Voters, Wise UP

Congress is currently considering another Rebate to stimulate the economy. This will not solve the current economic crisis. How can a responsible Congress look at the National Debt, which is currently more than $10,000,000,000,000.00!!! Folks that's Over 10 Trillion Dollars we don't have.

Congress needs a wake-up up call!!! We are the Voters who allow these irresponsible windbags to $pend our money. We put them in office and, if we wake up, we can take them out.

It is up to the Voters, YOU, to stop this nonsense. Congress must be held accountable. They cannot keep spending the money we don't have.

You make the call. You decide who to vote for. Before you do, use your brain. Use your ears to process what the candidates are saying they will do.

Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes. Now forget the part that says only those who make over $250,000.00, because his spending programs cannot possibly be funded only by the rich. Why? Because the $250,000 is only for Families where both taxpayers work. For the Single wage taxpayer it's $125,000. Second, with 40% of the tax returns resulting in no Tax Liability, it is a $pend program. Third, his World Poverty, World Health and other World $pending Programs, will cost Trillions of dollars more than his tax program can produce.

And if Obama's World $pending already outpaces his Tax Cuts, what happens when you add the increases and new $pending for the US. Even if we pull out of Iraq, there is still not enough money to offset the Obama $pending Mandate.

This kind of $pending is IRRESPONSIBLE and will lead to 1)higher taxation 2)reducing the $250,000 tax cut levels 3)higher National debt or 4)a combination or all of the above.

Democrats other than Obama/Biden are beginning to say more taxation is necessary. Barney Frank (D-MA), for one, recently said we need to raise taxes. None of the Democrats are saying we need to Reduce Spending. The Democrats were quick to point out that we cannot Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but the Democrats are equally adament that we can $pend our way out of an Economic Crisis.

Look at these two ideas. Democrats are correct about not being able to Drill our way out of Foreign Oil Dependence, but we can DECREASE our dependence by Drilling in the US. On the other hand, the Democrats are wrong about $pending money we don't have to solve our Economic Crisis, because increased $pending and Higher Taxes only add to the problem of our National Debt.

Simply put, we need our Congress to cut spending. We need our Congress to follow the example of the other developed countries of the World and keep taxes low. Lower taxes actually increase revenue as individual and corporate expansion grows. More income and more corporate profits due to lower taxes creates more tax revenue than higher rates and reduced income and profit. And when Business Grows, WE ADD JOBS.

Raising Taxes and Increasing Government $pending was the policy of the Hoover Presidency. It helped create the Depression and inhibited growth for individuals and corporations for the next 10 years.

So it's up to YOU the VOTERS, to choose wisely. Vote for those who will reduce our Federal, State and Local $pending. I will remind you that ONLY John McCain has said he wants to reduce The Federal $pending. Yes he opposed the Bush Tax Cuts in Congress, but do you know why? He voted against the Bush Tax Cuts BECAUSE there were no corresponding $pending Cuts.

Obama's Comment

With all the current bashing of "Joe the Plumber" by the Media, it is easy to loose sight of the real issue.

The real issue was not "Joe". It was Obama's answer. Obama's words "share the wealth" is the issue.

Why? These words indicate how Socialistic Obama's view of America is.

Who Is Barack Obama

Three recent articles from respected sources have some interesting information about Senator Obama and what Senator Obama really stands for.

1. Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami Investors Business Daily
2. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' Fox News
3. Obama's 95% Illusion Wall Street Journal Online

All of the publications make the case for Mr. Obama taking the Country far to the Left. In fact Senator Obama's ideas are very Socialistic in nature.

First consider the Investors Business Daily article Investors' Real Fear: A Socialist Tsunami.

The freeze-up of the financial system — and government's seeming inability to thaw it out — are a main concern, no doubt. But more people are also starting to look across the valley, as they say, at what's in store once this crisis passes.

And right now it looks like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible [Emphasis Mine].

How is this going to be made possible?

It isn't only that the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party is favored to take the White House. It's that he'll also have a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal.

Throw in a media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises, and it's no wonder panic has set in. [Emphasis mine]

The Economy is the main issue at present. So how will Senator Obama's agenda affect the Economy?

What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."

It continues with a call for a new world order that turns its back on free trade, has no problem with government controlling the means of production, imposes global taxes to support continents where our interests are negligible, signs on to climate treaties that will sap billions more in U.S. productivity and wealth, and institutes an authoritarian health care system that will strip Americans' freedoms and run up costs. [Emphasis mine]

Holly Cow!! What else can this agenda be called besides Socialism? Do we really want to join and follow Europe's failed policies? One of Senator Obama's policies is to send $50 Billion a year to foreign countries, which Senator Obama calls Foreign Aid. Couldn't we better use that money here? How does any of this massive Tax and $pend agenda help secure our oil Independence? How does a greater Tax and $pend agenda help our Businesses Grow?

The businesses that create jobs and generate wealth are already discounting the future based on what they know about Obama's plans to raise income, capital gains, dividend and payroll taxes, and his various other economy-crippling policies. Which helps explain why world stock markets have been so topsy-turvy.

But don't take our word for it. One hundred economists, five Nobel winners among them, have signed a letter noting just that:

"The prospect of such tax-rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy," they wrote, noting that the potential of higher taxes in the next year or two is reducing hiring and investment.

If you want to control something, reward that which you want more of, and punish what you want less of - Classic Carrot and Stick principles. Apparently, Senator Obama applies this principle in reverse. Punishing a Business Owner, a Job Creator, is not the way to expand an Economy. The last time raising Taxes in a downturn Economy Happened, President Hoover was in Office. We spent the next 10 years in a Depression. Why would the result of Senator Obama's agenda of Tax and $pend result in anything different? It Will Not!!!

As proof of what Senator Obama's agenda will mean, look at what he said recently. Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around' reports on Senator Obama's words to a Plumber at a campaign speech.

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies. [Emphasis mine]

Senator Obama's agenda is a "Robin Hood" take from the rich and give to the poor agenda. So no one thinks this statement is taken out of context, Here is the full exchange.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Is there any way this attitude can be characterized as anything other than Socialistic and Anti-Capitalistic?

In the third article, Obama's 95% Illusion makes the argument that Senator Obama's agenda is a Redistribution of Income and therefore by definition Socialistic.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut." [Emphasis mine]

It doesn't matter how you slice it, when about 40% of all Americans, (those who pay not income tax now), get a check from the Government, it's not a "Tax Cut". It's Welfare, a handout. This requires a "Redistribution of Wealth".

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles. [Emphasis mine]

Except for the 'clean car' credit, these are refundable credits. That means even if you have no tax liability, the Government will give you a check for these credits. That's Welfare, or Redistribution of Wealth.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is. [Emphasis mine]

And that's not all.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year.

How will this help our Economy? It Will Not!! We cannot afford to turn our backs on the system that has made us the richest country in the world.

Obama Tax Cut Redistribution of Income

Yes, That's What The Obama Tax Cut for 95% of Americans really is Redistribution of Income. That's A Nice Way of Saying SOCIALISM. Today's Online Opinion Journal piece (Obama's Magic) makes this point clearly.

... Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show. [Emphasis mine]

A Take from the "Haves" and give it to the "Have Nots". And Obama will stimulate the Economy by doing the following.

Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. [Emphasis mine]

We all tend to think of Jobs Creation in terms of Big Corporations, But the reality is - The Small Business Owner is the one who creates Most of the Jobs in America. The Small Business Owner creates Jobs 1, 2 or 5 at a time. Mr. Obama wants to tax and take Profits of these Small Business Owners. Think about that. If Taxes eat more of their profits, how will the Small Business Owner fund the Equipment, Facilities and Benefits to expand and thereby Create more Jobs?

Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules.

The problem is not De-Regulation. The Problem was lack of Oversight. The Problem was the Politicians who looked the other way, because they were getting Campaign Contributions from the guilty. The fox guarding the hen house.

We are shocked when the Police take bribes from the Bank Robbers, but we don't demand more regulation of the Crooks. No, instead we demand more oversight on the part of the Police. And we prosecute those Crooked Cops who took the Bribes. But with Politicians it's different. When they take a Legal Bribe (Campaign Contribution) we don't demand prosecution. We decide with help from those same guilty Politicians that the problem was caused by de-regulation. It was lack of Oversight by the Politicians. The Politicians are the guilty ones.

Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks.

Sarbanes Oxley is a flawed piece of Regulation which only increases the cost of operating a business. It should be eliminated. Government Regulation is not the answer, Proper Oversight and Proper Punishment are the answers.

And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! [Emphasis mine]

It is called $pend, $pend, $pend and $pend some more!!! Mr. Obama's plan includes spending $50 Billion a year on Foreign Aid! That's a 100% Increase over current levels. Could we use $50 Billion a year in the USA?

Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies.

Mr. Obama is full of platitudes and feel good words, but the substance is Re-Distribution of Wealth.

Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq!

Mr. Obama thinks that we have a "Moral" obligation to "Stop Genocide" worldwide, but the Genocide of Saddam Husain against the Kurds is not reason enough to go into Iraq. Saddam may not have had Weapons of Mass Distruction (WMD)when we went into Iraq, but everyone agrees Saddam used WMD to kill many Thousands of Kurdish People.

Mr. Obama supports Abortion at any time right up to the moment of birth for any reason. Even Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finds Partial-Birth Abortion objectionable, and Senator Boxer has always been recognized as the strongest advocate for preserving Roe v Wade in Congress. That is until Senator Obama. Mr. Obama also believes any fetus born alive shall be dened care and left to die if the fetus was born as a result of a botched abortion attempt. Most reasonable people would call anything alive outside the woman's body a child, a person. Not Mr. Obama.

To most reasonable people, who believe in Abortion, consider abortion a right of a woman to choose because it's her body. But it is hard to extend this right to include a child who is no longer in the womans body. It is not a person and deserves the same rights as you and I do. Mr. Obama does not agree.

He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade!

Yes, there are other areas where Mr. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. And who is most to blame for letting Mr. Obama do his majic? JOHN McCAIN! Mr. McCain has allowed Mr. Obama free reign to say anything he wishes without question. All the things in this post are weakness of Mr. Obama, John McCain seems for some reason unwilling to point out and by so doing is giving the Election to Senator Obama.

Because of this We the American Public are the biggest Loosers. Thanks, John.

McCain vs Obama Round 2

Did the gloves come off? No. Senator McCain missed several opportunities to make his points and put Senator Obama on the defencive. One point was each time Senator Obama made reference to his income tax plan for America. Here is the Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate from which these quotes are taken.

So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent. [Emphasis mine]

At this point Senator McCain could have pointed out that according to the IRS figures, 40% of the Americans who file tax returns pay no taxes. Therefore these 40% are really part of an Obama Spend Program, not a tax cut. You can't cut income taxes for those who don't pay an income tax. The Obama Tax Cut Plan is a Redistribution of Income.

Consider next this exchange.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

Look closely at Senator Obama's reply.

Obama: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.

So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.

And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. [Emphasis mine]

Senator McCain should have replied along these lines.

McCain: Senator Obama some will say we did intervene when we found out about the Holocaust. It was called World War II. And I am glad to hear you state that when genocide is happening we should not stand idly by, because I believe Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurds means we were right to go into Iraq. We may disagree on the reason for the Iraq War, but it is encouraging that you agree that we should have intervened.

There were other opportunities. The next 27 days will tell.

Biden's Making It UP

Biden's Fantasy World is a good indication of who knows the facts and who's being less than truthful.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.

May be Senator Biden was really intimidated by Governor Sarah "Pit Bull" Palin. Intimidated to the point that he had to exaggerate and misstate facts to compete with Governor Palin. Or may be he really doesn't know his facts as well as he should considering his 36 years of Senate experience.

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Let's get to specifics. Where were the mistakes, exaggerations and just plane "I'm makin' it up, to keep up" quotes? Does Foreign Affairs Senator Biden know who the players are in the Middle East? His misstatements concerning Lebanon, France, NATO, the US and Hezbollah would indicate Joe don't know s**t!

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." [Emphasis mine]

What good is experience if the experience leads to these glaring errors? May be Senator Biden should have been paying more attention.

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan. [Emphasis mine]

Now I ask you to judge. Which misstatement is worse? The statements of Senator Biden or Governor Palin mispronouncing the name of the General in Afghanistan. Governor Palin reference General McClellan rather than General McKienan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

Senator Biden also contradicted himself when he made this amazing claim. Ask yourself as you read the following when were you misstating the facts Senator? Now, or during the Primary?

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no." [Emphasis mine]

Both Senators Obama and Biden are attorneys. Were either of them presented with a courtroom witness who made contradictory statements, both of them would question the credibility of the witness (Senator Biden in this case) by asking "Were you lying now or then?" It is fair for us to ask the same question, Senator Biden.

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Senator Biden apparently has a very narrow focus or he's makes this up as he goes. A bill may go through many incarnations during the legislative process. It is entirely possible at one point in the process, the bill contained language unacceptable to Senator McCain. This is very thin ice on which to claim that Senator McCain initially opposed the bill. The final result should be the judgment vote, and on that vote Senator McCain supported President Clinton.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

Shouldn't a Resident and a Senator who Represents the area know that a Wilmington Restaurant (Katie's) closed about 20 years ago? The impression Senator Biden was trying to portray gives us the impression he frequents Katie's Restaurant to get the "feel of the common man". Clearly, Senator Biden is not that connected to the people.

Barney Frank Points Fingers In The Wrong Direction

According to this story, House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout bill, Barney Frank (D-MA), Chairman of The House Financial Services Committee, claimed on Monday that the Republicans were at fault for not passing the bailout bill. The Bill failed by 12 Votes and Representative Frank was upset with Republicans who blamed comments by Speaker of the House, Nancy Peloci (D-CA) for the failure.

Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate - which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets - for the vote's failure.

Someone smarter than I am once said, '... be careful where you point you finger of blame, because you have 3 fingers pointing right back to you.' Considering that 97 Democrats voted against the bill, maybe Representative Frank should have taken that advice! In fact 13 Democrat members of Representative Frank's own Committee, which you will remember he Chairs, voted NAY. Look at this list:

1. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-PA
2. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA
3. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-MO
4. Rep. Joe Baca, D-CA
5. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA
6. Rep. David Scott, D-GA
7. Rep. Al Green, D-TX
8. Rep. Melissa L. Bean, D-IL
9. Rep. Paul W. Hodes, D-NH
10. Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, D-CT
11. Rep. Andre Carson, D-IN
12. Rep. Don Cazayoux, D-LA
13. Rep. Travis Childers, D-MS

Did you notice the "D" after each name? They are all Democrats, and they are all Democrats who serve on the House Financial Services Committee, of which Barney Franks (D-MA) is the Chairman.

Mr. Franks, you have more than enough votes to pass this bill, if you just got 12 of the 13 Democrats on your own committee to vote "YEA". In fact, Mr. Franks and Ms. Pelosi, the House has enough Democrats to pass this bill without even one Republican Vote of "AYE". Since many of the 97 Democrats who voted against this bill owe their positions to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Franks, what does this say about Democratic Leadership?

By the way, Jessie Jackson (D-IL) is another "NAY" vote. Representative Jackson is a member of the same Chicago Political Machine which produced Senator Barack Obama. Representative Jackson is one of Obama's chief advisers.

Suggestion to Chairman Barney Frank. Be sure you think before you point fingers.

House Fails on Passage of Credit Bailout

As I write this entry the 1st vote in the House of Representatives on the Economic Recovery Act of 2008 has failed to pass 205-228 (217 needed). Whether this is a good thing or not, I'm still not sure. The experts opinions are divided, and the public is firmly against the passage.

While I still don't know what the solution is, I do know what the original sin was that caused the current mess. Democrats. In particular the Jimmy Carter Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This act was greatly expanded by Bill Clinton in 1994. And it was the Democrats in general and Barney Frank (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) who killed several pieces of legislation which might have prevented today's mess.

President Bush, Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan all warned of this crisis in 2003, 2005 and 2006. Other warnings go back to 1999. These warnings were ignored by the Democrats. Not only where they ignored, the public statements of Frank, Dodd and other Democrats assured us nothing was wrong with the system. There was no impending Financial Crisis.

Confirming these observations is this article The Financial Mess: How We Got Here.

The Community Reinvestment Act was pushed hard by Bill Clinton, although it originated under Jimmy Carter. Asked about it the other day on one of the morning TV talk shows, Clinton said times back then were different. Fannie and Freddie had lots of money and he (in his infinite wisdom) decided that the money should not go to share holders or to executive compensation, but should be used to put the poor into homes.

Notice that a Politician (Clinton) decided that the Government is in a better position to know what to do with lots of money. How many times has this idea worked in the past? Remember what Ronald Reagan said were the most terrifying words anyone could ever hear - "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

As you can imagine, wonderful things happen when the government strong arms corporations as to how they should spend their money and, better yet, how they should assess the qualifications of home buyers. So the country's biggest buyers of mortgages were pressured into lowering the qualifications of applicants, in order to increase the percentage of poor that got mortgages. By 2006, 30% of all mortgages went to people who in any other circumstances wouldn't qualify.

Ask anyone who is familiar with the Banking Industry, what a low CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) score did to their business. The Clinton administration aggressively pursued Financial Institutions who did not make enough or the "right kind" of mortgage loans, to the point the Financial Institutions went begging for the 30% of buyers, who under good Financial Practices of Prudent Accounting Guidelines, did not qualify for mortgages.

Now the political left would like you to know that the CRA-controlled institutions did not lend the largest percentage of sub-prime mortgages. But that's information by deception, because the mortgage business is a competitive business. If the government strong arms one part of the business, the other part will respond. And strong arm was what the Clinton administration did, even using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to pressure banks to lend more money to the disadvantaged. Caught in the act, a spokesman for the office noted that its abuse of power was "for the best of intentions:" the same inclination used to pave the road to hell.

While the Real Estate Market was growing and values increasing, the subprime, CRA mandated mortgages worked.

In the short run, all sorts of money was to be made by lowering standards and processing sub-prime loans for the poor. The Wall Street Journal raised concerns about Fannie's and Freddie's capital requirements. Senator Phil Gramm (R, TX) raised issues about community pressure groups, such as Barack Obama's ACORN, extorting money from banks by holding their feet to the CRA fire, and threatening to militate against mergers and acquisitions unless the banks entered into preferential agreements with community groups. [emphasis mine]

Community Groups like the Local ACORN organization in Chicago for whom Senator Obama was their Legal Council and who have a decades long history of voter registration FRAUD and CORRUPTION. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act forced ACORN to reveal its relationship with banks and mortgage institutions.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made other uses of "lots of money", besides backing subprime loans.

Fannie and Freddie became big contributors to the Democratic Party. The sub-prime business paid off-at least while the bubble was growing. And the Kerry, Hillary and Obama campaigns have numbered among the leading recipients of the largess of the two mortgage lenders. [emphasis mine]

And they also made huge "Golden Parachute" payments to CEO's. Fannie Mae made payments to disgraced CEO Franklin Raines.

Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae C.E.O. from 1999 to 2004, had been budget director in the Clinton administration. The left would not like you to be reminded that Raines has been a consultant to the Obama campaign, according to the Washington Post, and that Freddie and Fannie number among the top 5 contributors to Obama's run for the presidency. Raines is being sued for the recovery of 50 million in compensation acquired by the alleged manipulation of Fannie's books. Now, that's not change we can believe in. That's Washington as we have come to know and "love" it.

And now we hear that the Democrats, Particularly Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Obama are outraged at "Golden Parachute" payments. It's time for a Reality Check. The same Democrats who let it happen, no actually insured the Credit Crisis would happen, who now complain the loudest. Where were Nancy, Harry, Barack, Barney and Chris when the Republicans were sounding the alarms?

The Bush administration in 2003 tried to change the system, to no avail. Congressman Barney Frank, (D, MA ) was in the forefront of stopping the Bush proposal to take control out of Fannie and Freddie and put it into a third overseeing organization. Frank too has emerged in the current crisis as one of the major critics of the administration.

And ...

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan continued to raise the alarm over Fannie's and Freddie's weak capitalization. His concerns were ignored.

And ...

Former Congressman Michael Oxley (R,OH), then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and co-author of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, introduced a bill in 2005 in response to the growing problem, but Fannie and Freddie put their lobbyists to work and the bill died.

Senator Dodd (D-CT) continues to try to place the blame on President Bush. It happened on Bush's Watch. Well, who was on watch when the warnings were made by the Republicans?

After all, the Bush administration in 2003 and Senator Phil Gramm even earlier, in 1999, had been working to change the system. Dodd, like Obama, has been a big recipient of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie, organizations that Dodd oversees. Dodd has apparently been more consumed with campaign contributions from the mortgage giants than the responsibilities of oversight.

Placing blame on the CRA requirements was not the sole cause of the present Credit Crisis, but it is the original and underlying cause. When you next hear that it's the Republicans who caused this crisis, remember the facts and that the Democrats passed CRA and Stopped attempts to correct the problem.

Congress Makes $25 Billion Auto Industry Loan

In case you missed it, in addition to the Wall Street/Mortgage/Credit guarantees, Congress has also made the US Auto Makers a $25 Billion Loan Guarantee. But after all it's only money - Your Money. More of our Tax Dollars spent. US Congress passes 25 bln loan guarantees to automakers has the details of this expendutare.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These Loan Guarantees includes Foreign Auto Makers with Manufacturing Plants in the US.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.

Our National Debt is Over $9Trillion. It is time to Rein in our Spending and fill-in the Debt Hole!!

Can we really aford to elect a President who wants to expand the National Debt? In case you aren't aware of it - Senator Obama wants to increase Taxes and Spend, Spend Spend. His programs will require spending many times what his Tax Increases Realize If you though President Bush was a spender, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!!

Alternative Credit Crisis Answers

What do Congress and the President need to do to address the Credit Crisis? The answer appears to be extremely complex. However, we do not need to rush to do something in a panic state. On the other hand, we do need to take action quickly. This problem will not solve itself.

At present the Democrats control enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass whatever they want. Why haven't they? Because they need Republican Cover, which they can only get by calling this a bipartisan bill. The Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate, must be able to defend their bad judgment which lead to this Credit Crisis by saying "the Republicans agreed to this problem's solution."

It is for this reason that the House Republicans, and John McCain, are insisting on some changes in the original measure. However, there is only so much these Republicans can do. Since the Republicans are the Minority, their power is limited.

The problem is one of CONGRESSIONAL OVER REGULATION . Congress created the problem, Congress can solve it, but NOT with MORE REGULATIONS. The Bowyer Bailout Alternative, by Jerry Bowyer agrees.

Over-regulation brought us to this crisis, not under-regulation. If we get the diagnosis wrong, then the prescription will be wrong too.

Mr. Bowyer presents us with a somewhat convoluted analogy to describe our problem.

Think of the analogy of a 'bail out': someone knocks a hole in a boat and the water rushes in. The crew bails water out of the boat to keep it from sinking. [...] This analogy points to the real problem: the hole! If you patch the hole early, no bailing is needed. If you patch it very late, the whole ship needs to go into dry dock. But the bailing out only makes sense in the context of patching the original problem. The worst thing to do would be to allow the ship to sink to make some kind of populist political point. No, revise that:

The worst thing to do would be to take the left's view and say "too much water in the boat, let's knock more holes into it so the water can get out." [emphasis mine]

Mr. Bowyer's quote is a little awkward, but you get the point. The quicker the original problem (the hole) is fixed the faster the ship becomes seaworthy again. But sometimes in politics the fix to a complex problem, especially one not well understood, is to regulate a solution. And that's because politicians are legislators who believe legislation and regulation will solve any problem.

Barney Frank (D-MA) in the House, and Chris Dodd (D-CT) in the Senate chair the Financial Services Committee and the Banking Committee, respectively, in Congress. They have said there is no hole in the boat, but if there ever should be a hole, we require more holes be made NOW, so the water can drain out. The Democrats answer: "Regulate more holes to ensure safety." And what was a sound boat, now has holes in its hull. They're currently above the water-line, but when the storm comes, the ship will sink.

Place salary ceilings on "every company that benefits in any way whatsoever from the bailout" as Barney Frank said today on CNBC, and you'll get a talent exodus. Give judges the power to obviate existing mortgage contracts with investors around the world - the dollar will plunge. Every one of those proposals is another hole in the boat.

More regulation (holes) from Barney Frank (D-MA). Representative Frank is unwilling to admit we need to patch the current holes. Holes like this ...

Some are talking about putting a hold on the mark to market regulations. That's a start but not enough. Don't suspend mark to market, abolish it. It's part of the whole Sarbox, Spitzer, FAS 157 wave of punitive regulation after Enron. It makes no sense to impose and universalize temporary downturns, especially during panics.

And this ...

Abolish the Bank Holding Company Act. It's a remnant of the 1920s before branch banking. Its only current effect is to keep private equity from buying majority stakes in troubled banks. Goldman's decision yesterday just illustrates the problem. They had to change structure in order to buy up other banks. This is nuts. Get rid of this dinosaur and private equity will start the capital infusions.

And this, GIGANTIC HOLE ...

Abolish the Community Reinvestment Act. Forcing banks to make minority loans is the original sin out of which came the Subprime mortgage industry. Let banks decide where to loan; that's their job. Leave identity politics out of our credit system. [emphasis mine]

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) came into being under President Carter (1977) and was Greatly Expanded by President Clinton (1994) to mandate subprime loans. Its provisions work as long as the Housing Market keeps expanding. But when they started to fail last year, the bubble burst with a bang. The provisions of the CRA, are not sound Financial, Fiduciary and Accounting principles. Over Regulation resulting in a lack of prudent policy to gain political advantage with the voters.

You Need To See This

Want to know about the cause of the Financial Crisis? Watch this Video.




Post it, e-mail it, share it and do it now.

Thank you,
Murky

Economic Credit Crisis - Blame Democrats

Yesterday a comment from Investor Business Daily Editorials and their article Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame was posted on this blog. The article made the claim that the Democrats in Congress must share the greatest part of the blame for the current Credit Collapse. Barney Frank, (D-MA) was quoted thus.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then 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."

This quote came in response to an attempt by President Bush to get legislation passed through Congress to tighten the regulations on both Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae.

President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

And the result of that effort -

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

If you care to read my full comments follow this link. (Economic Credit Crisis - Who's To Blame?)

Today we have further confirmation of who's to Blame. Confirmation from Bloomberg.com and It is the Democrats! The article, How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis, is a commentary by Kevin Hassett.

The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

However, Mr. Hassett claims the Financial Crisis is not complex at all, no matter how is appears.

Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

How was it that these two quasi-governmental institutions were able to explode?

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Franklin Raines was the CEO who was forced to resign as a result this accounting scandal and poor management. Mr. Raines was President Clinton's Director of the Budget.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Enter Alan Greenspan and his warning.

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

Now that's a pretty stern warning. But after this warning and after the Raines scandal was out of the bag, it was up to Congress to do something about it. So what did they do?

For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

However, for a bill to become law it first has to pass both the Senate and The House, not just a Committee.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. [emphasis mine]

As this article points out, this was an irresponsible act by the Democrats. Socializing Risk and Privatizing Profits is not a smart financial idea. The history of this era will probably show the recklessness of the actions of the Democrats in the House and Senate.

...we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were making contributions to members of Congress (mostly Democrats) to influence the votes.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

The article ends with this paragraph. It makes sense to me.

...there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

Murky Research Note:

Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.

While Mr. Hassett may be somewhat biased, the facts presented, are to the best of my knowledge accurate.

Economic Credit Crisis - Who's To Blame?

There is no simple answer to the question of Blame. Politicians, Financial Institutions, Speculators ETC. It also includes the ignorant public, some of the homeowners, for instance. All have some reason to share at least some of the blame.

But, we elect officials (Politicians) to Serve and Protect us. Part of that responsibility is to protect us from ourselves. Since they had the opportunity and did not, it is correct to lay the lion's share of the blame at the feet of the Politicians.

Investors Business Daily (IBD) has a very interesting web page of IBD Editorials. One of these editorial pieces - Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame - makes some very interesting points. Most of our Political Leaders are running for cover while denying any responsibility for our current Economic Crisis.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame. [emphasis mine]

Most analysts agree that the problem began with the Sub prime Lending Practices. But, for a member of the US Congress, both the House and the Senate, to make the comments Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did is dishonest.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings

.But They Could Have Been, if they had been protecting and serving us - the people they serve. It is true that some banks made loans they should not have; and CEO's got ridiculous bonuses in the millions of dollars while ruining their companies.

...President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Who stopped President Bush 5 years ago? The Democrats in Congress and specifically Representative Barney Frank (D-MA).

Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then 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." [emphasis mine]

Five years ago Barney Frank claimed "..No Financial Crisis..." and "...People Exaggerate These Problems..." and was wrong. John McCain also tried to do something about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac 3 years ago."If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005,

"American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Senator McCain's warning was again ignored by Congress.

Referring back to an earlier cited quote of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi "The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," we can correctly conclude it was because they (and she) did not listen, let alone act to protect and serve the electorate - US

The root of this crisis goes all the way back to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

The Community Reinvestment Act became US Law under Carter. It was well-intentioned, but not sound credit policy.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Since these rules had the force of Law, the Lenders were REQUIRED to comply, regardless of the economics and prudent credit policy, or face the consequences of the Federal Government.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

Banks and other financial credit sources were pursued and hounded under CRA Law and Rules aggressively by the Clinton Administration.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

...

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the Clinton White House waged a war on discrimination by making credit available to homeowners who did not deserve and could not afford it by foolishly ignoring prudent fiscal policy. And the Congress was fully complicit in this policy.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

In retrospect, it is surprising that it took this long to collapse.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

The Democrats were on a roll. They kept reassuring us that everything was OK.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Why would Congress and Democrats in particular ignore the warnings? The Answer is not Surprising, it's MONEY.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

Besides Money for Congress, look at who made the Money while holding positions in Fanny and Freddie.

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel. [emphasis mine]

Are there any Republicans in the money pit? Sure there are, but take a look at the list of the top 25 receipitents of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400
Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000
Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750
Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500
Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050
Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500
Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250
Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491
Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200
Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000
Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250
Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539
Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000
Pryce, Deborah H OH R $55,500 $45,000 $10,500
Emanuel, Rahm H IL D $51,750 $16,000 $35,750
Isakson, Johnny S GA R $49,200 $35,500 $13,700
Cantor, Eric H VA R $48,500 $46,500 $2,000
Crapo, Mike S ID R $47,250 $40,500 $6,750
Frank, Barney H MA D $42,350 $30,500 $11,850
Bean, Melissa H IL D $41,249 $34,999 $6,250
Bayh, Evan S IN D $41,100 $16,500 $24,600
McConnell, Mitch S KY R $41,000 $40,000 $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B H NY D $39,750 $16,500 $23,250
Dorgan, Byron L S ND D $38,750 $30,500 $8,250
Miller, Gary H CA R $38,000 $31,500 $6,500
Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250
Tiberi, Patrick J H OH R $35,700 $32,600 $3,100
Bunning, Jim S KY R $33,802 $29,650 $4,152
Stabenow, Debbie S MI D $33,450 $32,000 $1,450
Chambliss, Saxby S GA R $33,250 $22,500 $10,750
Menendez, Robert S NJ D $31,250 $30,500 $750
Enzi, Mike S WY R $31,000 $27,500 $3,500
Van Hollen, Chris H MD D $30,700 $11,000 $19,700
Landrieu, Mary L S LA D $30,600 $20,000 $10,600
Murray, Patty S WA D $30,000 $23,000 $7,000
Clyburn, James E H SC D $29,750 $26,000 $3,750
Crowley, Joseph H NY D $29,700 $25,500 $4,200
Sessions, Pete H TX R $29,472 $24,000 $5,472
McCrery, Jim H LA R $29,000 $26,000 $3,000
Hooley, Darlene H OR D $28,750 $19,500 $9,250
Royce, Ed H CA R $28,600 $4,000 $24,600
Renzi, Rick H AZ R $28,250 $28,000 $250
Lieberman, Joe S CT I $28,250 $11,500 $16,750
Baucus, Max S MT D $27,500 $21,000 $6,500
Moore, Dennis H KS D $26,550 $25,500 $1,050
Coleman, Norm S MN R $24,690 $12,000 $12,690
Matheson, Jim H UT D $24,500 $24,000 $500
Schumer, Charles E S NY D $24,250 $1,500 $22,750
Durbin, Dick S IL D $23,750 $14,000 $9,750
Rogers, Mike H MI R $22,750 $21,000 $1,750
Lynch, Stephen F H MA D $22,500 $13,500 $9,000
Rockefeller, Jay S WV D $22,250 $5,000 $17,250
Smith, Gordon H S OR R $22,000 $20,000 $2,000
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550 [source: opensecrets.org]

As you can see, and IBD confirms, Congress got the money, we got the bill.

McCain Tax Plan

According to AP/GLEN JOHNSON's article published at Time.com (Greenspan: McCain's Tax Cuts Too Large)

Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.

This is not news. John McCain has been advocating and insisting on smaller Government and a need to cut Government Spending. Therefore, the article's headline is just an attention grabber. It is not a complete or accurate statement of John McCain's position. In fact if you continue reading, the article's fourth paragraph states the need to cut spending.

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts — including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families — by ending congressional pork-barrel spending [Earmarks], unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

John McCain has been widely quoted as willing to veto any bill which Congress passes that also contains Earmarks when he is Elected President. Mr. McCain has pledged to reduce spending along with a reduction in the size of Government. As a side note, Alan Greenspan endorsed John McCain for President as far back as April 2008.

The Democrats have also tried to make the case that John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts. (How does that fit with the attempt by Democrats to portray McCain as Bush III?) But also from this article we learn the reason Mr. McCain opposed the Bush Tax Cuts.

"John McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2003, because they didn't include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain's proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan's assertions, this relief isn't proposed on borrowed money," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. [Emphasis mine]

There is a point that almost everyone overlooks from the Saddleback Civil Forum with Pastor Rich Warren Interview. In his answer to the definition of Rich, almost everyone remembers John McCain's Five Million Dollar answer. What few have focused on, is the more important point John McCain made next.

And my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money — (applause) — in a way that mortgaged our kids’ future. [Emphasis mine]

As Mr. McCain also said '...he wants everyone to be rich'. It is the spending of the last eight years that must be reduced along with taxes to strengthen our economy, keep our jobs here and decrease our debt. John McCain's Tax Policy is much more responsible than Barack Obama's Tax Policy. (Obama's change could cost big bucks)

Sarah Palin's 1st Interview - Part 2

Yesterday I posted Kristin Powers criticism of Charlie Gibson's ABC News Interview with Republican VP Candidate Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.(Sarah Palin's 1st Interview)

Charles Krauthammer has posted his view of the Gibson Interview and finds a different Gibson Gaffe (Charlie Gibson's Gaffe). So now we have Ms. Powers, a Liberal, and Mr. Krauthammer, a Conservative, both of whom find fault with Charlie Gibson's, and ABC's presentation.

Mr. Krauthnammer starts his article with a quote from the New York Times September 12th edition.

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

To which he makes this statement.

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

Mr. Krauthammer, it seems, is in a unique position to know about the Bush Doctrine(s).

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Therefore Ms. Palin was exercising good judgement when she had this exchange with Mr. Gibson.

[Mr. Gibson asked] "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

And the reason is clear when Mr. Krauthammer points out that there have been FOUR different Bush Doctrines during the last eight years. We see the first Bush Doctrine above, as coined by Mr. Krauthammer. Here is the Second Bush Doctrine.

In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Here is Bush Doctrine three.

A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war.

This is the Bush Doctrine Mr. Gibson expected Ms. Palin to know. It seems Ms. Palin knows more about the Bush Doctrines than Mr. Gibson does. She realized that in times of War, things change rapidly, and President Bush has had different Doctrines at different times as circumstances changed. The Fourth Bush Doctrine is the current Doctrine.

...the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

By the way, this final Bush Doctrine is a continuation of President John F. Kennedy's pledge, and incorporates part of President Harry S. Truman's doctrine, plus drawing from President Woodrow Wilson's ideas.

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

Apparently Ms. Palin is much more informed and knowledgible than Mr. Gibson is/was.

Sarah Palin's 1st Interview

Today is the first day after Charlie Gibson's Interview with Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin for ABC News. Analysis is still on-going, but most on both sides agree that there were no major gaffs.

There is one exception to that analysis, however. But the Gaff was not made by Governor Palin. It was made by Charlie Gibson. Kirsten Powers, who is a Democratic Strategist and former member of the Clinton White House (Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs), noticed the same error. Ms. Powers currently is a columnist for the New York Post and explains the bungle in this article ABC'S BUNGLES - BOTCHES MAR PALIN INTERVIEW.

Gibson - probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report - told Palin she has said that, "Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC's Web site), Palin says, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."

Gibson snaps: "Exact words." [Emphasis mine]

Charlie Gibson's Interview, as presented by ABC News, appears to be heavily edited. Fortunately, Ms. Powers also provides us with the full text of Ms. Palin's remark which gives a completely different color to the comment.

In the video of her remarks, Palin says "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God." She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders - praying that they are following God's will.

This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well. [Emphasis mine]

Ms. Palin explained that she was making a reference to a remark by President Abraham Lincoln: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” Clearly, ABC News has taken Ms. Palin's statement out of context.

Ms. Powers further comments on another of the other bungles of ABC's Editing.

There's more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, "There is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Here's what she really said: "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

From ABC News we receive a slanted and distorted view of Ms. Palin's religious views.

Democrats In Self Destruction Mode

Item - Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me.

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.[Emphasis mine]

Since Obama's VP believes Hillary would have been more qualified for President or VP, we can rightly question Obama's Judgment.

Item - S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion.

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

The State Democratic Chair has this to say about an Elected State Governor and we are to believe that the Democrats want to debate the issues?

Side note: Carol Fowler is the wife of Don Fowler, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Don Fowler was caught on video laughing with South Carolina Congressman John Spratt about Hurricane Gustav hitting the Gulf Coast on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Item - Obama Says McCain Is Offering Fake Change: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig'

"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."

While it's true that the lipstick on a pig comment is an old and often used comment to describe something in a new package as the same old stuff, coming on the heels of Governor Sarah Palin's RNC speech, the reference is a best a terrible choice for Obama to use.

John McCain used the statement in reference to Hillary's Health Care Plan, but Obama seems to have clearly aimed his remark at Governor Palin's reference. Obama's audience thought so too.

Ophra Has A BIG Problem

Ophra has become a target of many (especially women) who object to her decision not to have Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin appear on her show before the November 2008 Presidential Election. Is this outrage against Ophra Justified? The answer is (or at least should be) obvious? No, but to a large degree, it is a problem of her own making.

Remember, it is her program and as such Ophra has a right to choose who she asks to be a guest on her show.

Also remember the "Equal Rights Provisions" of Federal Election Law. Simply stated, now that Sarah Palin is the Republican VP Presidential Candidate, if she is a guest on Ophra's show, Ophra MUST, by law grant equal time to all other Presidential VP Candidates. The Presidential Campaigns of Ralph Nadar, Ron Paul, Bill Barr and Barack Obama (and others?) would also have to be granted equal time on Ophra's Program.

And there may be another reason Ophra refuses to invite Ms. Palin to a Guest Appearance.

After the hit her Magazine and TV program took because of her support for Barack Obama, Ophra is being cautious. However, it is also possible that she feels that Sarah Palin's appearance on the Ophra Show may convince enough voters to vote for the McCain/Palin Ticket. And this could cause the Presidential Campaign of Obama/Biden (which Ophra strongly supports) to loose the November Election.

Ophra has placed herself firmly between a Rock and a Hard Place. But, Ophra created this conundrum for herself when she pledged her support for Barack Obama.

Why Go To War In IRAQ?

Should we have gone to War in Iraq is a question for the historians to decide. Despite that fact, almost all of us have strong opinions about whether President George W. Bush was correct in doing so. It is a question on which the next Presidential Election may be decided.

To help separate the emotion from the fact, Today's Edition of "The Wall Street Journal" contains a First person account of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Why We Went to War in Iraq By DOUGLAS J. FEITH opens with this paragraph.

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary. [Italics & Quotation Marks in original; Emphasis mine]

The phraseology of this quote (bold portion) is important and clarifies the President's position. President Bush chose to take an action as President and Commander In Chief which was a necessity.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

This is one of the few articles which includes the first Bush as part of the problem. Considering this statement comes from someone who was a party to the discussions, it is very revealing. Mr. Feith makes it clear that he believes that As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq that if President Bush had had another choice, he would have made it.

Mr. Feith also details the views of the other Presidential advisors who participated in these confidential meetings.

In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.

It is clear from this "behind the scenes" view that many options including the risks and their consequences of the actions were considered. In other words, this was not a reckless quickly made decision. Rather it was a very deliberate, reasoned, responsible action only taken after much input form many sources.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?

This debate started before 9-11. In fact on July 27, 2001, more than a month before the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent the following memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:

"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .

"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."

It was however, the events of 9-11 which solidified the President's decision. Again it is pointed out that more evaluation and review took place before a course of action was undertaken. The President was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

Note to the Left: There is no claim that Saddam or Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks. A point often mis-stated by the left.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. [Emphasis mine]

Again there is no claim of operational activity by Saddam or Iraq concerning 9/11, although Saddam did support terrorism and applauded the 9/11 terrorists.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

The preceding paragraph clearly summarizes what attempts had been made to contain Saddam. After a dozen years, it was clear the attempts were not working.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

The preceding paragraph makes clear that conditions were becoming worse. And more importantly, there was no indication that without intervention, conditions would improve.

5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.

Together these five reasons make clear that President Bush is a leader willing to take a risk for the benefit of the US as well as the rest of the world. Mr. Feith's makes this observation.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea. [Emphasis mine]

There will be those who debate the actions of President Bush, but based on the information available at the time, President Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq and remove a danger to all in the form of Saddam.

Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.

President Bush and his actions will be interpreted by Historians. They will use 20/20 hind site to make judgments and analyze the decisions of our current President Bush. One good place to start this process is Mr. Feith's first hand accounts of events. Don't be surprised if the decisions, judgments and analysis of President Bush's Iraq policy are favorably judged by the future.

Change

Senator Barack Obama has claimed the word "Change" for his Campaign. But that's not the "Change" I had in mind.

Change as in Change of Mind, Change of Attitude or Change of Strategy are more along the lines of my thinking. Change can be a good thing. Change is an indication of maturity and sound judgment. Change shows a willingness to adapt and adjust to the situation. In this sense of change is a positive value.

Whereas lack of the ability to change is inflexibility, rigidity, stubbornness and foolish. Failure to adjust, adapt and overcome (change) is an indication of weakness, lack of vision and therefore a negative value.

But change can also be negative if it is done too often. Too often is just as bad as never for a leader. Changing positions too frequently is called Flip-Flopping. Flip-Flopping is another sign of weakness, vacillation and is not one the characteristics desirable in a leader.

Therefore it is unwise to label any Politician a Flip-Flopper because of a change in position, attitude or strategy. If something isn't working, it makes sense to change to make it work. With any change the analysis must include the answer to the Question "WHY?", before an accurate assessment of the reasonableness for the change is determined.

John Kerry changed his position on almost every issue so often he was correctly tagged with the label of Flip-Flopper. Barack Obama has changed his position on his Church Matters, Presidential negotiations without preconditions and the Iraq situation at present that he is very close to fitting the Flip-Flopper definition.

George Bush (43^rd) has on rare occasions made changes as conditions warranted. The Surge in Iraq, and now he and John McCain have both changed their attitudes toward allowing Oil and Gas Exploration/Production in Coastal US waters. While the Democrats have bellowed "Flip-Flop" loudly, these changes do not a Flip-Flop make.

Cuba is allowing China to drill only 60 miles from our shores. Personally, I would rather have US safeguards and regulations control of the activity this close to our land. After Katrina, Wilma and Rita we lost about 1,000 Gulf Rigs without an oil spill. Will the Chinese Standards be this good?

Leadership is recognizing an opportunity and taking action. The opportunity is to become more petroleum independent. The action is removing the restrictions. The restrictions may have made sense when oil was $35 a barrel, but at over $120 a barrel, the possible negatives are far outweighed by the positive benefits.

In real estate the catch phrase is Location, Location & Location. The World situation catch phrase is Drill, Drill & Drill. Thank you John McCain and George Bush for taking the lead and speaking out in favor of an idea whose time has come.