repossess her house, so she left in the middle of the night, went down to South Carolina, and bought a house the next day, before the credit caught up with her.  Not only is that dishonest and despicable, it’s detrimental to the economy!  Or you have people vandalizing their own houses right before banks repossess them.  IT’S NOT THE BANK’S fault that you can’t make your payments (it’s the bank’s fault if they gave an undeserving person a loan, but still, these actions are NOT helping!).

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners — in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers — builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn’t like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government’s actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

And that was the attitude that Freddie and Fannie executives had.  “The government will HAVE to bail us out” mentality HAS GOT TO STOP!

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

Easier said than done.  Once you start bailouts, it’s hard to stop.  It’s similar to returning to the gold standard.  Our money is so inflated now that it would take national cooperation to return to the gold standard.  Prices for anything purchased as well as wages would have to significantly decrease, and Americans are too greedy to do this.  People wouldn’t want their wages cut, even though they’d still be able to afford everything that they can now, because “it would look bad on paper.”  Getting out of the Great Depression would’ve been simple, if everybody agreed to a plan, but if one greedy person doesn’t agree to the set plan, that throws off the whole rest of the plan.  Complete cooperation is necessary, but in today’s world, it will never happen (unles the government forces you, but then you’re dealing with extreme government involvement, which STILL doesn’t work as evidenced in the massive failures of communism).

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

But where will they get their money from if they lose their corporate backers!  How’s a politician supposed to live if he doesn’t have businesses feeding him money!

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

And unfortunately neither of our major Presidential candidates will do this.  I’d like to see what Senator Hagel (R-NE) would’ve done about the Fannie and Freddie situation, since he voted AGAINST the Economic Stimulus Package.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

A very rough ride indeed, Dr. Paul.

And again, Paul shows just how smart he is when it comes to economic issues.  I disagree with him on a couple other issues (kinda a half disagreement on Iraq), but I honestly wouldn’t have been disappointed if he were the Republican nominee.

I just hope that people (especially McCain) start listening to him and realize that we can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Democratic Leader Laughs About Hurricane Gustav Hitting During the Republican National Convention

August 31, 2008

Well, this is just disgusting.  The following is a video captured on a flight back from the DNC, of former DNC chairman Don Fowler and Representative John Spratt (D-SC) (transcript below):

The hurricane’s going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. [Chuckle] The timing is — at least it appears now that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates that God’s on our side. [Laughter] … Everything’s cool.

That’s just disturbing.  I don’t care who you are – you shouldn’t want a hurricane to hit EVER, and to want to get political gain out of it is just disgusting.  If a Republican said that, I’d be posting the same thing right now.  It’s shameful and wrong!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Barack Obama: “I will be the Democratic nominee”

June 3, 2008

Well, Barack Obama has given a speech, claiming victory as the Democratic nominee.  Well, I’ve got news Barack, it really “isn’t over until the lady in the pants suit says so.”  Why?  Because the lady has a whole host of hit men who have done some pretty good work before (ok, maybe they did work for her husband, but it’s all in the family).  If I were Barack, I would be VERY careful.  There’s a reason that Clinton didn’t concede tonight, and I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if Obama doesn’t make it through until the convention, let alone November 4th.

Anyway,  here’s the speech that Obama gave:

Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said – because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another — a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Like I said – it’s not over until convention.  Weirder things have happened in politics.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign – through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

Aww, that’s cute!

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she’s a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

Don’t kid people – you hate her guts.

We’ve certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who’s shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children’s Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No, it’s her need for power, not love for the people that got her where she is.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn’t just about the party in charge of Washington, it’s about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

OK, so you have more voters – they’re still divided voters when it comes to Democrats.  And since Clinton hasn’t conceded yet, after the math shows that it’s over, unless she does something on the convention floor or swings some of your Superdelegates, your party will CONTINUE to be divided.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren’t the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn’t do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – we cannot afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say – let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

Again – I’d disagree.  Most of the new voters came out for either you or Ron Paul.  And you did WAY better than Ron Paul – so most of the new voters came out for you.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Thank you for acknowledging his service – that shows some class that should always shown to our service men, but what accomplishments of yours has he denied?

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

Well, that’s because he’s OUR nominee – and our party is generally right and yours is wrong.  Of course, when he switches sides, he’s often on the wrong side, but he’s my nominee, so I’m going to vote for him.  He’s a heck of a lot better than you.

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

Um, you’re the one who’s all about change, not McCain.

It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

He has a GREAT plan to get people insured, which is nothing like what Bush has done.  I really like his plan to allow people to cross state lines to get insurance.  And who cares what the gap is between rich and poor – the important thing is helping the poor richer.  The gap doesn’t matter.  That’s what’s wrong with  Democrats.  They care too much about catching up to the rich instead of being able  to just care for themselves.

And it’s not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians – a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn’t making the American people any safer.

OK – I’ll give you some on his one.  We need to embrace Chuck Hagel’s plan, and make sure the Iraqis actually become independent and can function on their own.

So I’ll say this – there are many words to describe John McCain’s attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush’s policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years – especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

OK, I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again (obviously Barack doesn’t read my blog).  The time we spend there doesn’t matter – the amount of troops does.  We still have people in Korea, and nobody seems to care, that’s because we have a VERY small amount.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in – but start leaving we must. [What, did Yoda write the speech?] It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.

Change is realizing that meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy – tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That’s what the American people want. That’s what change is.

OK, but you DO have to understand that diplomacy won’t always work.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It’s understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

McCain HAS a plan to give the middle class a tax break.  And McCain also has plans to use alternative (cheaper) energy – such as nuclear energy.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy – cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota – he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

HAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHA HAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA!!  Whoa boy – that’s funny.  You’re lecturing McCain about not visiting cities in Michigan.  You’ve visited my state what, 4 or 5 times?  I can handle your misspeakings, but this is just hypocritical bull crap.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand that she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need.

And McCain HAS a plan to do that.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need.

Um, no – we don’t need to make cars that run more efficiently on OIL.  We NEED to do like John McCain and advocate for different energy, such as nuclear and fuel cells.  We need to get off oil, not make it more efficient.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.

Again – college should NOT be a birthright.  Why does everybody need to go to college?  College is SO overrated because of social norms now.  Plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, etc… don’t need to go to college.  Go to trade school and get out in the workforce.  Sure, doctors are more prestigious, but we need plumbers too!  If we send everybody to college, we have a bunch of white collar workers, and nobody to fill blue collar jobs, so we ship MORE jobs overseas.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don’t deserve is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

I believe it was YOU who made religion a wedge with your comments in Pennsylvania.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I’ve walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I’ve sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I’ve worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom’s cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

OK, so that was Barack Obama’s speech that he gave earlier tonight.

He claims he’s the nominee – but really – I think Clinton will take it to the convention where some weird things will happen, but then Obama will prevail.  If Obama’s smart, he WON’T pick her as his VP, but who knows.  He may want to “unify the party,” but Clinton can’t unify anything from the Democratic party, the nation, or even her marriage (admit it, Hill – it’s a sham).

Hello, President John Sydney McCain III

OK, I’ll be looking at Clinton’s speech next.

Done  Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Geraldine Ferraro Steps Down from Clinton’s Campaign

March 16, 2008

OK, so Geraldine Ferraro (former Congresswoman and Vice Presidential candidate with Walter Mondale; also former member of Senator Clinton’s Presidential election finance committee), in an interview with the Daily Breeze (Torrance, California) last week, said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.  And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.  He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.  And the country is caught up in the concept.”  Ferraro also accused the “sexist media” of attacking Clinton too much.

Now, here’s my thoughts on her comments.  Were they out of line?  Yes.  Were they partially correct?  Yes, but because of different reasons than what were behind her comments.  I think that originally (this means back before Iowa), Obama’s race helped him in the media (just like the media helped McCain in New Hampshire once he became the leader in ONE poll.  The media jumped and said – “OH MY GOSH!  HE’S BACK IN IT!!!!!”  And that’s what got him back in the race.  Without the media pouncing on a single poll, he never would’ve become the nominee.  Without the media jumping on Huckabee for doing so well in the debates, he never would’ve won Iowa or even been a contender in South Carolina.).  The point is – the media helps everybody (normally – Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Alan Keyes would be exceptions), and it was Obama’s race and charisma that got the media’s attention.

So, was it his race that got him this far?  Partially, but if he were white, it would have been some other quality.  And I would say that his charisma has helped him out MUCH more than his race ever could.

OK, so Ferraro, in response to a lot of  media attention on her, told the Daily Breeze, “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.  Racism works in two different directions.  I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.  How’s that?”

She also told  FOX News, “I got up and the question was asked, ‘Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today’ as the party’s delegate front-runner?  I said in large measure, because he is black.  I said, Let me also say in 1984 — and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times — in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president.”

David Axelrod, the top strategist for the Obama campaign, said that Clinton should sever any ties that she has with Ferraro, saying, “When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you’re really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes.”  He said that Ferraro’s comment, plus Clinton’s “own inexplicable unwillingness” to deny that Obama is a Muslim, was part of “an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed.”

Senator Obama said that Ferraro’s statements were “patently absurd.”

He told the Allentown Morning Call that “I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party.  They are divisive.  I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.  And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign, they shouldn’t have a place in Sen. Clinton’s, either.

Now, I find this kinda funny.  Axelrod wants Clinton to immediately disassociate from Ferraro, but it took Obama how many years to disassociate from his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

Senator Clinton issued a statement to the Associated Press saying that “It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal.  We ought to keep this on the issues.  There are differences between us.  There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we’ve produced for people.  That’s what this campaign should be about.”

Senator Obama later said, “I think that her comments were … ridiculous. … I think they were wrong-headed.  I think they are not borne out by our history or by the facts.  The notion that it is a great advantage to me, an African-American named Barack Obama, in pursuit of the presidency I think is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public.  Divisions of race, gender, of region are precisely what has inhibited us from moving effectively forward to solve big problems like health care, energy, the war on terror.

On Wednesday, Ferraro sent her letter of resignation to Senator Clinton, saying, “I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.  The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.  I won’t let that happen.”

She then told CNN that the Clinton campaign did not ask her to resign and that her and Clinton are still on good terms.  She said that she was “absolutely not” sorry for what she said, and that “I am who I am and I will continue to speak up.”  She went on to criticize Obama and his campaign for attempting to keep her from exercising her First Amendment rights.

So, to summarize, I think that Ferraro was out of line (but what she said was partially true), but there is a HUGE double standard in the fact that Ferraro was so criticized by the Obama campaign who has up until recently ignored Reverend Wright’s comments.

I think both candidates need to put this behind them, or the infighting is going to tear down their party more (big shame).

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Final Results from the South Carolina Democratic Primary

January 27, 2008

OK, all of the numbers are in, so here’s the final count from the South Carolina Democratic Primary:

Date State Candidate Votes % Delegates Superdelegates Total Delegates Delegate Count
26-Jan South Carolina Obama 295,214 55.44% 25 1 26 152
  Edwards 93,576 17.57% 8 0 8 61
  Clinton 141,217 26.52% 12 2 14 230
  Richardson 727 0.14% 0 0 0 0
  Dodd 247 0.05% 0 0 0 0
  Biden 694 0.13% 0 0 0 0
  Uncommitted 0.00% 0 0 0 0
  Kucinich 552 0.10% 0 0 0 0
    Gravel 241 0.05% 0 0 0 0

A couple of changes to the delegate count: Obama received a pledge from South Carolina; Clinton received 3 from Arizona, 2 from California, and 1 from Colorado.  Edwards lost one in Massachusetts (unless it was my error in awarding him one before) and gained 1 in Missouri.  Obama received 1 in New Mexico and Virginia, while Kucinich lost his only delegate which was in Ohio (since he dropped out).  Clinton gained 1 in Texas and Obama 1 in Mississippi.  Both Edwards and Clinton received a delegate from Pennsylvania, and Clinton received 1 from Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

Here’s a chart of the delegates:

Democratic Delegate Count as of 1-27-08

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

South Carolina Democratic Primary Results as of 9:00 P.M.

January 26, 2008

Here are the results with 95% of the precincts reporting as of 9:00 P.M.:

  1. Obama 277,123 55%
  2. Clinton 133,058 27%
  3. Edwards 89,569 18%
  4. Kucinich 521 0%

Well, this was a great day for Obama.  I find it ironic that I can’t even get live numbers for Gravel (although I will have them in my final update tomorrow).

This is my last update for South Carolina tonight, so good night, and good luck.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

South Carolina Democratic Primary Results as of 8:30 P.M.

January 26, 2008

Here are Democratic Primary results as of 8:30 P.M. with 62% reporting:

  1. Obama 166,198 54%
  2. Clinton 83,812 27%
  3. Edwards 58,225 19%
  4. Kucinich 344 0%

It’s a GREAT win for Obama – a landslide victory, but it was kinda expected (not in this margin though).

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::

South Carolina Democratic Primary Results as of 8:00 P.M.

January 26, 2008

With 16% of the precincts in, here are the results from the South Carolina Primary as of 8:00 P.M.:

  1. Obama 45,438 53%
  2. Clinton 23,602 28%
  3. Edwards 16,435 19%
  4. Kucinich 91 0%

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: