Obama Criticizes His Own Economic Policy

Barack Obama has proposed an economic policy that he lambasted as disastrous just a few months ago.

When Hillary Clinton proposed a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures in March 2008, Obama called her plan disastrous and suggested that it would reward people who made this problem worse and benefit banks that profit from high mortgage rates.

However, yesterday, a mere 7 months later, Obama has proposed -- you guessed it -- a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures.

Obama believes that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage."

And, precisely what does good-faith effort mean? Who knows?

It's rather like Obama saying he will bring the U.S. troops home responsibly. Whatever that means.

Obama says the nation needs a new ethic of responsibility, unless of course, you are responsible for paying your mortgage, in which case you will be off the hook.

Maybe Obama should switch his motto to The Change-of-Mind You Can Believe In.

Barney Frank Sadly Wrong About Racism Charge

Don't it make my blue state bluer.....

Sorry, Barney Frank; you are just plain wrong.

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is on an extended rant, doing all he can to dismiss any level of blame for the current financial crisis from himself and his politics.

Like a good Liberal, Frank is quick to call the Republicans racist for criticizing the low-income lending that helped cause the financial collapse.

"They get to take things out on poor people," said the intrepid representative from tony Newton, MA. "The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either..."

Frank sticks his foot further into his mouth by calling claims that low-income loans helped cause the Wall Street meltdown "bizarre."

It is truly sad when a politician is so blinded by his own prejudices and his own agenda that he cannot or will not see the root of a problem.

This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with banks being forced to lend money to people who could not afford the loan to satisfy the legal requirements placed on them by politicians.

Why in the world would a bank loan money to someone who could not afford the loan, unless there was some external pressure and/or a guarantee that the loan would be backed by someone else? Unlike the U.S. government, banks are in the business to earn money, not give it away.

He continues his partisan blathering by claiming that Republican's made no attempt at reforms that could have prevented the meltdown, ignoring efforts in 2005 by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH) to reform Fannie and Freddie. And, he conveniently neglects to mention that it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that refused to allow this bill to come to a vote.

He declines to mention his own resistance to a President Bush plan in 2003 to provide new oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fearing that "we will see (less) in terms of affordable housing."

But, not surprisingly, Frank has a vested interest in seeing these agencies absolved of blame and further regulation, having received "more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989." Further, he may have had a serious conflict-of-interest, stemming from reportedly having a close personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time.

"The guys on Wall Street," preached Frank, "if they never earned another nickel, would live better than they have any right to live."

I find it pretty frightening when an elected official decides he should be the determinant of how people "have any right to live."

We are living in scary times, indeed.

Will Congress Save Us From the "Bailout"?

I know I am just spinning wheels here, but I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to recast the "Emergency Economic Stabilization" bill H.R. 1424 into an actual "bailout" measure.

Crop out "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and lose the rest. This section consists of only 111 pages out of 451, leaving 340 pages of tax breaks and other gimmes to myriad special interests and dis-interests that have been analyzed ad nauseum by honest journalists and reporters.

I can't agree less with the "solution" to the economic mess that the entire legislature is considering: handing $700 billion dollars to one person to dole out any way he see fit.

But, if you are going to pass this solution anyway, at least take out the parts that have nothing to do with Wall Street, mortgages, and the banking industry.

Pass a bailout-only bill. The country deserves honest solutions to the problems we face. You will have plenty of time later to throw softballs to your friends and lobbyists.

Force the Senate to re-vote on the bailout-only portion of the bill and see how they respond. If this is such a dire crisis, why would Senators need earmarked incentives to sign onto a solution?

Show the Senate and the American people that you take this issue seriously enough to evaluate the bailout on its merits, not What's in it for me?.


Do what is right for the country and solve the problem you are setting out to solve.